Two years before the election of 1996, many political pundits boldly predicted that President Bill Clinton had little chance of winning reelection, some going so far as to declare the Clinton presidency effectively dead. The administration’s efforts, under the active leadership of First Lady Hillary Clinton, to reform the nation’s health care system, a major pledge of candidate Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, had utterly failed. Democrats were divided over the president’s support of the North American Free Trade Agreement, many in the party fearing the loss of millions of jobs to companies overseas. Additionally, the Clintons continued to absorb a barrage of personal attacks, impugning their personal character and qualifications for public service. Among these, the most politically damaging revolved around what was called the “Whitewater Scandal,” alleging that the Clintons had illegally profited from a soured real estate scheme. Sinister innuendo followed the suicide of top Clinton aide Vince Foster, and the culture warriors on the radio made a cottage industry out of routinely and incessantly blasting Clinton and the Democrats, to an expanding and receptive audience.
In the November 1994 midterm congressional elections, the Republican Party took control of the House of Representatives for the first time since 1952, a dramatic turnaround from the party’s embarrassing loss of the White House to the Clinton-Gore ticket only two years earlier. With both the House and the Senate now under Republican control, a hostile Congress blocked President Clinton’s agenda and instead passed key provisions endorsed by Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America,” provoking a veto strategy from the president and causing an impasse between the legislative and executive branches. Although excoriated by the Republicans in Congress, the stalemate permitted President Clinton the opportunity to reintroduce himself to the American people as a strong leader. Clinton adapted better than had been anticipated and adjusted his legislative agenda to help reestablish himself as a fiscally responsible and socially moderate president. Despite strong opposition from liberal Democrats, Clinton agreed to support major welfare reform legislation, pushed by the Republican Congress, that abolished the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, in place since Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, and replaced it with a block grant program under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, limiting the length of time that assistance recipients could receive benefits.
By 1996, Clinton’s “dead’ presidency had been resuscitated. After having bottomed out at 37 percent approval in June 1993, his numbers slowly climbed, and in late September of that year, he enjoyed a ten-point jump that put him again over 50 percent. Over the next few months, his numbers fluctuated, but on average he managed, with a few exceptions dipping back into the forties, to sustain numbers at or just over 50 percent. But again, beginning in June 1994, the year of the GOP’s big midterm wins, and running through April 1995, his ratings dropped into the forties to stay, reaching again as low as 39 percent. He would begin to turn things around eventually, but for the moment, Republicans smelled blood in the water, and they went after it.
A number of Republican candidates set up exploratory committees to compete for the Republican presidential nomination. These included Kansas senator and former vice presidential candidate (1976) Bob Dole, conservative commentator and culture warrior Pat Buchanan, newspaper and magazine editor Steve Forbes, former Tennessee governor Lamar Alexander, Indiana senator Richard Lugar, Texas senator Phil Graham, and Alan Keyes of Maryland. Bob Dole began the 1996 primary contests by narrowly winning the Iowa caucus to establish himself as the front-runner; but to the surprise of political observers, Buchanan narrowly defeated Dole in the important New Hampshire primary, muddying the waters considerably. They were further muddied when Forbes then narrowly defeated Dole in the Delaware and Arizona primaries, raising growing doubts about the viability of a Dole candidacy. However, Dole won a critical victory in the South Carolina primary on March 2, and three days later, Dole won in Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. From that point forward, Dole did not lose another primary on his way to the GOP nomination at the national convention in San Diego.
With Dole the easy winner, New York congressman Jack Kemp, a former professional football player who had earned a reputation as a leading moderate Republican, was tapped to serve as Dole’s running mate. The platform called for new revenue structures designed to allow Americans to keep more of their earnings, pledging extensive tax reform, avowing that the party was committed to “a tax code for the 21st century that will raise revenue sufficient for a smaller, more effective and less wasteful government without increasing the national debt. That new tax system must be flatter, fairer, and simpler, with a minimum of exclusions from its coverage, and one set of rules applying to all. It must be simple enough to be understood by all and enforced by few, with a low cost of compliance which replaces the current stack of endless forms with a calculation which can be performed on the back of a postcard.” Specifically, the platform proposed “an across-the-board, 15-percent tax cut to marginal tax rates.” Another platform plank endorsed a renewed effort to adopt a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. As part of a plan to reduce the size of the federal government, the platform proposed the “elimination of the Departments of Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Education, and Energy.” Additionally, the platform again reaffirmed support for “a human life amendment to the Constitution,” endorsing “legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”
As the Republican field first formed, President Clinton appeared vulnerable, even likely to lose if the Republicans could sustain the offensive and find the right candidate. But in a battle with President Clinton over the federal budget, the GOP-dominated Congress allowed the national government to shut down, a gambit that from the perspective of many voters, and especially those in the center, exposed stiff-necked stubbornness on their part, contrasted against the appearance of a more moderate, responsible, and less ideologically fixated president. Meanwhile, the economy, which had experienced a minor downturn, was improving once again. Thus beginning in the spring of 1995, the polls turned around for President Clinton; and moving toward election year, it appeared that he had gathered strength; and peaking at the right moment, the president reached approval ratings as high as he had seen. The Comeback Kid again proved his resilience, reaffirming his status as the most significant political figure in the post-Reagan era.
Freed from the task of competing in a long series of primaries, Clinton and his campaign team focused upon building a case for reelection. To accomplish this task, the Clinton camp made efficient use of the “soft money” campaign finance loophole. Since the late 1970s, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) had interpreted federal campaign finance laws as permitting political parties to raise unlimited amounts of money for party-building activities such as voter registration and nonspecific get-out-the-vote operations. The Clinton campaign broadly construed the “soft money” exception to permit the use of these kinds of contributions to pay for televised issue ads. These ads would highlight the accomplishments of the Clinton administration without directly advocating the reelection of Bill Clinton. Through the late winter and spring of 1996, the Clinton campaign invested large quantities of money in issue ads praising the accomplishments of the Clinton administration. It was an effective strategy that helped to further fortify the president as he prepared to meet the Republican challenge. With a healthy economy and renewed confidence in light of once-again-favorable polls, Clinton coasted to renomination and emerged the favorite against Dole throughout the remainder of the campaign season.
The platform of the Democratic Party praised the achievements of the Clinton administration in bringing down the federal deficit, as well as other accomplishments that were tied to peace and prosperity. “Today, America is moving forward with the strong Presidential leadership it deserves,” the platform assured. “The economy is stronger, the deficit is lower, and government is smaller. Education is better, our environment is cleaner, families are healthier, and our streets are safer. There is more opportunity in America, more responsibility in our homes, and more peace in the world.” Of particular significance, the platform stressed that during Clinton’s first term, the economy had created ten million new jobs and that the rate of inflation and interest rates were the lowest in decades. Stealing the GOP’s thunder, the platform praised the Clinton administration for providing funds to put one hundred thousand new police officers on the streets and for having provided states with $8 billion to build new prisons to hold violent offenders. The platform reaffirmed Democratic support for the right to choose an abortion. Additionally, the platform praised the Clinton administration for its foreign policy, celebrating four years of the United States’ prominent role in keeping peace around the world.
The Clinton campaign adopted a two-part strategy to help win reelection. The first part of the strategy involved attacking Speaker Gingrich and the GOP majority in Congress for shutting down the federal government during the federal budget impasse, and also for seeking major changes in the popular Medicare and Social Security programs (the “third rail” of American politics). By the summer of 1996, public opinion had shifted against the Republican-controlled Congress. The second part of the strategy involved stressing the achievements of the Clinton administration, particularly the fact that the country was experiencing an exceptionally strong period of economic growth fed by the “dot-com revolution.” Equally important, Clinton ads stressed that the president wanted new legislation designed to protect children by supporting a number of measures such as the adoption of school uniforms, tougher penalties for drug pushers, revoking the licenses of teenagers who drive drunk, and tougher penalties for the distribution of child pornography. By supporting these actions, Clinton ads rebutted conservative culture warriors by demonstrating that the president was in fact fiercely “protecting the values” of the American people. Indeed, Democrats portrayed Bill and Hillary Clinton as the candidates who believed in the American family, appealing to a generation of “soccer moms” who epitomized a child-centric culture. The effectiveness and positive attitude of the Clinton ad campaign evoked memories of Reagan’s upbeat 1984 reelection campaign, drawing yet another comparison between the respective styles of the Comeback Kid and the Great Communicator.
Dole’s campaign tried hard to depict its candidate as a moderate, disassociating him as much as possible from the party’s powerful conservative wing. Personal integrity was a strength of the Dole record, stirringly matched with his service in World War II, wherein he performed with valor in combat while being seriously wounded, providing the senator with the strongest dimension of his campaign against the incumbent president. But rather than focus on Dole’s personal character and admirable achievements, the campaign turned down the low road. Much like the effort of President Bush’s campaign in 1992, the Dole campaign unleashed a steady stream of attack ads critical of President Clinton’s character, making use of slogans such as “A Better Man for a Better America” to suggest that Clinton was not morally fit to serve in such a high office. Specifically, the Dole campaign alleged that Clinton, sometimes unflatteringly referred to as “Slick Willie,” had a history of lying to the American people and playing fast and loose with his personal life, to the embarrassment of his family and to the disgrace of the nation’s highest office. The alleged prevarication included promising not to raise taxes when he ran for president in 1992 but, once elected, reneging on his pledge and supporting a major tax increase. Late in the campaign, the Dole camp adopted the slogan “Wake up America” to attack Clinton and the media, the latter being accused, in general, as not doing enough to criticize the president. Specifically, the Dole campaign alleged that the media, dominated by a liberal narrative and agenda, applied an unfair double standard when comparing the two parties, one that worked to the benefit of the Democrats and the disadvantage of the Republicans. Conservative pundits delighted in referring to the “liberal” or “leftist” media, waggishly referring to CNN (Cable News Network) as the “Clinton News Network.” Efforts by conservatives to raise anew President Clinton’s lack of military service and to reopen draft-dodging allegations were stepped up, and the personal lawsuit brought by former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones alleging that Clinton had sexually harassed her while he served as Arkansas governor fueled conservative rage against the White House, but it failed to move the public opinion polls, which continued to give Clinton a comfortable lead as Election Day approached.
In the end, Dole seemed out of touch with a more youthful America as it moved toward a new century. At one point, taking a page from Spiro Agnew and Pat Buchanan, the senator sternly criticized Hollywood for its amoral values and unpatriotic attitudes; but instead of giving him a boost, the pitch came across to many as crabbed, the discontent of a curmudgeon fed up with the whippersnappers who were running the show and ruining the country. Dole, at age seventy-three, would turn out to be the last candidate to run for president who had served in World War II, and for many younger Americans, the war seemed too distant to inform them about the quality of those who had sacrificed so much during that horrific period in history. Dole’s grit certainly won him the respect of his colleagues, and rightly so, but his persona came off as far too rooted in the worn attitudes of the past. By contrast, Clinton was a man that appealed to an age of rapid change, and his ability to shrug off what to other politicians would have been career-ending disasters gave much to recommend to a generation that had become accustomed to personalities and celebrities able to recover from their checkered pasts to remake themselves. Dole, who had earned a reputation in the Senate for his quick and caustic wit, did not play well on the national stage, especially against the unflappable Clinton, who seemed to be at his best when cornered.
