Why/How Did Dole Flip Colorado But Also Lose Arizona?

[Free Bird]

Two-part question. Says it on the tin. Was Arizona more Democratic than Colorado at the time?

[libertpaulian]

Colorado still had a more conservative/libertarianish trait to it at the time.  Arizona's retirees were largely of the GI and early Silent Generations, which were more Democratic.  Clinton's hammering of the whole "Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich are going to take away your Social Security and Medicare!" talking point really stuck with them.  It's also why Florida went so largely for Clinton and why it was able to be called right at the poll closing time.

[Vosem]

Should be noted that Arizona was still significantly more Democratic than Colorado in 2000 (although both were pretty easy Bush wins), before Arizona trended pretty hard R in 2004 while Colorado went the opposite way, with Kerry trying to compete there late in the campaign. A big part of the answer is third parties -- Colorado was a significantly stronger state for Nader '00 (and Nader '96, which wasn't even on the ballot in AZ but received 2% in CO) than Arizona was, which depressed the Democratic performance.

[Mr. Smith]

Clinton put way more energy into Arizona and Florida than anywhere else, pretty much squandering his chances elsewhere.

This is also the same reason Nevada was to the right of Arizona that year.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Clinton put way more energy into Arizona and Florida than anywhere else, pretty much squandering his chances elsewhere.

Yeah, those are the two states he lost in '92 that he most wanted....Arizona had the longest streak of voting Republican at the time (now eight states are tied).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nothing to do with swing states, but still can't get over Louisiana being more D (and almost as D as California) than the rest of the nation that year given how it would vote after that.

[Hydera]

Clinton put way more energy into Arizona and Florida than anywhere else, pretty much squandering his chances elsewhere.

Yeah, those are the two states he lost in '92 that he most wanted....Arizona had the longest streak of voting Republican at the time (now eight states are tied).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nothing to do with swing states, but still can't get over Louisiana being more D (and almost as D as California) than the rest of the nation that year given how it would vote after that.

Louisiana Catholics were still swingy prior to 2000, Plus Dukakis did well in Louisiana compared to other deep South states because the state economy which was dependent on oil was stagnant after the Oil crash in 1981.




Social conservatism and evangelicals made the state still go for the GOP in 1984 and 1988. In 1992, the economy was already rebounding but HW Bush couldnt benefit because of the vote split for Perot which helped Clinton.  Then in 1995 as Louisiana's economy boomed it helped Clinton in 1996. Since then obviously the state will go for the GOP because of the post-2000 culture wars along with Democrat's environmental policies being unpopular amongst the electorate due to the dependence on Oil.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Clinton put way more energy into Arizona and Florida than anywhere else, pretty much squandering his chances elsewhere.

Yeah, those are the two states he lost in '92 that he most wanted....Arizona had the longest streak of voting Republican at the time (now eight states are tied).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nothing to do with swing states, but still can't get over Louisiana being more D (and almost as D as California) than the rest of the nation that year given how it would vote after that.

Louisiana Catholics were still swingy prior to 2000, Plus Dukakis did well in Louisiana compared to other deep South states because the state economy which was dependent on oil was stagnant after the Oil crash in 1981.




Social conservatism and evangelicals made the state still go for the GOP in 1984 and 1988. In 1992, the economy was already rebounding but HW Bush couldnt benefit because of the vote split for Perot which helped Clinton.  Then in 1995 as Louisiana's economy boomed it helped Clinton in 1996. Since then obviously the state will go for the GOP because of the post-2000 culture wars along with Democrat's environmental policies being unpopular amongst the electorate due to the dependence on Oil.

I don't question why Clinton won the state...just why he won it by so much....his native Arkansas was the only other southern state that was more Democratic than the nation as a whole that year.  It's understandable that Dole would do worse than Bush Sr. in '92 because the latter was an oilman from a neighboring state, but not "lose by almost as much as you're losing California" worse. He lost Louisiana by more than he lost Pennsylvania!

[Hydera]

Clinton put way more energy into Arizona and Florida than anywhere else, pretty much squandering his chances elsewhere.

Yeah, those are the two states he lost in '92 that he most wanted....Arizona had the longest streak of voting Republican at the time (now eight states are tied).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nothing to do with swing states, but still can't get over Louisiana being more D (and almost as D as California) than the rest of the nation that year given how it would vote after that.

Louisiana Catholics were still swingy prior to 2000, Plus Dukakis did well in Louisiana compared to other deep South states because the state economy which was dependent on oil was stagnant after the Oil crash in 1981.




Social conservatism and evangelicals made the state still go for the GOP in 1984 and 1988. In 1992, the economy was already rebounding but HW Bush couldnt benefit because of the vote split for Perot which helped Clinton.  Then in 1995 as Louisiana's economy boomed it helped Clinton in 1996. Since then obviously the state will go for the GOP because of the post-2000 culture wars along with Democrat's environmental policies being unpopular amongst the electorate due to the dependence on Oil.

I don't question why Clinton won the state...just why he won it by so much....his native Arkansas was the only other southern state that was more Democratic than the nation as a whole that year.  It's understandable that Dole would do worse than Bush Sr. in '92 because the latter was an oilman from a neighboring state, but not "lose by almost as much as you're losing California" worse. He lost Louisiana by more than he lost Pennsylvania!

Quite simply Dole campaigned more in Pennsylvania than he did in Louisiana since Pennsylvania was a swing state.

Also this map easily explains how Clinton did well in Louisiana in 1996.

 

It was basically a coalition of Black voters and white catholics the later of which as i mentioned deserted the dems after '96.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Clinton put way more energy into Arizona and Florida than anywhere else, pretty much squandering his chances elsewhere.

Yeah, those are the two states he lost in '92 that he most wanted....Arizona had the longest streak of voting Republican at the time (now eight states are tied).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nothing to do with swing states, but still can't get over Louisiana being more D (and almost as D as California) than the rest of the nation that year given how it would vote after that.

Louisiana Catholics were still swingy prior to 2000, Plus Dukakis did well in Louisiana compared to other deep South states because the state economy which was dependent on oil was stagnant after the Oil crash in 1981.




Social conservatism and evangelicals made the state still go for the GOP in 1984 and 1988. In 1992, the economy was already rebounding but HW Bush couldnt benefit because of the vote split for Perot which helped Clinton.  Then in 1995 as Louisiana's economy boomed it helped Clinton in 1996. Since then obviously the state will go for the GOP because of the post-2000 culture wars along with Democrat's environmental policies being unpopular amongst the electorate due to the dependence on Oil.

I don't question why Clinton won the state...just why he won it by so much....his native Arkansas was the only other southern state that was more Democratic than the nation as a whole that year.  It's understandable that Dole would do worse than Bush Sr. in '92 because the latter was an oilman from a neighboring state, but not "lose by almost as much as you're losing California" worse. He lost Louisiana by more than he lost Pennsylvania!

Quite simply Dole campaigned more in Pennsylvania than he did in Louisiana since Pennsylvania was a swing state.

Also this map easily explains how Clinton did well in Louisiana in 1996.

 

It was basically a coalition of Black voters and white catholics the later of which as i mentioned deserted the dems after '96.

I don't dispute your "white Catholics" reasoning, but...

Was Louisiana really not considered a swing state during the campaign? I wouldn't have thought Dole would write off any southern state other than Arkansas, and I know Dole did campaign there. Ironically, he won the same number of congressional districts in Louisiana and Arkansas...