Colorado 1996 results

[CJK]

OK, I'm having a tough time making sense of the voting trends in Colorado:

1988: It votes for George H.W. Bush by no more than his nation-wide margin.

1992: It votes for Bill Clinton, again by the nationwide margin.

1996: It votes for Bob Dole despite the fact that Clinton wins big. Lots of people interpret this to be due to Perot supporters returning to the Republican party, but Arizona went for Clinton despite being in the same region. Nevada also voted for Clinton again despite Perot's shrunken %.

2000: It votes for George W. Bush substantially, but only because of Nader.

2004: Votes for Bush by slightly more than his national margin.

2008: In a big swing it votes for Obama by 9 points, slightly more than the national margin.

My question is why exactly did Dole win the state in 1996 after it pretty much voted similar to the national margin in both elections before and after 1996.

[phk]

CA was bleeding CA GOPers, I think and Nader. Clinton was hurting a lot in the Mountain West over Hillary-care in general.

[hcallega]

The answer to this question really means looking past the raw numbers and involves a little more deep thought. Up until recently the west was very solidly Republican. But it was a very different kind of Republican. It was generally a small-government, self-reliance GOP. They were a center-right party that accepted the libertarian streak. However beginning with Gingrich, and coming to a head with Bush, that GOP took a backseat to the Christian Right, which advocated staunch social conservatism at the expense of small government. 1992 was a good example of how the west is the most politically variable region of the nation, as many voters went strait to Perot. In 1996 Perot was a minor candidate, and Dole was a westerner and center-right conservative. But why did Bush win in 2000 and 2004 if he is the reason why Obama won in 2008? Well the answer is really that Bush was one of the best Presidents ever at changing the debate. He was able to focus the campaigns on social issues, where most westerners are ultimately conservative. Also he ran hard on foreign policy, and faced "old-fashioned" Democrats who never did well there.

Obama symbolized a shift in the Democrats. He WAS the suburban candidate, someone who voters in the counties surrounding Denver could imagine living next door. Also social issues weren't out there, and even if they were the GOP has become so extreme that someone who is not hell bent on banning abortion and gay marriage is not accepted. So it's less Colorado (though the demographics shift towards more YUPPIES has helped), and more national politics.

[Nym90]

Clinton didn't do well in the interior West in 1996, and this carried over to Gore in 2000 also. The Clinton administration's environmental policies didn't go over well here. Also, Dole was from rural western Kansas, and so probably played well in eastern Colorado, which is very similar.

Also, the suburbs of Denver were a lot more Republican back then.