AHC: Clinton loses the 1996 election through policy or political miscalculation

[raharris1973]

The challenge you have been assigned is to have Bill Clinton lose the Presidential election of 1996 through policy or political miscalculation, error, or failure on his part.

The following causes for him to lose his reelection bid are strictly excluded: personal sexual or financial scandal or further revelation thereof, a completely exogenous economic or foreign policy disaster or natural disaster he has absolutely no opportunity to at least try to react well to and positively spin in his favor.

You have free reign for Clinton to begin miscalculating, failing, losing support from his 1993 inauguration onward. You have full flexibility to select his Republican opponent in 1996.

Go!

 

[thekingsguard]

Just have him be as liberal and combative as he was before losing Congress in 1994.

Then the GOP nominates Gen. Colin Powell in 96.

 

[raharris1973]

Just have him be as liberal and combative as he was before losing Congress in 1994.

Then the GOP nominates Gen. Colin Powell in 96.

More details please on what moves he's trying to make, GOP countermoves, and the GOP presidential nominating contest and how Powell comes out on top.

 

[PresidentZinn]

More details please on what moves he's trying to make, GOP countermoves, and the GOP presidential nominating contest and how Powell comes out on top.

Given Powell’s personal aversion to running, as well as his pro-choice views, I think some elaboration as to how he survives the GOP primary is necessary.

 

[thekingsguard]

Given Powell’s personal aversion to running, as well as his pro-choice views, I think some elaboration as to how he survives the GOP primary is necessary.

Powell hated Clinton. Just have Clinton do something that makes the military look bad... Mogadishu meets Benghazi.

As for Powell's abortion stance, go the Trump route: Nominate a rigidly pro-life VP, and pledge to nominate pro-life judges.

 

[EWHM]

It's really hard to lose an election under normal circumstances with no war and economic prosperity as perceived by the population. The joke in 96 was that a blind ex-felon could easily get a job as a night watchman.

 

[Thomas Jefferson]

April, 1993: Clinton nominates Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt to the Supreme Court. The nomination is immediately opposed by Western Republicans led by Orrin Hatch, and withdrawn after reports surface that Babbitt has a gambling problem. The political hit to Clinton is compounded when the reports turn out to be false, making it look like the President threw Babbitt under the bus. Clinton then nominates Mario Cuomo, who is ultimately confirmed but seen as an excessively political choice by many Republicans.

May, 1993: Clinton announces a "lift and strike" policy in Bosnia, which includes the removal of an arms embargo to enable the arming of Bosnian Muslims and airstrikes against the Serbs. The policy results in retaliatory Serb strikes agains UN peacekeepers, forcing the U.S. to deploy troops to back up the peacekeepers.

August, 1993: Clinton secures passage of a budget reconciliation bill which includes an unpopular energy tax. The fiscal contraction prolongs high unemployment int he wake of the early-1990s recession and is seen as particularly damaging to the economies of energy-producing states.

December 21, 1993: Clinton signs an executive order allowing gays to serve in the military. The order seriously damages Clinton's relationship with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and is quickly overturned by Congressional action. Frustrated by Clinton's refusal to consider a compromise proposal that would have allowed discharges for open homosexual conduct but avoided asking soldiers about their orientation, General Colin Powell considers a campaign for President.

1995: With Clinton's approval ratings continuing to languish in the mid-40s despite a strong economy, a number of Republicans enter the Presidential primaries. They include former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, Senator Bob Dole, Pat Buchanan, Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander, former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett, California Governor Pete Wilson, Representative Bob Dornan, Senator Phil Gramm, Publisher Steve Forbes, former South Carolina Governor Carroll Campbell, televangelist Pat Robertson, former Delaware Governor Pete DuPont, Senator John McCain, and Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson.

November, 1995: When the Republican Congress passes a budget plan that cuts Medicare spending in order to finance a tax cut for the wealthy, Clinton delivers a speech angrily criticizing House Speaker Newt Gingrich as a tribune of the plutocrats, resulting in Clinton being blamed for the resultant government shutdown.

June 4, 1996: With the social conservative vote split among multiple candidates, General Colin Powell becomes the Republican nominee for President. In a bid to unite the party, he selects House Speaker Newt Gingrich as his running mate.

November 5, 1996: Capitalizing on Clinton's personal unpopularity, dissatisfaction with the energy tax, and his record in the Persian Gulf War, General Powell is elected the 43rd President of the United States.

 

[raharris1973]

@Vidal @David T

 

[Vidal]

@Vidal @David T

I am actually watching the PBS documentary on the Clintons right now, and a thought occurred to me. What if Clinton had vetoed the 96 welfare reform bill, believing he'd proven his fiscal conservatism already and hoping to get a better deal in his second term?

It would open up a wedge issue for Dole, but I'm not convinced Dole could exploit it. You would probably need to combine that with a little more drip drip drip from Whitewater (though not necessarily Lewinsky)

 

[Enigma-Conundrum]

The challenge you have been assigned is to have Bill Clinton lose the Presidential election of 1996 through policy or political miscalculation, error, or failure on his part.

The following causes for him to lose his reelection bid are strictly excluded: personal sexual or financial scandal or further revelation thereof, a completely exogenous economic or foreign policy disaster or natural disaster he has absolutely no opportunity to at least try to react well to and positively spin in his favor.

You have free reign for Clinton to begin miscalculating, failing, losing support from his 1993 inauguration onward. You have full flexibility to select his Republican opponent in 1996.

Go!

Gennady Zyuganov wins the Russian election, easy. It's in July, so Clinton has room to react, but the optics of "losing the Cold War" that way... Clinton's doomed.

 

[Amadeus]

I am actually watching the PBS documentary on the Clintons right now, and a thought occurred to me. What if Clinton had vetoed the 96 welfare reform bill, believing he'd proven his fiscal conservatism already and hoping to get a better deal in his second term?

It would open up a wedge issue for Dole, but I'm not convinced Dole could exploit it. You would probably need to combine that with a little more drip drip drip from Whitewater (though not necessarily Lewinsky)

Clinton would still win due to the strong economy, his personal charisma, and Dole's lack of efficacy as a candidate.

 

[Issei Uzumaki]

Regardless of Powell being a war hero or his stance on abortion, GOP voters are not going to nominate a minority candidate.

That shows a complete lack of understanding of GOP voters and their opinion of Powell in the 90s, in fact sounds like putting your own political bias against the GOP.
Powell was incredibly popular and many wanted him to run in 2000, only his wife's insistence against it kept him from trying. 90s GOP is not equal to the group that exists today.

 

[Deleted member 145219]

Another scenario.

I question whether Clinton would have been able to win reelection had the Democrats held Congress in 1994. He spent much of the 1996 campaign running against the Gingrich/Dole congress. And he had limited success, underperforming in his reelection and winning 49% of the Popular Vote. Granted, Clinton himself wrote that he regretted not campaigning harder in the closing weeks of the 1996 campaign.

So maybe have Clinton be more successful in the 1993/1994 period. He doesn't alienate the longtime Democratic Congress. And as a result Hillarycare passes. This blunts GOP momentum and keeps the Democrats enthusiastic for the Midterms. They narrowly hold the House and Senate. But there's a problem, the GOP won the House popular vote. The GOP blames the Congressional maps drawn by the Democrats in 1990. And they are still bitter over Perot. So in 1995/1996 it becomes an even great all out war against the "Entrenched Democratic Establishment," who was "Rigged," the Election process in their favor. There's an even great emphasis on the activities of the Clintons and the Watergate Babies prior to their electoral careers.

 

[brunohusker]

Honestly it won’t happen unless another candidate runs. Bob Dole was dull. Maybe Collin Powell or another, more charismatic Republican runs.

 

[dw93]

Have our interventions in Somalia or Bosnia go south, have Clinton's 1993 budget reconciliation plan, which passed without a single Republican vote, fail, and have the GOP not overplay its hand after the 1994 midterm, which can be achieved by either Bob Michel not retiring, which would likely prevent Gingrich from being Speaker, or have some of the more grounded Republican congressional leaders keep Newt on a tight leash. Also, you'd need someone other than Dole to get the Republican nomination, but one that wasn't pro choice like Powell or Batshit crazy like Buchanan. Maybe poorer fundamentals for Clinton going into 1996 pushes McCain to run?

 

[Sicarius]

That shows a complete lack of understanding of GOP voters and their opinion of Powell in the 90s, in fact sounds like putting your own political bias against the GOP.
Powell was incredibly popular and many wanted him to run in 2000, only his wife's insistence against it kept him from trying. 90s GOP is not equal to the group that exists today.

I’ve always found it hard to believe that the party regularly returning Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms to the Senate would have turned out enthusiastically for Powell, especially against a southerner.

 

[Vidal]

That shows a complete lack of understanding of GOP voters and their opinion of Powell in the 90s, in fact sounds like putting your own political bias against the GOP.
Powell was incredibly popular and many wanted him to run in 2000, only his wife's insistence against it kept him from trying. 90s GOP is not equal to the group that exists today.

I’ve always found it hard to believe that the party regularly returning Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms to the Senate would have turned out enthusiastically for Powell, especially against a southerner.

I think it is plausible to have a Black Republican win the nomination, but I think we often underestimate how hard the nomination will be for Powell because he is pro-choice. That is a defining issue for a number of Republican primary voters. You can definitely create a scenario in which Powell overcomes it and goes on to win the nomination and the White House, but the fracturing of the Evangelical Base is not something the GOP will let happen without serious concessions on the part of Powell, whom I do not see making them.

All of that is to say, there are timelines in which Powell can plausibly win the White House, but this is not one. If the idea here is for Clinton to lose 1996 from a series of political miscalculations and policy failures, then you cannot have Powell as the nominee because a Powell nomination will inevitably attract some kind of Evangelical exodus to a third party candidate, perhaps Gary Bauer. Or, they will stay home. Neither scenario is one in which Clinton loses. If you're going to have Powell win, you need some kind of issue to drive Democrats away from Clinton -- and that won't happen from a mediocre policy record.

Although, that does give me the idea that if you have Clinton govern as an outright centrist from the start -- eschewing mention of gay people serving openly in the military, skipping any effort to reform healthcare, and compromising from the start on taxes, etc -- maybe you piss Paul Wellstone off enough that he decides to primary Clinton, which is often the kiss of death in such scenarios. The problem, of course, is that the economy will be going pretty well and a lot of Democrats will be saying, The guy's doing something right...

 

[Thomas Jefferson]

I’ve always found it hard to believe that the party regularly returning Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms to the Senate would have turned out enthusiastically for Powell, especially against a southerner.

It's worth mentioning that polling in 1995 showed Powell and Dole within the margin of error. If more credible conservative candidates had entered the race, which would be likely if Clinton appeared more vulnerable, they could have split the conservative vote, leaving Powell to win the primaries with the moderate vote united behind him. In states with open primaries, Powell would also pick up votes from independents and Democrats would wouldn't bother voting in the Democratic primary because the incumbent Clinton was basically running unopposed (In a timeline where Clinton does pick up a strong primary challenger, you probably don't need Powell to win the election for the Republicans. This probably means that Clinton has managed to create a deep split in the party and a substantial portion of Democrats are going to stay home or vote for a third party).

 

[thekingsguard]

I think it is plausible to have a Black Republican win the nomination, but I think we often underestimate how hard the nomination will be for Powell because he is pro-choice. That is a defining issue for a number of Republican primary voters. You can definitely create a scenario in which Powell overcomes it and goes on to win the nomination and the White House, but the fracturing of the Evangelical Base is not something the GOP will let happen without serious concessions on the part of Powell, whom I do not see making them.

All of that is to say, there are timelines in which Powell can plausibly win the White House, but this is not one. If the idea here is for Clinton to lose 1996 from a series of political miscalculations and policy failures, then you cannot have Powell as the nominee because a Powell nomination will inevitably attract some kind of Evangelical exodus to a third party candidate, perhaps Gary Bauer. Or, they will stay home. Neither scenario is one in which Clinton loses. If you're going to have Powell win, you need some kind of issue to drive Democrats away from Clinton -- and that won't happen from a mediocre policy record.

Although, that does give me the idea that if you have Clinton govern as an outright centrist from the start -- eschewing mention of gay people serving openly in the military, skipping any effort to reform healthcare, and compromising from the start on taxes, etc -- maybe you piss Paul Wellstone off enough that he decides to primary Clinton, which is often the kiss of death in such scenarios. The problem, of course, is that the economy will be going pretty well and a lot of Democrats will be saying, The guy's doing something right...

Again, so long as Powell goes the Trump route - pro-life VP and promise to appoint prolife judges - his abortion stance isn't the weakness you think it is.

 

[Vidal]

Again, so long as Powell goes the Trump route - pro-life VP and promise to appoint prolife judges - his abortion stance isn't the weakness you think it is.

I don’t know if that’s true. First, I’m not sure Powell is willing to sell out to them but also if they were the case why did conservatives threaten to bolt on W if he named Christine Todd Whitman or Tom Ridge?