DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY
The majority of Governor Casey’s exploration committee staff were later transferred to his presidential campaign, including his son, Bob Casey Jr., chief aide Tony May and, most notably, fellow Pennsylvanian congressman John Murtha, who was also a pro-life Democrat, albeit one who ran more to the left on other issues, including foreign policy. One of the more notable figures was Casey’s campaign manager, Tad Devine, a manager for Michael Dukakis’ bid in 1988, as well as Bob Kerrey’s bid in 1992 who had, seemingly with the wisdom of “any experience is good experience” in his head, decided to hitch aboard Governor Casey’s campaign.
From mid-to-late 1995, Casey was able to raise sufficient money from various Pennsylvanian donors to begin campaigning. In particular he picked up a majority of his funding from various national pro-life organizations and, interestingly enough, Rust Belt car industries, including most notably Chrysler, with which he had close ties (the former CEO of Chrysler, Lee Iacocca, was a rumoured candidate for the Senate seat vacated by John Heinz).
His early campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire and Louisiana in September and November 1995 were not taken seriously at all: few people there knew who he was and in many states, perennial candidates such as conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche outperformed him. At the time, Governor Casey travelled around these states with his family, and one or two volunteer aides, addressing gatherings of Democrats in rural or suburban settings. Mostly he campaigned on a program of returning honesty to Washington, with socially conservative views that could be supported by Southern Democrats, and contrasting this with President Clinton’s more socially liberal views. He ran as an outsider trying to speak up for “the concerns of ordinary Americans like yourselves.” He was a “fresh face” offering a contrast to “the Washington elite.” Initially, Casey spoke before rural and working class audiences, the ones who had catapulted him into the governorship of Pennsylvania twice beforehand. His brand of populism began to catch on, in part because the governor sounded closer to them than many of the established politicians, or at least, that was what his supporters, the few he actually had at the beginning of the primary season, believed.
It was during the primary campaign that Casey first attracted attention with his “ambitious new plans,” which he believed “would be supported by every right-minded American, both at home and in congress.” Interestingly, the topic of abortion, of which Casey was predicted to have run as a single-issue candidate against, took a backseat, in favour of his support for a Balanced Budget amendment and his “Health USA” and “Keeping Jobs and Tax Dollars at Home” plans. His support for a balanced budget amendment widened many eyes, with many critics of his administration pointing out he had run the state deficit to record numbers, but was generally welcomed by many more conservative Democrats, and the stance helped to paint him even more so as an outsider candidate, whilst his “Health USA Bill,” drafted off of Bob Kerrey’s healthcare plan he formulated on his 1992 campaign, and was more or less a universal healthcare plan in all but name. Casey frequently criticized Clinton for his inability to pass his healthcare legislation, even under a Democratic-controlled Congress. The bill would cover the vast majority of healthcare, but, adhering to Casey’s strict Roman Catholicism, notably not universal access to abortion or contraceptives. He contrasted his plan, which he campaigned would “work for every American, blue-collar or grey,” with numerous accounts, some even first-hand, of labourers injured on the job and unable to pay medical bills. His strong support and appeal to unionists was expanded by Casey’s “Keeping Jobs and Tax Dollars at Home” plan, which was designed to target outsourcing by preventing state contracts from going offshore, through imposing preferences to companies that will perform business in the territorial boundaries of the United States, in order to provide incentives to keep jobs and state funds in the US. Many economists attacked this plan, noting that placing foreign companies at a disadvantage could lead to a backlash against American providers of services and goods abroad, and a decrease in foreign investment in the United States, further aggravating U.S. trade imbalances; but the message struck a chord with workers, who, although not living under the vacuum of employment Ross Perot predicted NAFTA would bring, were still not exactly pleased with the prospect of jobs disappearing either.
However, the main trouble of his campaign, him facing off against a popular incumbent was his main trouble; especially being seen by the general populace, if they knew who he even was, as an geriatric “zero-charisma.” His campaign, as aggressive as it may have been, still made him only well-known an unpopular and at times irrelevant candidate outside of certain crowds in the midwest and Rust Belt. The President, despite the Republican Revolution and other scandals and gaffes, was still the most popular candidate by a wide margin.
Clinton refused to debate Casey, which, although pointing out how much of a small-name candidate he was, managed to unintentionally grow support, with a famous photo op of him standing next to an empty podium with the caption “WHAT’S HE SCARED OF?”
