Talk Elections

No states flipped Democrat in 1988 to Republican in 1992, so I am just wondering - what kind of person would have voted for Dukakis in 1988, but then switched to Bush in 1992?

Some Iowa voters.

A political moderate with a dislike for the Clintons or Bill's affairs, who thought that Perot's policies would be dangerous (especially econmic policy). In 1988, the Person thought that after eight years of Reagan, the Democrats should regain the presidency.

An older, socially conservative, Northeastern male voter, most likely from Massachusetts or Connecticut.  Especially if he was Eastern Orthodox and voted Dukakis out of regional and ethnic/religious identity.

Interestingly, there were clearly quite a few Dukakis 88/Bush 92/Clinton 96 voters in Iowa.

Did any counties flip?

Yes.

Iowa: Adair, Buena Vista, Calhoun, Cherokee, Delaware, Franklin, Hancock, Iowa, Marion, Washington, Woodbury

Montana: Lincoln

Nebraska: Dakota, Thurston

North Dakota: Nelson

South Dakota: Ziebach

Texas: Karnes, Lee

I wonder why?

Possibly a ethnic Italian/Greek Democrat in the New York City suburbs or in Ohio and Florida who is wealthy, successful, and has children. Socially conservative views. Felt that Bill Clinton was a marital cheater and felt Bush I was more respectful of values.

West Virginia coal miners who didn't want "The Ozone Man" (Gore) a heartbeat away from the White House.

The economy of the Great Plains/farm belt was if anything possibly better in 1992 than it was in 1988, which helps explain why all of the counties that Bush gained were in this swath. Many of the Dukakis 1988 voters in these areas may have been voting for him as a generic protest vote rather than for ideological reasons and thus switched to Perot in 1992.

The fact that Clinton received about 3 percentage points less of the popular vote nationally than Dukakis shows that the Dukakis '88/Perot '92 voters were actually more numerous than the Bush '88/Clinton '92 voters nationally.

I doubt there were very many voters who actually switched from Dukakis to Bush, but obviously there are always some in any election who switch in either direction. Voters who cared about ethics/honesty above all else would have been the most logical (remember that the Iran Contra scandal sullied Bush in this regard 1988, and then of course Clinton's ethical issues were already well known by 1992).

Clinton dominated twice in WV. Gore really blew it there all on his own in 2000. Ironically, that was the election.

Clinton's personal scandals may have turned some voters off. That was Bush's biggest weapon against him (outside of foreign policy experience, which didn't really matter that much in '92).