1996: Bill Clinton (D) VS Pat Buchanan (R)

[osideguy92]

I think people tend to forget just how excruciatingly close Pat Buchanan came to winning the Republican nomination in 1996, having won New Hampshire and losing only by 3 percentage points in Iowa.

Condition: Ross Perot endorses Buchanan.

Give me a prediction as to how big of a blowout Clinton would have had in this scenario.

You pick Buchanan's VP.

[NHI]

Clinton/Gore: 495 (59.5%)

Buchanan/Kemp: 43 (39.1%)

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I think there's a slim chance for a 50-state sweep by Clinton here, given how many Republicans would have been turned off once Buchanan got going about foreign policy. In reality, he probably wins AL/MS/OK/UT/ID/WY/AK and probably Nebraska. Maybe Kansas.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Pres Clinton/VP Gore                    55%  441 EV
Mr Buchanan/Sen. Faircloth (NC)   42%   97 EV
Others                                          3%

The GOP loses the support of most of its moderate wing, but Buchanan is able to appeal to some traditionally Democratic blue-collar whites with his populist message.

[Rooney]

My best idea would be this:

Bill Clinton/Al Gore (D)*: 439 EV; 55% of the PV
Pat Buchanan/Ron Paul (R): 99 EV; 39% of the PV
Dick Lamm/Ted Weil (Ref): 0 EV; 6% of the PV

I do not think Buchanan would have allowed a good number of Republicans to be his running-mate. I would guess his short-list would have been Congressman Paul, Alan Keyes, Senator Rod Grams and, perhaps, some paleoconservative writer. The election would be a great one, no doubt, as both major party candidates are highly intelligent and interested in serious policy discussion. Buchanan would make a lot of gaffes in regard to "racial make-up" in the United States and alienate a bunch of Republicans from voting.

Buchanan's campaign would have focused on two issues: opposition to nation building and assaulting the "culture of decadence" in the Clinton White House. Neither of these issues would have taken fire in the campaign since in 1996 no one cared about nation building misadventures and Dole's own attacks on Travelgate, Whitewater and Nannygate made no impact on the race. Dole ended a bunch of his ads with a fairly strong statement, "Does the truth matter to you?" and the votes in 1996 showed that people felt that Clinton had been truthful enough with them and that they liked the prosperity his administration seemed to have ushered in. As much as I respect Pat Buchanan his campaign would have been a disaster and he would have lost badly.

Buchanan's candidacy would have depressed Republican turnout on election day. In the United States Senate races this probably would mean that Mark Warner would best Senator John Warner in Virginia, Tom Bruggere tops Gordon Smith in Oregon, Tom Strickland defeats Wayne Allard in Colorado, Joe Brennan out paces Susan Collins in Maine. Win Bryant manages to defeat Tim Hutchinson in Arkansas and Ben Nelson defeats Chuck Hagel in Nebraska. The Democrats would have staved off further losses in the Senate and may well have taken the chamber in the 1998 midterm elections. Assuming George W. Bush "wins" the office of president in 2000 a larger Democratic majority in the United States Senate may well have trimmed his tax cut even further then they did IRL and perhaps stalled war talk in 2002 and 2003.

Also, with Mark Warner as a United States Senator in 1997 he may well have been Gore's running-mate in 2000 and that possibly could have changed the outcome of that race. A popular Senator Warner on the ticket may have made up the 8-poin deficit in Virginia that election. Also, if Warner was the VP nominee in 2000 on a losing Gore/Warner ticket he would have been the front-runner against President Bush in 2004. 

[dudeabides]

Pat Buchanan's world views are dangerous, and I think the American people know this. Furthermore, his views on trade would not be welcomed during an era of great economic growth.

Clinton/Gore 62% 438 EV
Buchanan/Alexander 37% 100 EV

[Dr. Cynic]

It wouldn't even be close. Pat would carry the most rock ribbed Republican states and that'd be it.

[Undecided Voter in the Midwest]

Probably this...

Clinton: 430
Buchanan: 108

[old timey villain]

My question is why Clinton didn't win in a historic landslide in real life? His approvals in late 1996 were on par with Reagan's in 1984 and they both went up against milquetoast opponents.

[Obamanation]

My question is why Clinton didn't win in a historic landslide in real life? His approvals in late 1996 were on par with Reagan's in 1984 and they both went up against milquetoast opponents.

Late Dole 'surge' (LOL) due to favorable media coverage.

[old timey villain]

My question is why Clinton didn't win in a historic landslide in real life? His approvals in late 1996 were on par with Reagan's in 1984 and they both went up against milquetoast opponents.

Late Dole 'surge' (LOL) due to favorable media coverage.

really? Why was Dole receiving favorable news coverage?

[Mister Mets]

I imagine that it would be a 15-20 point stomping.

Potential running mates for Buchanan, who would presumably want to be brandish an outsider image, possibly something that allows him to build on the 1994 wins.

Rick Santorum would fit the bill, as a new Senator elected in 1994, as a relative outsider.
As would Mike Dewine, Bill Frist, Fred Thompson and

Terry Branstad would be an uncontroversial choice with limited Washington baggage.

He chose an African-American woman to be his running mate as a reform candidate, so he might have tried for a groundbreaking veep. Although his options would be limited. JC Watts was a first-term congressman. Olympia Snowe was rather moderate.

My question is why Clinton didn't win in a historic landslide in real life? His approvals in late 1996 were on par with Reagan's in 1984 and they both went up against milquetoast opponents.

Maybe Dole wasn't a milquetoast opponent.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Bill Clinton/Al Gore (D): 443
Pat Buchanan/Ron Paul (R): 95

[Mr. Morden]

My question is why Clinton didn't win in a historic landslide in real life? His approvals in late 1996 were on par with Reagan's in 1984 and they both went up against milquetoast opponents.

There was this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy

Plus the other Clinton scandals, like Whitewater, "Travelgate", etc.

Anyway, with regard to Clinton vs. Buchanan....I assume Perot would have done markedly better if Buchanan was the GOP nominee.

[mianfei]

• Clinton/Gore (Democrat) 457 EV, 61 percent of two party vote
• Buchanan/Santorum (Republican) 81 EV, 39 percent of two party vote

Clinton would paint Buchanan's extreme social conservatism in such a manner as to landslide the liberal Pacific States - e.g. winning Polk and Yamhill Counties in Oregon by margins one would expect in urban Multnomah County. Buchanan's anti-immigration and social conservatism would be a winner in Appalachia, but he would lack the ability Bush junior had to appeal to rural America in the actual 2000 election, and in most of the northern tier and Alaska his social ultraconservatism would more than counter any appeals against gun control, except heavily Catholic ND.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

• Clinton/Gore (Democrat) 457 EV, 61 percent of two party vote
• Buchanan/Santorum (Republican) 81 EV, 39 percent of two party vote

Clinton would paint Buchanan's extreme social conservatism in such a manner as to landslide the liberal Pacific States - e.g. winning Polk and Yamhill Counties in Oregon by margins one would expect in urban Multnomah County. Buchanan's anti-immigration and social conservatism would be a winner in Appalachia, but he would lack the ability Bush junior had to appeal to rural America in the actual 2000 election, and in most of the northern tier and Alaska his social ultraconservatism would more than counter any appeals against gun control, except heavily Catholic ND.

Pretty much this, but no way Clinton loses Louisiana or West Virginia.  I doubt he loses Kentucky or South Carolina either.