1992 and 1996: what changed?

[Scam of God]

- 1992


- 1996

As we can see from these maps, the eastern portion of the United States was virtually unmoved in the intervening four years; the only states to change hands were Florida - Democrat to Republican - and Georgia - visa versa.

Likewise, in the west, Clinton ceded only Colorado and Montana to Dole, and picked up Arizona in the process: meaning Clinton lost only one state total between the two elections.

Superficially, these two elections look like a continuation of a trend, though what it is I cannot put my finger on. Perhaps you can help.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

A weaker Perot, for one thing.  Voter turnout probably had some impact; there wasn't as much interest in the election.

[Scam of God]

A weaker Perot, for one thing.  Voter turnout probably had some impact; there wasn't as much interest in the election.

Were the voting coalitions any different this time around - that is, the blocs that voted for either Party - or was this essentially a rematch of 1992?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I think that the african-american vote was the same for each election, but Clinton got a huge bump in the white female vote, which was essentially tied four years earlier.

[Mr.Phips]

Im thinking that a smaller Perot vote hurt Clinton in both Montana and Georgia, which are two states I dont think he would have carried without Perot in 1992.  In Colorado, Clinton was hurt by a poor Democratic organization in the state after 1992, evidenced by a huge surge in Republican registration at the time.  Arizona and Florida probably swung to Clinton in response to the Medicare cuts of the Republican Congress. 

[WalterMitty]

Im thinking that a smaller Perot vote hurt Clinton in both Montana and Georgia, which are two states I dont think he would have carried without Perot in 1992.  In Colorado, Clinton was hurt by a poor Democratic organization in the state after 1992, evidenced by a huge surge in Republican registration at the time.  Arizona and Florida probably swung to Clinton in response to the Medicare cuts of the Republican Congress. 

clinton likely would have won florida in 92 had he spent resources there.

[bgwah]

It's very hard to analyze due to Perot, but I think the North-going-Democrat and South-going-Republican trend continued throughout the 1990s. Tennessee and Missouri became lean R states, while New Jersey, Ohio, and New Hampshire became lean D states. However, Louisiana didn't go to the lean R side until 2000. Arkansas was of course lean D during the 90s, but that was only due to the home state factor and looking beyond that one can see it's been lean R in presidential elections since 1980.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A Perot's worse performance than in 1992 caused the republican Party become again strong in the West, so that he could win Montana and Colorado. I Georgia, we can see that as the definitive decline of the "Carter effect", that was the only reason of Clinton's victory in 1992. Finally, the trend map shows Clinton gaigning ground particularly in the New England, New York and New Jersey.

[SingingAnalyst]

In 1992 Time ran an article and cover "Why Voters Don't Trust Clinton"; at that time many questioned Clinton's fitness. By 1996 after he had been President for 4 years, he seemed presidential and that allayed the doubts of many. For example, in Macomb Co, MI Clinton was up 12 points and Dole was actually down 3 pts from Bush.