Started By
Message

re: Why did Louisiana, South, middle America vote Democrat in '92 and '96?

Posted on 11/24/24 at 7:12 am to
Posted by KiwiHead
Auckland, NZ
Member since Jul 2014
37588 posts
Posted on 11/24/24 at 7:12 am to
Back then Democrats could reasonably expect a minimum of 43% of the vote in most Southern states. But if you want to know how Clinton won in 92 and to a lesser extent in 96.


H Ross Perot siphoned off 18% of the votes from Bush nationwide in 92
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
299716 posts
Posted on 11/24/24 at 7:14 am to
quote:

Women ADORED Clinton and It was sickening


Not only that, Hollywood and the entertainment industry adored him and put him front and center for a lot of free advertising.

Posted by shinerfan
Duckworld(Earth-616)
Member since Sep 2009
28544 posts
Posted on 11/24/24 at 7:34 am to
The Dems weren't so completely batshit insane as they are now and it wasn't entirely laughable for a Dem to run as a centrist. They weren't really centrists but they could fake it better in those days. After 12 years of GOP rule and 45 years of the Cold War a lot of Americans saw the end of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact as an opportunity to cash in the "peace dividend" and turn the focus to domestic issues. Plus, Papa Bush was an Ivy League elitist from a powerful New England political dynasty. His ties to TX were beyond dubious.

Those things combined to create the opportunity but it was Ross Perot who actually handed both elections to Clunton. He personally hated Bush for reasons that still aren't completely clear.
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
299716 posts
Posted on 11/24/24 at 7:36 am to

Back to top
quote:

The Dems weren't so completely batshit insane as they are now and it wasn't entirely laughable for a Dem to run as a centrist.


Right.

Dems built this flimsy house of cards on identity politics, Clinton understood it was all about the economy.

My econ professor was a big Bill Clinton fan due to his knowledge of economics.

Posted by Bestbank Tiger
Premium Member
Member since Jan 2005
80916 posts
Posted on 11/24/24 at 7:38 am to
The Democrats hadn't gone full retard yet.

Bush flipped Louisiana because Gore is anti oil. Then in 2004 the Democrats chose Kerry over Edwards and pushed Gephardt out for Pelousy. It was the turning point where they became the party of the elites and told working baws to bug off.
Posted by dgnx6
Member since Feb 2006
89816 posts
Posted on 11/24/24 at 7:40 am to
quote:

I look at maps of Electoral Vote results, and beginning 2000



The whole country voted red for RR but the south wasnt really solid red until W and beyond.


It goes against the democrat narrative of some party flip.
Posted by BluegrassCardinal
Kentucky
Member since Nov 2022
2140 posts
Posted on 11/24/24 at 7:46 am to
Democrats could run as centrists then and get away with it. Some of Clinton's policies would be considered "conservative" by today's left.

Bush was an uninspiring incumbent whom mostly seemed out of touch with Americans. The Democrats and Perot were able to weigh him down with his infamous quid, "read my lips, no new taxes." Also, a recession was going on in the early 90's and Bush was getting some pushback from the right for finishing Operation Desert Storm half baked-leaving Saddam in power.

As pointed out, the electoral map was somewhat different then. Southern states were seen as potential battleground by both sides. Lots of blue dog Dems that could be election changers, with the right candidate.

Clinton won a sizeable share of the south in 92 and 96, Carter swept the south in 1976, which was bookended by Nixon and Reagan landslides.

As long as the Democrats double down on their insanity, I doubt you'll see a southern pathway to an electoral victory for generations.

ETA: I was early to mid 20's in the Clinton era.
This post was edited on 11/24/24 at 7:48 am
Posted by prplhze2000
Parts Unknown
Member since Jan 2007
58211 posts
Posted on 11/24/24 at 8:28 am to
Clinton caused a lot of Blue Dogs to get beat or switch. Richard Shelby was a Democrat, for example.

For the first two years, Hillary ran everything. The Clintons, and yes, it is plural, governed borderline progressive/liberal. Assault weapons ban was passed by them. Hillarycare was further to the left than Obamacare. They wanted to institute, get this, a BTU tax. An economy killer. They raised taxes.

Led to the 1994 elections. Clinton was smart enough to read the room and adapt accordingly. Obama never did.

