Retrospective US Presidential Election: 1996

Vote in the 1996 Retrospective US Presidential Election!

  • Total voters
    150
  • Poll closed .

Nerdlinger

I plan to run through every US presidential election, two per week. The 28 elections from 1789-1896 will be run simultaneously with the 28 elections from 1900-2008. Be sure to vote in each election!

For 1789-1800, I will include in the poll everyone who received at least 5% of the electoral vote. From 1804-2008, I will include everyone who received at least 0.05% of the popular vote. Results for each election will be posted on the dedicated Retrospective US Presidential Election Results Thread (here) and compared to the actual results. The thread for general project discussion is here.

Here's the link to the 1884 election.
 

Nerdlinger

Turquoise Blue said:
Voting for either Clinton or Nader, haven't decided.
Click to expand...

If you're going to color-code by party, you've got to be consistent -- are the Democrats blue as in your TL-191 project, or red as you colored them in the big list of presidents and VPs in my project? Which is it?

...

Well?!

:p
 
Turquoise Blue

Turquoise Blue

Nerdlinger said:
If you're going to color-code by party, you've got to be consistent -- are the Democrats blue as in your TL-191 project, or red as you colored them in the big list of presidents and VPs in my project? Which is it?

...

Well?!

:p
Click to expand...
The Dems are blue in my TL-191 electoral project, because they are the most conservative. They are red in the list, because they only appear after the Dems go liberal.

Here, Clinton is not that lefty, so I gave him blue and the Reps red, since this is one election before the election where those colours became cemented.
 

Nerdlinger

Turquoise Blue said:
The Dems are blue in my TL-191 electoral project, because they are the most conservative. They are red in the list, because they only appear after the Dems go liberal.

Here, Clinton is not that lefty, so I gave him blue and the Reps red, since this is one election before the election where those colours became cemented.
Click to expand...

You have an explanation for everything, don'tcha? ;)
 

Æsir

Hmmm...

Browne is an Austrian economics guy, Bob Dole is a conservative, Nixon's hatchet-man, and is well, Bob Dole, Hagelin and the NLP were nutty, Nader is a bit too focused on wanting to destroy the system rather than affecting real and enduring change in his political career, Perot is a fruitcake, and Phillips is running for the predecessor of the hard-right paleoconservative Constitution Party.

That leaves Bill Clinton, who governed as a consummate neoliberal. Of course, people say before the Republican Revolution he tried to govern in more liberal direction, so in the context of this timeline, if you think of it as a timeline, he might govern as less of a fiscal conservative and deregulator. Of course, we presumably already have things like universal healthcare, and fiscal conservatism is not an inherently bad thing. Indeed, if the 1990s are still a boom time, IIRC the proper way to govern the budget in Keynesian terms (Which, albeit as an economic neophyte, I tend to agree with) is to run a fiscally conservative government budget and return surpluses.
 

Know Nothing

I want to break up the Democratic streak without enabling George Bush Jr. to win. So I have to vote for a different party in 1996 then, so I'll hold my vote.
 

JSmith

Banned
I'm open to being persuaded. I would like to vote for Nader but only if he can win.Will vote for Clinton if I have to though.
 

serbrcq

JSmith said:
I'm open to being persuaded. I would like to vote for Nader but only if he can win.Will vote for Clinton if I have to though.
Click to expand...

If everyone thinks third parties can't win, they won't.

Clinton doesn't have any major competition on the right during this election - Dole is not an inspiring figure - so let's try to break the Democratic monopoly and get somebody who's not a neoliberal into office.
 

JSmith

Banned
serbrcq said:
If everyone thinks third parties can't win, they won't.

Clinton doesn't have any major competition on the right during this election - Dole is not an inspiring figure - so let's try to break the Democratic monopoly and get somebody who's not a neoliberal into office.
Click to expand...
As long as there is ZERO chance Dole :mad: or Perot :eek: can win I think Nader is the one this time. I have to watch the tally a lttle more though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top