Clinton's wins in GA and AZ

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

In 1992 Bill Clinton won Georgia, and in 1996 he carried the state of Arizona. Today, in our current election cycle, Georgia and Arizona are both regarded as battleground states, but it took over 20 years since Clinton's wins to materialize. My question is, were these victories a foreshadowing of current trends in these states, or were they anomalies that have little to do with their present voting patterns? For instance, in Georgia was Clinton's win more of a last hurrah for Jimmy Carter's home state that had voted D even in the landslide of 1980, or was it a precursor of the coalition of increasingly Democratic suburbanite whites and urban voters that is now making Georgia competitive again in 2020?

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Clinton's 1992 win was definitely the last hurrah of the old Yellow Dog coalition. Clinton did terrible in Suburban Atlanta and the suburban Sun Belt in general. He got blown out in Cobb and Gwinnett but did very well in the rural counties. He even won a majority of counties.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Georgia only really became a Republican state  in 2000 , AZ was only a swing state in the 1990s due to Perot

[Badger]

Zyzz's post above encapsulates Clinton's win in Georgia perfectly. The demographics and voting trends Macon Georgia competitive again r very much a reversal of what carried the state for president Bubba.

Regarding Arizona, I can't figure it out. In 96 Clinton won a narrow plurality of 46.5% of the vote, an Improvement of 10% from his 92 numbers. In that prior election, Ross Perot got one of his highest Statewide percentages with over 23% of the vote.

In trying to find the Dynamics at work here, I discovered a very interesting statistic. In every presidential election after 96 right up to the present, the Democratic candidates percentage of the vote was incredibly consistent, always falling in the 44 percent range. I believe the lowest was a hair over 44.3%, and the highest around 44.9, and Obama even maintained within this tiny range while running against favorite son McCain. That's an incredibly consistent figure spread out over the course of 5 elections and 20 years!

I'm not sure what this proves other than Clinton performing just a couple percentage points better than any other Democrat in the subsequent quarter-century was sufficient to narrowly carry the state. It makes me a little pessimistic though as, while I'm not a big believer in the power of long-term electoral traditions (a.g. they always said no Democrat could win without Texas), Biden is going to have to break some serious and very very consistent presidential voting patterns for Democrats in order to carry the state. In other words, he's going to have to run Five Points better then every single Democrat in the last quarter century

[Gracile]

Clinton was able to win GA because of ancestral Democratic rural areas not being totally gone at the time; a future Democratic win there will be under a much different coalition (Dems dominating metro Atlanta and the state's midsize cities).

[Badger]

Lo and behold! I googled the question, and the first substantive answer was an older Atlas thread.

Short, but highly accurate answers provided IMHO.

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=264282.0

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

Lo and behold! I googled the question, and the first substantive answer was an older Atlas thread.

Short, but highly accurate answers provided IMHO.

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=264282.0

Lol, that thread was started by me as well (and it was my very first post)!

[BaldEagle1991]

Ross Perot I think split the votes there.

Clinton’s wins in AZ & GA in 1992 are an *

[Calthrina950]

Ross Perot I think split the votes there.

Clinton’s wins in AZ & GA in 1992 are an *

Without Perot, Clinton probably would have lost Colorado and Montana as well in 1992 (and he did lose them in 1996, when Perot's voteshare declined). An even weaker Perot candidacy in 1996 would have probably cost Clinton Tennessee and Kentucky as well, particularly the latter, where he won by less than 1%.

I agree with what has been said here. Clinton's 1992 map in Georgia saw him combining Democratic strength in the Black Belt and many of the "Yellow Dog" white rural counties with Atlanta and its immediate neighbors (Clayton and DeKalb Counties), enabling him to barely overcome Bush's suburban and mountain strength (and of course, with a considerable boost from Perot):

In 1996, however, Perot's voteshare declined, and Dole gained significantly in the Atlanta suburbs, winning Cobb, Gwinnett, and several of the surrounding counties with majorities (while Bush had gotten only pluralities in many of those counties in 1992). Clinton also did worse in rural Georgia, and several counties flipped to Dole. These three elements-the dropoff in Perot support, and the gains by Dole in both the Atlanta Metropolitan Area and in Rural Georgia-enabled him to flip the state:

As with Arizona, it fascinates me how Bill Clinton managed to pull off a victory there despite losing Maricopa County. Dole won Maricopa by slightly under 3%, while Clinton carried Pima County by double digits and did relatively well in outstate Arizona (he was the last Democrat to win the mining-dominated Greenlee County, which voted Democratic in every election from 1912-1996 before turning Republican in 2000). It seems that Clinton's strength in Pima, and the closeness of the margin in Maricopa, is what enabled him to eek out the victory there:

[Skill and Chance]

Can we also talk about Montana 1992?  Heavily Perot-influenced to be sure, but that win was incredibly random.  Only Dem win there since LBJ.

[Lechasseur]

Georgia only really became a Republican state  in 2000 , AZ was only a swing state in the 1990s due to Perot

This

And even 1996 I think is hard to compare to 1992 in GA because turnout was so low in 1996 (42% or something)

[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.

[Mr. Smith]

What I find more interesting is how Hillary would outperform everyone (Gore, Kerry, even Obama) save her hubby in both states since then.

[morgankingsley]

Georgia I could understand. He was a southerner, which was usually a good success to pick up at least some states in that region when you are a democrat at this time frame. Such as Jimmy Carter. Plus if I recall correctly, Georgia was still relatively more democrat in 84 and 88 compared to other Southern states, barring ironically Tennesse, so with a unpopular incumbent, a democrat southerner, a moderate, and a already relatively democratic leaning comparatively state, it is not a shock. The low margin is more shocking.

Arizona, on the other hand, I don't really know the answer to aside from the fact that in that state at least, Perot had to have taken more from Bush and Dole respectively than Clinton

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

What I find more interesting is how Hillary would outperform everyone (Gore, Kerry, even Obama) save her hubby in both states since then.

Donald Trump has entered the chat.

[Calthrina950]

Georgia I could understand. He was a southerner, which was usually a good success to pick up at least some states in that region when you are a democrat at this time frame. Such as Jimmy Carter. Plus if I recall correctly, Georgia was still relatively more democrat in 84 and 88 compared to other Southern states, barring ironically Tennesse, so with a unpopular incumbent, a democrat southerner, a moderate, and a already relatively democratic leaning comparatively state, it is not a shock. The low margin is more shocking.

Arizona, on the other hand, I don't really know the answer to aside from the fact that in that state at least, Perot had to have taken more from Bush and Dole respectively than Clinton

In addition to this, Dole did poorly among senior voters that year, due to issues surrounding Social Security and Medicare emanating from the Gingrich agenda in the mid-1990s. Senior voters, moreover, were still Democratic-leaning at this time, as they were predominantly of the Greatest Generation which had come of age under Roosevelt. Dole's weaknesses among senior citizens helped Clinton to win both Arizona and Florida.