Could Pete Wilson have beaten Clinton in 96?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 99044
  • Start date

Could Pete Wilson have won the 1996 election?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 14.6%
  • No

    Votes: 41 85.4%

  • Total voters
    48

Deleted member 99044

If the Republican ticket won California in 1996 they would have a good chance to win.Could Pete Wilson beat Clinton?
 
If the Republican ticket won California in 1996 they would have a good chance to win.Could Pete Wilson beat Clinton?

No. Clinton beat Dole by 8.5 percentage points nationwide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996 I see no reason to think Wilson would have done *that* much better than Dole. Even if he carried California, that wouldn't even put him close in the Electoral College.

For that matter, I doubt very much Wilson would even carry California (which Dole lost by 13 points). Yes, he easily won the governorship in 1994, but (1) that was a Republican year, and (2) party matters much less in governorship races than for the presidency. States that are solidly Democratic in presidential elections often elect Republican governors. Does anyone really think that George Pataki would carry New York for president in 1996 or 2000, or that Bruce Rauner would carry Illinois for president in 2016? BTW, Wilson's job approval ratings in California, while not terrible, were hardly stellar in 1996: http://www.field.com/fieldpoll/governors.html

Moreover, while there is such a thing as a home state advantage, studies have shown that the more populous the state, the less the advantage is. In the case of as large a state as California, the advantage would probably be small.

Generally speaking, when a party has had control of the White House for only four years, the president is likely to be re-elected if there is peace and prosperity (and no divisive challenge within the party) as was the case in 1996. It takes longer than that (usually eight years) before time-for-a-change sentiment really sets in.
 
Last edited:

Towelie

Banned
Clinton had an economy that was doing quite well due to the post Cold War worldwide economic liberalization. He avoided most divisive liberal SJW social issue positions (DOMA, pro-death penalty, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Tough On Crime were all things he was known for). He wasn't going to lose, not without a better challenger and maybe Lewinskygate along with some other things all converging in 1996.

If there was a way for him to lose, it would have been through the far left posing an internal party challenge in the primaries or running a successful vote splitting third party campaign. Having Perot run as a Republican and win the primaries might give him a chance as well. But not a big one.
 
Pat Buchanan said that, if Bob Dole had chosen pro-choice Colin Powell as his running mate, Buchanan would run on the Taxpayer party's ticket. But that didn't happen.

Pete Wilson supported abortion, and if Wilson had been nominated, I bet that Buchanan would run on a 3rd party, taking away GOP votes, giving the election to Clinton

So, no
 
Could Arlen Specter have beaten Clinton?

He was too liberal to have gotten the GOP nomination. There might even have been a right-wing third party (or fourth, if you count Perot's) if he somehow won the nomination.
 
I'm of the belief that Powell was the only Republican that could realistically beat Clinton in 1996, and even then Buchanan running third party(with Perot still possibly being in the race)could still give Clinton the win in '96.
 
Pete Wilson wiped out the Republican vote in the Federal elections in California for a generation thanks to the Props. He'd have done worse than Dole. Also, I think Clinton in '96 was too strong. The Republican candidates who could have taken the wind out of his sails would have to have been more centrist, but how the Hell do you go centrist as a Republican in '96 on a Federal level after the Class of '94 gets elected into the House?

Powell would have been able intriguing choice, but he did not look ready to crawl into the carnival shit show of a Presidential race then, now or ever. Forbes was too easily pigeonholed as a one note song. I think the trick would have been to find someone who looked like a '94 Republican on a paper but was not and could get away with say centrist things and have it be handwaved by the faithful or vice versa.

I don't know enough about her, but maybe Whitman of Jersey would have gotten people talking?
 
The problem is that Clinton has all of the advantages. He was the incumbent with decent approval ratings, he's very charismatic and the economy was doing well. Given those conditions it's hard to imagine a Republican that could have beat Clinton.
 
Top