Was the 1996 Republican Field really weak on paper

[OSR stands with Israel]

Like if you look at who ran the field doesnt look really that weak on paper

Bob Dole- the Senate Majority Leader Ran

Pete Wilson- the Governor of the largest state ran

Richard Lugar- long time senator and chair of influential committees ran

Phill Gramm- A Senator from the 2nd largest state and one of the leaders of the conservative wing ran

Lamar Alexander- A Former Governor and Cabinet Member Ran



Its really that none of these candidates with the exception of Bob Dole was able to take off in anyway which caused the field to seem very weak

[Left Wing]

The fact that Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes did better than most of those candidates is what makes it look weak.

[KYRockefeller]

The field was pretty weak when you got down to who was actually getting votes.  George W. Bush was smart to bide his time in Texas instead of running in '96.

[President Johnson]

It was just not a good year to run in, since there was an incumbent president presiding over economic growth and peace abroad. Richard Lugar would have been a great candidate in 2000, and would have been a decent president. Instead, Dubya, who was too inexperienced in 1996 to run, screwed it up.

[darklordoftech]

The field was strong credential-wise but was “low-energy” and Phil Gramm was described as a “snapping turtle”.

[One Term Floridian]

Easily the worst Republican field since 1964 lol

[One Term Floridian]

The field was pretty weak when you got down to who was actually getting votes.  George W. Bush was smart to bide his time in Texas instead of running in '96.

I could see Clinton actually doing a little better against W just because the Democratic base would probably take him more seriously than Old Dole. Clinton’s mandate in 1996 was pretty weak, mainly due to complacency in his base.

[GeorgeBFree]

I think 1996 was stronger than 2008 field for Republicans (which is the weakest in my lifetime) or 2012.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The field was strong credential-wise but was “low-energy” and Phil Gramm was described as a “snapping turtle”.

There was one particularly high-energy candidate, but he was unpalatable to the party, let alone the electorate, for numerous reasons.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

I think 1996 was stronger than 2008 field for Republicans (which is the weakest in my lifetime) or 2012.

2008 John McCain had the reputation of being a maverick willing to work with both sides of the aisle to get things done. He helped get the campaign finance bill passed. He was by far the most electable candidate the Republicans could have hoped for in 2008, but it was still not enough.

[KYRockefeller]

I think 1996 was stronger than 2008 field for Republicans (which is the weakest in my lifetime) or 2012.

McCain and Romney were better candidates than Dole and the rest of the '96 field by a long shot.

[Indy Texas]

Part of the problem was that while Republicans had enjoyed three strong presidential election performances in a row (1980, 1984, 1988), it didn't do a lot as far as building up a bench of candidates to run after that.

You had some Republican congressional pickups in 1980 but a lot of them were gone before Reagan's presidency ended (especially the Republican senators who lost in 1986). Look at governors and state legislative control during that period - Democrats nowadays would give anything to control as many state governments as they did in the '80s.

In 1985, after Reagan's landslide reelection, Republicans only controlled 11 state legislatures and 15 state governorships. That's around the time that a plausible 1996 candidate would have needed to be getting elected governor or senator and that wasn't happening.

It was really only in 1994 when Republicans seriously broke the structural hold Democrats had on downballot offices in much of the country and that wasn't enough time for someone to be ready to run in 1996. Note that George W. Bush was part of the Class of '94 and had his family's institutional party strength not helped clear the field, there were other Republican governors and senators who could have been plausible 2000 candidates.

[Indy Texas]

The field was strong credential-wise but was “low-energy” and Phil Gramm was described as a “snapping turtle”.

There was one particularly high-energy candidate, but he was unpalatable to the party, let alone the electorate, for numerous reasons.

Are you referring to Morry Taylor?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The field was strong credential-wise but was “low-energy” and Phil Gramm was described as a “snapping turtle”.

There was one particularly high-energy candidate, but he was unpalatable to the party, let alone the electorate, for numerous reasons.

Are you referring to Morry Taylor?

I was given the impression that a man whose nickname included "pitchfork", and spoke of peasants assaulting the gates of the aristocracy, could be deemed "high energy", but I'll accept Mr. Taylor as a runner-up guess.

[StateBoiler]

The field was pretty weak when you got down to who was actually getting votes.  George W. Bush was smart to bide his time in Texas instead of running in '96.

I could see Clinton actually doing a little better against W just because the Democratic base would probably take him more seriously than Old Dole. Clinton’s mandate in 1996 was pretty weak, mainly due to complacency in his base.

I remember election night the press really hyping up him getting to 50% and he just failed to get it (think Bush in 2004 hitting 51% and claiming mandate, that was the first time in 16 years a presidential candidate had won a majority of the vote). Also, the Republicans in 1996 knew early they were going to lose with Dole so just focused all their time, money, and energy on the House and Senate. Dole just played good party soldier.