By now, it was only weeks until the Iowa Caucus, and Clinton was leading by 90%. Casey’s campaign had somewhat stagnated since September-November 1995, and he was undoubtedly going to lose the state of Iowa by a wide margin, a harsh blow to his run, given his strong support from rural regions. He faced a critical decision with how to deal with it: either run negative attack ads against Clinton or run a positive campaign. Knowing with the economy in good shape, the public would be more interested in President Clinton’s job performance than in the numerous minor scandals that had emerged during his first term, Casey chose to run a positive campaign, including repeatedly campaigning on his policy ideas and the message of populism and a return to the ‘good ol’ days.’
But it hardly mattered. When the Iowa caucus came around on the 12th of February, Casey was crushed by Clinton, only achieving a measly 16%, barely over the threshold for delegates being allocated to him.
Iowa Caucus results
Clinton:
83.44% (1,667)
Casey: 16.56% (332)
Others: >1% (2)
Still, it was a huge achievement to the tiny campaign, and an embarrassment to the popular incumbent. A small and almost entirely insignificant one, yes, but an embarrassment nonetheless. The New Hampshire primary was a complete landslide, although Casey counted the liberal New England state a lost cause, so it wasn’t a total failure.
New Hampshire Primary results
Clinton:
86.0% (132,989)
Casey: 13.93% (21,541)
Others: >1% (108)
However, the Delaware primary on February 24th, a state in which Casey had heavily campaigned in, went to Clinton with a vast majority, being allocated only 3 delegates out of 14. It was a crushing blow to the campaign, worse than their loss in Iowa.
Delaware Primary results
Clinton:
75.4% (8,399)
Casey: 24.5% (2,731)
LaRouche: 1.0% (111)
Others: >1% (0)
Finally, however, on the 27th February, as the primaries in Arizona and the Dakotas were being held, things began to look up for the campaign as Casey, through some sort of miracle, managed his first win of the campaign.
Arizona Primary results
Clinton:
74.3% (64,464)
Casey: 24.2% (20,996)
Others: 1.5% (1,358)
North Dakota Primary results
Casey:
68.5% (12,916)
Reimers: 14.4% (2,715)
LaRouche: 12.5% (2,357)
Others/Uncommitted: 41.6% (7,844)
South Dakota Primary results
Clinton:
63.5% (32,477)
Casey: 36.1% (18,463)
Others: >1% (204)
Casey heavily campaigned on his victory in North Dakota, speaking in Bismarck about how “middle America” was “fighting back.” However, his win was primarily blamed on the fact that Clinton, the frontrunner and incumbent President supported by the North Dakota Democratic-Nonpartisan League Party, for some reason, had been left off the ballot, leaving Casey to win in a short landslide over the perennial candidates.
However, every other contest on that day Casey lost. In South Dakota, he at least managed a fair 34% of the vote, his highest share in a state he had not won yet, but in Arizona he lost in a landslide. Despite his success in the Midwest, it appeared, to an outsider at the time, it was the beginning for the populist protest campaign. “It looks like the end,” Casey was described as saying to his staff by the end of February.
Final Results as of February 28, 1996:
Clinton, despite a few hiccups in the Midwest, appears to be the leading candidate for the race, helped by his position as a popular incumbent President.
Casey still continues his campaign, proud of his success in North Dakota and good results in South Dakota, despite being down in both contests won and delegate count.
REPUBLICAN PRIMARY
The 1996 Republican Presidential Primaries were a clown car. That was the best way to describe them: an overstuffed car which spills out a seemingly improbable number of red-nosed and bewigged jesters.
Governor Pete Wilson, who was a youthful candidate and moderate on social issues, but heavily campaigned on illegal immigration and welfare reform, and Senator Bob Dole, the new Senate Majority Leader, Richard Nixon’s hatchet man, Gerald Ford’s running mate in 1976, and a candidate in 1988, who was more conservative on social issues and generally liked more by the Republican base because of his insider status, frequently fought to attain “front-runner” status.
Wilson immediately ran into problems when he almost immediately had throat surgery that kept him from announcing – or even talking – for months. As a result, he fell behind in campaigning and his wife, Gayle, was forced to campaign for him many times. Wilson also ran into numerous monetary issues, finding himself unable to fund the campaign many times. Eventually, he found wealthy Californian donors and Political Action Committees willing to donate to his cause, but the economic problems, in addition to his health issues, severely hampered him. Nonetheless, he persisted.
