United States Presidential Election, 1996

This entry is in the series United States Presidential Elections
Blog entry Gallery
Leave a rating
bill-clinton-1996.webp

Introduction​

This is a revision of the United States presidential election of 1996.

The election was a three-way race between incumbent Democratic President Bill Clinton, Republican Bob Dole, and Independent Ross Perot. In the current timeline, Clinton beat Dole by around 9 percentage points (about 49% to about 40%), with Perot coming in third, but with considerably less of the popular vote than in 1992. This revised version of history makes this 1996 victory for Clinton slightly narrower. In this revision, Clinton has 48.7% of the popular vote compared to Dole’s 41.3%, for a victory margin of more than 7 percentage points between Clinton and Dole.

The background to this election involves the aftermath of the 1994 midterm congressional elections, where Republicans take back the House of Representatives and Senate. In order to find more approval with the American people, he works with the congressional Republicans to balance the federal budget and get the U.S. economy back to prosperity. I feel this cannot be denied. However, due to Clinton’s morally sinful character as well as reflecting presidential elections of the then-recent past, I figured the race should be a little closer.

The revised election below is organized state-by-state in alphabetical order, for a total of 50 states plus the District of Columbia.

United States presidential election, 1996 (results estimated)​

Alabama​

Bob Dole (R): 663,358 (51.1%)
Bill Clinton (D): 547,088 (42.2%)
Ross Perot (I): 77,989 (6%)
Other: 9,213 (0.7%)
Total: 1,297,648

Alaska​

Dole: 97,946 (51.8%)
Clinton: 62,896 (33.3%)
Perot: 18,716 (9.9%)
Other: 9,490 (5%)
Total: 189,048

Arizona​

Clinton: 421,867 (46%)
Dole: 415,176 (45.3%)
Perot: 68,570 (7.5%)
Other: 11,092 (1.2%)
Total: 916,705

Arkansas​

Clinton: 493,778 (53.2%)
Dole: 350,578 (37.8%)
Perot: 68,632 (7.4%)
Other: 14,468 (1.6%)
Total: 927,456

California​

Clinton: 4,593,355 (50.1%)
Dole: 3,594,203 (39.2%)
Perot: 637,992 (7%)
Other: 340,996 (3.7%)
Total: 9,166,546

Colorado​

Dole: 537,255 (46.8%)
Clinton: 498,567 (43.4%)
Perot: 75,652 (6.6%)
Other: 36,506 (3.2%)
Total: 1,147,980

Connecticut​

Clinton: 653,329 (51.8%)
Dole: 449,967 (35.7%)
Perot: 126,329 (10%)
Other: 31,141 (2.5%)
Total: 1,260,766

Delaware​

Clinton: 119,767 (50.8%)
Dole: 88,540 (37.5%)
Perot: 24,977 (10.6%)
Other: 2,571 (1.1%)
Total: 235,855

District of Columbia​

Clinton: 161,392 (84.2%)
Dole: 19,822 (10.3%)
Perot: 3,719 (1.9%)
Other: 6,767 (3.5%)
Total: 191,700

Florida​

Clinton: 1,891,730 (47%)
Dole: 1,742,870 (43.3%)
Perot: 366,920 (9.1%)
Other: 21,726 (0.5%)
Total: 4,023,246

Georgia​

Dole: 832,720 (48%)
Clinton: 777,564 (44.8%)
Perot: 110,486 (6.4%)
Other: 13,702 (0.8%)
Total: 1,734,472

Hawaii​

Clinton: 178,022 (55.9%)
Dole: 103,891 (32.6%)
Perot: 24,190 (7.6%)
Other: 12,191 (3.8%)
Total: 318,294

Idaho​

Dole: 246,488 (53.2%)
Clinton: 151,332 (32.6%)
Perot: 58,911 (12.7%)
Other: 6,767 (1.5%)
Total: 463,498

Illinois​

Clinton: 2,755,484 (53.3%)
Dole: 1,953,954 (37.8%)
Perot: 414,976 (8%)
Other: 43,410 (0.8%)
Total: 5,167,824

