States where Clinton's 1996 % beat Obama's %

[CJK]

I wasn't going to do this but since we already did the "states Dole beat McCain" thread I just  couldn't resist....

Arizona

Clinton 46.52
Obama 44.91%

Wyoming

Clinton 36.84%
Obama 32.54%

Oklahoma

Clinton 40.45%
Obama 34.35%

Texas

Clinton 43.83%
Obama 43.64%

Louisiana

Clinton 52.01%
Obama 39.93%

Arkansas

Clinton 53.74%
Obama 38.86%

Mississippi

Clinton 44.08%
Obama 43.00%

Alabama

Clinton 43.16%
Obama 38.74%

Tennessee

Clinton 48.00%
Obama 41.79%

Kentucky

Clinton 45.84%
Obama 41.15%

West Virginia

Clinton 51.51%
Obama 42.57%

[minionofmidas]

Why not move all these very similar comparisons to a single thread?

[Antonio the Sixth]

That only shows that Clinton did better in the South. Not very astonishing.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Arizona, Wyoming, and Texas surprise me.

[minionofmidas]

Arizona, Wyoming, and Texas surprise me.

There was quite a notable home state effect in metropolitan Arizona this time around. Don't know what else to call it. In addition, the old Democratic tradition in white parts of western Arizona seems to have died for good. But that area's population is tiny.

Texas' rural areas have swung Republican hard at the presidential level. Clinton did quite well there, even in comparison to similar places elsewhere in the south. (In the cities, Obama did better than Clinton. By quite a bit.) Meanwhile, Obama got absolutely killed. This is partly due to the politics of oil. Obama sucked badly in oil industry (rural) areas throughout the US, or maybe McCain did great there. As to why, I've no real clue, but it's also behind Wyoming here.

[Nym90]

Arizona, Wyoming, and Texas surprise me.

Arizona: homestate effect for McCain
Texas: It's close, anyway, plus Clinton was Southerner/even neighbouring state.
Wyoming: maybe something to do with Perot?

This is just comparing raw percentages, not margins, so Perot made Clinton's percentage lower, not higher. Wyoming is another oil state that has swung to the right overall, plus there may have been some residual loyalty to Cheney in Wyoming and to Bush in Texas that helped boost the GOP ticket in 2008.

[phk]

Really, the only one that doesn't really have a reasonable explanation is WY. But I think people read into primary results too much.

[the artist formerly known as catmusic]

Arizona, Wyoming, and Texas surprise me.

AZ: There was McCain, our home boy.
WY: It's Wyoming
TX: Obama did not do as well in the south, so no supprise.

[hcallega]

Wyoming=Quite Simply Perot likely drew more votes from Dole than Clinton, while Obama's liberalism likely hurt him. I know people will nail me for saying many Perot voters would go for Dole over Clinton, but out west he probably would (mid-west and border states probably even or even hurting Clinton more)

Texas=Clinton from a neighbor state, more conservative, and Perot may have had a small impact.

Arizona=Home state impact, also less hispanics and less xenophobia from the GOP.

[nclib]

Wyoming=Quite Simply Perot likely drew more votes from Dole than Clinton, while Obama's liberalism likely hurt him. I know people will nail me for saying many Perot voters would go for Dole over Clinton, but out west he probably would (mid-west and border states probably even or even hurting Clinton more)

This is actual % not margin, so Perot made Clinton's % lower, even if more Perot voters in WY would have voted Dole than Clinton. WY had among the strongest GOP swings in 2000 (somewhat due to Cheney, and perhaps Cheney's influence on the state shrunk the Dem swing in 2008--esp. compared to the Interior West). The others are predictable, the South (except for the Atlantic Coast) and McCain's home state of Ariz.

[minionofmidas]

This is actual % not margin, so Perot made Clinton's % lower

Cough. Clinton still beat Obama.

[Nym90]

This is actual % not margin, so Perot made Clinton's % lower

Cough. Clinton still beat Obama.

Exactly. This is comparing only the actual percentage of the total vote, not the margins, so Perot's presence in 1996 makes Clinton exceeding Obama that much more impressive.

[phk]

I think people might be reading too much into the 2008 primary results. Is there any other, natural and intuitive reason one would expect 2008 Obama to be higher than 1996 Clinton?

Unless people assume that 2008 Latte liberal pop > 1996 latte liberal pop.  But those types aren't the only D's in Wyoming.

[Nym90]

Yeah the working class Dem vote used to be strong in southwestern Wyoming and that seems to be completely gone now.

[HAnnA MArin County]

I'm shocked that Obama did better in Missouri than Bill Clinton did in 1996, especially seeing as how Clinton won more counties. I guess it was the Ross Perot effect.

[Nym90]

I'm shocked that Obama did better in Missouri than Bill Clinton did in 1996, especially seeing as how Clinton won more counties. I guess it was the Ross Perot effect.

This is actual % not margin, so Perot made Clinton's % lower

Cough. Clinton still beat Obama.

Exactly. This is comparing only the actual percentage of the total vote, not the margins, so Perot's presence in 1996 makes Clinton exceeding Obama that much more impressive.

I'll just keep quoting this post every time someone keeps repeating the Perot thing here.....maybe I'm not being clear enough in my wording.

[minionofmidas]

I'm shocked that Obama did better in Missouri than Bill Clinton did in 1996, especially seeing as how Clinton won more counties. I guess it was the Ross Perot effect.

This is actual % not margin, so Perot made Clinton's % lower

Cough. Clinton still beat Obama.

Exactly. This is comparing only the actual percentage of the total vote, not the margins, so Perot's presence in 1996 makes Clinton exceeding Obama that much more impressive.

I'll just keep quoting this post every time someone keeps repeating the Perot thing here.....maybe I'm not being clear enough in my wording.

It makes sense here, though... if Semocrat was referring to the county map. Of course, Obama's higher share of the vote means sh!t for the county map, given that there was another major candidate in the race in 1996 and Clinton actually won the state.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yeah Perot is a valid explanation for the Missouri 1996 county map. Well somewhat. Clinton got over 50% in a significant number of counties.

[Nym90]

Except that Perot didn't actually take votes disproportionately away from the Republican candidates, at least based on exit polls.

I took "especially seeing as Clinton won more counties" to imply that winning more counties should've equated to winning a higher percentage of the vote, not to imply that Perot was responsible for him winning more counties.

I realize we've beaten that dead horse into the ground, so I'll stop that now.

[minionofmidas]

Except that Perot didn't actually take votes disproportionately away from the Republican candidates, at least based on exit polls.

I took "especially seeing as Clinton won more counties" to imply that winning more counties should've equated to winning a higher percentage of the vote, not to imply that Perot was responsible for him winning more counties.

I realize we've beaten that dead horse into the ground, so I'll stop that now.

Don't, it's not in China yet.