Was Clinton unbeatable in 1996?

[darklordoftech]

Clinton was running far ahead of Dole in September and October.  I remember he had a 10 point lead in Georgia in October 1996 and he was in range in states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas (and of course, he won Louisiana and Arkansas by big margins)--hard to believe today.

How was this possible? Wouldn't the evangelicals and gun owners be hostile to Clinton?

Plus, his 96 hour nonstop run at the end of the campaign brought him a lot of goodwill and brought the base out to vote.  

Could you point me to somewhere where I can learn about this?

[darklordoftech]

Clinton was running far ahead of Dole in September and October.  I remember he had a 10 point lead in Georgia in October 1996 and he was in range in states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas (and of course, he won Louisiana and Arkansas by big margins)--hard to believe today.

How was this possible? Wouldn't the evangelicals and gun owners be hostile to Clinton?

Plus, his 96 hour nonstop run at the end of the campaign brought him a lot of goodwill and brought the base out to vote.  

Could you point me to somewhere where I can learn about this?

Why would they - many of whom were registered Democrats/Democratic primary voters/downballot Democrats - be any more hostile to Clinton than any other Democrat?

I didn't say they were less hostile to other Democrats. None of them voted for Dukakis, and downballet Democrats in the south were generally Manchin-types.

[darklordoftech]

Clinton was running far ahead of Dole in September and October.  I remember he had a 10 point lead in Georgia in October 1996 and he was in range in states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas (and of course, he won Louisiana and Arkansas by big margins)--hard to believe today.

Dole made somewhat of a comeback by late October.  The DNC financing controversy regarding China helped him somewhat.  Plus, his 96 hour nonstop run at the end of the campaign brought him a lot of goodwill and brought the base out to vote.  And the Republican vote was more out in force than usual to hold the majority in the House and Senate.

Certainly.  However, I remember reading a quote one time from a campaign adviser or something that said Clinton was really mad he didn't flip the entire South.  He was set on being that Democrat that brought the South back into the fold (while also making other gains elsewhere and therefore winning in a landslide), and I remember reading that it actually bothered him a lot that he couldn't get a Carter 1976-type sweep (i.e., possibly excluding Virginia and with Texas and Oklahoma a stretch).  A lot of people forget that this was still during (or at the latest shortly after) a time period where a lot of political scientists believed that any Democrat winning nationally had to have a very good showing in the South and likely a Southerner on the ticket.  It wasn't until post-Bush 2000 (I'd argue) that Democrats felt they weren't reliant on at least a large portion of the South, and even looking back at some posts on this site from circa 2004 that I've stumbled across, people never thought of the South as non-competitive until after Bush won in 2004.  The region tended to have wild swings (see 1972 to 1976, LOL), so it appeared "solid" for whomever won it, and today it's very easy to spin a tail of "South became GOP after Civil Rights Act except Carter who was Southern and then Reagan sealed the deal in 1980 by appealing to racists better than Ford," but most contemporary texts in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s that I have run across place the South as a battleground region, and I believe it was thought of that way even into 1996 by many.

Why did 2004 make people view the South as non-competitive? I don't see how Kerry (or Obama or 2016 Hillary for that matter) would appeal to the South.

[darklordoftech]

Clinton was running far ahead of Dole in September and October.  I remember he had a 10 point lead in Georgia in October 1996 and he was in range in states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas (and of course, he won Louisiana and Arkansas by big margins)--hard to believe today.

How was this possible? Wouldn't the evangelicals and gun owners be hostile to Clinton?

Plus, his 96 hour nonstop run at the end of the campaign brought him a lot of goodwill and brought the base out to vote.  

Could you point me to somewhere where I can learn about this?

Here is the link from the November 4, 1996 article in the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1996/11/04/dole-charges-on-in-california-quest/c2835a36-c67a-4153-8332-6135faa1d939/?utm_term=.c30fb49affe0

The 96 hour tour may have helped Dole pick up Georgia, Colorado, Montana, and South Dakota.   Again, it amazes me how noncompetitive the Democrats have become in so much of the country in such a short period of time!

Thank you.

The Republicans are just as non-competitive in atlas-red states as Democrats are in atlas-blue states. In 2000, two candidates that were percieved as centrists both failed to make any inroads into any states that leaned towards their opponent's party, and since then the parties have each been associated with certain states in the public conscience.