I can see your point. I just think Newt would have been a much more pugnacious campaigner than Clinton's actual opponent, and that can make a real difference. Newt's favorability would have hurt. Gallup had them at 32/56% in August of 1996, while Dole was at 49/44% according to Gallup. But I think the partisan nature of the campaign would have made at least as many Republicans come home as they did with Dole. The 1996 campaign remains a tiny blip in presidential election history somewhat due to Bob Dole's uninspired, bumbling, lethargic campaign. I definitely don't know for certain what would have happened in the event of a Clinton-Gingrich showdown in 1996. But I'm certain it would have been much more entertaining than the real one. 
I agree to an extent, but isn't this the same argument as let's go with the more vocal, base-inspiring wacko, we'll be more competitive that way!!! I don't think that would have worked out too well for Gingrich...
This is my predicition, and before you go bonkers, let me remind you, Gingrich was VERY unpopular in '96 and Dem turnout would have probably been sky-high given the frightening possibility of Gingrich in the Oval Office.
Clinton: 459 (53%)
Gingrich: 79 (36%)
Perot: 0 (11%)
