indiana 1996: why didnt clinton win?

[WalterMitty]

clinton seems much more acceptable to indiana than obama.  and he had perot taking votes from the gop.

[phk]

Clinton did better than Obama in the parts of the state that were like KY.

But overall, Marion County was still GOP and Clinton didn't have the type of cash that Obama had.

Now how would 1996 have looked if Clinton had the type of money that Obama had? Not sure.

[Nym90]

The idea that Perot took votes disproportionately away from the GOP is pure conjecture, not supported in any way, shape, or form by exit polls. Just for the record.

[phk]

The idea that Perot took votes disproportionately away from the GOP is pure conjecture, not supported in any way, shape, or form by exit polls. Just for the record.

This is true as well.... but I think the bulk of Democratic Perot supporters had come back home to back Clinton in 1996.

[jokerman]

The idea that Perot took votes disproportionately away from the GOP is pure conjecture, not supported in any way, shape, or form by exit polls. Just for the record.

This is true as well.... but I think the bulk of Democratic Perot supporters had come back home to back Clinton in 1996.

That might be possible in certain regions; I imagine the suburban northeast and midwest being one of those.  Overall, though, the data looks like the proportion of swing from Perot was roughly equal.  Some of the biggest swings away from Perot in 96 were in the mountain west and great plains.  Mostly, of course, the Perot voters stayed home in 96.

[Nym90]

As for the question presented, he didn't put up much of an effort to win it. 2008 seems more of the fluke than anything else; 1996's result was not at all unexpected when looking at Indiana results for previous and subsequent years otherwise.

[pragmatic liberal]

Having grown up in Indiana, I have a few theories.

Indiana is a conservative state, but it needs to be understood as largely Midwestern conservative, not Southern conservative. People in Indiana are characterized by a state staid, Midwestern reserve, and relatively less by fire-breathing evangelical conservatism you see in much of the South.

That's relevant to the '96/'08 comparison in a few ways. For one thing, it suggests that in '08, many Indiana voters may have reacted against the Southern capture of the GOP. The archetypal Indiana Republican is Richard Lugar, not Jim DeMint. In '96, Bob Dole was still a fairly establishment, Main St. Republican figure with roots in Kansas. And even with Gingrich in power in the House, the GOP was overall less of a Southern party than it is now. While McCain was an (adopted) Arizonan, the general sense that the GOP was overly Southern may have hurt McCain's campaign in Indiana among moderates, independents, and *some* Republicans who voted for Dole back in '96.

Also, because of their reserve and small-c conservatism, many Hoosiers never really took to Bill Clinton, whose personal scandals and allegations of womanizing were a big turn off. In places like Arkansas and Louisiana, they were perhaps less of a hindrance because Clinton was still identified as a "Good 'Ol Southern boy." That kind of thing doesn't really fly in Indiana. In fact, in terms of temperament and character, Dole was arguably a better fit than Clinton, and Obama a better fit than McCain as well as a better fit temperamentally than Clinton.

For that matter, Obama had a few advantages in '08 that Clinton didn't have. Indiana has a large contingent serving in the military, and there was a lot of war-weariness in '08. The economy was fairly poor throughout Bush's second term. And the state's demographics have changed a bit. The Indianapolis-eraarea has grown a lot over the past 20 years, and with large industries in pharmaceuticals, technology and health care, it has a lot of moderate professionals who have swung sharply Democratic over the past few years. In 1996, there were fewer of those voters, and they were more likely - even nationally - to vote GOP. 

Lastly, Clinton simply never tried that hard. For all of Obama's unique advantages, Indiana has always been competitive at the state level and culturally and demographically, it really isn't all that different from Ohio, which has always been seen as a swing-state despite leaning GOP. Some of Indiana's rock-red reputation was probably a self-fulfilling prophecy. Had Clinton thrown anywhere near the resources into Indiana that Obama did, he might have won it in '96 even with the handicaps I laid out above.

UPDATED: Corrected some stupid typos. That's what I get for not proofreading. 

[Alexander Hamilton]

Having grown up in Indiana, I have a few theories.

Indiana is a conservative state, but it needs to be understood as largely Midwestern conservative, not Southern conservative. People in Indiana are characterized by a state, Midwestern reserve, and relatively less by fire-breathing evangelical conservatism you see in much of the South.

