Why was Clinton's re-election in 1996 so mediocre?

[CJK]

Considering the fact there was peace and prosperity, every social indicator was heading in the right direction and his opponents campaign was awful, shouldn't he have been able to win by far more than eight points against Bob Dole? Sometimes Perot gets blamed, but Perot voters would have split even according to the exit polls.

Also, how likely is it that this situation could repeat itself in 2012, with Obama winning less than double digits even if his approval ratings are in the 60s?

[Ashley Biden's Diary]

1.Turnout was down 6 points

2.This was the first Presidential election after 1994, and the conservatives were still 'mad as hell' about Clinton and the big government libs. Clinton tried to be a moderate but the conservatives just saw it as more dishonesty. Had the government shutdowns not happened, and had the Republicans run a better campaign, the race may have been closer.

[phk]

Low turnout. If turnout was higher, I could envision Clinton carrying places like GA, SD.

There were enough committed Clinton haters to keep his overall % of the pV below 50%.

[CJK]

I get what you're saying, but I don't really see why low turnout would disproportionately hurt Clinton or why conservatives would have mattered. I'm sure plently of New Deal liberals were furious at Reagan but that didn't stop him from winning in a landslide.

[Ashley Biden's Diary]

Clinton was heavily despised by the right wing, fueld by Limbaugh and the like that they definately turned out against him. Someone mentioned GA, that was one state where Clinton did worse among white voters. People who were for Clinton may have assumed he was going to win and just didn't bother.

I think Reagan was a new deal Democrat, I know he supported Roosevelt. Many populist dems were Reagan Democrats. Mondale had promised to raise taxes, so they're really wasn't much of a drive to vote for him among the people doing worse under the Reagan economy. And Reagan didn't have nearly as much hate lobbied at him.

[WalterMitty]

turnout.

but i wouldnt call it mediocre.  the country has been polarized for a long time.  we likely wont see reagan, lbj-esque  landslides again in our lifetimes.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Considering the fact there was peace and prosperity, every social indicator was heading in the right direction and his opponents campaign was awful, shouldn't he have been able to win by far more than eight points against Bob Dole?

Social conservatives mobilized themselves against a man they considered as immoral.

[Badger]

turnout.

but i wouldnt call it mediocre.  the country has been polarized for a long time.  we likely wont see reagan, lbj-esque  landslides again in our lifetimes.

Correct answer all -around

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Clinton ran so far to the right that there was almost no difference between him and Dole.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Because Clinton's first term was mediocre.

[Lunar]

The national Democratic Party wasn't in that great of standing, Clinton utterly fumbled healthcare and remember that there was an epic Republican wave just two years prior in '94

[Alexander Hamilton]

The national Democratic Party wasn't in that great of standing, Clinton utterly fumbled healthcare and remember that there was an epic Republican wave just two years prior in '94

And Clinton accomplished little in his first term.

[Person Man]

I just think it was the fact that the country had become polarized, that the conservatives were on the ascendary and that Clinton wasn't able to pass the agenda inasmuch as stopping some of the conservative agenda.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Does anyone agree with me that it was character?

I sure don't.  Clinton ran a poor campaign; he lost 7 states by under 5%, and he had won 3 of those in 1992.  If he had run the kind of campaign Obama ran in 2008, he would've had a major landslide.

[Mr.Phips]

The national Democratic Party wasn't in that great of standing, Clinton utterly fumbled healthcare and remember that there was an epic Republican wave just two years prior in '94

The Republican wave of 1994 was likely a big part of the reason why Clinton won in 1996.  The American voters did not want to put control of all levels of government in Republican hands. 

[sg0508]

Dole also closed pretty well in the final weeks, and that kept Clinton <50% in the popular vote.

If you remember the election, the Dole campaign finally got some MO starting late September.  In most of the popular polls throughout the summer and early fall, Clinton was up double digits, yet he won by only 8 pts.

If you read Clinton's book, he admits that he lost states like CO, MT, GA and NC in the final weeks when he had them in Oct.  He did so though to help some of his Senate friends who were in trouble.  The two states that Clinton wanted bad were AZ and FL and he got them both in 96. 

The country was more polarized in 96 compared to 84 or 1964, when you had more split-ticket voting.  Also, there was very little scandal in 84 to hurt Reagan and the economy was roaring.  That's how he won 49 states.  There were some major character problems with Clinton that turned people off.  It was a "status-quo" election.

[Badger]

Dole also closed pretty well in the final weeks, and that kept Clinton <50% in the popular vote.

If you remember the election, the Dole campaign finally got some MO starting late September.  In most of the popular polls throughout the summer and early fall, Clinton was up double digits, yet he won by only 8 pts.

If you read Clinton's book, he admits that he lost states like CO, MT, GA and NC in the final weeks when he had them in Oct.  He did so though to help some of his Senate friends who were in trouble.  The two states that Clinton wanted bad were AZ and FL and he got them both in 96. 

The country was more polarized in 96 compared to 84 or 1964, when you had more split-ticket voting.  Also, there was very little scandal in 84 to hurt Reagan and the economy was roaring.  That's how he won 49 states.  There were some major character problems with Clinton that turned people off.  It was a "status-quo" election.

Also don't forget there was a fundraising mini-scandal that hit the headlines in the last couple weeks of the campaign. It retrospect it was a tempest in a teacup, but carried enough news cycles late in the campaign to sway enough undecideds that it likely cost Clinton a popular vote majority plus the above-mentioned closely lost states.

[Eraserhead]

Low turnout. If turnout was higher, I could envision Clinton carrying places like GA, SD.

There were enough committed Clinton haters to keep his overall % of the pV below 50%.

Don't get this man started on white turnout in '96. lol.