Kansas '92 for Perot

[Kleine Scheiße]

The pie chart of the vote total for Kansas 1992 is roughly as close to perfect thirds as could have been conceivably possible.

Perot's performance in some areas -- Maine, Wyoming, etc. -- is easily explained, but with Kansas, he pulled off 27% (and won some counties) in what's traditionally been one of the most rigidly partisan presidential state elections; much of that just had to have come from Republicans, because Bush's 39% is an utter collapse and Clinton's 34% wasn't exactly an unprecedented margin for Democrats in Kansas.

Why was Perot able to pull Republicans better in Kansas than, say, the Dakotas or North Carolina? A cursory analysis feels to me like he managed comparable results (20-25%) in other states, but for some reason it doesn't seem like he nabbed Republicans quite as easily anywhere else than Kansas.

It's relevant that Bush didn't do all that well against Buchanan and "unpledged" in the Kansas '92 primary, and in '80 he couldn't even crack 20% against Reagan and Anderson. So, might the question actually be about H. W.'s incompatibility with Kansas, rather than Kansas Republicans' apparent affinity for Perot?

[VPH]

I also wonder about this, as a Kansan. His support wasn't really that clustered in a specific part of the state, so that makes it harder to figure out.

[Bidenworth2020]

appeal to kansas burbs, appeal in Wyominakansas

[SingingAnalyst]

The pie chart of the vote total for Kansas 1992 is roughly as close to perfect thirds as could have been conceivably possible.

Perot's performance in some areas -- Maine, Wyoming, etc. -- is easily explained, but with Kansas, he pulled off 27% (and won some counties) in what's traditionally been one of the most rigidly partisan presidential state elections; much of that just had to have come from Republicans, because Bush's 39% is an utter collapse and Clinton's 34% wasn't exactly an unprecedented margin for Democrats in Kansas.

Why was Perot able to pull Republicans better in Kansas than, say, the Dakotas or North Carolina? A cursory analysis feels to me like he managed comparable results (20-25%) in other states, but for some reason it doesn't seem like he nabbed Republicans quite as easily anywhere else than Kansas.

It's relevant that Bush didn't do all that well against Buchanan and "unpledged" in the Kansas '92 primary, and in '80 he couldn't even crack 20% against Reagan and Anderson. So, might the question actually be about H. W.'s incompatibility with Kansas, rather than Kansas Republicans' apparent affinity for Perot?

That might be it. Also, Bush won just 55.8% in KS in 1988-- a smaller percentage than in NJ!

[twenty42]

The pie chart of the vote total for Kansas 1992 is roughly as close to perfect thirds as could have been conceivably possible.

Perot's performance in some areas -- Maine, Wyoming, etc. -- is easily explained, but with Kansas, he pulled off 27% (and won some counties) in what's traditionally been one of the most rigidly partisan presidential state elections; much of that just had to have come from Republicans, because Bush's 39% is an utter collapse and Clinton's 34% wasn't exactly an unprecedented margin for Democrats in Kansas.

Why was Perot able to pull Republicans better in Kansas than, say, the Dakotas or North Carolina? A cursory analysis feels to me like he managed comparable results (20-25%) in other states, but for some reason it doesn't seem like he nabbed Republicans quite as easily anywhere else than Kansas.

It's relevant that Bush didn't do all that well against Buchanan and "unpledged" in the Kansas '92 primary, and in '80 he couldn't even crack 20% against Reagan and Anderson. So, might the question actually be about H. W.'s incompatibility with Kansas, rather than Kansas Republicans' apparent affinity for Perot?

I'd hardly call Kansas a rigidly partisan state in presidential elections. It has been less partisan than the nation in every election since 1968. If anything, Kansas is a pretty fertile ground for third-party candidacies.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The pie chart of the vote total for Kansas 1992 is roughly as close to perfect thirds as could have been conceivably possible.

Perot's performance in some areas -- Maine, Wyoming, etc. -- is easily explained, but with Kansas, he pulled off 27% (and won some counties) in what's traditionally been one of the most rigidly partisan presidential state elections; much of that just had to have come from Republicans, because Bush's 39% is an utter collapse and Clinton's 34% wasn't exactly an unprecedented margin for Democrats in Kansas.

Why was Perot able to pull Republicans better in Kansas than, say, the Dakotas or North Carolina? A cursory analysis feels to me like he managed comparable results (20-25%) in other states, but for some reason it doesn't seem like he nabbed Republicans quite as easily anywhere else than Kansas.

It's relevant that Bush didn't do all that well against Buchanan and "unpledged" in the Kansas '92 primary, and in '80 he couldn't even crack 20% against Reagan and Anderson. So, might the question actually be about H. W.'s incompatibility with Kansas, rather than Kansas Republicans' apparent affinity for Perot?

I'd hardly call Kansas a rigidly partisan state in presidential elections. It has been less partisan than the nation in every election since 1968. If anything, Kansas is a pretty fertile ground for third-party candidacies.

It certainly was fertile ground for third-party candidacies in the late 1800s!