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

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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

[OSR stands with Israel]

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