Why did Bill Clinton win Georgia in 1992?

[Blow by blow, the passion dies]

It first voted Republican in 1964, but was out of reach for the Democrats in the meantime outside of the Carter elections.
Did Clinton do it due to winning rural whites, and Perot taking over proto-Tea Party conservatives, or was it something else?

[Alben Barkley]

Well it was still Carter's state. There were more ancestral Ds there than a state like MS or AL, as well as more urban and black voters.

[Ashley Biden's Diary]

He improved greatly with white voters, particularly rural whites. He lost it in 1996 because his gun control legislation alienated many of these voters (suburban GA whites already hated him because most were Religious Right).

Others are probably going to say Perot cost Bush the state. It was so close that it's possible, but I've always felt that the "Perot hurt Bush more in the south" narrative wasn't backed up by anything. Perot hurt Clinton badly when he entered, which is why the Bush campaign initially celebrated his entry. I remember reading a NYT article from September 1992 when it was just Clinton vs Bush, and it mentioned polls had Clinton ahead in states like KY and NC, so while it's an unpopular take I think it's possible Clinton would have won GA by more than he did had it stayed a two man race.

[TDAS04]

Zell Miller might have helped a little, as Georgia's Governor at the time. He spoke at the Convention and called President Bush "timid."

[Podgy the Bear]

Zell Miller played a significant role in the Clinton campaign in 1992.  He was the one who introduced James Carville and Paul Begala (who worked on his 1990 gubernatorial campaign) to Clinton.  And he was the keynote speaker to the 1992 DNC.

Clinton was quite competitive in rural south Georgia and did reasonably well outside metro Atlanta in the north Georgia areas.  In a three way race, Clinton won Pickens and Lumpkin counties in the mountain areas.  Democrats are lucky to pick up 20 percent of the vote today.

Clinton would probably have won Georgia in 1996 as well.  He was leading in polls in September and October 1996 and the campaign was running ads statewide.  But they pulled the plug sometime late in October (to focus on Florida) and the campaign went dark statewide.  The state party did focus its efforts on Max Cleland's Senate campaign, and that paid off, as he won in a close race. 

[mileslunn]

Clinton was last Democrat to do well with southern whites as back then a white southerner like Clinton or Carter could still do well amongst southern whites.  Since 2000, southern whites go massively GOP asides cities with large number of transplants or college towns.  Likewise in down ballot races, Democrats still competitive amongst southern whites up until 2010 even if solid GOP at presidential level.  By contrast since 2010, most Southern whites vote a straight ticket.

Today Georgia only is competitive thanks to Atlanta metro area growing enough it can outvote rest of state whereas in 1992 only 1/3 of state's population lived in Atlanta metro area, now it is around 50% depending on how far out you extend metro area.

[ReaganLimbaugh]

All of the above it pretty accurate, although I think that Bush kinda took it for granted and Clinton took advantage of that.  A lot of lower income rural people were tricked into thinking Clinton was a moderate.

[GAinDC]

The swing from 88 to 92 was pretty wild in GA,

Bush went from nearly 60% to 42% of the vote

[mileslunn]

The swing from 88 to 92 was pretty wild in GA,

Bush went from nearly 60% to 42% of the vote

Not as wild as Ross Perot got 19% and while some come at expense of Democrats, a sizeable chunk were Bush 88 voters.  After all Ross Perot was more right leaning than left leaning and ironically probably closer to modern GOP than George HW Bush was.  At same time Clinton being a southerner and more centrist than Dukakis helped.  Back then being a southerner made a big difference vs. a northerner.  Big reason Jimmy Carter did quite well in South, even more so than Clinton whereas McGovern and Humphrey flopped badly and even JFK struggled somewhat. 

While no longer case, there was a good 10-15% of southern whites who would vote Democrat if candidate a white southerner, but GOP if Democrat was a northerner.  Back then down ballot southern states were still predominately Democrat and had only swung at presidential level.  Its not like now where Democrat support at all levels is limited to minority-majority areas, college towns, and large metro areas with lots of transplants.  Also interestingly enough Atlanta suburbs, which helped flip state for Biden went heavily for HW Bush while Clinton won many rural white southern counties which Biden didn't.

[DS0816]

It first voted Republican in 1964, but was out of reach for the Democrats in the meantime outside of the Carter elections.
Did Clinton do it due to winning rural whites, and Perot taking over proto-Tea Party conservatives, or was it something else?

Some other forum members were more specific with answering your topic thread’s question.

I will note that, historically, every winning Democrat has carried at least one of the two of Georgia and/or Florida.

There is no past Democratic winner who carried zero of these two states.

