Why do insurgent candidates fail in Dixie?

[FerrisBueller86]

The last several major insurgent candidates for president (Anderson in 1980, Perot in 1992 and 1996, McCain in 2000, and Nader in 2000) fared poorest in the South.  Just look at the state-by-state tables and sort them by percentages voting for Anderson in 1980, Perot in 1992, Perot in 1996, and Nader in 2000.

Several Western states have actually voted MORE heavily Republican than the South, and this region has been Republican longer than even Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina.  Yet Perot and Nader had the greatest percentage of the vote in states like Alaska, Utah, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.  (For example, Nader got 10% of the vote in Alaska in 2000.)  At the same time, they performed weakest in the South.

So while the Rocky Mountain West and the South have voted the same way in the last several general presidential elections, they have such vastly different character.  Perot even siphoned enough votes from Bush to swing Montana to Clinton in 1992.

Given that the Rocky Mountain West doesn't like Democrats, why did people from there vote for Perot instead of Bush and Dole (thus indirectly helping Clinton)?  Perot had already discredited himself with his kookiness.  Nader discredited himself with his ego.  I realize that the heavily Republican West has a few liberals who knew that Gore didn't stand a chance in their state, but the same could be said about states like Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina.  Additionally, Perot is from Texas, and he should have had favorite son status in the Dixie.

Perot and Nader performed better in the Northeast (Democratic) and Midwest (home of several swing states).  The liberals of the Northeast should have known that they were helping Bush's margin.  The Midwestern liberals of 2000 who voted for Nader should have known that they were swinging the election to Bush, and the Midwestern conservatives of 1992 and 1996 who voted for Bush/Dole should have known that they were swinging the election to Clinton.

[??????????]

I think it depends on if the candidate was from the south. For example. Wallace and Thurmond were both insurgent candidates from the deep south and both did really well in the south. Southerners will vote for their kind before they will vote for a stranger.

[danwxman]

Southerners are biggots and will only vote for one of their own.

[??????????]

Southerners are biggots and will only vote for one of their own.

Is Clinton a bigot?

[danwxman]

Southerners are biggots and will only vote for one of their own.

Is Clinton a bigot?

Harlem boy? Nah.

[Tory]

Southerners are biggots and will only vote for one of their own.

That's a pretty bigoted statement.

[??????????]

Southerners are biggots and will only vote for one of their own.

Is Clinton a bigot?

Harlem boy? Nah.

Harlem, Arkansas? funny never heard of it.

[danwxman]

Southerners are biggots and will only vote for one of their own.

Is Clinton a bigot?

Harlem boy? Nah.

Harlem, Arkansas? funny never heard of it.

Harlem, New York. Surely you've heard of that.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Southerners are biggots and will only vote for one of their own.

Is Clinton a bigot?

Harlem boy? Nah.

Harlem, Arkansas? funny never heard of it.

Harlem, New York. Surely you've heard of that.

Clinton was born and raised in the South. That is why he did so well in the south.

[opebo]

Southern Whites want to make sure that their vote goes to the most reliably anti-negro candidate possible.  These days that is usually the mainstream Republican.  They just want to make sure he wins, so they don't often waste their vote on some insurgent outsider.

[J. J.]

Southern Whites want to make sure that their vote goes to the most reliably anti-negro candidate possible.  These days that is usually the mainstream Republican.  They just want to make sure he wins, so they don't often waste their vote on some insurgent outsider.

You could make the same argument, with different characters about and region, opebigot.  In reality they didn't do that in 1992 and 1996. 

The last time went for a third party candidate was the last time a third party candidate had any electoral votes.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Bigot has one g not two.

[Akno21]

Southerners are biggots and will only vote for one of their own.

That expains why we can't win down there, attitudes like that.

Insurgent candidates who appear to be liberal are not going to do well in a Conservative region. People like Wallace, they will do well because they are super conservative, and that's what people in MS (no offense, Harry) like.

[Colin]

Well out west the states are more libertarian than in the south. They feel that voting Republican is the party that is closest to their libertarian ideals but lets just say that they think the Republicans are the better of two evils. When a better candidate comes along, one that is more libertarian or is just someone different from the Republicans, the west gives them a higher vote. I'm also guessing that the same thing goes for the Democrats.

[danwxman]

Southerners are biggots and will only vote for one of their own.

Is Clinton a bigot?

Harlem boy? Nah.

Harlem, Arkansas? funny never heard of it.

Harlem, New York. Surely you've heard of that.

Clinton was born and raised in the South. That is why he did so well in the south.

Exactly.

[nclib]

Even though Democrats do better in the South than the (Interior) West, there are more social liberals in the West (the Dem percentage is higher in the South because of socially conservative blacks voting Democratic).

Therefore liberal third parties are going to do better in the West.

[phk]

The key here is to get people to vote for thier economic betterment.