And unlike Obama, Clinton didn't go taunting Trump at a dinner before a room full of people.
Posted by tarzana
TX Hwy 6-- the Brazos River Valley
Member since Sep 2015
32099 posts
Posted on 11/24/24 at 8:32 am to
Because:

1. MORE NEW TAXES by G.H.W. Bush

2. Bob Dole was a less-than-formidable candidate who infamously wanted to get Americans off of Medicare

3. Bill Clinton is a genius who kept us out of wars and, in his second term became a fiscal magician and balanced the budget

That's it, in a nutshell.
This post was edited on 11/24/24 at 8:37 am
Posted by TerryDawg03
The Deep South
Member since Dec 2012
17966 posts
Posted on 11/24/24 at 8:34 am to
There were still a lot of Dixiecrats back in the early 90s. That affected things as well.

For example:

Posted by geauxbrown
Louisiana
Member since Oct 2006
27328 posts
Posted on 11/24/24 at 8:57 am to
In the words of my former MIL, who was an idiot….But Bill Clinton is just so good looking.
Posted by TBubba
Not sure
Member since Sep 2007
1234 posts
Posted on 11/24/24 at 9:11 am to
quote:

sure you could dig deeper, but a lot of times, Americans vote between the actual human beings running for President and not just the R or D. And the human being the Republicans ran in ‘92 was a the awkward incumbent, clearly inferior to his predecessor Reagan, a 2nd Bush term would have felt like 16 years of Reagan, with the last 8 being bad facsimiles, and the pendulum is typically not allowed to get swung that far without having to come back. Also, “Read my lips…no new taxes” then…taxes. And the 1st Iraqi War that 35 years later, still almost no one could tell you what the frick that had to do with us. And the Democrats ran one of the most gifted politicians of the 20th century, who convinced people he “felt their pain,” and gave the biggest generation in American history, the Baby Boomers, the 1st “one of us” they could vote for. And he played saxophone on the Arsenio Hall Show while wearing shades. In ‘96, that incumbent Democrat ran against a Republican “human being” who, bless his heart, was 137 years old—possibly dead—and had to shake hands left handed, because he couldn’t move his right. Yet he always had a pen stuck in it as merely a prop. I think the economy was pretty good both years, so there wasn’t a backlash to vote against, really or a clear “vote my pocketbook” difference —I think the “read my lips” campaign was more about painting H.W. as a liar than him simply raising taxes. So, at the end of the days, people were able to just vote for the human being they liked best and wanted representing us. Issues were close enough that they didn’t really matter. Clinton was young and hip and liked to slay poon. Bush was a dork who had been in power too long, and Dole, like I said, was 137 years old. At least. And we wanted Slick Willie to be our face to the world. Those elections were about the humans, not their parties. And it obviously trickled down into redder areas. I am no political analyst, did no research before answering, consulted no data. I’m just in my mid-40s and was alive and old enough to have witnessed it. This is my memory of the overall feeling in America during that time. I’m sure you could drill farther and break it down more scientifically than that. But I don’t think that you need to. Democrats ran the better horse both times.


I will be using this in my political conversations as if it was my own. Thank you.
Posted by ldts
Member since Aug 2015
2910 posts
Posted on 11/24/24 at 9:23 am to
quote:

92 Ross Perot


I've often wondered how different things would have gone had he been elected.
Posted by Giantkiller
the internet.
Member since Sep 2007
25477 posts
Posted on 11/24/24 at 9:29 am to
quote:

So why did this happen?


They loved Bill. Bush had promised not to raise taxes and then he did. People were over Reagan and Reagan pt 2 and Bill was the embodiment of that sentiment. Perot splitting the vote was all it took. Then in 1996 they ran Dole who was just a "it's his turn" candidate. He was stale and boring and never had a chance.

Also a good time to mention this was the original 'It's The Economy, Stupid' era. It was brilliant and what Dems luckily didn't play this last go round in favor of Trans bullshite and leaving the border wide open.
This post was edited on 11/24/24 at 9:33 am
Posted by JimNat
Member since Jan 2020
901 posts
Posted on 11/24/24 at 9:34 am to
Clinton

I was led to believe Clinton was conservative. I lived in Ms. I voted for the Arkansas guy in 92. Never forget my wife saying you’ll be sorry, you voted for Hillary too
Posted by SG_Geaux
Beautiful St George, LA
Member since Aug 2004
80695 posts
Posted on 11/24/24 at 9:37 am to
If Perot doesn't run, Clinton loses the election.
Posted by Bard
Definitely NOT an admin
Member since Oct 2008
59283 posts
Posted on 11/24/24 at 9:43 am to
The South was still largely Democrat back then. I know it's hard to comprehend now, but if you go back and look at Louisiana legislature control by party, the Dems had control of the state house and senate chambers for well over a century (from 1876 - 2011). The time length for Democrats holding the Governor's office and all Congressional seats is only slightly less. LINK That was the standard, it was generational and it was pretty much completely opposite of what we have today.

