CO, MT, GA

[AGA]

How did Clinton lose these states in 1996 despite winning them previously?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

generational factors and migration patterns I assume. New Deal types dying off in MT and GA, conservatives moving into CO.

[538Electoral]

Possibly anti-incumbent sentiments.

[Hydera]

Colorado and Montana had this right libertarian anti-tax and anti-gun control streak. Meanwhile for Georgia and a lot of southern states it had a lot to do with the same stances BUT in a religious+cultural+economic conservative opposition to taxes and guns. 




Also unrelated but theres a pattern in the swings.

Rural whites areas swinging against Clinton. The start of eastern pennsylvania outside of Erie and Pittsburgh losing its dem streak due to cultural conservatism.

Meanwhile Clinton did better in Virginia and Florida for the reason that he campaigned heavily in both states. Improving in hispanic areas, The urban PNW, More culturally liberal midwest and northeastern areas, the lower mississippi delta,

[OSR stands with Israel]

He only won those states in 92 cause of Perot and  with Perot support dropping a lot in 96 , it’s not a surprise he lost those states

[TDAS04]

Montana especially has an anti-incumbent streak, and most of the West swung right that year.

[Adam Griffin]

People forget that once upon a time, mass migration to the South wasn't friendly to the Democratic Party. It still isn't in some places.

Much of the anti-Dem shift in GA attributable to native residents wasn't felt until the turn of the century, through an obvious combination of New Deal voters dying off and others defecting from the Democratic Party. This is why the bottom seemingly fell out all at once: a double-whammy of sorts.

From 1980-1995, there was a huge influx of out-of-state residents (I call this "the first wave"), who were disproportionately white tax-evading conservative Yankees. Despite similar historical patterns, this is why the suburbs of ATL became the most GOP-friendly areas of the state in the mid-1980s onward, with their effects moving outwards as the years progressed (this is why Cherokee and Forsyth combined shifted 15 points to the GOP between 1992 and 1996, making them practically single-handedly responsible for flipping GA to Dole). These people are also the biggest reason Democrats lost the gubernatorial election in 2002, with their influence still being responsible for GOP wins all the way through 2012-2014. Over the past 15 years or so, you'll find these types largely colonizing mountainous areas of NE Georgia rather than the suburbs or exurbs of ATL, buying up relatively cheap touristy property/tacky log cabins and making what would be a solidly-GOP area in today's terms even more so.

Let me reiterate: without "the first wave" of conservative Yankee migrants between 1980-1995, it's quite possible that GA would have more closely resembled NC throughout the 2000s to the present, never losing control of the Governor's Mansion. The rural losses would have been mostly offset by "the second wave" of migration.

"The second wave" wouldn't begin until the late 1990s, which is the kind of demographic infusion people are familiar with in the modern-era (blacks returning to the new "black mecca", along with young college-educated liberal whites and other minorities). Given voter participation rates among these groups, it's not surprising that their effects weren't felt until the mid-2000s. All of this is why Democrats went from winning comfortably to losing by 20 points in just a few years, only to rebound quickly to respectable losses a few years after that.

[Sumner 1868]

He only won those states in 92 cause of Perot and  with Perot support dropping a lot in 96 , it’s not a surprise he lost those states

He had a good chance of winning Montana even without Perot. Dukakis got 46% there in 1988.

generational factors and migration patterns I assume. New Deal types dying off in MT and GA, conservatives moving into CO.

Regarding the "New Deal types" mentioned, exit polls suggest this was probably true in Georgia, Montana seniors increased support of Clinton compared with 1992. Although "yellow-dog" is probably a better term in the case of GA.

https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/1998/states/GA/polls/GA92PH.html
https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/1998/states/MT/polls/MT92PH.html
https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/GAPxp.html
https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/MTPxp.html

We find that in both states a noticeably higher number of 1992 Clinton voters backed Dole than vice versa, meaning that actual Clinton-to-Dole voter flips combined with Perot turnover cost him these states.

Note that Democrats won Senate races in both states that year:
https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/GASxp.html
https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/MTSxp.html

[CookieDamage]

I think an interesting conversation is how he managed to win Arizona while losing Colorado

[Lechasseur]

Tbf, I think Clinton could have won Georgia had turnout been higher.

Turnout was incredibly low in Georgia in 1996, at only 42% (it was at 47% in 1992).

Clinton only lost by a little over a point, I'm guessing with a bit higher turnout he would have won the state, as he did in 1992.