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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 15, 2024, 12:47:28 PM
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 1367 times)
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
« on: September 19, 2015, 05:39:32 PM »

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.
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 0.016 seconds with 12 queries.