The last Republican who carried neither Georgia or Florida was 1924 Calvin Coolidge.

In 1992, Bill Clinton carried Georgia but not Florida. (1988 winning Republican George Bush carried Florida by just over +22 percentage points vs. his U.S. Popular Vote outcome of +7.72.) In 1996, Clinton lost Georgia, as it flipped Republican for Bob Dole, while he counter-flipped Florida.

Florida was operating as a bellwether state, not voting for winners in 1960 and 1992, from 1928 to 2016. With exception in 1992, Florida voted the same as Ohio when the Buckeye State—with a then-impeccable reputation as the quintessential bellwether state—was carried in 14 consecutive elections from 1964 to 2016.

As demonstrated in 2020, and moving forward, a winning Democrat will carry Georgia (without Florida).

[Schiff for Senate]

Well it was still Carter's state. There were more ancestral Ds there than a state like MS or AL, as well as more urban and black voters.

MS is quite a bit blacker than GA.

[Schiff for Senate]

Zell Miller might have helped a little, as Georgia's Governor at the time. He spoke at the Convention and called President Bush "timid."

His speech really was something.

I know what Dan Quayle means when he says it's best for children to have two parents. You bet it is! And it would be nice for them to have trust funds, too. We can't all be born rich and handsome and lucky. And that's why we have a Democratic Party. My family would still be isolated and destitute if we had not had F.D.R.'s Democratic brand of government. I made it because Franklin Delano Roosevelt energized this nation. I made it because Harry Truman fought for working families like mine. I made it because John Kennedy's rising tide lifted even our tiny boat. I made it because Lyndon Johnson showed America that people who were born poor didn't have to die poor. And I made it because a man with whom I served in the Georgia Senate, a man named Jimmy Carter, brought honesty and decency and integrity to public service.

[Republican Party Stalwart]

Well it was still Carter's state. There were more ancestral Ds there than a state like MS or AL, as well as more urban and black voters.

MS is quite a bit blacker than GA.

Yes, but this has the counter-intuitive effect of spurring more racial polarization, and therefore driving the white population to vote more homogeneously Republican.

It's also important to understand where these black voters live. In MS, apart from Jackson (and perhaps also Vicksburg, Gulfport/Biloxi, and metro Memphis), most of the black population lives in smaller cities and towns, in the Mississippi River Valley/Delta and the Mississippian section of the Black Belt, which are juxtaposed against and located in close proximity to rural working class white communities, which creates a very racially polarized environment. In GA, you do have a Mississippi-style situation in the Southwest Georgia and in the Georgian section of the Black belt, but you also have even more Black voters in Urban and Suburban metro Atlanta and Savannah (and to a lesser extent Athens, Augusta, Macon/Warner Robbins, Columbus, and Valdosta) whose communities are surrounded more so by white liberal/college educated white communities not as subject to racial polarization.

[Schiff for Senate]

Well it was still Carter's state. There were more ancestral Ds there than a state like MS or AL, as well as more urban and black voters.

MS is quite a bit blacker than GA.

Yes, but this has the counter-intuitive effect of spurring more racial polarization, and therefore driving the white population to vote more homogeneously Republican.

It's also important to understand where these black voters live. In MS, apart from Jackson (and perhaps also Vicksburg, Gulfport/Biloxi, and metro Memphis), most of the black population lives in smaller cities and towns, in the Mississippi River Valley/Delta and the Mississippian section of the Black Belt, which are juxtaposed against and located in close proximity to rural working class white communities, which creates a very racially polarized environment. In GA, you do have a Mississippi-style situation in the Southwest Georgia and in the Georgian section of the Black belt, but you also have even more Black voters in Urban and Suburban metro Atlanta and Savannah (and to a lesser extent Athens, Augusta, Macon/Warner Robbins, Columbus, and Valdosta) whose communities are surrounded more so by white liberal/college educated white communities not as subject to racial polarization.

These are very fair points to raise, and I realize this too (given that MS whites, iirc, vote more Republican than whites in any other state). And yes, unlike GA, TN, AR and even AL (the rural black population isn't that big, while way more blacks live in Montgomery/Birmingham), a significant share of MS blacks live in rural areas. And as you said, their white counterparts (who are still the majority) are just as overwhelmingly Republican. Meanwhile, as you noted, in GA there's places like DeKalb County which have a lot of urban blacks coexisting with urban white voters who are more open to voting Democratic.

Really I was responding to Alben more in terms of the fact that having more black voters doesn't necessarily equate to more statewide Democratic strength. I understood him as saying that more black voters = more Democratic, and used MS and GA to disprove this via counterexample.

Ig by "urban and black" he might've meant "urban black," in which case I agree with him.