Dave Treen was the first to put a crack in the dam. Buddy Roemer and Fox McKeithen switching to GOP while in office and our House representation starting to move to the GOP was a precursor to what was eventually going to happen in the state.

Clinton's win came about when that transition was still far too young to do anything but give him the state in both of his runs.

Along with that, one of Bush I's biggest platforms ini the 1988 campaign was "Read my lips: no new taxes!" He, of course, signed the 1990 Omnibus and it raised various taxes. Even while Bush was making this claim, the talking heads (which were relegated pretty much just to Sunday mornings back then) were saying there was no way taxes couldn't be raised (because of the ongoing deficit spending at the time). Voters didn't forget this (and Pat Buchanan made sure they didn't) for the 92 election.

Another issue was the presence of Ross Perot. Perot had the strongest showing thus far of any 3rd party candidate, even to the point of earning him a spot on the debate stage. While Perot didn't win a single EC delegate, he did pull in almost 19% of the popular vote (Clinton and Bush split the rest, 43-37.4% respectively) and there has always been speculation those would have been Bush votes had Perot not been in the picture.

As if that wasn't enough, the media loved Bill Clinton. He was a charming philanderer (Gennifer Flowers, anyone? Anyone?) who won the media spotlight, at least in part, by being "The Comeback Kid" by his campaign coming out of nowhere in the 92 primaries to come in 2nd in New Hampshire (fun fact: he dubbed himself with the nickname and the media ran with it). The media loves a good Cinderella story so it became part of his campaign's charm when the media reported on it.

A bit of a sub-section of that was the invention of Rock The Vote. Some Clinton supporters in the music industry created this movement, which was heavily pushed on MTV (which, at the time, still had a strong following among young adults) with the on-the-ground actions of not just getting young adults registered to vote but to register them as Democrats and push Clinton as the candidate they should vote for. This was so successful that it created an entire industry of "voter registration organizations" which have been traditionally Democrat operations regardless of their claims of non-partisanship.

Clinton was a brilliant reader of political tea leaves and Hillary was a taskmaster behind the scenes (and the media loved her, despite things like the Bimbo Eruption Squad, Travelgate, Whitewater, etc). Clinton's ability to know when to bend became important when the GOP won the House in the mid-terms. Leading up to the 96 election the GOP House had made much-needed welfare reform a hot issue while Clinton had stated publicly on multiple occasions that he would not sign any form of welfare reform. He ended up signing the PRWORA in August 1996.

In 1996 the GOP put up the sacrificial lamb of Bob Dole. Dole was old and campaigned with little personality while Clinton was still young (for a President), charismatic, energetic and "willing to work across the aisle" (finger-quotes because he signed welfare reform only because he knew it was a popular issue that could put his re-election too close to being in jeopardy). Clinton would then go on to steamroll Dole by winning 379 EC votes.
Posted by BigJim
Baton Rouge
Member since Jan 2010
15082 posts
Posted on 11/24/24 at 9:53 am to
6 post in to mention Perot?

Other items are correct as well (Clinton was southern and charismatic; Bush was definitely not, plus he ran as moderate democrat, Reagan fatigue/desire for change, etc.).
Posted by TheHarahanian
Actually not Harahan as of 6/2023
Member since May 2017
23925 posts
Posted on 11/24/24 at 9:57 am to
92 was the recession and Clinton was from Arkansas. And the marxist media finally had a viable messiah, after trying desperately to push Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis.
This post was edited on 11/24/24 at 10:21 am
Posted by tadman
Member since Jun 2020
5445 posts
Posted on 11/24/24 at 9:58 am to
quote:

And the Democrats ran one of the most gifted politicians of the 20th century,


Good summary and this in particular. B Clinton had a gift his wife (and most others period) never had. Dude made everybody feel good about life and it got him elected twice.

Also he was a 1990's democrat. I disagreed with them but respected them, unlike the post-Clinton party where hatred and identity politics rule.

Ms. Harris was the anti-Clinton. Utterly unlikeable and inarticulate. Can't come back from that.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram