Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 19, 2014, 10:10:59 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  Clinton in 1996
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Clinton in 1996  (Read 1853 times)
old timey villain
cope1989
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1749


View Profile
« on: June 22, 2012, 08:35:43 pm »
Ignore

I know that Clinton won decisively in 1996, beating Dole by about 8 points. But does anyone find that to be a much smaller victory than what one should expect? Clinton's approvals were nearly 60% by fall of 1996 and Dole was very uninspiring. Some polls from the summer saw Clinton leading Dole by almost 20 points.

So what happened? Did Dole begin to close the gap? And if so, why?
Logged

Can't we all just get along?
HockeyDude
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8019
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.19, S: -8.78

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2012, 08:44:41 pm »
Ignore

There was a huge lack on enthusiasm on both sides for that one, I believe.  Turnout was pretty lousy, and everybody knew Clinton was going to win.  I would guess all the hardcore Dole voters came out and a lot of people who would've voted for Clinton just stayed home. 
Logged

GPORTER
gporter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7411
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2012, 09:39:28 pm »
Ignore

Its like Al Smith in my timeline. Theres a big negative that the electorate across the board doesn't like about Smith, there sa big negative that the electorate across the board doesn't like about Clinton. If Smith were up by eight, he could win by only two or three. Clinton was up by between 11 and 14 going into election day, he would by like 7 to 9. Same story.
Logged

GPORTER
gporter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7411
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2012, 09:45:52 pm »
Ignore

There was a huge lack on enthusiasm on both sides for that one, I believe.  Turnout was pretty lousy, and everybody knew Clinton was going to win.  I would guess all the hardcore Dole voters came out and a lot of people who would've voted for Clinton just stayed home. 

If turnout is lower than expected even by a little bit, that helps the republican. Lowere turnout probably gave Dole Colorado, Montana and most of the south. I think low turnout affected some senate candidates especially in the south.
Logged

old timey villain
cope1989
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1749


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2012, 10:52:41 pm »
Ignore

There was a huge lack on enthusiasm on both sides for that one, I believe.  Turnout was pretty lousy, and everybody knew Clinton was going to win.  I would guess all the hardcore Dole voters came out and a lot of people who would've voted for Clinton just stayed home. 

Funny the difference two years makes. In 1994 people thought Clinton would almost certainly be a one termer, and then two years later everyone expects him to win reelection.

And GPORTER, your theory about Clinton performing less than the polls is interesting, but I'd need to see some substance to back it up.
Logged

Can't we all just get along?
Indy Texas
independentTX
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5414


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2012, 01:18:07 am »
Ignore

If turnout is lower than expected even by a little bit, that helps the republican. Lowere turnout probably gave Dole Colorado, Montana and most of the south. I think low turnout affected some senate candidates especially in the south.

Colorado was a fairly safe Republican state at that time. Clinton wouldn't have won it in '92 if not for Perot.

As for Senate candidates, the only notable GOP win that year in the South that comes to mind is Tim Hutchinson winning in AR even as Clinton won the state by leaps and bounds.
Logged

Try to spot your dick without looking in a mirror. Sleepy yet?
BritishDixie
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 294
United Kingdom


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2012, 02:24:40 pm »
Ignore

The electorate was becoming increasingly polarized, and many people would never vote for Clinton in spite of the prosperity. This was the height of the "culture war" which worked slightly in Dole's favour, as conservatives were highly motivated to get out and vote, unlike many Democrats.
Logged

Economic score: +6.58
Social score: +5.04
How Erg the Self-Inducting Slew a Paleface
Kalwejt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 37994


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2012, 02:31:27 pm »
Ignore

If turnout is lower than expected even by a little bit, that helps the republican. Lowere turnout probably gave Dole Colorado, Montana and most of the south. I think low turnout affected some senate candidates especially in the south.

Colorado was a fairly safe Republican state at that time. Clinton wouldn't have won it in '92 if not for Perot.

As for Senate candidates, the only notable GOP win that year in the South that comes to mind is Tim Hutchinson winning in AR even as Clinton won the state by leaps and bounds.

Roger Bedford was a serious candidate to hold Heflin's seat in Alabama for the Democrats. While Clinton wouldn't win Alabama, higher turnout among base would help him a lot.
Logged

It's a good thing to be laughed at. It's better than to be ignored

Harold Macmillan
GPORTER
gporter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7411
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2012, 06:20:30 pm »
Ignore

If turnout is lower than expected even by a little bit, that helps the republican. Lowere turnout probably gave Dole Colorado, Montana and most of the south. I think low turnout affected some senate candidates especially in the south.

Colorado was a fairly safe Republican state at that time. Clinton wouldn't have won it in '92 if not for Perot.

As for Senate candidates, the only notable GOP win that year in the South that comes to mind is Tim Hutchinson winning in AR even as Clinton won the state by leaps and bounds.

Roger Bedford was a serious candidate to hold Heflin's seat in Alabama for the Democrats. While Clinton wouldn't win Alabama, higher turnout among base would help him a lot.

On Arkansas, turnout from a 1992 arkansas senate race to a 1996 senate race, turnout dropped by seventy-four thousand votes, and that might have been the race for the democrat in that race.
Logged

Jay20
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56
View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 19, 2012, 12:21:30 am »
Ignore


Colorado was a fairly safe Republican state at that time. Clinton wouldn't have won it in '92 if not for Perot.

False. Perot, pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-NAFTA only helped Bush stay in the race when he re-entered. Clinton was winning by a landslide nationally from June-October 1992, when Perot wasn't in the race. Perot also ran best in states which either favored one candidate lopsidedly or had few electoral votes anyway. Bush I's approvals were in the tank for most of 1992, much lower than Obama's current numbers, closer to Jimmy Carter's in 1980.