That's relevant to the '96/'08 comparison in a few ways. For one thing, it suggests that in '08, many Indiana voters may have reacted against the Southern capture of the GOP. The archetypal Indiana Republican is Richard Lugar, not Jim DeMint. In '96, Bob Dole was still a fairly establishment, Main St. Republican figure with roots in Kansas. And even with Gingrich in power in the House, the GOP was overall less of a Southern party than it is now. While McCain was an (adopted) Arizonan, the general sense that the GOP was overly Southern may have hurt McCain's campaign in Indiana among moderates, independents, and *some* Republicans who voted for Dole back in '96.

Also, because of their reserve and small-c conservatism, many Hoosiers never really took to Bill Clinton, whose personal scandals and allegations of womanizing were a big turn off. In places like Arkansas and Louisiana, they were perhaps less of a hindrance because Clinton was still identified as a "Good 'Ol Southern boy." That kind of thing doesn't really fly in Indiana. In fact, in terms of temperament and character, Dole was arguably a better fit than Clinton, and Obama a better fit than McCain. For that matter, Obama was a better fit temperamentally than Clinton.

For that matter, Obama had a few advantages in '08 that Clinton didn't have. Indiana has a large contingent serving in the military, and there was a lot of war-weariness in '08. The economy was fairly poor throughout Bush's second term. And the state's demographics have changed a bit. The Indianapolis-era has grown a lot over the past 20 years, and with large industries in pharmaceuticals, technology and health care, it has a lot of moderate professionals who have swung sharply Democratic over the past few years. In 1996, there were fewer of those voters, and they were more likely - even nationally - to vote GOP. 

Lastly, Clinton simply never tried that hard. For all of Obama's unique advantages, Indiana has always been competitive at the state level and culturally and demographically, it really isn't all that different from Ohio, which has always been seen as a swing-state despite leaning GOP. Some of Indiana's rock-red reputation was probably a self-fulfilling prophecy. Had Clinton thrown anywhere near the resources into Indiana that Obama did, he might have won it in '96 even with the handicaps I laid out above.

Also included is the fact that Chicago media pours into the northwest part of Indiana... a very pro-Obama media from a very pro-Obama area could have an affect of Indiana's voting.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Having grown up in Indiana, I have a few theories.

Indiana is a conservative state, but it needs to be understood as largely Midwestern conservative, not Southern conservative. People in Indiana are characterized by a state, Midwestern reserve, and relatively less by fire-breathing evangelical conservatism you see in much of the South.

That's relevant to the '96/'08 comparison in a few ways. For one thing, it suggests that in '08, many Indiana voters may have reacted against the Southern capture of the GOP. The archetypal Indiana Republican is Richard Lugar, not Jim DeMint. In '96, Bob Dole was still a fairly establishment, Main St. Republican figure with roots in Kansas. And even with Gingrich in power in the House, the GOP was overall less of a Southern party than it is now. While McCain was an (adopted) Arizonan, the general sense that the GOP was overly Southern may have hurt McCain's campaign in Indiana among moderates, independents, and *some* Republicans who voted for Dole back in '96.

Also, because of their reserve and small-c conservatism, many Hoosiers never really took to Bill Clinton, whose personal scandals and allegations of womanizing were a big turn off. In places like Arkansas and Louisiana, they were perhaps less of a hindrance because Clinton was still identified as a "Good 'Ol Southern boy." That kind of thing doesn't really fly in Indiana. In fact, in terms of temperament and character, Dole was arguably a better fit than Clinton, and Obama a better fit than McCain. For that matter, Obama was a better fit temperamentally than Clinton.

For that matter, Obama had a few advantages in '08 that Clinton didn't have. Indiana has a large contingent serving in the military, and there was a lot of war-weariness in '08. The economy was fairly poor throughout Bush's second term. And the state's demographics have changed a bit. The Indianapolis-era has grown a lot over the past 20 years, and with large industries in pharmaceuticals, technology and health care, it has a lot of moderate professionals who have swung sharply Democratic over the past few years. In 1996, there were fewer of those voters, and they were more likely - even nationally - to vote GOP. 

Lastly, Clinton simply never tried that hard. For all of Obama's unique advantages, Indiana has always been competitive at the state level and culturally and demographically, it really isn't all that different from Ohio, which has always been seen as a swing-state despite leaning GOP. Some of Indiana's rock-red reputation was probably a self-fulfilling prophecy. Had Clinton thrown anywhere near the resources into Indiana that Obama did, he might have won it in '96 even with the handicaps I laid out above.

Also included is the fact that Chicago media pours into the northwest part of Indiana... a very pro-Obama media from a very pro-Obama area could have an affect of Indiana's voting.

