Biggest state surprises of the 1992 election

[old timey villain]

I wish I had been old enough to pay attention to the 92 election. It really was a big realignment with so many states changing allegiances.

Surprise Clinton States: NJ, VT, NH, CA, NV (All of them has been strong R previously)

Surprise Bush States: Basically every southern state he won. I'm sure in 1992 people would have expected a victorious southern Democrat to sweep the south, but Bush was still strong here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuabs7WCQKQ

[sg0508]

The GOP knew they were done right from the opening calls.  NH was a shocker.  VT wasn't given that the GOP establishment there had been weakening for a decade or so.  GA was a shocker, although the final results proved very tight. 

MT was a surprise.  FL wasn't supposed to be as close as it was and Clinton (per his book) was annoyed he didn't work FL as hard in '92 as he did in '96.  Also, NC was a near Clinton win.

[old timey villain]

You gotta hand it to Clinton. A year out from the election Bush seemed invincible and out of the Dems who had a prayer Clinton was last on the list. But he ran a great campaign that managed to win back a lot of support from southerners while finally picking up the blue states that had been slowly moving away from the Republicans. I would love to see another Clinton who could win Tennessee, California, Vermont and Montana.

[fartboy]

Surprise can have a different meaning when considering Perot.

[JRP1994]

Surprise can have a different meaning when considering Perot.

To the extent that Perot probably impacted the outcomes in a few of the super close states (NH, NJ, GA), your point is well made. But the theory that Perot was a spoiler and caused Clinton to win the election has been thoroughly debunked. Perot ≠ Nader.

[Heimdal]

The biggest surprise in my opinion was New England (not a single state, but still). The only Election where the Democrats had won all the states of New England was Johnsons landslide victory in 1964. Bush did a lot better than Goldwater, but he still lost every single state in New England and the Northeast in general to Clinton. Even when Ford lost the General Election in 1976 he won several of these states.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

IMO: Colorado and Montana for Clinton (probably Perot spoiler in these states), Florida and North Carolina for Bush (expected Clinton wins).

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Montana was a fluke due to Perot splitting votes up there.

For me, the biggest surprise was Bush narrowly holding Florida while losing Georgia.

[sg0508]

IMO: Colorado and Montana for Clinton (probably Perot spoiler in these states), Florida and North Carolina for Bush (expected Clinton wins).

Florida wasn't even on the radar for Clinton.  That's why he mentioned that he was annoyed he didn't work it as hard that year.  CO wasn't much of a surprise.  It was one of the states Dukakis actually worked in '88 west of the plains and the economy was weak. 

[buritobr]

No other Democrat won both Georgia and Vermont in the same election.
From 1856 to now, the EV of these states went to the same candidate only in 1972, 1984, 1988 and 1992.



Clinton was more efficient in 1992 than he was in 1996. He had a bigger margin in the popular vote in 1996, but he won one more state in 1992.


The north-south divide was much smaller in 1992 than it was in 1996

[Indy Texas]

I doubt many people expected a Yankee incumbent like Bush to lose the Upper New England states, Connecticut, or New Jersey to an Arkansas Democrat.

And Bush failing to break 40% in TX or KS.

If Perot hadn't suspended his campaign over the summer, would he have won any states?

[old timey villain]

The biggest surprise in my opinion was New England (not a single state, but still). The only Election where the Democrats had won all the states of New England was Johnsons landslide victory in 1964. Bush did a lot better than Goldwater, but he still lost every single state in New England and the Northeast in general to Clinton. Even when Ford lost the General Election in 1976 he won several of these states.

Bush was desperate in 1992 and made his campaign all about the "culture wars" (ugh) which probably handed him several southern states but alienated him in New England and the northeast. I think 1992 was the final straw for yankee Republicans.

[Sasquatch]

If Perot hadn't suspended his campaign over the summer, would he have won any states?

Maine.

[buritobr]

According to the Washington Post forecast one day before the election, Bush would win Georgia and Wisconsin, and Clinton would win Virginia, South Dakota and Alaska. The forecast for all of the other states were correct.

Gallup predicted in the national popular vote Clinton 44%, Bush 36% and Perot 14%. ABC predicted Clinton 42%, Bush 37% and Perot 17%. NBC predicted Clinton 44%, Bush 36% and Perot 15%.

[Skill and Chance]

Going by Bush 1988 performance, the biggest surprises for 1992 would be:

1. NH for Clinton
2. IA being close (2nd best Dukakis state after RI)
3. GA
4. NV
5. SD for Bush

IA in 1988 can be explained as a protest vote over the farm crisis.  The same applies to SD to a lesser extent.  So the biggest genuine surprises were NH and GA both going for Clinton.

