I suppose the point I was trying to make was that the reasons behind the first veto could be more complex and nuanced than simply “Clinton vetoes welfare reform”, particularly when it’s wrapped up in a budget reconciliation bill.
While it’s convenient to boil the particulars down to soundbites in order to foster the impression Clinton was against welfare reform, a cursory analysis of the cites you provide indicates there was more to it than that:
As a result, the third bill doesn’t call out Medicare (at least in the outline) and the second omits both (again, in the outline). Sorry for not analyzing the full text, as I don’t really have time to do that, but it does appear at a glance that the welfare stipulations did change from bill-to-bill.
So, the notion that Clinton was handed the same bill three times, vetoing twice and signing once:
I’m thinking it ignores third party votes. In 1996, Clinton got 49.2% of the vote, and Dole got 40.7% Perot got 8.4%.
As to the original question, I don’t see any good way for Dole to win in 1996. Even if Dole had picked up all the states which he lost by less than 5% (Kentucky, Nevada, Arizona, and Tennessee), it wouldn’t have given him enough electoral votes to win.
One last scenario, impractical as it is. Lets say Perot doesn’t run, but instead everyone who voted for Perot in the election votes for Dole (which wouldn’t have happened). Dole picks up Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, which gives him 281 electoral votes total, which is more than the 270 he needs to win.
Of course, that wouldn’t happen, because not all of Perot’s supporters would have voted for Dole…some would have voted for Clinton, some would have stayed home.
Ray Fair of Yale runs a simple model of the popular vote going to the incumbent, based on various economic variables. His model predicts that Clinton should have gotten 53.7% of the vote in 1996. Clinton received 54.7%, so he beat the point spread, proving himself a superior campaigner to Dole.
How does that compare to other races? The mean average deviation from the model is about 1.5 points, so this was a respectable, but not extraordinary effort by Clinton. For stat afficianodoes, the standard deviation of the spread is 1.89. Double that and you get something like 3.8. If Dole ran a top 5% campaign (relative to Clinton), he might have just squeeked a victory. Dole’s campaign manager is SOL, he can only hope that Clinton does something stupid like have sex with an intern or something, and what are the odds of that?
Then again, Al Gore secured 50.3% of the popular vote and lost his appointment to George Bush.
Here’s my data: I could dig deeper to see how he constructed it (to address Captain Amazings hypothesis)
I find those residuals fascinating, and believe they challenge the conventional wisdom in many ways. Dole wasn’t that bad. Dukkakis was awful, but we knew that. Mondale actually ran a respectable campaign. Fair thinks Perot’s run made 1992 a special case and that the model performed poorly that year.
With hindsight I would try to wake up America to the growing threat of Al-Qaeda. I would do everything to make it an issue-call up experts, set up TV ads of terrorists crashing planes into skyscrapers, call for tougher security measures and more military action against Al-Qaeda. It may if it causes a sufficient storm produce a Dole victory and President Dole and the destruction of Al-Qaeda.
What would Dole have known about al Qaeda that everyone else didn’t know? What was Clinton not doing about them that he should have done? Why do you think the public would have particularly responded to this kind of fear mongering in 1996?
I am saying this with hindsight and remember what Hearst did with the Cuban rebellion and the USS Maine. Already by then numerous terrorist attacks had happened (WTC I, Somalia, Khobar Towers).
And Clinton had responded to all of them. No one was losing any sleep over terrorism back then, believe me. Dole would have come off like a crank if he’d tried to gin up any panic about it. Islamic extremism was seen as something pretty remote and unimportant at the time. The country was not seized with the constant preoccupation and perseveration on the subject that you’ve grown up with. It might seem strange to you now, but nobody cared back then.
On a lighter note… couldn’t find it on YouTube, but I saw the Reduced Shakespeare Co. improv group onstage in 1996, and they had a hilarious skit about Dole’s Social Security number (000-00-0008), and his aversion to the word “I,” always referring to himself by his full name. The guy playing him sang about how, at his wedding, when he was asked if he took his wife for better or worse, he said, “Bob Dole do.” And when he was President, he’d have to look into renaming a bunch of states like “Bobdoledaho,” “Bobdoleowa” and “Bobdolendbobdoleana.”
Oddly, Gore was more cognizant of the al Qaeda threat than GWBush was. The Bush team was focussed on missile defense in the Spring and Summer of 2001, and thought that the Democratic transition team’s warnings about al Qaeda were a little obsessive. When GWBush was given a briefing on the subject in August 2001 he told the intelligence rep, “All right. You’ve covered your ass now.”
You can see a glimpse of this mentality at the SDMB debate on China in the Spring of 2001. A Chinese plane had collided with a US spy plane on the Chinese coast. The US plane landed in Chinese territory and the Chinese were holding the pilots as “Guests” and demanding an apology from the US. The commies also helped themselves to our equipment, though much of it had been destroyed by the crew.
The right wing worked itself up to an hysteria, as they always do with regards to US security challenges. Luckily, moderate Republicans such as Colin Powell and Condi Rice held sway on foreign policy at the time, so serious crisis was averted. After September 11, hardliners such as Dick Cheney gained influence, permitting the administration to focus more on …Iraq. Those such as Richard Clarcke who had warned about al Qaeda and Afghanistan’s Taliban were eased out of office.
Clinton never got 55% of the vote, and did not get 55% of the electoral vote either. But no one is thrashing around trying to avoid the obvious with your cite, since it doesn’t interfere with the kind of revisionism that the SDMB likes.
They could be, but they aren’t. Clinton vetoed the first two attempts at welfare reform. He did not veto the third one, purely for political reasons. Not because he was committed to any principle beyond getting re-elected - simply because he would otherwise have lost the election in 1996. It had nothing, as I mentioned, to do with courage or principle or any of the other bullshit that has been suggested - Clinton was the quintessential political whore. He would say or do anything to win an election, or to gain a few points in the polls. That’s all there is and was to Bill Clinton - “I want to get re-elected”.
That’s why all this stuff about Clinton and terrorism is besides the point - Clinton didn’t care anything about terrorism. That’s why he didn’t kill bin Laden when he had the chance, and why he never followed up with his bombing of Iraq when it didn’t forestall his impeachment, and why he didn’t do anything co-ordinated about the other terrorist attacks during his watch. It didn’t gain him anything in the polls, and so he didn’t care.
That’s also why it is wrong-headed to think that the memo he sent to Bush after Bush won about how important terrorism was hass any significance. Clinton was essentially saying ‘I didn’t do anything, so you better’. It shows that Clinton knew that terrorism was a significant danger, and also that Clinton lacked the courage to actually do anything serious about it.
Possible, but nothing you’ve posted directly supports that opinion. The differences in the three bills are easy enough to discern - I posted one such significant difference above - that you can’t rule out that they may have played a part in Clinton’s decision to sign one and veto two.
What would you accept as proof? The Boston Globe, not bastion of conservative ideals by any stretch, supported the supposition that Clinton sold out welfare for the election, but you want more proof. Clinton is arguably the more immoral President in my lifetime. How far are you willing to twist to support this? I almost had a stroke when I heard him state that the era of big government is over. He’d run as a conservative Republican tomorrow is he thought he could get elected.
He was immoral why? Because he got a blow job? That’s more immoral than lying to to start an illegal invasion and occupation of another country, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people for no reason?
I know-I meant I would create a mass hysteria through massive bombardment of the airwaves with ads of this time, enlistment of radio talk show hosts, and advising Dole to point this out on debates and speeches. It might have worked-remember the frenzy preceding the Spanish-American War.