Also the fact that McCain had largely taken the state for granted, as well.

[Holmes]

Lake county and environs are always solid Democratic, though.

[Husker]

Having grown up in Indiana, I have a few theories.

Indiana is a conservative state, but it needs to be understood as largely Midwestern conservative, not Southern conservative. People in Indiana are characterized by a state, Midwestern reserve, and relatively less by fire-breathing evangelical conservatism you see in much of the South.

That's relevant to the '96/'08 comparison in a few ways. For one thing, it suggests that in '08, many Indiana voters may have reacted against the Southern capture of the GOP. The archetypal Indiana Republican is Richard Lugar, not Jim DeMint. In '96, Bob Dole was still a fairly establishment, Main St. Republican figure with roots in Kansas. And even with Gingrich in power in the House, the GOP was overall less of a Southern party than it is now. While McCain was an (adopted) Arizonan, the general sense that the GOP was overly Southern may have hurt McCain's campaign in Indiana among moderates, independents, and *some* Republicans who voted for Dole back in '96.

Also, because of their reserve and small-c conservatism, many Hoosiers never really took to Bill Clinton, whose personal scandals and allegations of womanizing were a big turn off. In places like Arkansas and Louisiana, they were perhaps less of a hindrance because Clinton was still identified as a "Good 'Ol Southern boy." That kind of thing doesn't really fly in Indiana. In fact, in terms of temperament and character, Dole was arguably a better fit than Clinton, and Obama a better fit than McCain as well as a better fit temperamentally than Clinton.

For that matter, Obama had a few advantages in '08 that Clinton didn't have. Indiana has a large contingent serving in the military, and there was a lot of war-weariness in '08. The economy was fairly poor throughout Bush's second term. And the state's demographics have changed a bit. The Indianapolis-era has grown a lot over the past 20 years, and with large industries in pharmaceuticals, technology and health care, it has a lot of moderate professionals who have swung sharply Democratic over the past few years. In 1996, there were fewer of those voters, and they were more likely - even nationally - to vote GOP. 

Lastly, Clinton simply never tried that hard. For all of Obama's unique advantages, Indiana has always been competitive at the state level and culturally and demographically, it really isn't all that different from Ohio, which has always been seen as a swing-state despite leaning GOP. Some of Indiana's rock-red reputation was probably a self-fulfilling prophecy. Had Clinton thrown anywhere near the resources into Indiana that Obama did, he might have won it in '96 even with the handicaps I laid out above.

Similar arguments could be made for other republican leaning areas in the Midwest, particularly northern and central IL, western IA/eastern NE, and eastern ND.

[CJK]

The thing that surprises me is that the shift in Indiana was massive while the shift in Ohio was miniscule.

[JSojourner]

It really was an amazing election in Indiana.  I stood in line to vote for three hours and 90% of the people waiting with me were Black or Hispanic.  I've lived here 21 years and never had to wait more than ten minutes to vote...even in a Presidential.

This phenomenon was reported all over Fort Wayne and Allen County for much of the day.  And yet, McCain won Allen County.  Even with the amazing minority turnout.

I think what we Democrats forget, and this may be hubris, is exactly how razor-thin the results in both Indiana and North Carolina were.  And while  Florida was a wider margin of victory, it was hardly a blow out.  Likewise, Republicans ought not to count Missouri and Georgia as electoral certainties.

Frankly, I have to wonder if Arizona might not be one of the key battlegrounds in 2012.  Especially if Indiana and NC revert back to the GOP.

[Sbane]

Having grown up in Indiana, I have a few theories.

Indiana is a conservative state, but it needs to be understood as largely Midwestern conservative, not Southern conservative. People in Indiana are characterized by a state, Midwestern reserve, and relatively less by fire-breathing evangelical conservatism you see in much of the South.

That's relevant to the '96/'08 comparison in a few ways. For one thing, it suggests that in '08, many Indiana voters may have reacted against the Southern capture of the GOP. The archetypal Indiana Republican is Richard Lugar, not Jim DeMint. In '96, Bob Dole was still a fairly establishment, Main St. Republican figure with roots in Kansas. And even with Gingrich in power in the House, the GOP was overall less of a Southern party than it is now. While McCain was an (adopted) Arizonan, the general sense that the GOP was overly Southern may have hurt McCain's campaign in Indiana among moderates, independents, and *some* Republicans who voted for Dole back in '96.

