Why did Bill Clinton under perform so much compared to his polling in 1996?

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

I am looking at the Gallup graph for the 1996 election polling which had Clinton up by 15 to 20 points during most of the cycle. It was a huge lead and it looked like Clinton could be heading for a Reagan 1984 landslide, or at least a 1952 Eisenhower type win. The final pre election Gallup poll had Clinton at 55 and Dole at 34. You can check the link here : http://www.gallup.com/poll/110548/gallup-presidential-election-trial-heat-trends.aspx

Considering how much the economy was booming, the budget deficit was declining and there was peace abroad I am surprised Clinton did not win by more. Bob Dole was a decent man, but had no charisma and was very old. Clinton also had the great slogan about building a bridge to the 21st century. I guess Clinton alienated a lot of Liberals with his tough on crime stances, welfare reform and so much moderate heroism. That would probably depress left wing turnout, people knew Clinton would win so a lot of people stayed home as well. The Dole campaign also attacked Clinton hard on the character issue which planted seeds of doubt. In the end he did win by 8.5 points, a solid ass kicking but nothing like a major landslide.

[Nym90]

The Democratic base didn't turn out very strongly. There was a general perception that the race was a foregone conclusion, and no sense of urgency. This might have cost the Dems winning back the House, as well as the opportunity to gain Senate seats and possibly take back that chamber, as well.

Also, allegations of improper campaign contributions to Clinton from China were disclosed in the final weeks of the campaign. Perot in particular hammered at this issue relentlessly. This helped reduce Clinton's margin of victory, and deny him a popular vote majority.

[Hydera]

The Democratic base didn't turn out very strongly. There was a general perception that the race was a foregone conclusion, and no sense of urgency. This might have cost the Dems winning back the House, as well as the opportunity to gain Senate seats and possibly take back that chamber, as well.

Also, allegations of improper campaign contributions to Clinton from China were disclosed in the final weeks of the campaign. Perot in particular hammered at this issue relentlessly. This helped reduce Clinton's margin of victory, and deny him a popular vote majority.

Yeah people tend to forget about that donations scandal. I didn't even remember it until you just mentioned.

But that probably was the reason that Clinton underperformed in polling.

Also.... Bill Clinton mentioned in his autobiography how millions of Evangelical Christian "Voter guides" that showed stances of the candidates on issues that evangelicals were furious about. Helped Bob Dole narrow Clinton's margin.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9607/30/christian/index.shtml

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And it had some effect especially in the South were Clinton had a negative swing towards Dole even in states he won in 1992. And Blames his lost of Georgia to those "voter guides"

Some states he would of won without those two factors would probably be Colorado, Georgia, Virginia. Enough for 400+.

Whats more strange is how Bill Clinton had a higher victory margin over Bush in '88 but won less states.

[bagelman]

Whats more strange is how Bill Clinton had a higher victory margin over Bush in '88 but won less states.

Polarization was ongoing.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

The Democratic base didn't turn out very strongly. There was a general perception that the race was a foregone conclusion, and no sense of urgency.

Yea, I have watched election night 1996 coverage from CNN, it is by far the most boring election night I have ever watched. It was fun to see Clinton win but the tone was just so monotone, as everyone expected Clinton to win solidly and the status quo would be maintained.

Also the pandering to the Soccer Mom demographic Clinton did was pretty bad looking back. He backed the V-Chip to block inappropriate TV shows, school uniforms etc.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Whats more strange is how Bill Clinton had a higher victory margin over Bush in '88 but won less states.

Polarization was ongoing.

Actually, I think the reason Dole carried more states while losing by worse than Dukakis is pretty obvious: there's several staunchly Republican but low-population states. I don't think a 49-state landslide was ever in the cards...too many of those interior western states are just hopeless for the Dems. Losing 49 states would've meant Dole either losing his home state where he had been a senator for nearly thirty years or losing a state (Utah) where Clinton came in third in 1992. Maybe the best case for Clinton would've been something like this...

[Podgy the Bear]

Election Night 1996 was somewhat of a disappointment to the Democrats.  They failed to win back the House.  For the Senate, it was declared early that Dick Swett had won the New Hampshire race (suggesting a Democratic sweep), but in the end, Bob Smith was able to hold on to his seat. 

There was a thought that the votes lost in 1994 would come back--but the Southern white vote was moving unidirectionally to the Republicans by that time.

In addition to what has been discussed, I would also say that Robert Dole's 96 hours nonstop campaigning at the end of the election brought him--if not a substantially increased Republican base vote--at least a lot of good will.

[bobloblaw]

The Democratic base didn't turn out very strongly. There was a general perception that the race was a foregone conclusion, and no sense of urgency. This might have cost the Dems winning back the House, as well as the opportunity to gain Senate seats and possibly take back that chamber, as well.

Also, allegations of improper campaign contributions to Clinton from China were disclosed in the final weeks of the campaign. Perot in particular hammered at this issue relentlessly. This helped reduce Clinton's margin of victory, and deny him a popular vote majority.

I think youre overstating it. The GOP was never in danger of losing 5+ Senate seats in 1996. Ultra conservative Sen Smith of NH won his race as did Clinton carry NH.

I do think the polls may have been overstating Clinton's support.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We saw very realignments in 1968, and Congressional realignments of 1994 and 2010, where the House votes GOP and Senate stays at parity.

When the Reagan revolution Southern strategy begun alot of vulnerable seats were in Democratic hands like Zell Miller seat in Ga lost in 2004. But in 2010, especially in Senate moderates like Olympia Snowe, who held GOP seats  in Dem states started to flip to Dems.

This year hopefully, Toomey, Portman, Kirk and Johnson find that out too in 2016.

[sg0508]

Voter apathy and I believe I read somewhere that there was some evidence that the polling in '96 just was not very good in general for whatever reason.

Lastly, the challenger usually gets a bit of a bounce at the end, no matter how far over the race is.  Dole got that bounce.  Even Goldwater got a bit of a bounce against LBJ.

[Nym90]

The Democratic base didn't turn out very strongly. There was a general perception that the race was a foregone conclusion, and no sense of urgency. This might have cost the Dems winning back the House, as well as the opportunity to gain Senate seats and possibly take back that chamber, as well.

Also, allegations of improper campaign contributions to Clinton from China were disclosed in the final weeks of the campaign. Perot in particular hammered at this issue relentlessly. This helped reduce Clinton's margin of victory, and deny him a popular vote majority.

I think youre overstating it. The GOP was never in danger of losing 5+ Senate seats in 1996. Ultra conservative Sen Smith of NH won his race as did Clinton carry NH.

I do think the polls may have been overstating Clinton's support.

Yes, but a lot of the GOP wins were close. New Hampshire, Oregon, Colorado, Virginia, Maine, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Alabama were all won by less than seven points. So a 15 point national Clinton win (his lead in the polls was in that range for much of the campaign) might have won them all, or at least most of them.

There were a lot of competitive races that year. 14 open seats in total, which I believe is the all time record for one cycle.