Answer for Clinton not winning a bigger landslide in 1996: Ross Perot took votes from people who in general weren't satisfied with the system at all. Also, Clinton, knowing he could go to big media markets to break 50%, decided to try to win Dems more seats in the House and Senate. Even he admits this in his autobio. Dumb move on his part: not getting 50%, I'm convinced, severely hampered his ability to govern BOTH terms, yet he was far more effective than Barack Hussein Obama.
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5005


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 26, 2012, 02:21:06 am »
Ignore


Colorado was a fairly safe Republican state at that time. Clinton wouldn't have won it in '92 if not for Perot.

False. Perot, pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-NAFTA only helped Bush stay in the race when he re-entered. Clinton was winning by a landslide nationally from June-October 1992, when Perot wasn't in the race. Perot also ran best in states which either favored one candidate lopsidedly or had few electoral votes anyway. Bush I's approvals were in the tank for most of 1992, much lower than Obama's current numbers, closer to Jimmy Carter's in 1980.

Answer for Clinton not winning a bigger landslide in 1996: Ross Perot took votes from people who in general weren't satisfied with the system at all. Also, Clinton, knowing he could go to big media markets to break 50%, decided to try to win Dems more seats in the House and Senate. Even he admits this in his autobio. Dumb move on his part: not getting 50%, I'm convinced, severely hampered his ability to govern BOTH terms, yet he was far more effective than Barack Hussein Obama.

This was a very good move on Clinton's part.  Getting over 50% and more electoral votes mean nothing.  Once you are at 270, any more electoral votes meant that you wasted time and money.  Might as well go out and try to win Democrats more House and Senate seats at that point.  Obama should have done this in October 2008 when it was clear he had 270 locked up. 
Logged
GPORTER
gporter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7411
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 26, 2012, 06:29:27 pm »
Ignore


Colorado was a fairly safe Republican state at that time. Clinton wouldn't have won it in '92 if not for Perot.

False. Perot, pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-NAFTA only helped Bush stay in the race when he re-entered. Clinton was winning by a landslide nationally from June-October 1992, when Perot wasn't in the race. Perot also ran best in states which either favored one candidate lopsidedly or had few electoral votes anyway. Bush I's approvals were in the tank for most of 1992, much lower than Obama's current numbers, closer to Jimmy Carter's in 1980.

Answer for Clinton not winning a bigger landslide in 1996: Ross Perot took votes from people who in general weren't satisfied with the system at all. Also, Clinton, knowing he could go to big media markets to break 50%, decided to try to win Dems more seats in the House and Senate. Even he admits this in his autobio. Dumb move on his part: not getting 50%, I'm convinced, severely hampered his ability to govern BOTH terms, yet he was far more effective than Barack Hussein Obama.

 Obama should have done this in October 2008 when it was clear he had 270 locked up. 

Where would Obama go to help democratic congressional candidates? Kentucky, Georgia, probably North Carolina, and New Hampshire if Shaheen got cold feet? Maybe both Clinton and Obama would appear in New Hampshire. Now that I thought of that, Bill Clinton would probably campaign with Obama for senate candidates in Kentucky and Georgia.
Logged

Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5005


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: July 28, 2012, 04:58:17 pm »
Ignore


Colorado was a fairly safe Republican state at that time. Clinton wouldn't have won it in '92 if not for Perot.

False. Perot, pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-NAFTA only helped Bush stay in the race when he re-entered. Clinton was winning by a landslide nationally from June-October 1992, when Perot wasn't in the race. Perot also ran best in states which either favored one candidate lopsidedly or had few electoral votes anyway. Bush I's approvals were in the tank for most of 1992, much lower than Obama's current numbers, closer to Jimmy Carter's in 1980.

Answer for Clinton not winning a bigger landslide in 1996: Ross Perot took votes from people who in general weren't satisfied with the system at all. Also, Clinton, knowing he could go to big media markets to break 50%, decided to try to win Dems more seats in the House and Senate. Even he admits this in his autobio. Dumb move on his part: not getting 50%, I'm convinced, severely hampered his ability to govern BOTH terms, yet he was far more effective than Barack Hussein Obama.

 Obama should have done this in October 2008 when it was clear he had 270 locked up. 

Where would Obama go to help democratic congressional candidates? Kentucky, Georgia, probably North Carolina, and New Hampshire if Shaheen got cold feet? Maybe both Clinton and Obama would appear in New Hampshire. Now that I thought of that, Bill Clinton would probably campaign with Obama for senate candidates in Kentucky and Georgia.

He could have gone to Minnesota to help Franken, which would have likely helped him win more easily.  He also could have gone to IL-10 and WA-08 to help Seals and Burner.
Logged
old timey villain
cope1989
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1749


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: July 28, 2012, 05:05:42 pm »
Ignore

Chambliss came dangerously close to losing. The Democrats should have deployed Bill Clinton to Georgia to help Jim Martin. If he had done a few points better in South Georgia he could have won, as there were definitely signs of Chambliss' support cracking in the rural areas of the state.
Logged

Can't we all just get along?
ShadowOfTheWave
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1620
United States


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: July 28, 2012, 07:35:44 pm »
Ignore

But wouldn't Chambliss still have been favored in the runoff?
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12975


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2012, 07:47:16 pm »
Ignore

Chambliss would have probably lost had there been more of a "reverse Great Migration" of African-Americans from depressed de-industrialized Northern cities back to the South.
Logged

Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines