• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

1996 Presidential Election

President Clinton undertook his campaign for re-election in 1996 under the most favorable of circumstances. If not an imposing personality in the manner of a Roosevelt, he was a natural campaigner, whom many felt had an infectious charm. He presided over a growing economic recovery. He had positioned himself on the political spectrum in a way that made him appear a man of the center leaning left. His Republican opponent, Senator Robert Dole of Kansas, Republican leader in the upper house, was a formidable legislator but less successful as a presidential candidate.

Clinton, promising to “build a bridge to the 21st century,” easily defeated Dole in a three-party race, 49.2 percent to 40.7 percent, with 8.4 percent to Ross Perot. He thus became the second American president to win two consecutive elections with less than a majority of the total vote. (The other was Woodrow Wilson in 1912 and 1916.) The Republicans, however, retained control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The presidential election of 1996 represented a moment of relative calm and prosperity in American politics, as the first baby boomer president sought reelection against the backdrop of a thriving economy and a nation at peace, facing a challenge from one of the last World War II generation leaders in American politics.

The Political Landscape

The election took place during a period of remarkable economic growth and optimism. The Cold War had ended, the economy was booming with low unemployment and declining budget deficits, and the violent crime rate was falling after years of increases. President Bill Clinton, despite having suffered a devastating midterm defeat in 1994 when Republicans captured both houses of Congress for the first time in four decades, had successfully repositioned himself toward the political center. He embraced welfare reform, balanced budget rhetoric, and a strategy of triangulation that sought to stake out positions between liberal Democrats in Congress and conservative Republicans. The Republican Revolution led by Speaker Newt Gingrich had initially seemed unstoppable, but a government shutdown in late 1995 and early 1996, which the public largely blamed on congressional Republicans, had restored Clinton's political fortunes.

Clinton faced no serious opposition for the Democratic nomination. His incumbency, combined with the strong economy and his political recovery, made him the prohibitive favorite. His running mate, Vice President Al Gore of Tennessee, remained on the ticket, providing continuity and helping to appeal to moderate southern voters. The Clinton-Gore partnership represented a generational shift in Democratic politics, with both men born after World War II and representing a departure from the New Deal coalition that had dominated Democratic politics for decades. They embodied the New Democrat philosophy that sought to move the party away from its liberal image and toward more centrist positions on crime, welfare, and fiscal policy.

The Republican Primary Battle

The Republican nomination contest proved far more contentious and competitive. Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas entered as the frontrunner, having finished second to George H.W. Bush in 1988 and being seen as next in line according to the Republican tradition of nominating the previous runner-up. Dole was a World War II veteran who had suffered severe injuries in combat, a longtime senator known for his legislative skills and sometimes caustic wit, and a figure respected by establishment Republicans. However, his age, seventy-three at the time of the election, and his ties to Washington during an era of anti-establishment sentiment, created vulnerabilities.

Dole faced challenges from multiple directions. Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan, running on a populist platform that combined social conservatism with economic nationalism and opposition to free trade and immigration, won the New Hampshire primary and demonstrated significant support among culturally conservative and economically anxious Republicans. Publishing magnate Steve Forbes, running on a flat tax proposal and other libertarian-leaning economic policies, spent millions of his own fortune on television advertising. Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, former Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander, and businessman Morry Taylor also competed for the nomination. Former General Colin Powell, who would have been the first African American major party presidential nominee, seriously considered running but ultimately decided against it, citing his wife's concerns and his own reluctance for political combat.

Dole eventually secured the nomination through his superior organization and his ability to consolidate establishment support, but the primary battle left him financially depleted and politically wounded. He had been forced to move rightward to appeal to primary voters, complicating his general election positioning. His selection of Jack Kemp, a former congressman and Housing Secretary known for his supply-side economic views and efforts to appeal to minority voters, as his running mate was designed to energize conservatives and attract younger voters, though Kemp's campaign performance proved underwhelming.

Ross Perot Returns

The most notable independent candidacy came from Ross Perot, the Texas billionaire who had shocked the political establishment in 1992 by winning nearly nineteen percent of the popular vote. Perot ran again in 1996, this time as the nominee of the Reform Party he had founded. His campaign focused on the same themes as 1992, particularly opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement, which had been implemented during Clinton's first term, concern about the federal deficit, and criticism of both major parties as beholden to special interests. However, Perot's second campaign lacked the novelty and excitement of his first run. His refusal to participate in the fall presidential debates after failing to meet the Commission on Presidential Debates' polling threshold significantly reduced his visibility and impact.

