The Candidates
As a 14 year old Republican kid in 1995, Bob Dole seemed like the ideal candidate to go up against Bill Clinton and take him down. He was a war hero. He had a great sense of humor. Despite what the conservative blowhards said about him on TV, he seemed pretty conservative to me. I helped out on their campaign and met him and his wife Elizabeth a few times. I still have a certain attachment to them and actually suggested last fall that Liddy Dole would be a good VP pick (but that was in a Clinton-Romney race, not a McCain-Obama).
Dole was successful at winning the Republican nomination, but his campaign never took off once he started running against Bill Clinton. I have a better grasp of what his problems were now than I did back then, but that comes with experience. Conservative pundits never had much good to say about Dole. Swing voters would say things like, “I’ll vote for Clinton since Dole is too old.” If you’re an idealog, there is not much that is more painful than hearing uninformed swing voters give stupid reasons for why they’re not backing your guy. Of course, the Clintons did a number on Dole as well, not always being truthful about it.
At that age I was incapable of realizing that some elections were just not winnable. I was holding out hope for a Dole upset up until the day before the election. However, on November 5, 1996, the results came in, and Clinton had won fair and square. I remember thinking in years following that that if Lamar Alexander had been the nominee instead of Dole, the election result would have been much closer, with Alexander possibly winning.
Is John McCain a rerun of Dole ‘96? The answer is sort of, but not exactly. On the one hand, he is old. He is not a favorite of the conservative wing of the party. Like Dole, McCain is more of a deficit hawk than a supply sider. He and Dole both lack executive experience, but McCain has the luxury of running against a Democrat who also lacks executive experience. Dole did not have that luxury.
Though there are many similarities between Dole and McCain, there are a few key differences. For starters, McCain does not refer to himself in the third person when he talks. At least Clarence Claus doesn’t think so. If you remember the 1996 campaign you will know what I’m talking about. McCain also has a certain independence Dole did not have. John McCain is depending on himself to get himself elected. Dole was far more reliant on his handlers. I have already seen John McCain take the fight to the Democrats in a way Dole failed to do. He has attacked Obama for earmarks. He had his wife say she has always been proud of this country unlike Ms. Obama who is proud for the first time because people want change. John McCain said last night something along the lines of, “I will not let the American people be deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change.” That is far more articulate than anything Bob Dole came out with during his 1996 run.
Bob Dole had never been a big tax-cutter, but his problems with conservatives in 1996 were so severe that he put Jack Kemp on the ticket and introduced a 15% across-the-board tax cut. It looked like pandering to most swing voters. With John McCain, every plan he introduces during the campaign will be from him rather than his handlers and will look more sincere to the voters than various plans Dole came out with.
Finally, the way in which John McCain won the nomination this year is totally different from the way Dole won it. Dole was very much like the Hillary Clinton of 1996 except he didn’t have a Barack Obama running against him and was able to get nominated. Like Hillary, he was ahead for all of 1995. He managed to win Iowa since he is from neighboring Kansas but was upset in New Hampshire by Pat Buchanan 12 years ago today. He went on to lose Arizona to Steve Forbes. Dole never really solved his problems, but because of frontloading, he was able to win a bunch of big states on Super Tuesday and become the inevitable nominee. The rule of thumb with Dole was that he did best in states where he didn’t campaign or no one campaigned against him which was not a good sign for the general election. Hillary seems to have that same affliction. She won states like Florida and Michigan where no one campaigned, but she has lost more states than she’s won in states where they both campaigned.
While Dole was the frontrunner who limped to the nomination, McCain was the comeback adult. He was unable to raise much money for the first half of 2007 and was behind in the polls for the second half. People were paying much more attention to Rudy, Romney, and Fred. Many even thought McCain would just drop out of the race. I never thought John McCain would come back, but if he did, I thought he’d be strong against the Democrats. Falling way behind in the polls was the best thing that could have happened to John McCain because he had to work his way back to the top instead of being anointed the nominee in the way Bob Dole and George W. Bush were.
There are many similarities between Bob Dole and John McCain but many differences as well. Come November, will John McCain be the war hero respected by the public but considered too old and old-fashioned to be a good President or will he be the scrappy underdog who fights his way to beat the man slightly over half of America has fallen in love with? We shall see.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I have to disagree with the comment “With John McCain, every plan he introduces during the campaign will be from him rather than his handlers”
Does anyone remember McCain’s tax plan a day or so after Rudy endorsed him? Ohh yeah, he adopted Rudy’s plan.
I agree that McCain is not exactly Bob Dole. Some of your differences may be correct. However, Dole was a kind man, while McCain is snarly and can easily be bothered. Obama is a fake, but McCain will likley get angry in a debate when Obama criticizes him so eloquently.
McCain does well in prepared speches because of his handlers. He does not do that well on his feet. The snarl comments and/or fake smile/smirk!