Wilson found success tying Dole to the “Washington insiders” that the Republicans campaigned against just a few years ago. The attacks fit Wilson’s pseudo-populist campaign theme, and he managed to climb through the ranks, but, by the time the actual contests (i.e. the Iowa caucus) came about, the two seemed neck-and-neck.
Lamar Alexander was also touted as a possible frontrunner, who campaigned more on his background, growing up in rural Tennessee and playing himself as “the outsider candidate,” and, although drawing strong support from rural voters and poor whites, was more of a ‘proto-meme candidate’ than anything else, with his affinity for red-and-black plaid shirts and his striking “Lamar!” logo a constant source of parody on shows like
Saturday Night Live. It didn’t help that he made his biography the main focus of his campaign, while failing to tie it to that of his rivals, and the vast majority of his campaign points were the exact same as Dole’s.
Phil Gramm, a former Democrat who was the first into the ring, was seen as a possible dark horse in the race, and campaigned mainly to the right of Dole and an ardent supporter of low government spending. However, Gramm, who did not have very good name recognition to begin with, floundered badly and was gradually overtaken by the more mainstream Dole and Wilson.
Specter was an odd choice: the only Republican in the race who was vocally pro-choice (even Wilson said he was “opposed to the practice,” while still “supporting it regardless.”). Despite his at times genuinely conservative positions on issues such as education and international politics, he was unable to shake the image of being more similar to the Democrats than Republicans, with Pat Buchanan in particular being among his harshest critics, labelling him a “pro-death candidate” and “Republican in-name-only.” Still, he garnered a lot of support from liberals in the Republican Party, which, at the time, still existed.
Speaking of Buchanan, his campaign was a mostly paleoconservative one: supporting lowering taxes, including slashing capital gains taxes and ending the inheritance tax, introducing a balanced budget amendment, as well as ending foreign aid, ending NAFTA and being rabidly against illegal immigration. He was a popular candidate, name recognition-wise: he was a popular panelist on
The McLaughlin Group and made his name as a critic of both the neoconservative and moderate wings of the Republican Party, as well as the Democratic Party and the Clinton administration. However: name-recognition was not always good recognition; many times he was entirely written off as a candidate, deemed too far-right to win the primary, l His campaign, which relied more on grassroots support, crude rhetoric about how America should “return to the 50’s” and aggressive umbrage of progressive policies (best exemplified by his “the peasants are coming with pitchforks” speech in Nashua, New Hampshire, in the lead up to the New Hampshire primary, a line that quickly became a de facto slogan for the campaign) than actual policy, grew to be supported by far-right figures, including former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan David Duke, whose endorsement was too much even for Buchanan, who immediately refused his endorsement.
Dick Lugar was a policy wonk. That was the best description of his campaign: a moderate with a long and experienced career as Senator of Indiana, which granted him rural credibility, and an affinity for foreign politics (being former chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee). His campaign on domestic issues, more or less, took the Lamar Alexander route, or “rehash Bob Dole’s platform,” and, outside of many more rural locations outside of the South, he was a mostly irrelevant candidate. Still, many an old truck on Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan country roads had the words “Lugar for President” adorned on their bumper, and he was much more charismatic and charming than the relatively banal Dole.
Steve Forbes was seen by the world as the main originator of the flat tax, which was in actuality wrong, considering Forbes was the last Republican to join the race and by that time literally every single candidate supported a flat tax of some sort. His unprofessional career (having never taken political office before in his life and only being known as the publisher of
Forbes Magazine) shied away the majority of the traditional Republican base, and, encountering problems with funding, decided to run on his own money. His charisma, which was likened to that of a bumbling first-grader, didn’t help matters. All in all, his campaign was supported by wealthy businessmen, of which Forbes was one himself, but ignored by almost everyone else.
Finally, if you were looking for far-right fringe candidates: you were truly spoilt for choice. Apart from the aforementioned Buchanan, there were many others, including Alan Keyes, the former Reagan administration official who had entered the ring after two unsuccessful bids for Senate, whose platform was almost the exact same as Buchanan’s, on both foreign and social issues, only coming (literally) in a different colour. Morry Taylor, a businessman and tire entrepreneur whose abrasive nature had earned him the nickname “the Grizz,” was pretty much a non-candidate from the get-go, as exemplified by his book
Kill All Lawyers — and other ways to fix the government. Finally, there was Bob Dornan, the Representative from California, who was almost entirely irrelevant on the campaign trail, only garnering attention for how undoubtedly insane he was. His campaign, which was to the right of Buchanan, was, much like Buchanan, frequently written off as someone with zero chance of winning: he acted so bizarrely at times (including saying Dole wasn’t a war hero because he didn’t “bleed for his country” (he did)), that many were honestly in shock he wasn’t already thrown into a psychiatric ward.
