Why didn't the GOP pick Buchanan in 1996?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Give Trump's success with the GOP electorate, Buchanan's loss to Dole of all people seems rather bizarre to me. Buchanan is pretty much the same as Trump, a populist nationalist advocating for more restrictions on trade, immigration, and an end to neoconservative foreign policy. Buchanan should have done very well with working class whites. Plus, Buchanan had huge appeal to evangelicals, the one thing that Trump lacks. There was no doubt he was a strong social conservative, plus he didn't go around insulting people, so his demeanor didn't turn those people off.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Because fortunately many "working class Whites" weren't Republicans yet, especially in the South ... The good old days.

[Frodo]

There was still a strong Northeastern presence in the Republican Party that moderated the more radical elements, and kept Pat Buchanan's ilk at bay. 

[Mr. Reactionary]

Until this cycle, the GOP rule was that the candidate who came in second previously got the nomination. In 1988 Dole came in second, in 1992 Buchanan came in second. In 1996, there was a bit of confusion about the order, it just took until after NH before the voters decided first in time, first in right.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Because fortunately many "working class Whites" weren't Republicans yet, especially in the South ... The good old days.

This, and sigged.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

In addition to the establishment's hatred for him, the Buchanan campaign's momentum and support in key primary states (Arizona in particular) was chipped away at by the presence of Steve Forbes in the race.

[Slow Learner]

There was still a strong Northeastern presence in the Republican Party that moderated the more radical elements, and kept Pat Buchanan's ilk at bay. 

But didn't Buchanan do quite well in New Hampshire?

[mencken]

There was still a strong Northeastern presence in the Republican Party that moderated the more radical elements, and kept Pat Buchanan's ilk at bay. 

Except Buchanan's sweep was stopped at South Carolina.

[Sumner 1868]

Because Islamophobia was not a major force in America of 1996.

[RINO Tom]

Because he didn't represent the views of most Republicans and would have gotten murdered.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The GOP didn't want to win or even compete in 1996. It was better for business if they loss. Hence why good candidates like Pete Wilson, Lamar Alexander, etc, were ignored and at least somewhat competitive candidates like Buchanan (his best shot would have been in 1992 if he could have taken out Bush) we're totally maligned. It is well documented that Alan Keyes ran as a stalking horse to take down Buchanan in the primaries to make sure he didn't threaten Dole.

[pho]

Buchanan's contributions to the Nixon administration were perhaps too fresh?

[Phony Moderate]

TRUMP is a moderate, Buchanan is not.

[RINO Tom]

TRUMP is a moderate, Buchanan is not.

They're like carbon copies of each other politically...

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

TRUMP is a moderate, Buchanan is not.

They're like carbon copies of each other politically...

TRUMP does have the added strength of being filthy rich, and able to self fund. He can tell the corporate fat cats that pull the strings for other candidates that he is his own man. Buchanan never had that appeal.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

TRUMP is a moderate, Buchanan is not.

They're like carbon copies of each other politically...

Trumps religiosity is an obvious pretense and Rockefeller Republicans, longing for a truly secular candidate, have flocked to him. Trump's like a populist version of the fiscally moderate and anti-communist GOP of the 1950's.

[nclib]

Until this cycle, the GOP rule was that the candidate who came in second previously got the nomination. In 1988 Dole came in second, in 1992 Buchanan came in second. In 1996, there was a bit of confusion about the order, it just took until after NH before the voters decided first in time, first in right.

Wow, I hadn't realized that. Excluding years with a Repub incumbent, this has worked every year since 1980 with the exception of Bush II in 2000. Wonder how much of this is a coincidence.

2012 - Romney - Yes
2008 - McCain - Yes
2000 - Bush II - No
1996 - Dole - Yes
1988 - Bush I - Yes
1980 - Reagan - Yes

As for the topic question, Buchanan is very far right culturally (even though some of his economic stances appeal to working-class Democrats), and the GOP had enough moderates then.

[tpfkaw]

Because in 1996 the preceding 15 years had been pretty good for the middle class, and now we're into our 15th year of economic calamity.

[H. Ross Peron]

Because in 1996 the preceding 15 years had been pretty good for the middle class, and now we're into our 15th year of economic calamity.

^^^^

[Mister Mets]

Part of it is Dole's strength as a candidate.

A former presidential speechwriter isn't going to have as much outsider appeal. Buchanan's appeal was mainly to conservative political junkies.

Republicans had still won three of the four previous elections, so there was less of a sense of desperation.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

He may have done better than Dole, but Republicans weren't ready for someone like him yet.  2000 would've been a better chance.

[Ban my account ffs!]

It was 1996... we were too busy trying to figure out how to install our free America Online CD-ROM and configure the sound card to work properly with it.  So none of us were online and the TV media wasn't goig to allow a blowhard like Pat F[inksing] Buchanan win a box of zebra cakes in a school sanctioned cake-walk.. let alone a nomination.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

The GOP didn't want to win or even compete in 1996. It was better for business if they loss. Hence why good candidates like Pete Wilson, Lamar Alexander, etc, were ignored and at least somewhat competitive candidates like Buchanan (his best shot would have been in 1992 if he could have taken out Bush) we're totally maligned. It is well documented that Alan Keyes ran as a stalking horse to take down Buchanan in the primaries to make sure he didn't threaten Dole.

They wanted to lose in 1996?

[TDAS04]

The Republicans have long been in the habit of selecting the next in line.  Just as Bush 43's main 2000 Republican rival, John McCain, got the nomination in 2008, Dole was a major contender in 1988 primaries.

Also, Republicans didn't have as much of an ant-establishment element as they do today.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The GOP didn't want to win or even compete in 1996. It was better for business if they loss. Hence why good candidates like Pete Wilson, Lamar Alexander, etc, were ignored and at least somewhat competitive candidates like Buchanan (his best shot would have been in 1992 if he could have taken out Bush) we're totally maligned. It is well documented that Alan Keyes ran as a stalking horse to take down Buchanan in the primaries to make sure he didn't threaten Dole.

They wanted to lose in 1996?

Yeah, it was better for business. They could complain for four years and get the guy they really wanted (Dubya) into the White House. Dole was a lamb sent to the slaughter.