What states did Bill Clinton lose late in 1996 due to Dole's late surge?

[sg0508]

Reading Clinton's book, "My Life", he says his campaign got somewhat apathetic late and once Perot and Dole finally started attacking his character, Dole surged late in the campaign, which cost him the 50% + majority he wanted.  But, it probably also cost him some electoral votes too.  What states do you figure he lost late?

Clinton says NC and VA were two big targets but that the late surge probably put Dole over the top there.  Perot's vote kept it close in both.  Clinton barely lost NC in 1992.  He also says that GA probably slipped away late too.

However, Clinton says that he got the two pickups his team targeted from the beginning, FL and AZ, two states that hadn't gone for a democrat since '76 and '48, respectively.

[Bo]

What makes you sure that was Clinton said was accurate?

[12th Doctor]

What makes you sure that was Clinton said was accurate?

My thoughts exactly.  My opinion of Clinton as a person has improved somewhat over the last decade, but he is still an ego maniac.  His reasons for not hitting 50 percent follow that mold, me thinks.

[minionofmidas]

The campaign certainly was apathetic, Clinton's victory certainly never was in doubt, and the laughably low turnout - the result of both and probably of a bad turnout operation - quite certainly cost Clinton the 50% (seeing how close he came) and may well have cost him a couple of states.

I'm not sure I'd call that a "Dole surge" though.

[phk]

What makes you sure that was Clinton said was accurate?

My thoughts exactly.  My opinion of Clinton as a person has improved somewhat over the last decade, but he is still an ego maniac.  His reasons for not hitting 50 percent follow that mold, me thinks.

Isn't it conventional knowledge that low turnout helped Dole?

[Bo]

What makes you sure that was Clinton said was accurate?

My thoughts exactly.  My opinion of Clinton as a person has improved somewhat over the last decade, but he is still an ego maniac.  His reasons for not hitting 50 percent follow that mold, me thinks.

Isn't it conventional knowledge that low turnout helped Dole?

No. It could have helped Clinton, since many Dole supporters knew he would lose anyway and thus didn't bother wasting their time voting.

[Mr.Phips]

Im almost certain it kept Democrats from winning back the House(which they should have easily) and likely cost Clinton Colorado, Georgia, and Montana. 

[Bo]

Im almost certain it kept Democrats from winning back the House(which they should have easily) and likely cost Clinton Colorado, Georgia, and Montana. 

Dems would have needed 12 more seats, I believe, to recapture the House. I'm not sure if a Clinton surge would have been able to flip that many seats to the Dems.

[Mr.Phips]

Im almost certain it kept Democrats from winning back the House(which they should have easily) and likely cost Clinton Colorado, Georgia, and Montana. 

Dems would have needed 12 more seats, I believe, to recapture the House. I'm not sure if a Clinton surge would have been able to flip that many seats to the Dems.

They needed another 10.  They picked up nine and needed 19.  There were 12 races(CT-06, IL-20, KY-03, PA-13, WA-02, WA-03, AZ-06, IN-08, AL-04, MO-09, PA-21, WI-01).  Had Clinton done a couple points better at the top of the ticket, Democrats would have likely won most of these seats and a majority. 

[Derek]

What makes you sure that was Clinton said was accurate?

My thoughts exactly.  My opinion of Clinton as a person has improved somewhat over the last decade, but he is still an ego maniac.  His reasons for not hitting 50 percent follow that mold, me thinks.

Isn't it conventional knowledge that low turnout helped Dole?

No. It could have helped Clinton, since many Dole supporters knew he would lose anyway and thus didn't bother wasting their time voting.

In order to get a high voter turn out for a party, the candidate needs to be likable and somone that ppl can rally around for the democrats, but Republicans are a little different of a story. The GOP when not having a great candidate as were the cases with Dole and McCain, are at least motivated to defeat the democrats. 2004 had the highest voter turnout for its time and Bush still won. Kerry just wasn't someone democrats rallied around. Dole's late surge brought him above 40% for what that's worth lol. Without Perot I still think Clinton wins by 6-7 points.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Without Ross Perot in either 1996 or 1992, Bill Clinton would of won NV or MO, CO, NH and OH and either FL or VA. Similar to the way the maps are going now.  I think a better question is had Perot not been on the ticket what would the maps be like.

