Perot in the South

[Rob Bloom]

I've always wondered why Ross Perot underperformed in the South in 1992 as well as in 1996. If you leave out D.C., his ten weakest states in 1992 were southern states. Given his rather conservative platform, I would have expected the South to be a stronghold rather than his weakest spot.

I know that Perot was pro-choice and of course the democrats had an advantage in the South with Clinton. But that doesn't explain why Perot wasn't competitive in these states. Suggestions?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Perot came second in some North Florida counties.

[Nichlemn]

Both Bush and Clinton were also from the South. Polarisation might have also mattered.

[minionofmidas]

Perot's electorate wasn't all that conservative - he did very well with liberal independents as well as the soft-libertarian wing of the GOP electorate. The modern teapartying "independent" redneck didn't exist yet (as anything like a mass phenomenon). Yet Perot had no appeal with Blacks. Where exactly was a Southern Perot vote to come from?
If you look at Independent candidates in the US before him... they're either segregationist regional candidates or the South is their weakest region. 

[Mr. Morden]

Neither blacks nor high-religiosity social conservatives were terribly disposed to vote for Perot, and the South has plenty of both.

[memphis]

We don't typically vote third party down here. Anderson and Nader didn't do well here either. Of course, the South will go third party for a foaming at the mouth Wallace type of candidate. I could see a Sarah Palin type doing well as a third party candidate. But that's a different thing entirely.  In short,there's no point in voting for a boring third party candidate

[TDAS04]

Party loyalty is more important in the South than in other parts of the US, especially New England and the West.

[Bacon King]

Party loyalty is more important in the South than in other parts of the US, especially New England and the West.

lol

[old timey villain]

Party loyalty is more important in the South than in other parts of the US, especially New England and the West.

You know, I would say that's one thing that kind of ties together the south with the urban northeast. For some reason, both regions tend to support third parties at lower rates in recent years.


This is Perot strength in 1992. His worst region was the south (Mississippi) but he also did poorly in the Mid Atlantic. Look at Perot's strength in the entire western US in comparison. I think recently, the south has the most loyal rural Republicans while the Mid Atlantic has the most loyal urban Democrats.

[old timey villain]

Party loyalty is more important in the South than in other parts of the US, especially New England and the West.

lol

Obviously a unique scenario

[Nym90]

Perot's platform wasn't conservative. He was pro-choice on abortion, favored larger tax increases than Clinton did to help balance the budget, had opposed the Persian Gulf War and was strongly anti-free trade. The emphasis of his campaign message was much more on generic "populism", nationalism and opposition to elites, Washington and "business as usual" as opposed to any ideological fealty. This is why his appeal was mainly to segments of both the country and electorate that were generally distrusting of authority and skeptical of institutions.

[The Mikado]

Perot was also running significantly further to the right in 1996 than he was in 1992, and his 1996 campaign leads people to project the image of the Perot voter back on 1992 when he had a far wider coalition in that year. 

[Indy Texas]

We don't typically vote third party down here. Anderson and Nader didn't do well here either. Of course, the South will go third party for a foaming at the mouth Wallace type of candidate. I could see a Sarah Palin type doing well as a third party candidate. But that's a different thing entirely.  In short,there's no point in voting for a boring third party candidate

That's more because their platforms had zero appeal to that region.

Nader's base was leftist white environmentalists. Anderson's base was upscale whites of moderate Republican pedigree, and some of what would become the Gary Hart/Paul Tsongas Democrats. Where in the South does one find people fitting those descriptions?

[All Along The Watchtower]

We don't typically vote third party down here. Anderson and Nader didn't do well here either. Of course, the South will go third party for a foaming at the mouth Wallace type of candidate. I could see a Sarah Palin type doing well as a third party candidate. But that's a different thing entirely.  In short,there's no point in voting for a boring third party candidate

That's more because their platforms had zero appeal to that region.

Nader's base was leftist white environmentalists. Anderson's base was upscale whites of moderate Republican pedigree, and some of what would become the Gary Hart/Paul Tsongas Democrats. Where in the South does one find people fitting those descriptions?

Probably in certain parts of Atlanta? idk

[Mechaman]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uQvZ-Hgd8Us

Yeah, Perot definitely wasn't a right wing independent.