Was Clinton unbeatable in 1996?

[Arbitrage1980]

Even without Perot, Clinton would have been hard to beat in 1996. While many voters still didn't trust him, he had worked with Newt Gingrich to get welfare reform passed and had governed as a centrist. Also, people sensed that he cared; he also got high marks for his handling of the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing. Yes, he was practically unbeatable (plus being one of the most gifted politicians of the last half-century).

I always thought Clinton's political talents were overrated. One could make the argument that running as an incumbent President at a time of peace and prosperity, you should win by at least 10% and easily clear 400 EV's.  

He didn't even get to 50% of the vote.

Interesting perspective. He did beat Dole by 8.5% and won 379 EV's.

Having lived at the time when the GOP was congratulating itself on having a lock on the EC (I had already graduated college at the time of the 1988 GE), I give Bill Clinton more credit than anyone for reviving the Democratic party. "In my day", as many older folks say, the Dems, whatever their successes downballot, were simply seen as weak and incompetent on the Presidential level (combining the elections of 1968-1988, the Dems received 679 EVs while the GOP received 2501). Since then, it has been fairly easy for a Bill Clinton or a Barack Obama to make the Dems look good, or at least make the GOP look weak, incompetent, two-faced, extremist, or just plain evil (or all of the above), as the need arose.

Again, many voters simply did not trust Bill Clinton in 1996; his increase in the PV share between 1992 (42.95%) and 1996 (49.25%) (a 6.3% increase) is noteworthy, exceeded in modern times only by Bush's 47.9% compared to Dole's 40.75% (a 7.15% increase). Even today, Dems know that any success or positive mention of the Clintons will make many conservatives angry.

Clinton does not get enough credit for his 1992 re-alignment election, which won back white suburban voters and made CA and IL rock solid blue.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Even without Perot, Clinton would have been hard to beat in 1996. While many voters still didn't trust him, he had worked with Newt Gingrich to get welfare reform passed and had governed as a centrist. Also, people sensed that he cared; he also got high marks for his handling of the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing. Yes, he was practically unbeatable (plus being one of the most gifted politicians of the last half-century).

I always thought Clinton's political talents were overrated. One could make the argument that running as an incumbent President at a time of peace and prosperity, you should win by at least 10% and easily clear 400 EV's.  

He didn't even get to 50% of the vote.

Interesting perspective. He did beat Dole by 8.5% and won 379 EV's.

Having lived at the time when the GOP was congratulating itself on having a lock on the EC (I had already graduated college at the time of the 1988 GE), I give Bill Clinton more credit than anyone for reviving the Democratic party. "In my day", as many older folks say, the Dems, whatever their successes downballot, were simply seen as weak and incompetent on the Presidential level (combining the elections of 1968-1988, the Dems received 679 EVs while the GOP received 2501). Since then, it has been fairly easy for a Bill Clinton or a Barack Obama to make the Dems look good, or at least make the GOP look weak, incompetent, two-faced, extremist, or just plain evil (or all of the above), as the need arose.

Again, many voters simply did not trust Bill Clinton in 1996; his increase in the PV share between 1992 (42.95%) and 1996 (49.25%) (a 6.3% increase) is noteworthy, exceeded in modern times only by Bush's 47.9% compared to Dole's 40.75% (a 7.15% increase). Even today, Dems know that any success or positive mention of the Clintons will make many conservatives angry.

Clinton does not get enough credit for his 1992 re-alignment election, which won back white suburban voters and made CA and IL rock solid blue.

[sg0508]

CA was already headed blue before '92.  It stayed red in '88 due to the "final gift from Reagan" as many Republicans would say.

[morgieb]

Even without Perot, Clinton would have been hard to beat in 1996. While many voters still didn't trust him, he had worked with Newt Gingrich to get welfare reform passed and had governed as a centrist. Also, people sensed that he cared; he also got high marks for his handling of the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing. Yes, he was practically unbeatable (plus being one of the most gifted politicians of the last half-century).

I always thought Clinton's political talents were overrated. One could make the argument that running as an incumbent President at a time of peace and prosperity, you should win by at least 10% and easily clear 400 EV's.  

He didn't even get to 50% of the vote.

Interesting perspective. He did beat Dole by 8.5% and won 379 EV's.

Having lived at the time when the GOP was congratulating itself on having a lock on the EC (I had already graduated college at the time of the 1988 GE), I give Bill Clinton more credit than anyone for reviving the Democratic party. "In my day", as many older folks say, the Dems, whatever their successes downballot, were simply seen as weak and incompetent on the Presidential level (combining the elections of 1968-1988, the Dems received 679 EVs while the GOP received 2501). Since then, it has been fairly easy for a Bill Clinton or a Barack Obama to make the Dems look good, or at least make the GOP look weak, incompetent, two-faced, extremist, or just plain evil (or all of the above), as the need arose.

Again, many voters simply did not trust Bill Clinton in 1996; his increase in the PV share between 1992 (42.95%) and 1996 (49.25%) (a 6.3% increase) is noteworthy, exceeded in modern times only by Bush's 47.9% compared to Dole's 40.75% (a 7.15% increase). Even today, Dems know that any success or positive mention of the Clintons will make many conservatives angry.

The amount of people who cry about the illegitimacy of Trump’s election but are perfectly fine with Clinton getting 370 EV’s out of 43% of the NPV is ironically humorous.

Which is still 6% higher than Bush's PV, you hack.