Talk Elections

In 1992, Perot came in second in only two states: UT and ME.
In UT Clinton was third.  This make some sense since UT since there is so little siupport for a Democrat that Perot could come in second.

But why did Bush come in third in ME?  Bush was from New England and has a summer home in ME.  He won ME in 1988 by 12%, 4% more than his national average, against a fellow New Englander Dukakis.   But in 1992 he finished 2% worse in ME than his national average, against two Southerns.  Why did he do so badly in ME? 

So I would have expected Bush to be at least second in ME.

Was there something specail about ME, not share dby NH or VT, that mad ethem more Perot friendly?

ME probably realized he was an out of touch elitist with a drunk driving son.

Try the economy and Perot appealing to the more individualist New Englanders in ME at the time.

As J. J. said, it was a mix of economics (Perot did not fit Maine's economic views all that badly indeed), and Maine's traditional since of individualism, which strongly appealed to many would-be Bush voters in Maine.

IIn 1992, Perot appealed largely to the libertarian wings of both parties.  It is no coincidence that 1992 was the second worst election the Libertarians have had since they became a national party.  The reason why Perot ultimately ended up having more success with potential GOP voters than potential Democratic voters can be laid squarely on the shoulder's of Pat Buchanan, which is ironic since he would later hijack the rudderless Reform party for his own third party run.  He alienated the GOP libertarian wing to an extent that even with Perot's electoral oddities Bush was unable to win them back as Clinton did with the Democratic libertarians after Perot's exit from the race.

By the time of Perot's second run, Perot's nativist message was what resonated most strongly with disaffected voters.  Perot's concentration on that segement of the electorate, while understandable, also set the stage for Buchanan to use the Reform party to run with in 2000.

Maine has probably the most loosely partisan Dem-Rep split, and heavily favors independents.  Hence why their former governor Angus King was an independent, and their two current senators are moderates.

Yeah, I agree with the other posters on here.  New England just loves outsiders and moderates. 

You can see it in how well John McCain did in the NH Primary in 2000.  Maine was also among Nader's best states in 2000 (5.7%), Perot's best state in 1996 (14.19%).  Eugene McCarthy also scored one of his best showings there in 1976 with 2.25% of the vote. 

John Anderson's best states in 1980 were (in order) Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Connecticut.  Two of Barry Commoner's top 5 states were Maine and Vermont.

It must be something in the water. :)

Maine likes moderates, distrusts both parties, and is very proud of it's independance.

Pat Buchanans greatest "achievement" is that he almost singlehandedly killed the Libertarian wing of the GOP party.

Prior to 1992 there was a strong element of the party that, while certainly not a majority, was big enough to... well... have a voice.

To paraphrase Howard Dean... "The Republican Wing of the Republican Party".. low taxes, smaller government, reduced regulation, individual responsibility, a society of individual liberty.

The "Jack Kemp" wing of the GOP essentially died when Buchanan gave his famous "culture war" speech at the GOP convention.

I think a huge chunk of Perots support came from the Libertarian wing of the GOP in 1992 when they saw that their party had been hijacked by a bunch of intollerate crazies.

The Libertarian wing of the party was mostly based in the northeast, so it's hardly a surprise Perot did well in Maine.

I never really thought of Perot as a libertarian, or even remarkably libertarian leaning.

He's not. I find him to be more socially moderate, economically isolationist, or an ultra-populist (no offense to you).

Where are those disaffected republican libertarians now? Did they hold their nose and vote for Bush both times, most recently because of the war/leadership issue? Are they sitting out?

They are generally fairly hawkish on foreign policy, and thus had few qualms voting Bush this tme around, although I'm sure it wasn't their first choice.

Interesting. Wouldn't libertarians be less hawkish? Or maybe its a basic form of patriotism that caused them to rally around the leader.

Well, they generally are economically libertarian and socially centrist with a bit of a libertarian lean.  They tend to be less hawkish than the average GOPer, but moreso than the average American.  They also tend to have little qualms with stuff like gay marriage bans, but would rather not have the government deal with things like marijuana.  Montana and Alaska are full of them.

Oh yeah, that was such a huge in issue in 1992. ::)

()

()

()