bill clinton 1996
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:21:03 AM
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)
  bill clinton 1996
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: bill clinton 1996  (Read 3942 times)
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 20, 2008, 04:51:22 PM »

i may be the only one who thinks this, but bill clinton really underperformed  in 96.

he had everything going for him.  good economy.  weak opponent.  a boogeyman in newt gingrich.  peace abroad.  etc etc.

yet he still didnt crack 50%.  dont give me the perot excuse.  by 96 we all knew how crazy perot was.  in my opinion perot overperformed in 96.

clinton should have won sd, co, va, and ga.

agree?  disagree?
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2008, 04:53:02 PM »

I don't agree on some of these states.  Colorado is the only state he should have won; perhaps Georgia, since it went for him in '92.  SD and VA are fairly solid GOP states at the Presidential level, and he outperformed Gore in both of them.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2008, 04:59:14 PM »

I don't agree on some of these states.  Colorado is the only state he should have won; perhaps Georgia, since it went for him in '92.  SD and VA are fairly solid GOP states at the Presidential level, and he outperformed Gore in both of them.

sd and va are republican states, but should be winnable by a popular democrat incumbent...especially when the opponent is bob dole.

Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2008, 05:03:34 PM »

I don't agree on some of these states.  Colorado is the only state he should have won; perhaps Georgia, since it went for him in '92.  SD and VA are fairly solid GOP states at the Presidential level, and he outperformed Gore in both of them.

sd and va are republican states, but should be winnable by a popular democrat incumbent...especially when the opponent is bob dole.



I just think that Clinton gained 5 points in SD, and he gained 5 points in VA.  In VA, it was the highest total for a Democrat since 1976, and in SD it was the average for a Democrat in recent elections, '80 and '84 notwithstanding.  I think Clinton hit the peak for a Democrat in SD, and likewise for VA, although I expect us to get at least 48% in VA in '08.
Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,368
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2008, 05:26:42 PM »

Of course he underperformed.  I get the feeling that his supporters pretty much knew he had it wrapped up, so a lot didn't turn out for him (which also explains the really low turnout).
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,952


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2008, 07:19:53 PM »

He overperformed.

He should not have been re-elected, but for the lousy opposition he had.
Logged
Robespierre's Jaw
Senator Conor Flynn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,129
Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -8.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2008, 08:02:47 PM »

President Clinton definitely underperformed in '96. He should have won at least Colorado and Florida. Whilst Ross Perot overperformed. Why would anyone vote for that crazy coot in 1996, maybe in 1992 but not in 1996.
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,952


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2008, 08:07:33 PM »

I thought he did win Florida in '96.

It tends to be the kook suburbs where he did better in '96 than in '92.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2008, 08:20:05 PM »

President Clinton definitely underperformed in '96. He should have won at least Colorado and Florida. Whilst Ross Perot overperformed. Why would anyone vote for that crazy coot in 1996, maybe in 1992 but not in 1996.

As Bandit pointed out, Clinton won Florida in 1996 (but not in 1992).

The reality was that Clinton was a very lazy campaigner in 1996. Everyone knew Dole was doomed from the beginning (at least by the time the GOP nomination was decided), and Clinton didn't have to try very hard. So he didn't. Had he, he probably would have taken Colorado, Montana, the Dakotas, Virginia and Georgia.
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,952


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2008, 08:24:40 PM »

He lost Colorado, Montana, and South Dakota just on school uniforms alone.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2008, 09:00:30 PM »

Clinton and the Democrats underperformed in both 1992 and 1996. 
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,021


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -3.13

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2008, 10:18:29 PM »

And in 2000, with a good economy, peace abroad, the Democrats lost the election to a candidate many people called incompetent.
Logged
GPORTER
gporter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2008, 10:50:19 PM »

President Clinton definitely underperformed in '96. He should have won at least Colorado and Florida. Whilst Ross Perot overperformed. Why would anyone vote for that crazy coot in 1996, maybe in 1992 but not in 1996.

As Bandit pointed out, Clinton won Florida in 1996 (but not in 1992).

The reality was that Clinton was a very lazy campaigner in 1996. Everyone knew Dole was doomed from the beginning (at least by the time the GOP nomination was decided),
and Clinton didn't have to try very hard. So he didn't. Had he, he probably would have taken Colorado, Montana, the Dakotas, Virginia and Georgia.