[Derek]

Without Ross Perot in either 1996 or 1992, Bill Clinton would of won NV or MO, CO, NH and OH and either FL or VA. Similar to the way the maps are going now.  I think a better question is had Perot not been on the ticket what would the maps be like.

http://

I may be being a little generous to Bush Sr. but I think he gets reelected despite the PERCEPTION of the economy.

[cpeeks]

OMG, Bush Sr. was not going to beat Clinton. Perot saved him from a humiliating defeat.

[Eraserhead]

Without Ross Perot in either 1996 or 1992, Bill Clinton would of won NV or MO, CO, NH and OH and either FL or VA. Similar to the way the maps are going now.  I think a better question is had Perot not been on the ticket what would the maps be like.

http://

I may be being a little generous to Bush Sr. but I think he gets reelected despite the PERCEPTION of the economy.

Ridiculous.

[cpeeks]

It is ridiculous Bush didnt have a prayer, people wanted change.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Without Ross Perot in either 1996 or 1992, Bill Clinton would of won NV or MO, CO, NH and OH and either FL or VA. Similar to the way the maps are going now.  I think a better question is had Perot not been on the ticket what would the maps be like.

http://

I may be being a little generous to Bush Sr. but I think he gets reelected despite the PERCEPTION of the economy.

Explain to me how Bush wins WI.

[cpeeks]

I wanna know how he has him winning Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio, there economies were devestated.

[Derek]

I wanna know how he has him winning Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio, there economies were devestated.

Does it look like I have him winning Illinois? lol

[Derek]

Without Ross Perot in either 1996 or 1992, Bill Clinton would of won NV or MO, CO, NH and OH and either FL or VA. Similar to the way the maps are going now.  I think a better question is had Perot not been on the ticket what would the maps be like.

http://

I may be being a little generous to Bush Sr. but I think he gets reelected despite the PERCEPTION of the economy.

Explain to me how Bush wins WI.

He only lost there by 4.

[Derek]

And I also meant to post that on the 1992 forum ^^. my mistake

[cpeeks]

My bad I  just glanced at it, instead of studying it.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Without Ross Perot in either 1996 or 1992, Bill Clinton would of won NV or MO, CO, NH and OH and either FL or VA. Similar to the way the maps are going now.  I think a better question is had Perot not been on the ticket what would the maps be like.

http://

I may be being a little generous to Bush Sr. but I think he gets reelected despite the PERCEPTION of the economy.

Explain to me how Bush wins WI.

He only lost there by 4.

Yes, but you have to look at more than the margin. The state was hit heavily by the recession, and all the surrounding states voted for Clinton. Am I forgetting something? Oh yeah, it was a Dukakis state! Without Perot Bush would have carried the state?

[cpeeks]

LOL W/E Dukakis carries one of the most inept candidates ever but Clinton doesnt? Get real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Derek]

My bad I  just glanced at it, instead of studying it.

It's cool

[Derek]

Without Ross Perot in either 1996 or 1992, Bill Clinton would of won NV or MO, CO, NH and OH and either FL or VA. Similar to the way the maps are going now.  I think a better question is had Perot not been on the ticket what would the maps be like.

http://

I may be being a little generous to Bush Sr. but I think he gets reelected despite the PERCEPTION of the economy.

Explain to me how Bush wins WI.

He only lost there by 4.

Yes, but you have to look at more than the margin. The state was hit heavily by the recession, and all the surrounding states voted for Clinton. Am I forgetting something? Oh yeah, it was a Dukakis state! Without Perot Bush would have carried the state?

Yes Wisconsin was more Democratic at the presidential level and has been trending towards the middle for 2 decades. I've noticed that before the 90's, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and West Virginia used to be further to the left than they are now. Dukakis also narrowed his campaign to 18 states as it was the only way for him to be competitive. I'm starting a new forum now cuz this gives me an idea.