Which candidate was the best fit for the South in 1992?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 21, 2021, 04:11:40 PM

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: ON Progressive)
  Which candidate was the best fit for the South in 1992?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which candidate was the best fit for the South in 1992?
#1
George HW Bush
 
#2
Bill Clinton
 
#3
Ross Perot
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 32

Author Topic: Which candidate was the best fit for the South in 1992?  (Read 323 times)
darklordoftech
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,989
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 07, 2021, 07:34:20 PM »

?
Logged
The Solace of My Labor Pains
discovolante
Atlas Politician
Jr. Member
*****
Posts: 1,567
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2021, 07:50:01 PM »

9 of Perot's bottom 10 states in the country were in the ex-Confederacy, the tenth being culturally-adjacent Kentucky, so I have no idea why anyone would call him a good fit for the region. He had no chance of carving a niche in such a racially polarized region outside of wealthy suburbs and wonky, overwhelmingly white rurals.

The South was still Bush's best region of the country at large, aided surely by his massive raw vote margins in Alabama, Florida, Texas, and Virginia. However, as many of his strongest performances in those states were in more [sub-]urbanized and less idiomatically "Southern" regions, and given the strong personal branding of the Clinton-Gore ticket, one can argue that Bubba was a better fit who just didn't have the demographics on his side.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,213
Nepal


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2021, 05:49:44 AM »

Clinton, relative to party (the South was already Republican at the presidential level by then).
Logged
Teflon Joe.
Zyzz
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,115


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2021, 12:44:17 AM »

9 of Perot's bottom 10 states in the country were in the ex-Confederacy, the tenth being culturally-adjacent Kentucky, so I have no idea why anyone would call him a good fit for the region. He had no chance of carving a niche in such a racially polarized region outside of wealthy suburbs and wonky, overwhelmingly white rurals.

The South was still Bush's best region of the country at large, aided surely by his massive raw vote margins in Alabama, Florida, Texas, and Virginia. However, as many of his strongest performances in those states were in more [sub-]urbanized and less idiomatically "Southern" regions, and given the strong personal branding of the Clinton-Gore ticket, one can argue that Bubba was a better fit who just didn't have the demographics on his side.

Bush was the candidate of the wealthy Sunbelt suburbs like Dallas, Houston, Atlanta and Phoenix. Bill Clinton was the candidate of the Jacksonian Upper South. He was the candidate of the working class and the poor in the South. He dominated in coal country in WV and KY and in rural MO, AR, TN and LA.

Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.037 seconds with 14 queries.