Perot '92's Southern weakness

[Property Representative of the Harold Holt Swimming Centre]

All of Perot's lowest popular vote percentages by state were in the South. He failed to break 15% in a single Southern state and he got less than 10% in Mississippi.

Why was he specifically unpopular in the South? I saw an answer in a similar thread about how Perot's overall strength in 1992 might be explained by a detachment of traditional party loyalties in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War. Did these loyalties remain stronger in the South? Or was Clinton's (and to a lesser extent Bush's) appeal in the South enough to keep the Perot surge there lower than elsewhere?

[Del Tachi]

Look at how Southerners in the House voted on NAFTA and you have your answer.  The region has always been America's least protectionist.

[darklordoftech]

Southern whites care a lot about SCOTUS Justices, so they always fall in line for the Republican nominee.

[VPH]

Look at how Southerners in the House voted on NAFTA and you have your answer.  The region has always been America's least protectionist.

It depends what part of the South you're talking about. The deep South tended to be more pro-trade but the upland South was more protectionist. Look at the votes on GATT, the Caribbean Trade Partnership Act, free trade with various African countries, disapproving of PNTR with China. Members of Congress from textile mill regions and Southern Appalachia voted no far more than those in the deep South.

As for 1992, I think it was a combination of:
1. General third-party weakness in the South outside of Wallace/Thurmond's explicitly southern movements.
2. Clinton and Gore were both from the South, which probably helped.

[Schiff for Senate]

Southern whites care a lot about SCOTUS Justices, so they always fall in line for the Republican nominee.

This was hardly a concern in 1992 - if it were indeed the case, why did AR, TN, LA, KY, MO, GA back Clinton? AR was in fact Clinton's strongest state in a way, since it was the only state where either Bush or Clinton garnered an actual majority of the vote. Now, yes, southern conservatives and religious conservatives obviously back the GOP, the latter group particularly because muh judges. But if that were at all the case in 1992, then every southern state would back Bush, and the South wouldn't be remotely competitive that year.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Look at how Southerners in the House voted on NAFTA and you have your answer.  The region has always been America's least protectionist.

Perot's main issue in 1992 was deficit reduction and not NAFTA and that is completely reflected in the regions where he got the most support. He did the best in the West which is even more pro Free Trade than the South and  did better in California than Michigan

[One Term Floridian]

Perot was also arguably more vocal about being pro choice than Clinton/Gore (who still had plenty of ancestrally Democratic areas to fall back on) and that must have hurt him too

[Vice President Christian Man]

Pre-Trump, The South (barring West Virginia) was a historically pro-free trade area dating back to the slavery era,  as it did not rely on manufacturing  which meant that a protectionist like Perot would not have appealed to them. (I feel like George Wallace would've run a protectionist administration, but most people in The South voted for him for other reasons). Also, Clinton was seen as moderate enough for most Southerners (at least in 1992, if not 1996 as well, not to mention he was a favorite son).