It was this clown-car race that led to the disaster that was the primaries, especially the early elections. The Alaska primary, essentially more of a straw poll of the candidates than an actual contest, was held on the 29th of January, was non-binding (no delegates were assigned) and had, much like the Democratic primary in North Dakota, the front-runner/s, with the exception of Buchanan, Forbes, Gramm, Alexander, Dole and Keyes.
Alaska Primary results
Buchanan:
34.3% (3,151)
Forbes: 30.7% (2,820)
Keyes: 15.1% (1,387)
Dole: 10.8% (992)
Alexander: 5.9% (542)
Gramm: 3.0% (275)
Others: >1% (21)
Surprisingly, Buchanan won a close race between Steve Forbes, with Keyes incredibly attaining third-place, knocking the two perceived “front-runners” in the race, Gramm and Dole, out. The straw poll was non-binding, but still a shock to many in the Republican establishment, who had begun to rail behind Dole’s campaign.
The Louisiana caucus, held on February 6th, was even more sparse, with only Gramm, Buchanan and Keyes on the ballot. As a result of Buchanan and Keyes splitting the heavily Conservative vote, and due to simple geographical location (Gramm’s home state of Texas was right next to Louisiana) Gramm won, but barely.
Louisiana Caucus results
Gramm:
44.34% (28,821)
Buchanan: 42.5% (27,332)
Keyes: 9.59% (6,233)
Others: 4.03% (2,619)
It was this clown car attitude that led to the utter trainwreck that was the Iowa caucus on the 12th of February. Buchanan, Keyes and Gramm had been busy campaigning in Louisiana, and as a result were not expected to perform well. Dole, a Midwesterner, made Iowa a focal point of his campaigning. Wilson, who was still fresh from his throat surgery, usually had his wife, Gayle, campaign in the Hawkeye State for him.
The result was a mess.
Iowa Caucus results
Dole:
22.56% (20,580)
Wilson: 21.32% (19,449)
Alexander: 19.03% (17,360)
Buchanan: 13.26% (12,096)
Lugar: 10.19% (9,295)
Specter: 5.01% (4,570)
Gramm: 4.98% (4,543)
Keyes: 2.0% (1,824)
Others: 1.65% (1,505)
Dole won the state, as he did in 1988, with Wilson coming a close second. Alexander and Lugar split the rural vote, not helpful given Iowa’s location, who in turn split the moderate vote with Arlen Specter. Not only did Buchanan perform well in northwest Iowa, not exactly a surprise given its ultraconservative voting record, but so did Alan Keyes. Gramm, who tirelessly worked towards a close victory in the Louisiana caucus, suffered the worst: gaining barely under 5%. Steve Forbes, unusually, decided to skip the Caucus, probably the best for his campaign, given his background (a billionaire magazine publisher from New Jersey, not a good candidate in the eyes of the predominantly working-class farmers that make up the Iowa Republican base) and awkward campaigning style. Bob Dornan dropped out after Morry Taylor, who also later dropped out, gained more votes than him. Both endorsed Buchanan.
Just over a week later, on the 20th of February, the New Hampshire primaries were held. The GOP Establishment were somewhat concerned, given that Buchanan’s fiery (if not outright fascistic at times) populism and anti-tax positions grew some discontent in the home of the “Live Free Or Die” slogan. Buchanan knew this, and gloated about this worry, stating in a speech “We shocked them in Alaska. Stunned them in Louisiana… They hear the shouts of the peasants from over the hill… All the peasants are coming with pitchforks. We're going to take this over the top.”
At that moment, however, Wilson was able to speak, making a full recovery from his surgery, and begun building up a positive campaign about himself and his biography, focusing on him overcoming adversity (including his throat problems). In mid-February, the Center for Public Integrity, a liberal think tank, issued a report claiming Buchanan’s presidential campaign co-chairman, Larry Pratt, appeared at two meetings organized by white supremacist and anti-government movement leaders. Pratt denied any tie to racism, calling the report “an orchestrated smear” before the primary, but it was enough for the voters to change their mind and hearts towards someone more moderate. Wilson was careful to not run a negative campaign, but his message of more moderate, yet still outsider and populist, conservatism resonated well with New Hampshire Republicans alienated by “Pitchfork Pete’s” brash attack-dog style and far-right slant, and Wilson managed to pull off a victory.
