Were Clinton 1996-Bush 2000 voters as common as the maps make it appear?

[sting in the rafters]

A fair contingent flipped due to Gore's environmental stances. Dubya filling in the 3rd-party vote from Perot didn't play as large of a factor as one would think. Exit polls suggests Perot took slightly more from self-described conservatives than liberals in 96 and Dubya vastly improved with self-described moderates over Dole (45% vs. 33%), however the sheer math of the third party vote decreasing by 5.6 million, Gore gaining 4 million votes over Clinton, and Bush gaining 11 million votes on Dole/Kemp suggests the ultimate effect of Clinton-Bush and Perot-Bush voters is overstated.


So where did Bush mostly improve vs. Gore? Well, a good chunk came with voters who couldn't be bothered to show up at all in the previous cycle. Turnout rose from 49%-51% - a small increase on the surface, though bear in mind that's slightly larger than the difference from 04 to 08. Clinton's centrist approach (e.g. family leave, strong Medicare management, mass incarceration combined with gun control, DOMA, welfare reform) and the post-Cold War peace and prosperity not only pulled in Reagan Democrats, but induced enough for some Rs/indies to simply not vote at all. Dole's lackluster candidacy didn't exactly rally GOP support either.

At the same time, triangulation led to disaffected liberals and leftists feeling locked out by the bipartisan consensus. It's these types of scenes that led to disagreement in the Democratic party over trade to this day and RATM protesting outside of the 2000 DNC.  Gore being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time between trying to hold together Clinton's coalition and shoring up his left flank against Nader gave Dubya an opening to emphasize his conservative credentials. The result was Dubya both bringing in disaffected 3rd-party voters as well as those who sat on the sidelines.