Perot's diminished influence in 1996 compared to 1992 reflected several factors. The strong economy undercut his message about economic crisis and government dysfunction. His eccentric behavior during the 1992 campaign, including his temporary withdrawal from the race and later conspiracy theories about Republican plots against his daughter's wedding, had damaged his credibility. The Reform Party, while nominally a grassroots movement, was heavily controlled by Perot himself, limiting its appeal to voters seeking genuine alternatives to the major parties. His running mate, economist Pat Choate, was virtually unknown and added little to the ticket. Despite these limitations, Perot still managed to secure ballot access in all fifty states and remained a factor in the race, particularly as a vehicle for voters dissatisfied with both Clinton and Dole.

Other Minor Party Candidates

Beyond Perot, several other minor party candidates sought the presidency, each representing different ideological perspectives. Ralph Nader ran as the Green Party nominee, focusing on environmental protection, consumer rights, and corporate accountability. Nader, a longtime consumer advocate famous for his attacks on unsafe automobiles and corporate malfeasance, brought credibility to the Green Party ticket, though he ran a minimal campaign with very limited fundraising and made little effort to build a national organization. His 1996 campaign served largely as a dry run for his more aggressive 2000 effort.

Libertarian Party candidate Harry Browne, a financial writer and investment advisor, promoted a platform of drastically reduced government, elimination of the income tax, and maximum individual liberty. Howard Phillips of the Taxpayers Party, later renamed the Constitution Party, ran on a platform of Christian conservative principles and strict constitutional interpretation. Natural Law Party candidate John Hagelin, a quantum physicist, advocated for transcendental meditation and consciousness-based approaches to governance. Monica Moorehead represented the Workers World Party with a socialist platform, while Marsha Feinland ran for the Peace and Freedom Party. None of these candidates achieved significant vote totals or received substantial media coverage, but their campaigns provided outlets for voters dissatisfied with the major party choices and helped maintain alternative political traditions.

Campaign Themes and Issues

The campaign unfolded against the backdrop of prosperity and relative domestic tranquility. Clinton's strategy centered on protecting his achievements and offering incremental improvements rather than bold new initiatives. He championed small-bore policies like school uniforms, v-chips to help parents control television content, and tax credits for college tuition. These micro-initiatives allowed him to demonstrate concern for middle-class anxieties while avoiding controversial large-scale programs. His campaign theme of building a bridge to the twenty-first century emphasized optimism and progress while subtly highlighting the generational contrast with Dole. Clinton also emphasized his role in welfare reform, crime reduction, and fiscal responsibility, claiming credit for the improving economy and declining deficits.

Dole struggled to find an effective message against a popular incumbent presiding over peace and prosperity. He attacked Clinton's character, pointing to various scandals including the Whitewater real estate controversy, FBI files improperly obtained by the White House, and questionable fundraising practices. He questioned Clinton's trustworthiness and argued that the president lacked the moral authority to lead the nation. However, these attacks largely failed to gain traction with voters who seemed willing to separate Clinton's personal failings from his job performance. Dole's central policy proposal was a fifteen percent across-the-board income tax cut, combined with promises to balance the budget. Economists and even some Republicans questioned whether these goals were compatible, and Clinton effectively attacked the proposal as risky economic policy that would explode the deficit.

The campaign also featured debates over social issues, though these played a less central role than economic concerns. Dole opposed abortion rights while Clinton supported them, reflecting the parties' increasingly stark divide on the issue. Gun control, gay rights, and affirmative action emerged as flashpoints, with Clinton generally taking more liberal positions while trying to avoid alienating moderate voters. Foreign policy received minimal attention, as there were no major international crises and broad bipartisan consensus existed on most global issues. The exception was some disagreement over military interventions in Haiti and Bosnia, but these controversies never became central campaign themes.

The Fall Campaign and Debates

As summer turned to fall, Clinton maintained a commanding lead in virtually all polls. His campaign had successfully defined Dole as too old, too partisan, and tied to an unpopular Republican Congress. The president's political skills, honed over decades of campaigns in Arkansas and nationally, were on full display. He seemed to enjoy campaigning and demonstrated an almost supernatural ability to connect with voters and feel their pain. His appearances were carefully choreographed to show him as energetic, engaged, and in command. The campaign raised unprecedented amounts of money, including controversial contributions from foreign sources that would later trigger investigations, and spent heavily on television advertising that defined Dole before he could define himself.

Dole faced an uphill battle made worse by limited resources. Having spent heavily to secure the nomination, his campaign was broke during the summer months while Clinton advertised aggressively. Dole made the dramatic decision to resign from the Senate in June, giving up his leadership position to focus full-time on the campaign. In his resignation speech, he declared that he would seek the presidency not as a senator but as a man willing to give up power to seek it. The gesture was intended to show his commitment and allow him to escape the baggage of unpopular congressional Republicans, but it also severed his institutional base and left him as a man without portfolio.

