GWB vs. Clinton in 1996

self | Feb. 23, 2002 | self

[el_texicano]

If we could cast back in time, what would have happened if W had run against Clinton in 1996?

I've been thinking about it now and I have to believe that Bush would have beaten Clinton in that election.

[el_texicano]

What do you all think?

[otterpond]

I think no one could have beaten clinton in 1996. Certainly not Pres. Bush. He barely beat clinton-lite in 2000 and only did so because algore went way populist-left.

But, in a battle between two middle-of-the-road moderate triangulators, the incumbent would have won. Big.

[TomGuy]

Although Dole was certainly not the best Republican choice and stood little chance against an incumbent Clinton, GWB would probably have not been a viable candidate in 1996. If I remember correctly, he had served as Governor of Texas only 2 years and that was his first elected position. So, his lack of political experience would have been a big detriment.

[Tacis]

Disagree. Bush was still wet behind the ears and would never have been able to overcome Clinton's ability to control the media, all Willie's Chinese money and, the voter fraud in the democrap cities.

Besides, if Willie had not won, he would still have been as sleazy, crooked, and mendacious, but all the world might not have known about it. The shame and disgrace that Willie and his legacy so richly deserve came in his second term.

I've said it before but proof of Bush's capability came during his second term as Governor of Texas. The proof, in pre-9/11 days, revoluted most liberals and even talking about it outrages the lefties. Bush, in his second term, signed almost 100 death warrants, proving that he could make the hard decisions that Willie and his sewer dwellers would only blather about 'til they found the alternative that put the most cash in their own pockets.

[TomGuy]

hahaha..true...and another point:

Had Clinton lost in 1996, he'd have run again in 2000...and (if not re-elected) every election thereafter. It's hard enough to get him off the stage and out of the media spotlight as it is. In a way, we can be thankful he was re-elected and is prohibited from running again.

[varon]

Not a snowball's chance in hell.

[vrwinger]

If 1996 offered GWB, Clinton & Perot, defintely not. If 1996 had just GWB & Clinton, probabaly not. In 1996 GWB was a 1st term Governor elected in 1994... Running against an incumbent, there's just too much to overcome... Now, if you could match 2002 GWB vs 1996 Clinton, in that match up he could win...

[Cicero]

It's really a meaningless question. Bush Junior was not in a position to run at that time. And with clinton firmly at the levers of power, there's no way ANYONE could have beaten him. Unlike Gore, you can bet he would have found enough ballot boxes in closets and under tables to turn the tide. Janet Reno and the media would have run interference for him. Gore was a criminal too, but he wasn't nearly as ruthless or efficient. Match the Buddhist Temple and the White House phone calls against the Clinton Body Count, and you can easily see the difference.

[winodog]

I think the scumbags husband would have won. But what I find suprising is how many more votes gorebot got then the scumbags husband ever got.Thats is strange when you remember that the media kept telling us how popular he was. It just goes to show IMHO that elections are rigged. Gorebot was sussposed to win, They just didnt quite cheat enough.

[JoeMomma]

I disagree. Bush was only 2 years into his term as Governor of Texas back then, and quite inexperienced. He had a two good years as Governor, but he'd not survived a re-election effort to let the voters of Texas validate his performance. When he won a landslide in 1998, he was then considered a more viable candidate for higher office. After that, if anyone pointed to his inexperience in public office, he just pointed to his re-election numbers in the nation's second-largest state.

I think it would have been hard for anyone to beat Clinton in 1996. He had too much going for him, especially the economy. I think that Lamar Alexander or Jack Kemp (had he run for the nomination) probably stood the best shot at beating Clinton that year. Dole, a good man, was a horrible nominee that year.

Of course, Bush barely defeated an awkward incumbent VP in 2000 and lost the popular vote to him by about half a million. If Bush couldn't have beaten Gore more convincingly in 2000 after his 1998 Texas landslide, he surely couldn't have beaten Clinton at the best time of Slick's Presidency in 1996.

As a candidate in 2000, Dubya left a lot to be desired.

[RJCogburn]

Nope.

[hchutch]

Looking at 1996, the only guy who could havebeaten Clinton was Forbes. He had the money to go toe-to-toe with whatthe Dems had, and I think he'd have held his own in the debates, too.

Who might his VP have been? I don't know offhand. Perhaps George Allen or GWB. Either way, I think he could have made thing interesting for the Dems. VERY interesting.

[be131]

Here's another one. Do you think that GWB would have beatwen Clinton in 2000 if he had been allowed to run again? The polls showed a hypothetical BC doing better than Gore in 2000.