Could he really have had taken the Dakotas? I see him coming in striking distance of the GOP in those two states, like Truman did in Indiana in 1948. But, I see us carrying the Dakotas by the thinnest of margins.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2008, 11:30:18 PM »

President Clinton definitely underperformed in '96. He should have won at least Colorado and Florida. Whilst Ross Perot overperformed. Why would anyone vote for that crazy coot in 1996, maybe in 1992 but not in 1996.

As Bandit pointed out, Clinton won Florida in 1996 (but not in 1992).

The reality was that Clinton was a very lazy campaigner in 1996. Everyone knew Dole was doomed from the beginning (at least by the time the GOP nomination was decided),
and Clinton didn't have to try very hard. So he didn't. Had he, he probably would have taken Colorado, Montana, the Dakotas, Virginia and Georgia.

Could he really have had taken the Dakotas? I see him coming in striking distance of the GOP in those two states, like Truman did in Indiana in 1948. But, I see us carrying the Dakotas by the thinnest of margins.

North Dakota might be a stretch, but South Dakota would be likely. The one key thing a serious Clinton campaign would have done would be shift Perot voters towards him, which means a disproportionate advantage in states where Perot was strong: primarily the upper west.
Logged
Robespierre's Jaw
Senator Conor Flynn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,129
Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -8.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 24, 2008, 12:40:58 AM »

President Clinton definitely underperformed in '96. He should have won at least Colorado and Florida. Whilst Ross Perot overperformed. Why would anyone vote for that crazy coot in 1996, maybe in 1992 but not in 1996.

As Bandit pointed out, Clinton won Florida in 1996 (but not in 1992).

Clinton did win Florida in 1996. My mistake.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2008, 03:13:05 AM »

And in 2000, with a good economy, peace abroad, the Democrats lost the election to a candidate many people called incompetent.

Many people still call him incompetent, with good reason.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2008, 08:11:18 AM »

And in 2000, with a good economy, peace abroad, the Democrats lost the election to a candidate many people called incompetent.

Many people still call him incompetent, with good reason.

also many people say the democrats didnt really 'lose' that election, with good reason.

back to 1996, clinton did campaign a little in sd.  in fact, i seem to recall him being in sd the day before the election.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2008, 04:13:34 PM »

i was right!

from the ny times, november 5, 1996:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2008, 05:31:13 PM »

i may be the only one who thinks this, but bill clinton really underperformed  in 96.
Yes, and it was 100% tied to the record low turnout. Clinton made the mistake of running too far to the centre in 1996.

Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 24, 2008, 10:47:41 PM »

I agree that Clinton should've won by more. He didn't really try hard since he didn't have to, but he could've helped the Dems more in the Congressional races if he had.

Still, he won by more than anyone has since, and that is likely to include 2008, as well. The current divided political environment was in the process of forming then, and he was able to appeal to independents and liberal Republicans pretty well, all things considered.
Logged
pragmatic liberal
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 520


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: February 25, 2008, 11:14:14 PM »

If I recall correctly, most of the election-eve polling had him 15-20 points ahead of Dole, heading for something like a 55% popular vote victory.

Ultimately, he didn't crack 50%, which was actually a big disappointment for Clinton as he had been hoping strongly to be able to claim a majority of the voters.

This election is where the claim that Zogby was the "most accurate pollster" came from. All the other pollsters had much bigger margins for Clinton, but Zogby nailed it at 49-41 Clinton. Of course, Zogby has done quite a bit to throw that reputation since then.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,021


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -3.13

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 25, 2008, 11:36:04 PM »

And in 2000, with a good economy, peace abroad, the Democrats lost the election to a candidate many people called incompetent.

Many people still call him incompetent, with good reason.

also many people say the democrats didnt really 'lose' that election, with good reason.

back to 1996, clinton did campaign a little in sd.  in fact, i seem to recall him being in sd the day before the election.

Here we go. I could provide you with the recounts don't by liberal news papers in Florida that showed Bush still won--this time by over 1000 votes. But I know it won't make any difference with you liberals. You'd argue with the paper.
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 0.054 seconds with 12 queries.