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

But when Thompson actually campaigned for the presidency OTL, he was incredibly lackluster and uninspiring.

Younger Thompson as VP might work, but if he acts the way older Thompson did OTL, he'll make the Powell candidacy go over as well as a lead balloon.

Well 12 years makes a big difference. Also, Thompson was more or less talked into running in 2008 even though he had, clearly, little more than no enthusiasm for the campaign. He can be very charismatic and, with the right handlers, very effective on the stump. It would be fun to watch him in his prime go up against Gore in a VP debate. Almost as good as watching Powell vs. Clinton.

Pro-choice black Republican running against popular charismatic incumbent southern Democrat in a good economy, he would do awful.

I don't know about awful. I'd say odds are stacked against him, maybe 60-40 he loses. But he'd be able to peel some of the African American voters from Clinton. Not that the Democrats wouldn't still win that segment with an overwhelming majority, but with increased turnout even 10-12% would make the difference in key states like Ohio.

And then we have the appeal of voting for the first black president over a Southern Democrat. Yuppies, even in 1996, would eat that stuff up giving Powell another inroad to Democratic voter strongholds.

I don't think Powell would blow Clinton out of the water, but the inverse wouldn't happen either. I think whoever wins will win with around 280 EVs and certainly nothing close to a mandate.
 
Husband-and-wife ticket might be too much -- too much ammo for the right to wield.

Perhaps Clinton would pick someone like Wesley Clark or Howard Dean, in the event?

The complaint was that an unelected, unconfirmed, family member was in charge of policy.

If she is elected as VP, that complaint is gone, and if someone tries to use it, they would look like fools.
 
Polls said otherwise.
Polls say a lot of things. Polls showed Perot, Clinton and Bush in a three-part tie. Polls showed Lieberman leading the 2004 democratic nomination. Polls about people who haven't even announced and don't have a platform and haven't given a campaign speech don't mean anything.

edit: yeah that law applies to those who are appointed not elected. Anyway, congress can't just change the constitutionally set out requirements for the presidency/vice-presidency
 
Last edited:

Jasen777

Donor
Polls say a lot of things. Polls showed Perot, Clinton and Bush in a three-part tie. Polls showed Lieberman leading the 2004 democratic nomination. Polls about people who haven't even announced and don'T have a platform and haven't given a campaign speech don't mean anything.

That's all true, but Powell would have been a much stronger candidate than '96 Dole. He could win as a Republican. I do no think he could win the Republican nomination though.
 
Polls say a lot of things. Polls showed Perot, Clinton and Bush in a three-part tie. Polls showed Lieberman leading the 2004 democratic nomination. Polls about people who haven't even announced and don't have a platform and haven't given a campaign speech don't mean anything.

edit: yeah that law applies to those who are appointed not elected. Anyway, congress can't just change the constitutionally set out requirements for the presidency/vice-presidency

Polls aren't always right. But they aren't always wrong either. If they were useless then people wouldn't use them so much. ;)


Powell would have lost some ground in a real campaign because of his pro-choice policy, but with most big name republicans sitting out because of Clinton's good poll numbers, I think that Powell would still be able to win the nomination.

And from there the general.
 
I think that Powell's good performance in the polls can be explained by the fact that he was a hero and he was a blank canvass. People could assume he agreed with them. If he was on the campaign trail taking positions he would have lost support.
 
Top