Just How Well Would Colin Powell Do Against Bill Clinton in 1996?

[vultan]

As a Republican, that is, not as an independent candidate as the case was in Jasen777's excellent "Chaos: The Election of 1996".

I was reading an article online recently dating back to 1996, detailing Pat Buchanan's surprise win in the New Hampshire primary. In it, polling also suggested that most NH voters were unhappy that Powell hadn't jumped into the race. This was, of course, when the General was at the height of his popularity. His role in the Gulf War was still in recent memory, and his autobiography My American Journey was released in 1995 (which may I say was excellent). Many Republicans were hoping that he would jump in, and just as many Democrats were fearing that possibility. In short, he was the GOP's best hope to take back the White House that year.

So let's say he jumps in. Bob Dole for whatever reason doesn't, and Powell's path to the nomination is a bit easier than Dole's. For the sake of discussion, we'll even say he picks Jack Kemp for the same reason Dole does- to balance the ticket. How well does Powell/Kemp do against Clinton/Gore in November?

Does Powell reverse the inexorable decline the Republicans experienced in former strongholds such as California, New England, and much of the Rust Belt? Does the Bradley Effect kick in, allowing Clinton to do better in the South? For that matter, can Powell get a competitive portion of the black vote? Does Perot still jump in? Does Pat Buchanan maybe run third party?

And most importantly, who wins the election?

[Æsir]

Powell and Kemp are both from New York, so while it may provide ideological balance it doesn't provide any regional balance, and if the GOP had a popular and moderate New Yorker at the top of the ticket who manages to turn back their decline in the northeast and Perot stays out, it could put New York in play, and by law a state's electors can't vote for both a Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidate from their own state. Maybe John Engler or George W. Bush (Both of whom Dole considered IOTL) instead?

[vultan]

Originally Posted by Æsir

Powell and Kemp are both from New York, so while it may provide ideological balance it doesn't provide any regional balance, and if the GOP had a popular and moderate New Yorker at the top of the ticket who manages to turn back their decline in the northeast and Perot stays out, it could put New York in play, and by law a state's electors can't vote for both a Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidate from their own state. Maybe John Engler or George W. Bush (Both of whom Dole considered IOTL) instead?

Hmm... how about Phil Gramm?

(I know Powell is from New York, but was he actually residing in the state at that time?)

[Plumber]

Exit polls suggest Powell would have won 50% of the vote in 1996.

So Clinton would have a fight on his hands. I don't see Powell as a very good campaigner, so it's a tossup.

[Paul V McNutt]

IIRC Powell was living in Virginia. Although he would draw Democratic votes, his views on abortion would drive away much of the Republican base. There would be a social conservative third party.

[Paul V McNutt]

There is also Powell's untested political skills.

[azander12]

Originally Posted by Plumber

Exit polls suggest Powell would have won 50% of the vote in 1996.

So Clinton would have a fight on his hands. I don't see Powell as a very good campaigner, so it's a tossup.

He likely isn't a good campaigner, but he could probably work his awkwardness into a virtue, some sort of "I'm just a humble military man, I'm no politician trying to glad-hand you here."

That being said, having a socially conservative third party could be a threat. Powell would have to pick someone from the Christian Right to balance everything out. Maybe George W. Bush would work out?

[modelcitizen]

I bet Perot stays out of the race.

I read somewhere that Powell was breathtakingly described as "Reagan-esque" with regards to public speaking.

And, again, Osama Bin Laden gets killed by America's first black president.

[vultan]

Bump, out of curiosity. In this sort of scenario, how likely is Pat Buchanan to try a third party run?

[Paul V McNutt]

Originally Posted by vultan

Bump, out of curiosity. In this sort of scenario, how likely is Pat Buchanan to try a third party run?

If Powell wins the Republican nomination, there would have been a social conservative third party and Buchanan is the most likely nominee.

[Stolengood]

Originally Posted by Plumber

So Clinton would have a fight on his hands. I don't see Powell as a very good campaigner, so it's a tossup.

Then why not get a VP who is a good campaigner? Any ideas?

[Paul V McNutt]

Clinton is the incumbent in good economic times. While Powell is a hero, his views on abortion alienate much of the Republican base. So I give the edge to Clinton. The big unknown here is Powell's political skills.

[Badshah]

Originally Posted by Paul V McNutt

Clinton is the incumbent in good economic times. While Powell is a hero, his views on abortion alienate much of the Republican base. So I give the edge to Clinton. The big unknown here is Powell's political skills.

Yup. I'd say that the 96 elections would be more of a set up for the 2000 elections, where Powell would probably win.

[Corbell Mark IV]

Originally Posted by vultan

Bump, out of curiosity. In this sort of scenario, how likely is Pat Buchanan to try a third party run?

Pretty much zero. You think Buchanan wants to help Clinton win?

[Stolengood]

Seriously, folks; who would be a good "campaigner" VP for Colin Powell?

[Wendell]

Powell versus Clinton, 1996:

Colin Powell/Bob Dornan (Republican) 285
Bill Clinton/Al Gore (Democratic) 253

[Paul V McNutt]

[QUOTE=Corbell Mark IV;6209826]Pretty much zero. You think Buchanan wants to help Clinton win?[/QUO

He ran as a third party candidate in 2000 and risked helping Gire win.

[TNF]

Edge Clinton, just because he's a popular incumbent with a good economy. That doesn't mean that Powell couldn't win, just that Clinton has the inherent advantage of already being President. I don't see Powell as being a very good campaigner, either. I really think that the Perot vote would hurt Clinton more against Powell than anything else. Expect Perot to do a lot better; Clinton and Powell are pretty much in the same spot, ideologically, after all. Nader might even do well, to that extent.

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by TNF

Edge Clinton, just because he's a popular incumbent with a good economy. That doesn't mean that Powell couldn't win, just that Clinton has the inherent advantage of already being President. I don't see Powell as being a very good campaigner, either. I really think that the Perot vote would hurt Clinton more against Powell than anything else. Expect Perot to do a lot better; Clinton and Powell are pretty much in the same spot, ideologically, after all. Nader might even do well, to that extent.

Do you see any states then potentially going for Perot or Nader?

[Stolengood]

Now, this is interesting:

In late 1994, Paul Tsongas briefly led an effort to establish a third party, to be led by someone with "national authority", suggesting General Colin Powell for that role. By that time, he was considered "the most popular political figure in Massachusetts."

Instead of Tsongas doing that, if Powell became the GOP nominee, what if Tsongas crossed over and offered his services (or is picked by Powell) as the VP candidate? He could certainly help with the perception of Powell as a centrist, and, even if Tsongas's cancer returned (as it ended up doing some time in 1996), he could still campaign tirelessly and help garner a sympathy vote. He could help bolster the ticket, carrying it all the way to electoral victory... and then die gracefully.

Fanciful? I guess. But it works as a political narrative.

POWELL-TSONGAS '96!!!