What Clinton winning strategy is Tobin talking about?

We saw an article this week about the Democrats losing the winning Clinton ways!

This is Jonathan Tobin:

The timing for the conference in Little Rock, Ark., couldn't have been worse. But apparently the participants didn't notice.

Commemorating the 25 years since the 1992 presidential election may have seemed like a great idea when the geniuses at the Clinton Foundation began planning a big party for their boss. But the celebration held last weekend coincided with the epidemic of famous men accused of sexual harassment or assault, which reminded us of Bill Clinton's equally horrible behavior.

But even before the #metoo movement began rewriting the history of the Clinton administration, Democrats were already done with them. Though the party is primarily focused these days on the "resistance," Hillary's willingness to blame everyone but herself for her loss as well as her whining about the result's legitimacy is a gift to President Trump and an embarrassment to Democrats.

Yet just when it seems that the Clintons have been transformed from the ultimate power couple on an inevitable path back to the White House into political pariahs, Democrats would be wrong to ignore how the 1992 and 1996 elections were won.

The Clintons may be toast but what the Democrats need now to prevail against Trump is exactly the kind of centrist appeal that propelled those wins and enabled the 42nd president's ability to govern effectively without being in thrall to his party's left wing.

Frankly, I remember a different story about the Clintons.

Yes, I agree that President Clinton won in 1992 and 1996, and winning is winning.

At the same time, he benefited from two things that had nothing to do with his so-called "centrist appeal."

First, Ross Perot in 1992 killed President Bush.  Yes, President Bush was a bad campaigner, but he would have won most of the Perot voters in a two-way race.

Second, the good economy of 1996, and the second term, had a lot to do with his approvals.

Despite his centrist appeal and a strong economy, President Bush never won the Senate or House back.  Also, and this is huge, President Clinton could not deliver Arkansas's five electoral votes to V.P. Gore.  Governor Bush would still be Governor Bush of Texas if Arkansas had gone blue that election night.

I agree with Mr. Tobin that the Democrats have to appeal to people between the coasts.  But the appeal means calling pro-life and pro-marriage voters back.  And the party must convince Americans that they care more about saving their jobs than sanctuary cities.

PS: You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

We saw an article this week about the Democrats losing the winning Clinton ways!

This is Jonathan Tobin:

The timing for the conference in Little Rock, Ark., couldn't have been worse. But apparently the participants didn't notice.

Commemorating the 25 years since the 1992 presidential election may have seemed like a great idea when the geniuses at the Clinton Foundation began planning a big party for their boss. But the celebration held last weekend coincided with the epidemic of famous men accused of sexual harassment or assault, which reminded us of Bill Clinton's equally horrible behavior.

But even before the #metoo movement began rewriting the history of the Clinton administration, Democrats were already done with them. Though the party is primarily focused these days on the "resistance," Hillary's willingness to blame everyone but herself for her loss as well as her whining about the result's legitimacy is a gift to President Trump and an embarrassment to Democrats.

Yet just when it seems that the Clintons have been transformed from the ultimate power couple on an inevitable path back to the White House into political pariahs, Democrats would be wrong to ignore how the 1992 and 1996 elections were won.

The Clintons may be toast but what the Democrats need now to prevail against Trump is exactly the kind of centrist appeal that propelled those wins and enabled the 42nd president's ability to govern effectively without being in thrall to his party's left wing.

Frankly, I remember a different story about the Clintons.

Yes, I agree that President Clinton won in 1992 and 1996, and winning is winning.

At the same time, he benefited from two things that had nothing to do with his so-called "centrist appeal."

First, Ross Perot in 1992 killed President Bush.  Yes, President Bush was a bad campaigner, but he would have won most of the Perot voters in a two-way race.

Second, the good economy of 1996, and the second term, had a lot to do with his approvals.

Despite his centrist appeal and a strong economy, President Bush never won the Senate or House back.  Also, and this is huge, President Clinton could not deliver Arkansas's five electoral votes to V.P. Gore.  Governor Bush would still be Governor Bush of Texas if Arkansas had gone blue that election night.

I agree with Mr. Tobin that the Democrats have to appeal to people between the coasts.  But the appeal means calling pro-life and pro-marriage voters back.  And the party must convince Americans that they care more about saving their jobs than sanctuary cities.

PS: You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.