NBC's Final Battleground Maps : 1992-2020

[South Dakota Democrat]

One thing that stands out to me is that FL was considered Safe R rather than a battleground in 1992. Why was this? Especially considering Clinton did flip the state four years later.

Bush won it by over 20 points the previous election.

So? As far as 1988/1992 go, that doesn't prove much at all (1988 to 1992 is the largest swing in four years in modern presidential history). In 1988, NH was Bush+26, and his second strongest state nationally, and four years later, it voted for Bill Clinton. GA, which borders FL, also supported Bush by north of 20 points in 1988, only to flip to Clinton four years later.

k

[OSR stands with Israel]

One thing that stands out to me is that FL was considered Safe R rather than a battleground in 1992. Why was this? Especially considering Clinton did flip the state four years later.

Bush won it by over 20 points the previous election.

So? As far as 1988/1992 go, that doesn't prove much at all (1988 to 1992 is the largest swing in four years in modern presidential history). In 1988, NH was Bush+26, and his second strongest state nationally, and four years later, it voted for Bill Clinton. GA, which borders FL, also supported Bush by north of 20 points in 1988, only to flip to Clinton four years later.

GA and FL are pretty different even though they neighbor each other. The premise behind the Clinton 1992 campaign in the south was it could rebuild Democratic support in the south through a coalition of African Americans and decent support among working class whites in the south which he did do in 1992. The reason it worked in GA and Not FL though is the Minority Voters in FL unlike in GA were far far less Democratic(like today) and rural GA in general was more Democratic even down ballot. Also keep in mind that Clinton contested GA far more than he did with FL so its no surprise that people thought he had a better chance at winning GA than FL.

[Schiff for Senate]

One thing that stands out to me is that FL was considered Safe R rather than a battleground in 1992. Why was this? Especially considering Clinton did flip the state four years later.

Bush won it by over 20 points the previous election.

So? As far as 1988/1992 go, that doesn't prove much at all (1988 to 1992 is the largest swing in four years in modern presidential history). In 1988, NH was Bush+26, and his second strongest state nationally, and four years later, it voted for Bill Clinton. GA, which borders FL, also supported Bush by north of 20 points in 1988, only to flip to Clinton four years later.

GA and FL are pretty different even though they neighbor each other. The premise behind the Clinton 1992 campaign in the south was it could rebuild Democratic support in the south through a coalition of African Americans and decent support among working class whites in the south which he did do in 1992. The reason it worked in GA and Not FL though is the Minority Voters in FL unlike in GA were far far less Democratic(like today) and rural GA in general was more Democratic even down ballot. Also keep in mind that Clinton contested GA far more than he did with FL so its no surprise that people thought he had a better chance at winning GA than FL.

I know GA and FL are very different - and were very different in 1992 - and you're not wrong. But how was FL "Safe Bush" and not a battleground in 1992? Yes, it has different dynamics at play than GA and NH, which is why it ultimately did stick with Bush. But Bush's margin was still just one point. So how did people figure it was "Safe Bush" and not a battleground that Clinton could win (that he didn't win is different - but he came quite close to doing so, so saying it was "Safe Bush" is like saying NC was "Safe Trump" in 2020)?

[OSR stands with Israel]

One thing that stands out to me is that FL was considered Safe R rather than a battleground in 1992. Why was this? Especially considering Clinton did flip the state four years later.

Bush won it by over 20 points the previous election.

So? As far as 1988/1992 go, that doesn't prove much at all (1988 to 1992 is the largest swing in four years in modern presidential history). In 1988, NH was Bush+26, and his second strongest state nationally, and four years later, it voted for Bill Clinton. GA, which borders FL, also supported Bush by north of 20 points in 1988, only to flip to Clinton four years later.

GA and FL are pretty different even though they neighbor each other. The premise behind the Clinton 1992 campaign in the south was it could rebuild Democratic support in the south through a coalition of African Americans and decent support among working class whites in the south which he did do in 1992. The reason it worked in GA and Not FL though is the Minority Voters in FL unlike in GA were far far less Democratic(like today) and rural GA in general was more Democratic even down ballot. Also keep in mind that Clinton contested GA far more than he did with FL so its no surprise that people thought he had a better chance at winning GA than FL.

I know GA and FL are very different - and were very different in 1992 - and you're not wrong. But how was FL "Safe Bush" and not a battleground in 1992? Yes, it has different dynamics at play than GA and NH, which is why it ultimately did stick with Bush. But Bush's margin was still just one point. So how did people figure it was "Safe Bush" and not a battleground that Clinton could win (that he didn't win is different - but he came quite close to doing so, so saying it was "Safe Bush" is like saying NC was "Safe Trump" in 2020)?

It wasn’t Safe Bush , as they just were consolidating the lean and safe together in their final battleground map . So the battleground states you see we’re more or less considered the tossups in each election

[Schiff for Senate]

One thing that stands out to me is that FL was considered Safe R rather than a battleground in 1992. Why was this? Especially considering Clinton did flip the state four years later.

Bush won it by over 20 points the previous election.

So? As far as 1988/1992 go, that doesn't prove much at all (1988 to 1992 is the largest swing in four years in modern presidential history). In 1988, NH was Bush+26, and his second strongest state nationally, and four years later, it voted for Bill Clinton. GA, which borders FL, also supported Bush by north of 20 points in 1988, only to flip to Clinton four years later.

GA and FL are pretty different even though they neighbor each other. The premise behind the Clinton 1992 campaign in the south was it could rebuild Democratic support in the south through a coalition of African Americans and decent support among working class whites in the south which he did do in 1992. The reason it worked in GA and Not FL though is the Minority Voters in FL unlike in GA were far far less Democratic(like today) and rural GA in general was more Democratic even down ballot. Also keep in mind that Clinton contested GA far more than he did with FL so its no surprise that people thought he had a better chance at winning GA than FL.

I know GA and FL are very different - and were very different in 1992 - and you're not wrong. But how was FL "Safe Bush" and not a battleground in 1992? Yes, it has different dynamics at play than GA and NH, which is why it ultimately did stick with Bush. But Bush's margin was still just one point. So how did people figure it was "Safe Bush" and not a battleground that Clinton could win (that he didn't win is different - but he came quite close to doing so, so saying it was "Safe Bush" is like saying NC was "Safe Trump" in 2020)?

It wasn’t Safe Bush , as they just were consolidating the lean and safe together in their final battleground map . So the battleground states you see we’re more or less considered the tossups in each election

All right then. A "Lean Bush" rating sounds reasonable.

[astrohuncho]

on a related note here is the CBS map from 1980