Indiana​

Dole: 1,035,781 (48.1%)
Clinton: 872,656 (40.6%)
Perot: 225,965 (10.5%)
Other: 17,647 (0.8%)
Total: 2,152,049

Iowa​

Clinton: 635,317 (49.3%)
Dole: 527,753 (40.9%)
Perot: 109,884 (8.5%)
Other: 16,766 (1.3%)
Total: 1,289,720

Kansas​

Dole: 521,229 (55.3%)
Clinton: 330,706 (35.1%)
Perot: 81,262 (8.6%)
Other: 9,521 (1%)
Total: 942,718

Kentucky​

Clinton: 607,980 (45.8%)
Dole: 595,247 (44.9%)
Perot: 114,991 (8.7%)
Other: 8,090 (0.6%)
Total: 1,326,308

Louisiana​

Clinton: 821,390 (51%)
Dole: 659,237 (40.9%)
Perot: 111,268 (6.9%)
Other: 18,357 (1.1%)
Total: 1,610,252

Maine​

Clinton: 280,075 (50.6%)
Dole: 175,725 (31.8%)
Perot: 78,512 (14.2%)
Other: 18,977 (3.4%)
Total: 553,289

Maryland​

Clinton: 848,683 (53.2%)
Dole: 625,874 (39.3%)
Perot: 103,595 (6.5%)
Other: 15,619 (1%)
Total: 1,593,771

Massachusetts​

Clinton: 1,593,581 (60.5%)
Dole: 766,616 (29.1%)
Perot: 234,280 (8.9%)
Other: 40,847 (1.5%)
Total: 2,635,324

Michigan​

Clinton: 2,069,538 (50.7%)
Dole: 1,611,864 (39.5%)
Perot: 357,239 (8.7%)
Other: 44,094 (1.1%)
Total: 4,082,735

Minnesota​

Clinton: 986,695 (50.1%)
Dole: 708,214 (36%)
Perot: 231,410 (11.7%)
Other: 43,131 (2.2%)
Total: 1,969,450

Mississippi​

Dole: 482,983 (50.2%)
Clinton: 414,397 (43.1%)
Perot: 56,176 (5.8%)
Other: 8,369 (0.9%)
Total: 961,925

Missouri​

Clinton: 1,014,528 (46.5%)
Dole: 920,792 (42.2%)
Perot: 219,298 (10.1%)
Other: 25,287 (1.2%)
Total: 2,179,905

Montana​

Dole: 171,976 (45.1%)
Clinton: 153,371 (40.2%)
Perot: 51,696 (13.6%)
Other: 4,193 (1.1%)
Total: 381,236

Nebraska​

Dole: 369,397 (54.7%)
Clinton: 229,479 (34%)
Perot: 71,108 (10.5%)
Other: 5,948 (0.9%)
Total: 675,932

Nevada​

Clinton: 129,757 (43.9%)
Dole: 126,745 (42.9%)
Perot: 27,972 (9.5%)
Other: 10,899 (3.7%)
Total: 295,373

New Hampshire​

Clinton: 198,067 (48.3%)
Dole: 165,479 (40.4%)
Perot: 39,720 (9.7%)
Other: 6,640 (1.6%)
Total: 409,906

New Jersey​

Clinton: 1,702,245 (52.7%)
Dole: 1,190,152 (36.9%)
Perot: 275,097 (8.5%)
Other: 61,349 (1.9%)
Total: 3,228,843

New Mexico​

Clinton: 244,705 (48.2%)
Dole: 217,685 (42.9%)
Perot: 29,458 (5.8%)
Other: 16,049 (3.2%)
Total: 507,897

New York​

Clinton: 4,618,329 (58.5%)
Dole: 2,496,757 (31.6%)
Perot: 629,521 (8%)
Other: 154,023 (1.9%)
Total: 7,898,630

North Carolina​

Dole: 1,104,266 (49.7%)
Clinton: 955,712 (43%)
Perot: 148,331 (6.7%)
Other: 12,213 (0.6%)
Total: 2,220,522