New Hampshire Primary results
Wilson:
24.28% (49,438)
Dole: 19.89% (40,499)
Alexander: 15.19% (30,929)
Specter: 13.43% (27,346)
Buchanan: 12.21% (24,861)
Forbes: 10.19% (20,748)
Others: 4.81% (9,794)
Buchanan’s loss made him strongly reconsider his platform, and he begun switching his tune and campaign platform to one that was slightly more moderate, albeit still remaining the most conservative candidate in the race, and appealing more towards Southern voters. Interestingly, Specter came a close fourth, although considering his platform and biography appealed very well with liberal Republican interests that held strong within New England, this was not much of a shock.
On the 24th of February, the Delaware caucuses were held.
Delaware Primary results
Wilson:
30.42% (9,969)
Alexander: 27.75% (9,094)
Forbes: 16.97% (5,561)
Dole: 13.33% (4,368)
Keyes: 5.10% (1,673)
Others: 6.43% (2,107)
Wilson worked tirelessly to campaign for lost time. He primarily focused on his win in New Hampshire, as well as his status as an outsider, a term Wilson and other candidates had labelled themselves quite a lot, recently, played well with voters. As a result, Wilson eked out a win, followed closely behind by Forbes and Alexander.
With another week since New Hampshire, February 27 brought the Arizona and Dakota primaries, and they were certainly a
doozy.
Arizona Primary results
Forbes:
27.56% (95,766)
Wilson: 24.91% (86,557)
Dole: 13.19% (45,832)
Buchanan: 10.03% (34,852)
Alexander: 8.45% (29,362)
Gramm: 5.73% (19,910)
Lugar: 5.13% (17,825)
Others: 5.0% (17,374)
North Dakota Primary results
Wilson:
24.82% (15,729)
Forbes: 18.83% (11,933)
Dole: 18.72% (11,863)
Buchanan: 14.63% (9,271)
Alexander: 9.09% (5,760)
Lugar: 6.76% (4,284)
Specter: 5.91% (3,745)
Others: 4.25% (2,693)
South Dakota Primary results
Dole:
36.34% (25,136)
Alexander: 22.54% (15,591)
Buchanan: 19.96% (13,806)
Wilson: 12.03% (8,321)
Lugar: 6.45% (4,461)
Others: 5.1% (3,527)
The three primaries, if anything were meant to provide a way to shorten the group of candidates. And, to be fair, Keyes later dropped out after failing to impress from his unusually strong performance in the Alaska and Iowa contests, and endorsed Buchanan. However, the split wins: Wilson’s win in North Dakota, where Dole’s unusually weak performance (blamed on his excessive campaigning in South Dakota, where more useful, binding delegates would be ‘up for grabs,’ as opposed to North Dakota’s non-binding delegates), and Dole’s landslide win in the South (his campaign was looking more and more like his run in ‘88), whilst Forbes unexpectedly won the Grand Canyon State by carrying the populous Maricopa, Pinal and Yavapai Counties (along with decidedly less populous Gila County), whilst Wilson swept the state’s border counties with Mexico (Dole and Buchanan were relegated to the sparsely populated, rural desert counties).
Even with the primaries out of the way, and many of the candidates either dropping out or looking like they would in a matter of weeks, if not days, the Republican Party Primaries still looked to be a shitshow by the end of the month.
Final Results as of February 28, 1996:
Wilson has carried 3 states, and narrowly trails Dole in the number of pledged delegates he has.
Dole has carried 2 states, both of whom he carried during his campaign in 1988, and maintains a slight delegate lead.
Forbes’ unexpected win in Arizona and good performance in Delaware has helped convince many of his supporters and possible donors that his campaign is successful, and has begun labelling himself “the comeback kid.”
Gramm has won the caucus in Louisiana, but has underperformed everywhere else. He is currently focusing on rallying support from the Deep South and his home state of Texas.
Buchanan is moderating his platform to one more accessible after his shock loss in New Hampshire, and, much like Gramm, is rallying support in the South.
Specter,
Lugar and
Alexander have not won a state yet, but still have had moderate successes in states, and, in the case of Alexander and Specter, gathered some delegates. The three are mainly focusing on campaigning in specific “springboard states,” with Specter in New England, Lugar in the Rust Belt and Alexander in the South.