Also, because of their reserve and small-c conservatism, many Hoosiers never really took to Bill Clinton, whose personal scandals and allegations of womanizing were a big turn off. In places like Arkansas and Louisiana, they were perhaps less of a hindrance because Clinton was still identified as a "Good 'Ol Southern boy." That kind of thing doesn't really fly in Indiana. In fact, in terms of temperament and character, Dole was arguably a better fit than Clinton, and Obama a better fit than McCain as well as a better fit temperamentally than Clinton.

For that matter, Obama had a few advantages in '08 that Clinton didn't have. Indiana has a large contingent serving in the military, and there was a lot of war-weariness in '08. The economy was fairly poor throughout Bush's second term. And the state's demographics have changed a bit. The Indianapolis-era has grown a lot over the past 20 years, and with large industries in pharmaceuticals, technology and health care, it has a lot of moderate professionals who have swung sharply Democratic over the past few years. In 1996, there were fewer of those voters, and they were more likely - even nationally - to vote GOP. 

Lastly, Clinton simply never tried that hard. For all of Obama's unique advantages, Indiana has always been competitive at the state level and culturally and demographically, it really isn't all that different from Ohio, which has always been seen as a swing-state despite leaning GOP. Some of Indiana's rock-red reputation was probably a self-fulfilling prophecy. Had Clinton thrown anywhere near the resources into Indiana that Obama did, he might have won it in '96 even with the handicaps I laid out above.

Similar arguments could be made for other republican leaning areas in the Midwest, particularly northern and central IL, western IA/eastern NE, and eastern ND.

I would also add NW Ohio to that list. Lots of seemingly rural counties swung strongly to Obama.

[Smash255]

Clinton did better than Obama in the parts of the state that were like KY.

But overall, Marion County was still GOP and Clinton didn't have the type of cash that Obama had.

Now how would 1996 have looked if Clinton had the type of money that Obama had? Not sure.

Marion county was a major reason.    Indianapolis and the inner ring suburbs in Marion have swung hard to the left.  The area has grown rapidly and has a large influx of young well educated professionals, a group the GOP is in a absolute disaster with.  The difference between Dole's margin over Clinton in 96 and Obama's margin over Bush is approx 150,000, the difference in Marion County alone is a shade under 117,000.  Dole won it by 3, Obama won it by 28

[phk]

Clinton did better than Obama in the parts of the state that were like KY.

But overall, Marion County was still GOP and Clinton didn't have the type of cash that Obama had.

Now how would 1996 have looked if Clinton had the type of money that Obama had? Not sure.

Marion county was a major reason.    Indianapolis and the inner ring suburbs in Marion have swung hard to the left.  The area has grown rapidly and has a large influx of young well educated professionals, a group the GOP is in a absolute disaster with.  The difference between Dole's margin over Clinton in 96 and Obama's margin over Bush is approx 150,000, the difference in Marion County alone is a shade under 117,000.  Dole won it by 3, Obama won it by 28

This is somewhat Clinton's doing on his own I suspect, the Clinton Republicans of NoVA, So. FL, Phila. burbs, NYC-burbs, Bay Area and now Indianapolis.

[Smash255]

Clinton did better than Obama in the parts of the state that were like KY.

But overall, Marion County was still GOP and Clinton didn't have the type of cash that Obama had.

Now how would 1996 have looked if Clinton had the type of money that Obama had? Not sure.

Marion county was a major reason.    Indianapolis and the inner ring suburbs in Marion have swung hard to the left.  The area has grown rapidly and has a large influx of young well educated professionals, a group the GOP is in a absolute disaster with.  The difference between Dole's margin over Clinton in 96 and Obama's margin over Bush is approx 150,000, the difference in Marion County alone is a shade under 117,000.  Dole won it by 3, Obama won it by 28

This is somewhat Clinton's doing on his own I suspect, the Clinton Republicans of NoVA, So. FL, Phila. burbs, NYC-burbs, Bay Area and now Indianapolis.

True, though some of these areas were still GOP with Clinton.  He did play a big role in the Democratic trend of middle to upper middle class white suburbanites, the GOP also becoming the party of southern evangelicalism also helped greatly in that regard.

[sg0508]

The youth vote.  Looking at the exit polls for 08, Obama destroyed McCain with the youth vote and they turned out in droves.  The rest of the age demographics almost all favored Mac, similar in past elections.  The youth vote moved the state.

This state may be the only one in 08 that switches back when the youth movement subsides because it's a re-election campaign.

