1996: President Bill Clinton (D) vs. Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)

[Robespierre's Jaw]

In June 1995, just months after he become Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich decides to run for the Presidency of the United States. Gingrich's campaign for the Presidency is based around the same principles in the Contract with America, which helped the Republican Party gain control of the House and Senate for the first time in four decades. However, Gingrich decides not to announce his candidacy until October 1995, when the Federal Government is in shut down.

However, lets suppose Gingrich for the sake of his chances of winning the White House in 1996, Newt does not carry on in public stating the he was snubbed by President Clinton, the day before Israeli Prime Minister Rabin's funeral. Thus, his public image remains intact (for now at least).

In the 1996 Republican Primaries, Gingrich destroys all of his opposition, most notably conservative journalist Pat Buchanan of Virginia, with massive wins in Iowa and New Hampshire. Gingrich's momentum continues right up to the Republican National Convention in San Diego, California, where he is nominated unanimously.

For Vice President, Speaker Gingrich surprisingly selects former Governor of New Jersey Thomas Kean. Many people believe that Gingrich's selection of Kean was based on appealing to moderate and liberal Republicans, who would likely support Clinton over Gingrich in the General.

Whilst on the Democratic side, incumbent President Bill Clinton of Arkansas is renominated unanimously at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois, despite being challenged by frequent Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche. President Clinton keeps incumbent Vice President Gore on the Democratic ticket.

How would the 1996 Presidential Election turn out if these were the tickets?

Republican

Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia
Former Governor Thomas Kean of New Jersey

Democratic

President Bill Clinton of Arkansas
Vice President Al Gore of Tennessee

Would Gingrich be able to pull off a surprising victory? (I doubt it) Discuss with maps.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

[jokerman]

Gingrich does dismally; definitely worse than Dole.

[Jay20]

I'd say the electoral map is the same as was in 1996, maybe newt picks up kentucky, but assuming no Perot, Clinton gets 55 percent of the popular vote, Gingrich 39. A lot of people write in ross Perot.

[bhouston79]

It would have even been more of a blowout.  Here's the map:

Electoral Vote

Clinton  452
Gingrich  86

[phk]

It would have even been more of a blowout.  Here's the map:

Electoral Vote

Clinton  452
Gingrich  86

Why does ND flip but not SD?

Clinton did better in SD.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Clinton is still seen as unsuccesful in the eyes of the voters, and Perot is not that there is the "change" candidate in this scenario.  Gingrich excites the Republican base, and the pick of Kean gains some support in New England.  When the dust settles, Speaker Gingrich eeks out a narrow win:

[phk]

Clinton is still seen as unsuccesful in the eyes of the voters, and Perot is not that there is the "change" candidate in this scenario.  Gingrich excites the Republican base, and the pick of Kean gains some support in New England.  When the dust settles, Speaker Gingrich eeks out a narrow win:

Gingrich would have picked Louisiana but lost Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, and PA.

[bhouston79]

It would have even been more of a blowout.  Here's the map:

Electoral Vote

Clinton  452
Gingrich  86

Why does ND flip but not SD?

Clinton did better in SD.

Your right.  I accidently flipped North Dakota rather than South Dakota.  Perhaps it is because this year for whatever reason, Obama is running slightly better in North Dakota than he is in South Dakota.  But your right in 1992, South Dakota was much closer than North Dakota.

[perdedor]

Clinton is still seen as unsuccesful in the eyes of the voters, and Perot is not that there is the "change" candidate in this scenario.  Gingrich excites the Republican base, and the pick of Kean gains some support in New England.  When the dust settles, Speaker Gingrich eeks out a narrow win:

LOL. Gingrich would not have won anything in New England and certainly not Oregon and New Jersey.

[Dr. Cynic]

Clinton is still seen as unsuccesful in the eyes of the voters, and Perot is not that there is the "change" candidate in this scenario.  Gingrich excites the Republican base, and the pick of Kean gains some support in New England.  When the dust settles, Speaker Gingrich eeks out a narrow win:

LOL. Gingrich would not have won anything in New England and certainly not Oregon and New Jersey.

Nor Pennsylvania. The Clintons are uber-popular here.

[LiberalLibertarian]

Interesting scenario, it would be close. People would be turned off by Gingrich's personality (worse than Dole's in my opinion), but people would also dislike the first two years of Clinton's presidency. But then again, because of congress, Clinton's second two years were actually pretty good. Then again, Gingrich would claim credit for it. I think Clinton would squeak by. But barely. I mean maybe by 5 electoral votes or something. Perot would definitely be the big spoiler though. Clinton would veiw him as a god.

[phk]

It would have even been more of a blowout.  Here's the map:

Electoral Vote

Clinton  452
Gingrich  86

Why does ND flip but not SD?

Clinton did better in SD.

Your right.  I accidently flipped North Dakota rather than South Dakota.  Perhaps it is because this year for whatever reason, Obama is running slightly better in North Dakota than he is in South Dakota.  But your right in 1992, South Dakota was much closer than North Dakota.

Wonder why the Dakotas have flipped from Bubba to Barack.

[The Populist]

Assuming Gingrich didn't mess up like he did IRL, I see a much more narrow victory for Clinton:

Clinton: 319
Gingrich: 219