Race The Sun 1996 Download [EXCLUSIVE]

The 1996 United States presidential election was the 53rd quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 5, 1996.[2] Incumbent Democratic President Bill Clinton defeated former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, the Republican nominee (and the party's nominee for vice president in 1976), and Ross Perot, the Reform Party nominee and 1992 independent presidential candidate.

Clinton and Vice President Al Gore were re-nominated without incident by the Democratic Party. Numerous candidates entered the 1996 Republican primaries, with Dole considered the early front-runner. Dole clinched the nomination after defeating challenges by publisher Steve Forbes and paleoconservative leader Pat Buchanan. Dole's running mate was Jack Kemp, a former Congressman and football player who had served as the Housing Secretary under President George H. W. Bush. Ross Perot, who had won 18.9% of the popular vote as an independent candidate in the 1992 election, ran as the candidate of the Reform Party. Perot received less media attention in 1996 and was excluded from the presidential debates.

Race The Sun 1996 Download

Download 🔥 https://urluso.com/2y7OfT 🔥

In 1995, the Republican Party was riding high on the significant gains made in the 1994 mid-term elections. In those races, the Republicans, led by whip Newt Gingrich, captured the majority of seats in the House for the first time in forty years and the majority of seats in the Senate for the first time in eight years. Gingrich became speaker of the House, while Bob Dole was elevated to Senate Majority leader.

With the advantage of incumbency, Bill Clinton's path to renomination by the Democratic Party was uneventful. At the 1996 Democratic National Convention, Clinton and incumbent Vice President Al Gore were renominated with token opposition. Formerly incarcerated fringe candidate Lyndon LaRouche won a few Arkansas delegates who were barred from the convention. Jimmy Griffin, former Mayor of Buffalo, New York, mounted a brief campaign but withdrew after a poor showing in the New Hampshire primary. Former Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey contemplated a challenge to Clinton, but health problems forced Casey to abandon a bid.[3][4]

The fragmented field of candidates debated issues such as a flat tax and other tax cut proposals, and a return to supply-side economic policies popularized by Ronald Reagan. More attention was drawn to the race by the budget stalemate in 1995 between Congress and the President, which caused temporary shutdowns and slowdowns in many areas of federal government service.

Former U.S. Army General Colin Powell was widely courted as a potential Republican nominee. However, on November 8, 1995, Powell announced that he would not seek the nomination. Former Secretary of Defense and future Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney was touted by many as a possible candidate for the presidency, but he declared his intentions not to run in early 1995. Former and future Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld formed a presidential campaign exploratory committee, but declined to formally enter the race. Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Secretary of Education William Bennett both flirted with bids, both even set up exploratory committees, for a number of months but both finally declared within days of each other they would not run either.[8]

Ahead of the 1996 primary contest, Republican Leader of the United States Senate and former vice-presidential candidate Bob Dole was seen as the most likely winner. However, Steve Forbes finished first in Delaware and Arizona while paleoconservative firebrand Pat Buchanan managed early victories in Alaska and Louisiana, in addition to a strong second place in the Iowa caucuses and a surprising victory in the small but key New Hampshire primary. Buchanan's New Hampshire win alarmed the Republican "establishment" sufficiently as to provoke prominent Republicans to quickly coalesce around Dole,[9] and Dole won every primary starting with North and South Dakota. Dole resigned his Senate seat on June 11 and the Republican National Convention formally nominated Dole on August 15, 1996, for president.

The U.S. Taxpayers Party had run its first presidential ticket in 1992, it being head by Howard Phillips who had failed to find any prominent conservative willing to take the mantle. In 1996 the situation ultimately proved the same, though Pat Buchanan for a time was widely speculated to be planning on bolting to the Taxpayers' Party should the expected Republican nominee, Senator Bob Dole, name a pro-choice running-mate. When Jack Kemp, who opposed abortion, was tapped for the position Buchanan agreed to endorse the Republican ticket. Again, Phillips found himself at a temporary post that was made permanent, with Herbert Titus being nominated for the vice presidency.

In late September 1995, questions arose regarding the Democratic National Committee's fund-raising practices. In February the following year, China's alleged role in the campaign finance controversy first gained public attention after The Washington Post published a story stating that a U.S. Department of Justice investigation had discovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the DNC before the 1996 presidential campaign. The paper wrote that intelligence information had showed the Chinese Embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC[19] in violation of U.S. law forbidding non-American citizens from giving monetary donations to U.S. politicians and political parties. Seventeen people were eventually convicted for fraud or for funneling Asian funds into the U.S. elections.