North Dakota​

Dole: 150,882 (47.9%)
Clinton: 123,153 (39.1%)
Perot: 38,397 (12.2%)
Other: 2,298 (0.7%)
Total: 314,730

Ohio​

Clinton: 2,079,316 (46.4%)
Dole: 1,883,847 (42%)
Perot: 477,911 (10.7%)
Other: 42,142 (0.9%)
Total: 4,483,216

Oklahoma​

Dole: 520,585 (49.3%)
Clinton: 416,912 (39.5%)
Perot: 114,558 (10.8%)
Other: 4,755 (0.4%)
Total: 1,056,810

Oregon​

Clinton: 471,436 (46.1%)
Dole: 409,225 (40.1%)
Perot: 89,895 (8.8%)
Other: 50,974 (5%)
Total: 1,021,530

Pennsylvania​

Clinton: 2,427,378 (48.2%)
Dole: 2,064,557 (41%)
Perot: 481,747 (9.6%)
Other: 65,509 (1.3%)
Total: 5,039,191

Rhode Island​

Clinton: 254,925 (59.2%)
Dole: 117,624 (27.3%)
Perot: 48,221 (11.2%)
Other: 9,773 (2.3%)
Total: 430,543

South Carolina​

Dole: 508,521 (50.9%)
Clinton: 428,180 (42.8%)
Perot: 55,958 (5.6%)
Other: 6,595 (0.7%)
Total: 999,254

South Dakota​

Dole: 159,204 (47.5%)
Clinton: 140,901 (42%)
Perot: 32,350 (9.6%)
Other: 2,783 (0.8%)
Total: 335,238

Tennessee​

Clinton: 792,689 (47.5%)
Dole: 769,159 (46.1%)
Perot: 93,287 (5.6%)
Other: 13,684 (0.8%)
Total: 1,668,819

Texas​

Dole: 2,625,654 (49.8%)
Clinton: 2,259,982 (42.8%)
Perot: 356,173 (6.8%)
Other: 34,826 (0.7%)
Total: 5,276,635

Utah​

Dole: 344,135 (55.4%)
Clinton: 200,751 (32.3%)
Perot: 62,028 (10%)
Other: 14,605 (2.3%)
Total: 621,519

Vermont​

Clinton: 114,313 (52.3%)
Dole: 70,073 (32.1%)
Perot: 26,204 (12%)
Other: 7,774 (3.6%)
Total: 218,364

Virginia​

Dole: 944,720 (48.1%)
Clinton: 867,138 (44.1%)
Perot: 130,022 (6.6%)
Other: 22,194 (1.1%)
Total: 1,964,074

Washington​

Clinton: 820,155 (48.8%)
Dole: 643,159 (38.3%)
Perot: 149,791 (8.9%)
Other: 66,162 (3.9%)
Total: 1,679,267

West Virginia​

Clinton: 415,072 (49.5%)
Dole: 324,948 (38.8%)
Perot: 94,399 (11.3%)
Other: 3,940 (0.5%)
Total: 838,359

Wisconsin​

Clinton: 1,048,837 (47.8%)
Dole: 866,096 (39.5%)
Perot: 227,054 (10.3%)
Other: 51,773 (2.4%)
Total: 2,193,760

Wyoming​

Dole: 100,843 (56.8%)
Clinton: 52,968 (29.8%)
Perot: 21,745 (12.3%)
Other: 1,952 (1.1%)
Total: 177,508

United States (total)​

Clinton: 44,927,488 (48.7%)
Dole: 38,073,772 (41.3%)
Perot: 7,774,582 (8.4%)
Other: 1,499,798 (1.6%)
Total: 92,275,640
Next entry in the series 'United States Presidential Elections': United States Presidential Election, 2000
Previous entry in the series 'United States Presidential Elections': United States Presidential Election, 1992

Comments

Mayhem
On what grounds do you make this alternate version? Couldnt another person do exactly the same with a different outcome?

So the question is why and how would you go about changing the history? Or is this just a time filler type of thing?
 