President Clinton thus joined Grover Cleveland as the only two-term presidents to win the White House without ever having received a majority in the popular vote, and Clinton is the only president to have done it in consecutive terms (President Cleveland’s terms being nonconsecutive). On Election Day, he won just over 47,400,000 votes; at 49.2 percent of the popular vote, this failed to reach that simple majority for the second consecutive election. But his showing was decidedly better than in 1992, a difference of seven points compared to his first election; whereas Dole, who won just over 39,000,000 votes, finished with slightly more than 40 percent of the voting electorate, fewer than 100,000 votes and around one percentage point higher than incumbent president George Bush’s failed bid for reelection four years earlier. Clinton’s 49 percent was the best showing for a Democratic candidate since Carter’s 50.1 percent in 1976. In the Electoral College, Clinton won 379 electoral votes to Dole’s 159, which was only slightly better than his electoral victory in 1992. The remaining 9–10 percent of the popular vote was divided among a handful of minor-party candidates, the balance of which went again to Ross Perot, who had returned as the standard-bearer of the newly created Reform Party, a third-party alternative that carried forward the Perotian pragmatism of his impressive minor-party run four years earlier, but to less effect. Consumer advocate Ralph Nader mounted a campaign as the standard-bearer of the Green Party and managed to win over 685,000 votes. The Libertarians also fielded a candidate, Harry Brown, who managed around 485,000 votes; other minor candidates shared just over 420,000 votes.
East of the Mississippi, Clinton won, for the most part, the same states that he carried in 1992, with the exception of losing Georgia to Dole but this time winning Florida, a net gain in the Electoral College. In the West, Clinton lost Colorado and Montana to Dole while gaining Arizona. A solid block of eleven western states supported Dole, running from the southern border of Texas (included here as a western state) to the northern border of Montana and dividing the country in half, with the Pacific coast going to Clinton; and a second solid block of states in the South, running from Virginia to Louisiana (or Texas, if it is to be included in the South as well, as it has been historically), going to Dole, with Clinton taking only Florida, Vice President Gore’s home state of Tennessee, and the border states of Kentucky and Maryland. But the old Deep South was again a solid Republican bloc. Outside these two regions (i.e., the South and the Great Plains/Intermountain states), which voted solidly Republican, the only states that voted for Dole were Alaska and Indiana. County by county, the Democrats again showed more strongly east of the Mississippi, where population density is higher, with the GOP taking more counties west of the Mississippi. However, the Democrats still scored the more highly populated areas in the West, specifically the urban counties on the Pacific coast and interior metropolitan areas such as Phoenix, Denver, Las Vegas, San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston. In examining the political trends, it was becoming evident that a coastal-interior and urban-rural divide had formed and crystalized, one that would become further exaggerated in subsequent elections, with Democrats drawing strength from both coasts and the larger urban areas, and Republicans drawing their strength from the nation’s interior and more rural regions; this divide would even influence the political mood of the country during President Clinton’s second term.
In sum, while the Democrats enjoyed a noticeably better showing in 1996, the Republicans gained little to no ground, in spite of the vulnerabilities exhibited by President Clinton at the midterm in 1994. Clinton proved that he could compensate for those vulnerabilities, smoothing them over through the strength of his personality combined with a knack for stressing the more positive features of his record and somehow managing to let rumor and scandal slide off his back. In so doing, he became the first incumbent Democrat to win reelection since Franklin Roosevelt (who was elected four times and reelected thrice) in 1944, and only the fifth Democrat in history to be elected two or more times (joining Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt; two other Democrats served more than one term—viz., Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson—but were only elected once). Clinton would also become one of only five presidents (along with Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan) in the twentieth century to serve two complete terms (or, again, in the case of FDR, more than two).
The president enjoyed another electoral triumph, but in spite of being the most politically successful Democrat since FDR, Clinton did not ride the wave of a unified political culture. Divisions continued to grow, widen, intensify, and, for a brief moment, threaten the Clinton presidency. The Comeback Kid would again nimbly deflect his attackers and complete his term, but the political costs for the Democrats would prove to be very high.
American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu.
Boller, Paul F., Jr. Presidential Campaigns: From George Washington to George W. Bush. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Burnham, Walter Dean, et al. The Election of 1996: Reports and Interpretations. New York: Chatham House, 1997.
Burns, James MacGregor, and Georgia J. Sorenson. Dead Center. New York: Scribner, 1999.
Hanes, Walter, Jr. Reelection. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000.
Hohenberg, John. Re-Electing Bill Clinton: Why Americans Chose a “New Democrat.” Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1997.