One of the more notable events learned involved Vice President Al Gore and a fund-raising event held at Hsi Lai Temple in Hacienda Heights, California. The Temple event was organized by DNC fund-raisers John Huang and Maria Hsia. It is illegal under U.S. law for religious organizations to donate money to politicians or political groups due to their tax-exempt status. The U.S. Justice Department alleged Hsia facilitated $100,000 (~$173,122 in 2022) in illegal contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign through her efforts at the Temple. Hsia was eventually convicted by a jury in March 2000.[20] The DNC eventually returned the money donated by the Temple's monks and nuns. Twelve nuns and employees of the Temple refused to answer questions by pleading the Fifth Amendment when they were subpoenaed to testify before Congress in 1997.[21]

On election day, President Clinton won a decisive victory over Dole, becoming the first Democrat to win two consecutive presidential elections since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936, 1940, and 1944. In the popular vote, he out-polled Dole by over 8.2 million votes. The Electoral College map did not change much from the previous election, with the Democratic incumbent winning 379 votes to the Republican ticket's 159. In the West, Dole managed to narrowly win Colorado and Montana (both had voted for Clinton four years earlier), while Clinton became the first Democrat to win Arizona since Harry Truman in 1948. In the South, Clinton won Florida, a state he had failed to win in 1992, but lost Georgia, a state that he had carried. The election helped to cement Democratic presidential control in California, Vermont, Maine, Illinois, New Jersey and Connecticut; all went on to vote Democratic in every subsequent presidential election after having voted Republican in the five prior to 1992. 1996 marked the first time that Vermont voted for a Democrat in two successive elections. Pennsylvania and Michigan both voted Democratic, and would remain in the Democratic presidential fold until 2016.

Reform Party nominee Ross Perot won approximately 8% of the popular vote. His vote total was less than half of his performance in 1992. The 1996 national exit poll showed that just as in 1992,[22] Perot drew supporters from Clinton and Dole equally.[23] In polls directed at Perot voters as to who would be a second choice, Clinton consistently held substantial leads.[24] Perot's best showing was in states that tended to strongly favor either Clinton (such as Maine) or Dole (particularly Montana, though the margin of victory there was much closer). Perot once again received his lowest amount of support in the South.

As of 2020, this remains the last time that the states of Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee were carried by a Democratic presidential nominee. It was also the first time most Arizona voters chose a Democratic candidate since 1948, which they would not do again until 2020. Five states switched party predominance in 1996 with their presidential voting: Montana, Colorado, and Georgia were flipped by Senator Dole, while Florida and Arizona were flipped by President Clinton. This is also the most recent time a third-party candidate finished with over 5% of the vote nationwide. This is the last time a Democratic president was re-elected with a higher share of the electoral or popular vote.

The polling in the election was criticized by Everett Carll Ladd, who argued that "polls had overestimated Clinton's lead during the campaign and had thereby dampened interest in the election."[34] Others such as Warren J. Mitofsky rebutted Ladd's view; in an analysis in Public Opinion Quarterly, Mitofsky wrote that "1996 was not the best but was far from the worst year for the polls", with accuracy surpassing the polling in 1948 and in 1980.[34] Because Clinton won the election by a comfortable margin, there was no major reaction towards the impreciseness of the polls.[34]