[Badger]

Clinton did better than Obama in the parts of the state that were like KY.

But overall, Marion County was still GOP and Clinton didn't have the type of cash that Obama had.

Now how would 1996 have looked if Clinton had the type of money that Obama had? Not sure.

Marion county was a major reason.    Indianapolis and the inner ring suburbs in Marion have swung hard to the left.  The area has grown rapidly and has a large influx of young well educated professionals, a group the GOP is in a absolute disaster with.  The difference between Dole's margin over Clinton in 96 and Obama's margin over Bush is approx 150,000, the difference in Marion County alone is a shade under 117,000.  Dole won it by 3, Obama won it by 28

Marion County is only part of it. The whole darn state swung wildly for Obama wiht little exception, and I don't think Marion was even top of the list in terms of percentage swing, let alone trend.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Clinton did better than Obama in the parts of the state that were like KY.

But overall, Marion County was still GOP and Clinton didn't have the type of cash that Obama had.

Now how would 1996 have looked if Clinton had the type of money that Obama had? Not sure.

Marion county was a major reason.    Indianapolis and the inner ring suburbs in Marion have swung hard to the left.  The area has grown rapidly and has a large influx of young well educated professionals, a group the GOP is in a absolute disaster with.  The difference between Dole's margin over Clinton in 96 and Obama's margin over Bush is approx 150,000, the difference in Marion County alone is a shade under 117,000.  Dole won it by 3, Obama won it by 28

Marion County is only part of it. The whole darn state swung wildly for Obama wiht little exception, and I don't think Marion was even top of the list in terms of percentage swing, let alone trend.

I would love to see Clinton County, IN explained. 

1. it cast 12,000 votes... not very populated

2. trended GOP in 2004, so Bush's social-conservative push seemed popular there

3. it was 71-28 Bush in 2004

....so how does this county swing all the way to just a 56-43 McCain advantage?  This is a fairly rural, 90% white, Midwestern, Indianan county that swung almost THIRTY points to a black liberal from the city.  That's astonishing and I would love to know how that happened.  The counties around it saw similar swings... but they are a good deal more populated. 

[gtheofan]

Clinton did better than Obama in the parts of the state that were like KY.

But overall, Marion County was still GOP and Clinton didn't have the type of cash that Obama had.

Now how would 1996 have looked if Clinton had the type of money that Obama had? Not sure.

Marion county was a major reason.    Indianapolis and the inner ring suburbs in Marion have swung hard to the left.  The area has grown rapidly and has a large influx of young well educated professionals, a group the GOP is in a absolute disaster with.  The difference between Dole's margin over Clinton in 96 and Obama's margin over Bush is approx 150,000, the difference in Marion County alone is a shade under 117,000.  Dole won it by 3, Obama won it by 28

Marion County is only part of it. The whole darn state swung wildly for Obama wiht little exception, and I don't think Marion was even top of the list in terms of percentage swing, let alone trend.

I would love to see Clinton County, IN explained. 

1. it cast 12,000 votes... not very populated

2. trended GOP in 2004, so Bush's social-conservative push seemed popular there

3. it was 71-28 Bush in 2004

....so how does this county swing all the way to just a 56-43 McCain advantage?  This is a fairly rural, 90% white, Midwestern, Indianan county that swung almost THIRTY points to a black liberal from the city.  That's astonishing and I would love to know how that happened.  The counties around it saw similar swings... but they are a good deal more populated. 

As a citizen of that particular county, I'll try to offer a little bit of insight...

About 70% of the workforce of the county seat, Frankfort, are/were employed at one of the many factories in the city, whereas another 5% or so work at auto plants in the nearby cities of Kokomo and Lafayette. When the economy tanked, many of these companies laid off employees and slashed benefits. I can only imagine that this left a bad taste in the collective mouth of these workers, paired with the respective messages (or promises) of the candidates, probably sent many of these workers toward Obama.

The other major factor in the shift is the minority population. When the 2010 census is released I will be shocked, absolutely shocked, if the Hispanic population is not at least 20%. The past decade has brought a huge influx of Hispanics up to Clinton and Boone counties, as they are cheap labor. Since minorities voted overwhelmingly in favor of Obama, I doubt the trend would not hold here.   

Finally, while social values are mostly conservative, it is not a hugely evangelical county. I hate to sound mean, but it is more of a "what's in it for me, right now?" mentality over a "what would Jesus do?" one. Obama seemed to offer more in short run to many in this county, and it shows in the results.

Hope this helps.