If Perot ran neither time, would any states be Clinton-Dole?

(1/1)

Modok:
To explain my question, some people say Clinton only won CO/MT in 1992 because Perot was on the ballot, pointing to Dole's victory in these states in 1996. However, these states swung heavily Democratic in 1988, Clinton would have needed to improve very little on Dukakis's % to win them. Isn't it possible these states would have voted for him in 1992 but then turned against him four years later because of issues like guns? I also feel KY/TN would have voted for Clinton in 92 without Perot but not 96.

LeonelBrizola:
Michael Dukakis lost Montana by almost 6%, and South Dakota by the same margin.

Modok:
Quote from: LeonelBrizola on September 30, 2022, 06:13:34 PM

Michael Dukakis lost Montana by almost 6%, and South Dakota by the same margin.



Yes, which was a thin margin then because the country was much less polarized. Do people really think these states would have stayed mostly stationary from 88-92 despite a large national swing to Clinton? Remember, Clinton was well ahead in September 1992 and the Bush campaign openly celebrated Perot entering in October because it narrowed the race. It's not at all unlikely that Clinton could have carried SD in 1992.

LeonelBrizola:
Quote from: Mehmet Oz is a charlatan psychopath on September 30, 2022, 08:03:51 PM

Quote from: LeonelBrizola on September 30, 2022, 06:13:34 PM

Michael Dukakis lost Montana by almost 6%, and South Dakota by the same margin.



Yes, which was a thin margin then because the country was much less polarized. Do people really think these states would have stayed mostly stationary from 88-92 despite a large national swing to Clinton? Remember, Clinton was well ahead in September 1992 and the Bush campaign openly celebrated Perot entering in October because it narrowed the race. It's not at all unlikely that Clinton could have carried SD in 1992.


They could shift left together with the nation, but flipping blue is still unlikely.

Navigation

[0] Message Index