Classicalfan626
Why? In short because I want to help build a better world, and a better world means a better universe.

How? I'm seeking an ET/UFO encounter, and that would involve getting picked up by a UFO (flying saucer) and traveling to an extraterrestrial planet. I would inform the ETs piloting the flying saucer, indicating that I want to travel back in time and change history to build a better world, which would contribute to a better universe for everyone.
 
Classicalfan626
@Mayhem - Yeah, it depends on what type of ET race I come across. Malevolent ETs such as insectoid and mantis types will probably not listen, the grays might possibly not listen, and I think the reptilians would rather eat people than listen to what they have to offer, especially if it's for the better.

On the other hand, there are races such as the tall Nordics and Pleiadeans which are benevolent. I think they will be far more likely to listen to good people who want to change the world for the better. :)
 
Num7
I have many questions.

First, let's consider the small possibility that the aliens do listen to you AND take you to their planet. Why would they help you travel back in time to change the past? If they have time travel, you have to assume they'll have some sort of ethics code, right?

Second, good is subjective. What do you use as a moral compass, in order to create a futures that is in general better for everyone, and not simply better for you? For instance, a different president in a past era, might lead to my parents never being born. That's not good for me. Or a different president in a past era could also mean nuclear war and the apocalypse.
 
Classicalfan626
First of all, who is to say how big or small the possibility is that these ETs listen to me and take me away from Earth? Anyway, like I said, I would explain to them that my plan is to change the past to build a better planet.

Also, I'd assume that the ETs have technology to see into the future as well as time travel tech. In that sort of fashion, they could be able to advise me on what to do and how to do it and what the alternate past would bring to the present and future. And as we weave through the mysteries of the universe, we have to have the God factor in collaboration with the scientific one. Remember, with God all things are possible. So I believe my changes will probably not prevent your parents from being born and/or lead to a nuclear war and apocalypse.

Does this help?
 
Cosmo
Have you been trying the CE5 protocols to tell them this? I remember you mentioned being interested in getting into that.

I've got the things necessary to try here (and 30 acres in the middle of a 500 person farmland town) but haven't been able to get to it yet.

How do you know the headline candidates for the 1996 (and other) elections aren't affected by the previously altered elections? The more you change, the more exponentially different the distant future becomes. Are the politicians honest in your timeline?

PS: Make sure that Soros fella ends up as a shoe salesman.
 
Classicalfan626
Have you been trying the CE5 protocols to tell them this? I remember you mentioned being interested in getting into that.
Click to expand...
Excellent question! I'd love to try those CE5 protocols out, but it wasn't specified what the protocols are in the CE5 documentary with Dr. Steven Greer.

How do you know the headline candidates for the 1996 (and other) elections aren't affected by the previously altered elections? The more you change, the more exponentially different the distant future becomes. Are the politicians honest in your timeline?
Click to expand...
To answer the first question, with God all things are possible. Keep that in mind. Also keep in mind that these are all just rough blueprints. For instance, I'm not sure if the United States corporation formed in 1871 and owned by DC, the British Crown, and the Vatican is going to work out the next time around. It's very possible the U.S. is such a prosperous nation next time around throughout the 1800s that it's not going to go bankrupt, as is the case with current history post-Civil War.

As for the second question, it depends on how things work out. If there is a corporation, I'd assume some politicians will be honest, while others will not. If no corporation, I'd assume most if not all U.S. politicians will be honest.

PS: Make sure that Soros fella ends up as a shoe salesman.
Click to expand...
Or more likely in prison for attempted treason! :)
 

Series table of contents

United States Presidential Election, 1956 United States Presidential Election, 1964 United States Presidential Election, 1972 United States Presidential Election, 1980 United States Presidential Election, 1984 United States Presidential Election, 1988 United States Presidential Election, 1992 United States Presidential Election, 1996 United States Presidential Election, 2000 United States Presidential Election, 2004 United States Presidential Election, 2008 United States Presidential Election, 2012

Blog entry information

Author
Classicalfan626
Read time
6 min read
Views
1,851
Comments
8
Last update

Share this entry

Back
Top