[Heimdal]

The biggest surprise in my opinion was New England (not a single state, but still). The only Election where the Democrats had won all the states of New England was Johnsons landslide victory in 1964. Bush did a lot better than Goldwater, but he still lost every single state in New England and the Northeast in general to Clinton. Even when Ford lost the General Election in 1976 he won several of these states.

Bush was desperate in 1992 and made his campaign all about the "culture wars" (ugh) which probably handed him several southern states but alienated him in New England and the northeast. I think 1992 was the final straw for yankee Republicans.

I don't know enough about the 1992 campaign, but I thought Pat Buchanan was the person who introduced "culture war" to the election of 1992?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Montana was a fluke due to Perot splitting votes up there.

For me, the biggest surprise was Bush narrowly holding Florida while losing Georgia.

In retrospect, yes, but it wouldn't have seemed so at the time I don't think. In the 80s even in Presidential election Florida was more Republican than Georgia.

The ease at which Clinton swept New England must have been a surprise. Does anyone have any links to discussion at the time?

[⛄]

My opinion: Texas and Indiana.

Texas because Clinton, although a Southerner, didn't win it despite the fact that both his opponents' home state was Texas.

Indiana because it was a lava isle within a deep blue sea.

Maine is also noticeable as Perot came here second.

[Nichlemn]

No question that it's NH going for Clinton. It was Bush's second best state in 1988, and one of Reagan's best states too. And unlike say GA, there wasn't any reason to think Clinton would have had a regional appeal.

In terms of a PVI-shocker, it'd be similar to a Southern Republican winning California in 2016 in a moderate national victory.

[WillTheMormon]

In terms of a PVI-shocker, it'd be similar to a Southern Republican winning California in 2016 in a moderate national victory.

A Huckabee / Martinez ticket can do it if the Democrats put up a hard left candidate like Elizabeth Warren who has a very weak campaign message and a horrible running mate like Kirsten Sinema who I can see easily becoming the Democratic Sarah Palin.

Of course this scenario is very unlikely but it can happen. No one expected the GOP to lose every state except for the Deep South (then a solid Democratic region) and AZ in 1964. Consider Huckabee's strong appeal among minorities (IIRC he was one of the only Republicans to win the black vote in recent times and this could be very beneficial in California considering the majority of blacks and Latinos voting for Prop 8.) and Martinez being a very popular governor in a Latino-majority state. A splitter left candidate (Bernie Sanders has hit a run) could seal the deal for the GOP in this scenario.

[SWE]

In terms of a PVI-shocker, it'd be similar to a Southern Republican winning California in 2016 in a moderate national victory.

A Huckabee / Martinez ticket can do it if the Democrats put up a hard left candidate like Elizabeth Warren who has a very weak campaign message and a horrible running mate like Kirsten Sinema who I can see easily becoming the Democratic Sarah Palin.

Of course this scenario is very unlikely but it can happen. No one expected the GOP to lose every state except for the Deep South (then a solid Democratic region) and AZ in 1964. Consider Huckabee's strong appeal among minorities (IIRC he was one of the only Republicans to win the black vote in recent times and this could be very beneficial in California considering the majority of blacks and Latinos voting for Prop 8.) and Martinez being a very popular governor in a Latino-majority state. A splitter left candidate (Bernie Sanders has hit a run) could seal the deal for the GOP in this scenario.

Since when is Elizabeth Warren "hard-left"?

[Rockefeller GOP]

In terms of a PVI-shocker, it'd be similar to a Southern Republican winning California in 2016 in a moderate national victory.

A Huckabee / Martinez ticket can do it if the Democrats put up a hard left candidate like Elizabeth Warren who has a very weak campaign message and a horrible running mate like Kirsten Sinema who I can see easily becoming the Democratic Sarah Palin.

Of course this scenario is very unlikely but it can happen. No one expected the GOP to lose every state except for the Deep South (then a solid Democratic region) and AZ in 1964. Consider Huckabee's strong appeal among minorities (IIRC he was one of the only Republicans to win the black vote in recent times and this could be very beneficial in California considering the majority of blacks and Latinos voting for Prop 8.) and Martinez being a very popular governor in a Latino-majority state. A splitter left candidate (Bernie Sanders has hit a run) could seal the deal for the GOP in this scenario.

Since when is Elizabeth Warren "hard-left"?

It's become quite clear that the vast majority on this board use a spectrum much more centrist than you do.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Wyoming and Kansas were shockers considering how much they broke against Clinton four years later.  There's no reason those states should have been that close.

[MATTROSE94]

If I were alive at the time, I probably would have been surprised at Clinton's relatively weak performance in some of the Southern states such as North Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky and Florida.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Co and NV and NH which gives the Dems the same amount of votes as OH. Not only that it became the Democratic firewall of 272-266 margin in the electoral college. Ohio had become more and more less important, due to the population decrease in rust belt to southwest. Hilary is the only Dem that can carry AZ, due to Bill winning the state in the next election.