Colorado, Georgia, and Montana in 1996

[AGA]

Why did Dole win these states even though Clinton won them in 1992 and expanded his margin of victory in 1996?

[Arbitrage1980]

Why did Dole win these states even though Clinton won them in 1992 and expanded his margin of victory in 1996?

In Colorado and Montana, it was the Perot effect.  Perot's strongest regions were New England and the Rocky Mountain West.  That was enough to tip those states to Clinton in 1992.  Perot did run again in 1996, but he only got 8.5% of the vote, as compared to 19% in 1996, so it wasn't enough to tip them to Clinton.  As for Georgia, it was the closest state in 1992, with Clinton winning by 0.59%.  Given how close it was, good chance Bush would've won if it weren't for Perot but not entirely sure.  Perot only got 13% in Georgia that year, so he performed below his national average, and HW Bush was just not a good fit for the state, when compared to a charismatic moderate southern democrat who was endorsed by Governor Zell Miller.

[AGA]

Why did Dole win these states even though Clinton won them in 1992 and expanded his margin of victory in 1996?

In Colorado and Montana, it was the Perot effect.  Perot's strongest regions were New England and the Rocky Mountain West.  That was enough to tip those states to Clinton in 1992.  Perot did run again in 1996, but he only got 8.5% of the vote, as compared to 19% in 1996, so it wasn't enough to tip them to Dole.  As for Georgia, it was the closest state in 1992, with Clinton winning by 0.59%.  Given how close it was, good chance Bush would've won if it weren't for Perot but not entirely sure.  Perot only got 13% in Georgia that year, so he performed below his national average, and HW Bush was just not a good fit for the state, when compared to a charismatic moderate southern democrat who was endorsed by Governor Zell Miller.

Didn't polls show that Perot took equally from Clinton and Bush? Could it be that he took more from Bush in certain states?

[RI]

Why did Dole win these states even though Clinton won them in 1992 and expanded his margin of victory in 1996?

In Colorado and Montana, it was the Perot effect.  Perot's strongest regions were New England and the Rocky Mountain West.  That was enough to tip those states to Clinton in 1992.  Perot did run again in 1996, but he only got 8.5% of the vote, as compared to 19% in 1996, so it wasn't enough to tip them to Dole.  As for Georgia, it was the closest state in 1992, with Clinton winning by 0.59%.  Given how close it was, good chance Bush would've won if it weren't for Perot but not entirely sure.  Perot only got 13% in Georgia that year, so he performed below his national average, and HW Bush was just not a good fit for the state, when compared to a charismatic moderate southern democrat who was endorsed by Governor Zell Miller.

Didn't polls show that Perot took equally from Clinton and Bush? Could it be that he took more from Bush in certain states?

It's generally thought that Perot took more from Clinton in the Northeast while he took more from Bush in the West.

[Sumner 1868]

Though nobody seems to recall this, Dukakis was fairly competitive in MT and CO in 1988. The states swung Democratic enough in 1992 because of the national trend for Clinton too carry their electoral votes, and reversed course because of a combination of Perot's decline and the unpopularity of certain Clinton policies (as was true with most of the West - only WA and AZ swung Democratic that year).