February 20th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Interestingly I too recall Dole-Clinton very well (although I was not 14). Here are the salient points about 1996. One, like McCain, Dole was the next old white guy in line for the nomination. He pretty much had it when he entered the race. That McCain stumbled and came back is remarkable, but it still followed the traditional GOP playbook. Two, Clinton was a popular incumbent during a good economy with “ethical” problems that Dole was reluctant to bring up. I don’t think ethics will be an issue in this election, but the economy will be and McCain will be in the shoes of the incumbent. Three, McCain’s record as a veteran is more relevant than Dole’s was in 1996. Four, while Dole’s age was apparent, it was his partially handicapped arm that may have undermined him. When he fell off that stage he seemed rather helpless. Similarly, McCain’s age is apparent but it may only become a campaign liability if it manifests itself. It would be disastrous if he got sick like Giuliani did and had to go to the hospital.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
He does not do that well on his feet.
Neither does Obambi. Hillary regularly looks better in debates than he does.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Axel you make some good points, but McCain will be in the shoes of the incumbent with a declining economy. Also, economy is not McCain’s forte. I think ethics could come into issue if Obama sticks to his empty promises and hope for change. People are extremely bothered by unethical Congressmen. McCain has been in DC for a long time and has had his own ethical problems. Obama can criticize McCain for “Washington doubletalk” in regards to congressmen and dirty lobbyists.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Ilfigo said that Dole was a kind man and McCain is snarly. Actually Dole had a mean streak also and was very similar to McCain. If anything McCain is actually more gentle than Dole.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
[...] Clarence Claus reflects on his experience as a 14 year old Republican stalwart during the campaign of 1996: At that age I was incapable of realizing that some elections were just not winnable. I was holding out hope for a Dole upset up until the day before the election. However, on November 5, 1996, the results came in, and Clinton had won fair and square. I remember thinking in years following that that if Lamar Alexander had been the nominee instead of Dole, the election result would have been much closer, with Alexander possibly winning. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
February 20th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Clarence…could you provide some instances where Dole cursed at fellow GOP and called GOP congressmen names for not supporting his bill?
Or Dole taking low blows against other GOP candidates for Pres in a debate?
February 20th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I don’t have specific examples of Dole cursing, but I would not be surprised if it happened. Dole just tended to snap at colleagues a lot. He’d make a sharp comment. Secondly, Dole did take low blows against candidates in debates. He called Buchanan an extremist. He poked fun at Steve Forbes’ wealth.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Off-topic, but of interest:
We’ve had a couple threads in the past where Romney and Huckabee supporters have tried to argue that caucuses are legitimate expressions of public feeling and, therefore, that their candidates’ relative success in such venues indicates widespread support,
On Feb 9, the Republican Party held caucuses in Washington, which ended in a virtual tie between McCain and Huckabee. Last night, there was a primary, which McCain won by well over 2-1.
So much for caucuses.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
#9 Bob H you may take a look at the CNN polls Romney who has been out of the race for two weeks scored 20% of the vote with 22% to Huckabee once again splitting the vote against McCain. There has been enough time for people to realize that McCain is the nominee and yet Romney still gets 20% of the vote. In the caucus 29% of the vote went to Other including Romney with McCain getting 26% and Huckabee 24%. These may have change when all the totals were in but it is close. It looks to me that McCain as the nominee was able to sure up the vote by taking some of Huckabee and some of Romney in the last week. It has less to do with caucus vs primary.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
#7:
How about this: In 1988, after losing New Hampshire, Dole was asked if he had anythig to say to the victor (GHWBush). He said “Yeah, stop lying about my record.”
Or how about when he described a recent tragedy in which a bus full of supply siders went off a cliff and everyone died — and the tragedy was that there were three empty seats on the bus?
Or this: In 1996, in a debate in Washington DC with the major primary contenders, Sen Graham, who opposed the 1995 compromise budget that Dole was trying to work out asked him if he was going to support a bill that sold out the American taxpayers and Dole said “I don’t know — why don’t you ask me again next time you’re in town?”
February 20th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Romney was out of the race on Feb 9, and everyone knew he would be the nominee (they knew it on Feb 6) — particularly the activists who attend caucuses.
It has everything to do with caucuses vs. primaries. Caucuses represent only activists, primaries represent the rank and file. There is often a wide variance in opinion between the two groups, as demonstrated in Washington — in the primary, Huckabee got the same ~22% he got in the caucus, while McCain went from 22 to 48.
February 21st, 2008 at 7:42 am
[...] Main Minds wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptDole was very much like the Hillary Clinton of 1996 except he didn’t have a Barack Obama running against him and was able to get nominated. Like Hillary, he was ahead for all of 1995. He managed to win Iowa since he is from neighboring … Read the rest of this great post here Posted by [...]