Why did Bill Clinton underperform in California in 1996?

[TDAS04]

California swung right that year.  I know the GOP Convention was held in San Diego, but usually that doesn't have much of an impact.

Yes, most of the West swung right in 1996, but California is more urban and densely-populated like an Eastern state, and Clinton improved upon his 1992 margins among both Hispanics and Asians.  It seems like Bill should have carried the state by more than 13 points.

[Liberalrocks]

In addition to the convention, I remember I was in high school, Dole made a mild play for the state campaigning in Southern California, Fresno area and Northern counties around Chico. It was (non atlas) blue leaning then but not the deep blue state it is today.

[twenty42]

CA’s rock-solid D status wasn’t cemented until 2008. From 1992 to 2004, it was more where OR or DE is today...heavily D leaning, but ever-so-slightly in play in a hypothetical R landslide.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Maybe he was more or less perceived as a Southerner, which still didn't go down well with educated California Democrats back then.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Clinton generally underperformed in 1996.

[Matty]

Clinton underperformed everywhere in 1996.

[libertpaulian]

If he "underperformed," how did he improve on his PV and EC margins?

[twenty42]

If he "underperformed," how did he improve on his PV and EC margins?

Less Perot impact, and FL narrowly flipped. But remember he lost three of his 1992 states...most incumbents keep their original map.

[Rookie Yinzer]

People stayed home. Black turnout plummeted from 1992 to 1996. Seems to me most thought Clinton had it in the bag and didn't bother.

[Mr. Smith]

Welfare Reform didn't do any favors.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If he "underperformed," how did he improve on his PV and EC margins?

Less Perot impact, and FL narrowly flipped. But remember he lost three of his 1992 states...most incumbents keep their original map.

Got more electoral votes, though.

Still, he underperformed in a sense of failing to meet expectations, including getting more than 50%. Dole surged in the last weeks of the campaign.

Also notice there was 0 Clinton coattails, as evident with GOP Senate pickups, including Arkansas.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If he "underperformed," how did he improve on his PV and EC margins?

Less Perot impact, and FL narrowly flipped. But remember he lost three of his 1992 states...most incumbents keep their original map.

Got more electoral votes, though. Also, Montana in 1992 was rather a fluke.

Still, he underperformed in a sense of failing to meet expectations, including getting more than 50%. Dole surged in the last weeks of the campaign.

Also notice there was 0 Clinton coattails, as evident with GOP Senate pickups, including Arkansas.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The results suggest the lions share of the Perot 1992 California vote went to Dole, in contrast to the situation in the Northeast states.   Given that and the politics of the state at the time, immigration was likely key here. In 1994, Prop 187, supported by Gov Wilson, won with 59% of the vote, winning a majority in every county outside the Bay area.  The measure was criticized by Jack Kemp, but generally in CA the Republicans were associated with supporting it, with Clinton and the Democrats in opposition.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=492

[Arbitrage1980]

If he "underperformed," how did he improve on his PV and EC margins?

Less Perot impact, and FL narrowly flipped. But remember he lost three of his 1992 states...most incumbents keep their original map.

FL did not "narrowly" flip. HW Bush won it in 1992 by 1.9% while Clinton won it by 5.7%, the strongest performance by a Democrat in that state since Truman 1948. Not even LBJ 1964, Carter 1976, Obama 2008, matched Clinton 1996 winning margin.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Clinton underperformed everywhere in 1996.

Sorry to bump this thread, but I wanted to respond to this...

Clinton OVERperformed in Louisiana in 1996. A double-digit win in a state that would be Leans Republican in the next election and Likely/Safe Republican in every election after that....sorry, no way to spin that as underperforming or performing within expectations.

[Sir Mohamed]

CA’s rock-solid D status wasn’t cemented until 2008. From 1992 to 2004, it was more where OR or DE is today...heavily D leaning, but ever-so-slightly in play in a hypothetical R landslide.

Basically this. Even W got still got 44% of the vote in CA. Much more than Trump or Romney.

[Hydera]

I moved here so i don't have any anecdotes about what happened in Cali.

But apparently in California the economy rebounded from the 1990-91 recession, However it was slower than other West Coast states like Oregon. Oregon on the otherhand had a stronger economic recovery but Clinton lost almost 2% of his 1992 margin in the state which is probably attributed to the stronger Nader vote considering Oregon had a lot of liberal/progressive/etc leftwing economic progressive voters compared to California and Washington who were upset with his first term.