The presidential debates in early October provided Dole's best opportunity to change the race's dynamics. Two debates were held, both following the traditional format of a moderator and podiums. Clinton came across as knowledgeable, articulate, and forward-looking, effectively defending his record and articulating his vision. Dole performed respectably, showing flashes of humor and attacking Clinton's ethics, but failed to land a knockout blow. He appeared more stilted and less comfortable than Clinton with the television medium. The debates reinforced existing impressions rather than reshaping the race, leaving Clinton's lead intact.

Election Results

On November 5, Clinton won a decisive victory, becoming the first Democratic president reelected since Franklin Roosevelt in 1944. He captured 379 electoral votes to Dole's 159, winning thirty-one states plus the District of Columbia. The popular vote margin was substantial, with Clinton receiving 49.2 percent to Dole's 40.7 percent and Perot's 8.4 percent. Minor party candidates combined for less than one percent of the vote. Clinton swept the Northeast and West Coast while making significant inroads in the traditionally Republican Mountain West and maintaining a strong position in the industrial Midwest. Dole won most of the South and the Great Plains but lost Florida and several other states that Republicans typically needed for victory.

The electoral map demonstrated ongoing demographic and regional realignments in American politics. Clinton performed particularly well in suburban areas, which were becoming more diverse and more Democratic. He won a substantial majority among women voters, capitalizing on the gender gap that had emerged in the 1980s. African Americans supported Clinton overwhelmingly, while Latino voters also favored him by significant margins. Younger voters preferred Clinton, while Dole won decisively among older voters and white evangelicals. The results showed a Democratic coalition based on minorities, women, young people, and educated suburbanites competing against a Republican coalition of white men, rural voters, religious conservatives, and small business owners.

Perot's performance, while impressive for a third-party candidate in most historical contexts, represented a dramatic decline from his 1992 showing. His vote total dropped from nearly twenty million to just over eight million. He failed to win any electoral votes and carried no states. His reduced impact reflected the difficulty of sustaining a personality-based movement, the effect of his exclusion from the debates, and the success of both major parties in addressing the concerns that had fueled his 1992 insurgency. Nevertheless, his Reform Party received federal matching funds for future elections based on his vote percentage, and his campaign kept alive the possibility of third-party challenges to the two-party duopoly.

Congressional Elections

Despite Clinton's comfortable reelection, Republicans maintained control of both houses of Congress, marking the first time since 1848 that a president was reelected while the opposition party controlled both chambers. In the House of Representatives, Republicans held 227 seats compared to 207 for Democrats and one independent. This represented a net loss of nine seats for Republicans compared to their standing before the election, but they retained a working majority that allowed Speaker Gingrich to continue his leadership. The result demonstrated the persistence of the Republican Revolution's impact, even as Clinton won the presidency decisively. Voters seemed comfortable with divided government, perhaps viewing it as a check on potential excesses by either party.

The Senate results showed similar patterns. Republicans maintained fifty-five seats to the Democrats' forty-five, the same margin they had held before the election. Neither party gained ground in the upper chamber, though several individual races were closely contested. The Senate results particularly frustrated Democrats, who had hoped that Clinton's coattails might help them recapture the chamber. The lack of coattails reflected the increasingly localized nature of congressional races and the declining influence of presidential voting on down-ballot contests. It also demonstrated the strength of Republican incumbents, many of whom had built up substantial advantages in fundraising and constituent service.

Several factors explained the Republicans' congressional success despite Clinton's presidential victory. Redistricting following the 1990 census had created many safe Republican districts, particularly in the South where conservative Democrats had been replaced by Republicans. Republican candidates successfully localized their races, distancing themselves from unpopular aspects of the congressional agenda while highlighting their individual accomplishments. Many ran ahead of Dole in their districts, suggesting that voters distinguished between their local Republican representative and the national Republican ticket. Democrats also struggled with candidate recruitment and faced fundraising disadvantages in many races, limiting their ability to compete effectively.

The continued Republican control of Congress ensured that Clinton's second term would feature ongoing political combat between the Democratic White House and the Republican Capitol Hill. The divided government would produce both cooperation and conflict, with successful bipartisan achievements on issues like welfare reform and budget balancing alongside bitter partisan fights over investigations, impeachment, and judicial nominations. The 1996 election results established divided government as the norm rather than the exception, a pattern that would persist in American politics for much of the next two decades.