The federal, state, and local governments run many programs intended to increase opportunitiesfor various groups--including women and racial and ethnic minority groups. These programs arecommonly called "affirmative action" programs. For example, state law identifies specific goalsfor the participation of women-owned and minority-owned companies on work involved withstate contracts. State departments are expected, but not required, to meet these goals, whichinclude that at least 15 percent of the value of contract work should be done by minority-ownedcompanies and at least 5 percent should be done by women-owned companies. The law requiresdepartments, however, to reject bids from companies that have not made sufficient "good faithefforts" to meet these goals.Other examples of affirmative action programs include:Public college and university programs such as scholarship, tutoring, and outreach that are targeted toward minority or women students.Goals and timetables to encourage the hiring of members of "underrepresented" groups for state government jobs.State and local programs required by the federal government as a condition of receiving federal funds (such as requirements for minority-owned business participation in state highwayconstruction projects funded in part with federal money).ProposalThis measure would eliminate state and local government affirmative action programs in the areas of public employment, public education, and public contracting to the extent these programsinvolve "preferential treatment" based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Thespecific programs affected by the measure, however, would depend on such factors as (1) courtrulings on what types of activities are considered "preferential treatment" and (2) whether federal law requires the continuation of certain programs.The measure provides exceptions to the ban on preferential treatment when necessary for any ofthe following reasons: To keep the state or local governments eligible to receive money from the federal government. To comply with a court order in force as of the effective date of this measure (the day after the election). To comply with federal law or the United States Constitution. To meet privacy and other considerations based on sex that are reasonably necessary to thenormal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.Fiscal EffectIf this measure is approved by the voters, it could affect a variety of state and local programs.These are discussed in more detail below.Public Employment and ContractingThe measure would eliminate affirmative action programs used to increase hiring and promotionopportunities for state or local government jobs, where sex, race, or ethnicity are preferentialfactors in hiring, promotion, training, or recruitment decisions. In addition, the measure wouldeliminate programs that give preference to women-owned or minority-owned companies onpublic contracts. Contracts affected by the measure would include contracts for constructionprojects, purchases of computer equipment, and the hiring of consultants. These prohibitionswould not apply to those government agencies that receive money under federal programs thatrequire such affirmative action.The elimination of these programs would result in savings to the state and local governments.These savings would occur for two reasons. First, government agencies no longer would incurcosts to administer the programs. Second, the prices paid on some government contracts woulddecrease. This would happen because bidders on contracts no longer would need to show "goodfaith efforts" to use minority-owned or women-owned subcontractors. Thus, state and localgovernments would save money to the extent they otherwise would have rejected a lowbidder--because the bidder did not make a "good faith effort"--and awarded the contract to ahigher bidder.Based on available information, we estimate that the measure would result in savings inemployment and contracting programs that could total tens of millions of dollars each year.Public Schools and Community CollegesThe measure also could affect funding for public schools (kindergarten through grade 12) andcommunity college programs. For instance, the measure could eliminate, or cause fundamentalchanges to, voluntary desegregation programs run by school districts. (It would not, however,affect court-ordered desegregation programs.) Examples of desegregation spending that could beaffected by the measure include the special funding given to (1) "magnet" schools (in those caseswhere race or ethnicity are preferential factors in the admission of students to the schools) and (2)designated "racially isolated minority schools" that are located in areas with high proportions ofracial or ethnic minorities. We estimate that up to $60 million of state and local funds spent eachyear on voluntary desegregation programs may be affected by the measure.In addition, the measure would affect a variety of public school and community college programssuch as counseling, tutoring, outreach, student financial aid, and financial aid to selected schooldistricts in those cases where the programs provide preferences to individuals or schools based onrace, sex, ethnicity, or national origin. Funds spent on these programs total at least $15 millioneach year.Thus, the measure could affect up to $75 million in state spending in public schools andcommunity colleges.The State Constitution requires the state to spend a certain amount each year on public schoolsand community colleges. As a result, under most situations, the Constitution would require thatfunds that cannot be spent on programs because of this measure instead would have to be spentfor other public school and community college programs.University of California and California State UniversityThe measure would affect admissions and other programs at the state's public universities. Forexample, the California State University (CSU) uses race and ethnicity as factors in some of itsadmissions decisions. If this initiative is passed by the voters, it could no longer do so. In 1995,the Regents of the University of California (UC) changed the UC's admissions policies, effectivefor the 1997-98 academic year, to eliminate all consideration of race or ethnicity. Passage of thisinitiative by the voters might require the UC to implement its new admissions policies somewhatsooner.Both university systems also run a variety of assistance programs for students, faculty, and staffthat are targeted to individuals based on sex, race, or ethnicity. These include programs such asoutreach, counseling, tutoring, and financial aid. The two systems spend over $50 million eachyear on programs that probably would be affected by passage of this measure. SummaryAs described above, this measure could affect state and local programs that currently cost well inexcess of $125 million annually. The actual amount of this spending that might be saved as aresult of this measure could be considerably less, for various reasons:The amount of spending affected by this measure could be less depending on (1) court rulings on what types of activities are considered "preferential treatment" and (2) whether federal law requires continuation of certain programs.In most cases, any funds that could not be spent for existing programs in public schools and community colleges would have to be spent on other programs in the schools and colleges.In addition, the amount affected as a result of this measure would be less if any existing affirmative action programs were declared unconstitutional under the United States Constitution. For example, five state affirmative action programs are currently the subject of a lawsuit. If any of these programs are found to be unlawful, then the state could no longer spend money on them--regardless of whether this measure is in effect.Finally, some programs we have identified as being affected might be changed to use factors other than those prohibited by the measure. For example, a high school outreach program operated by the UC or the CSU that currently uses a factor such as ethnicity to target spending could be changed to target instead high schools with low percentages of UC or CSU applications.Return to Propositions 006ab0faaa