Why didn't Bill Clinton reach 50% in 1996?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:00:21 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 didn't Bill Clinton reach 50% in 1996?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why didn't Bill Clinton reach 50% in 1996?  (Read 3157 times)
buritobr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,604


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 16, 2015, 06:27:26 PM »

I don't think Ross Perot and Ralph Nader are easy answers to this question.

In an open seat election, people may think "who is the best person to run our nation?". But in an election in which an incumbent is running for reelection, people think "should this admistration be continued for four more years or not?".
If the people approve the administration, they will vote for the incumbent no matter if there are one, two or three opponents. An election in which an incumbent is seeking reelection looks like a plebiscite. Do you agree?
Logged
"'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"
DarthNader
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 483


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2015, 06:32:08 PM »

Low turnout.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,350


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2015, 09:59:55 PM »

I don't think Ross Perot and Ralph Nader are easy answers to this question.

In an open seat election, people may think "who is the best person to run our nation?". But in an election in which an incumbent is running for reelection, people think "should this admistration be continued for four more years or not?".
If the people approve the administration, they will vote for the incumbent no matter if there are one, two or three opponents. An election in which an incumbent is seeking reelection looks like a plebiscite. Do you agree?

Ross Perot is one reason.

Another is that in 1996 Bill Clinton was still rebuilding the Democratic Strength in presidential levels which was in the Wilderness from 1968-1992 except 1976 which was only won due to the backlash at Watergate.

Still 49% is pretty impressive for a party that had not won more then 46% in any election since 1968 except 1976.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2015, 03:03:57 AM »

Third Way did not inspire.
Logged
TheElectoralBoobyPrize
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,519


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2015, 10:06:35 AM »

Late-breaking revelations of the campaign finance irregularities. That and Republicans probably turned out to vote because they feared unified Democratic control of the government again..
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2015, 04:29:58 PM »

Everyone knew that Bill would win in a landslide, which caused low turnout.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,350


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2015, 07:41:16 PM »

Everyone knew that Bill would win in a landslide, which caused low turnout.

Everyone new Reagan would win in 1984 and there was still high turnout
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2015, 07:56:12 PM »

Everyone knew that Bill would win in a landslide, which caused low turnout.

Everyone new Reagan would win in 1984 and there was still high turnout

1984 was 53% turnout, 1996 was 49%.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2015, 09:56:32 PM »

Everyone knew that Bill would win in a landslide, which caused low turnout.

Everyone new Reagan would win in 1984 and there was still high turnout

Reagan was much more of a polarizing figure than Clinton ever was.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,350


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2015, 12:20:30 AM »

Everyone knew that Bill would win in a landslide, which caused low turnout.

Everyone new Reagan would win in 1984 and there was still high turnout

Reagan was much more of a polarizing figure than Clinton ever was.

In which planet was Reagan more polarizing,  Reagan won 49 states, 525 electoral votes, and 58.8% of the vote in 1984 and left office with 63% approval and because of him Bush won 400+ electoral votes in 1988.

Clinton won 379 electoral votes and 31 states in his reelection campaign and was impeached(Unjustifiably sure but that doesn't make him less polarizing). Clinton had 66% approval leaving office and his Vice President Gore lost in 2000.

Clinton was tied with Reagan in greatness but he was more polarizing then Reagan.




Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 20, 2015, 07:05:28 AM »

Everyone knew that Bill would win in a landslide, which caused low turnout.

Everyone new Reagan would win in 1984 and there was still high turnout

Reagan was much more of a polarizing figure than Clinton ever was.

In which planet was Reagan more polarizing,  Reagan won 49 states, 525 electoral votes, and 58.8% of the vote in 1984 and left office with 63% approval and because of him Bush won 400+ electoral votes in 1988.

Clinton won 379 electoral votes and 31 states in his reelection campaign and was impeached(Unjustifiably sure but that doesn't make him less polarizing). Clinton had 66% approval leaving office and his Vice President Gore lost in 2000.

Clinton was tied with Reagan in greatness but he was more polarizing then Reagan.






Gore lost because he ran away from Clinton's record, not because Clinton was polarizing.
Logged
Frozen Sky Ever Why
ShadowOfTheWave
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,610
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2015, 07:44:31 AM »

Everyone knew that Bill would win in a landslide, which caused low turnout.

Everyone new Reagan would win in 1984 and there was still high turnout

Reagan was much more of a polarizing figure than Clinton ever was.

In which planet was Reagan more polarizing,  Reagan won 49 states, 525 electoral votes, and 58.8% of the vote in 1984 and left office with 63% approval and because of him Bush won 400+ electoral votes in 1988.

Clinton won 379 electoral votes and 31 states in his reelection campaign and was impeached(Unjustifiably sure but that doesn't make him less polarizing). Clinton had 66% approval leaving office and his Vice President Gore lost in 2000.

Clinton was tied with Reagan in greatness but he was more polarizing then Reagan.






No. People were sick of the GOP near the end of Reagan's tenure which is why Dukakis was leading Bush in the summer of 88. Bush won by smearing Dukakis's name, not by campaigning on Reagan's record.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,350


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2015, 07:18:00 PM »

Everyone knew that Bill would win in a landslide, which caused low turnout.

Everyone new Reagan would win in 1984 and there was still high turnout

Reagan was much more of a polarizing figure than Clinton ever was.

In which planet was Reagan more polarizing,  Reagan won 49 states, 525 electoral votes, and 58.8% of the vote in 1984 and left office with 63% approval and because of him Bush won 400+ electoral votes in 1988.

Clinton won 379 electoral votes and 31 states in his reelection campaign and was impeached(Unjustifiably sure but that doesn't make him less polarizing). Clinton had 66% approval leaving office and his Vice President Gore lost in 2000.

Clinton was tied with Reagan in greatness but he was more polarizing then Reagan.






Gore lost because he ran away from Clinton's record, not because Clinton was polarizing.

Yah and also Gore inept campaign.  I think Clinton was amazing as president but you can be amazing and still be polarizing
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,350


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 20, 2015, 07:21:12 PM »

Everyone knew that Bill would win in a landslide, which caused low turnout.

Everyone new Reagan would win in 1984 and there was still high turnout

Reagan was much more of a polarizing figure than Clinton ever was.

In which planet was Reagan more polarizing,  Reagan won 49 states, 525 electoral votes, and 58.8% of the vote in 1984 and left office with 63% approval and because of him Bush won 400+ electoral votes in 1988.

Clinton won 379 electoral votes and 31 states in his reelection campaign and was impeached(Unjustifiably sure but that doesn't make him less polarizing). Clinton had 66% approval leaving office and his Vice President Gore lost in 2000.

Clinton was tied with Reagan in greatness but he was more polarizing then Reagan.






No. People were sick of the GOP near the end of Reagan's tenure which is why Dukakis was leading Bush in the summer of 88. Bush won by smearing Dukakis's name, not by campaigning on Reagan's record.

Dukakis was leading before the Republican convention which was more of a convention bounce then anything. And polls that early doesn't mean anything because wasn't Carter and Perot also leading in the polls in the Summer
Logged
SingingAnalyst
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 30, 2015, 07:29:51 PM »

Because many voters still didn't trust Clinton and many of the voters who gave Obama a majority in '08 were too young to vote in '96.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 30, 2015, 08:02:58 PM »

Ross Perot
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
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 0.039 seconds with 12 queries.