Campaign Finance Controversies

The 1996 election became notorious for pushing campaign finance practices to new extremes and triggering multiple investigations. The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee raised record amounts of money, much of it through aggressive fundraising tactics that drew intense scrutiny. Reports emerged of White House coffees with donors, overnight stays in the Lincoln Bedroom for major contributors, and foreign nationals making illegal contributions. Vice President Gore's fundraising activities at a Buddhist temple in California became particularly controversial. The Chinese government allegedly attempted to influence the election through illegal contributions, leading to congressional investigations and prosecutions.

Republicans engaged in similar aggressive fundraising, though they received less media attention for their activities. Both parties exploited loopholes in campaign finance laws, particularly through soft money contributions to party committees that could be spent on issue advertising and party-building activities rather than being subject to the limits on direct contributions to candidates. The explosion of soft money fundamentally transformed campaign finance, as corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals could effectively circumvent contribution limits by giving unlimited amounts to party committees.

The controversies surrounding the 1996 election's financing fueled momentum for campaign finance reform legislation. Senator John McCain of Arizona and Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin championed reform efforts that would eventually culminate in the McCain-Feingold legislation of 2002, which banned soft money contributions to national parties. However, the immediate political impact of the 1996 fundraising scandals was limited, as the strong economy and general satisfaction with Clinton's governance outweighed public concern about campaign finance abuses. The investigations did damage Clinton's reputation and contributed to the atmosphere of scandal that would culminate in his impeachment two years later.

The Incumbent Advantage

Clinton's reelection demonstrated the enormous advantages of incumbency in modern presidential elections. The president commanded media attention effortlessly, could use official events for political purposes, and benefited from the prestige and trappings of office. His campaign had vastly more resources than Dole's, both in money and organizational capacity. Clinton's ability to use government policy for political benefit, such as targeting grants and projects to swing states and key constituencies, provided subtle but real electoral advantages. The power of incumbency had helped most modern presidents win reelection, with Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush being recent exceptions whose defeats came during times of economic distress or crisis.

Clinton's successful reelection also reflected his formidable political skills and personal resilience. He had survived numerous scandals, devastating political defeats, and constant attacks on his character. His ability to connect with voters, his policy flexibility, and his willingness to adopt Republican ideas and claim them as his own demonstrated political adaptability. His campaign's effective use of polling and focus groups to test messages and policies allowed him to stay attuned to public opinion. Critics argued that his presidency lacked conviction and was overly driven by polls, but supporters countered that this responsiveness to public sentiment was democratic and pragmatic.

Legacy and Historical Significance

The 1996 election represented a validation of New Democrat philosophy and Clinton's centrist repositioning. His success in moving the party toward the center on crime, welfare, and fiscal policy while maintaining support from traditional Democratic constituencies provided a model that future Democrats would study and emulate. His ability to triangulate between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans and to co-opt Republican issues like welfare reform and balanced budgets demonstrated a political strategy that could win elections even in an era of conservative dominance on many issues.

The election also marked a generational transition in American politics. Dole was the last presidential nominee from the World War II generation, the last major party nominee born in the 1920s. His defeat by Clinton, a baby boomer, symbolized the passing of power to a new generation. This generational shift brought different assumptions, priorities, and styles to American politics. The World War II generation's emphasis on duty, sacrifice, and consensus gave way to the baby boomers' focus on personal fulfillment, ideological combat, and cultural warfare. The change would have profound implications for American political culture in the decades to come.

The divided government that resulted from the 1996 elections established a pattern that would characterize much of the next two decades of American politics. Voters seemed to prefer checking presidential power with an opposition Congress, or vice versa. This division forced compromise on some issues while producing gridlock on others. The productive cooperation that produced welfare reform and balanced budgets in Clinton's first term would largely disappear in the second term, replaced by investigations, scandals, and ultimately impeachment. The 1996 election's mixed results of presidential victory combined with congressional defeat for the president's party presaged an era of closely divided government and intense partisan conflict.

Finally, the election demonstrated the resilience of the two-party system even in the face of third-party challenges. Perot's diminished performance compared to 1992 showed how difficult it was to sustain a third-party movement without institutional support or a clear crisis to exploit. The Reform Party would continue to exist and would even elect a governor in Minnesota in 1998, but it never achieved the breakthrough that might have fundamentally altered the American party system. The 1996 election suggested that while third parties could emerge and influence particular elections, the structural advantages enjoyed by the Democratic and Republican parties made genuine multiparty competition extremely difficult in the American system. This would remain true in subsequent elections, despite recurring predictions that third parties might finally break through. The two-party system, despite its many flaws and the dissatisfaction it generated among many voters, continued to dominate American politics into the twenty-first century.