Why did Bill Clinton under perform so much compared to his polling in 1996? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 18, 2024, 05:12:07 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Why did Bill Clinton under perform so much compared to his polling in 1996? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why did Bill Clinton under perform so much compared to his polling in 1996?  (Read 1369 times)
Podgy the Bear
mollybecky
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,984


« on: September 19, 2015, 09:43:41 AM »

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.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 10 queries.