Why did Dole win Colorado?

[holtridge]

Was it the Ross Perot factor or was Colorado a conservative bastion at that time?

[Christian Man]

I wouldn't have called Colorado a conservative basin, but it had more of a right libertarian streak to it as the suburbs were still strongly RW and Denver wasn't as influential. A state like Utah or Alaska currently might be a relatively close comparison.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Colorado was more conservative then it became later. I wouldn't say it was a conservative bastion overall though Colorado Springs at the time could be described that way along with a lot of the rural parts of the state.

Clinton policy involving the Bureau of Land Management was contentious in much of the West, given how much land in that part of the country is owned by the federal government. This would have been part of why Dole did well, especially in the western part of the state. Those connected to ranching or resource extraction may have been unlikely to vote for Clinton in 1992 already, but easy to see plenty voting for Perot then switching to Dole 4 yrs later.

The eastern part of the state borders western Kansas and is fairly similar to it so voters there may have been inclined to think Dole would be sympathetic to their concerns.

[Sumner 1868]

The suburbs south of Denver were basically still going the Orange County route of suburban Republicanism at that point. Dole's pluralities in Arapahoe and Jefferson counties made up his entire statewide margin.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Not sure if the 1996 state exit polls are still available, but they showed that Perot cost Clinton Colorado and Dole Kentucky.

[wnwnwn]

Clinton lost rural support in the rural West in general compared in 1992 and did not compensate it with gains in Denver area. Also, here the Perot voters didn´t trend to him as it seems to have happened in the Midwest and the Northwest.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

CO was a red state

[PickleMan]

The Perot factor was definitely influential, but I wouldn’t call it the only factor. Still, Perot was likely why Clinton won Colorado in 1992, and IIRC a majority of that Perot support went to Dole. From 1952-2004, with the exception of 1964, Colorado voted to the right of the nation as a whole, so Bob Dole winning Colorado isn’t shocking when you consider that he had a military background (Colorado Springs), was from neighboring Kansas (favorite son aspect), and Colorado historically has had economically conservative Sun Belt-esque suburbs. Even with Bill Clinton performing fairly well in the suburbs, Bob Dole ran up large enough margins in Colorado’s suburbs + Colorado Springs to carry the state, as was fairly typical for Republicans back then.

[holtridge]

The Perot factor was definitely influential, but I wouldn’t call it the only factor. Still, Perot was likely why Clinton won Colorado in 1992, and IIRC a majority of that Perot support went to Dole. From 1952-2004, with the exception of 1964, Colorado voted to the right of the nation as a whole, so Bob Dole winning Colorado isn’t shocking when you consider that he had a military background (Colorado Springs), was from neighboring Kansas (favorite son aspect), and Colorado historically has had economically conservative Sun Belt-esque suburbs. Even with Bill Clinton performing fairly well in the suburbs, Bob Dole ran up large enough margins in Colorado’s suburbs + Colorado Springs to carry the state, as was fairly typical for Republicans back then.

Very interesting. Thank you.

[But Muh Univision Focus Group]

Low Dem turnout nationwide, while western conservatives in particular were agitated with Clinton and more likely to turn out. I find the idea that Bush would have won CO/MT in 1992 without Perot absurd considering his underperformance in 1988. I also believe Perot cost Clinton SD.

[Samof94]

Low Dem turnout nationwide, while western conservatives in particular were agitated with Clinton and more likely to turn out. I find the idea that Bush would have won CO/MT in 1992 without Perot absurd considering his underperformance in 1988. I also believe Perot cost Clinton SD.

South Dakota??? He did win Montana in 1992.

[But Muh Univision Focus Group]

Low Dem turnout nationwide, while western conservatives in particular were agitated with Clinton and more likely to turn out. I find the idea that Bush would have won CO/MT in 1992 without Perot absurd considering his underperformance in 1988. I also believe Perot cost Clinton SD.

South Dakota??? He did win Montana in 1992.

I know Clinton won MT in 1992, that's why I said I find the idea that Bush would have won it without Perot to be absurd. As for SD, it was as close as MT in 1988. It's clear looking at the results in states like WI & IA that Perot hurt Clinton more than Bush in the midwest, taking many blue collar voters who would have otherwise voted for Clinton. I see no reason Clinton couldn't have flipped SD in a 2 way race.