Skip to main content

View Diary: Where did Bill Clinton do well in 1992 and 1996? The Partial Myth of Bubba. (Now with more 1992!) (53 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I prefer Congressional districts to counties. (5+ / 0-)

    Since I like how there are relatively fewer of them, and that they're roughly equally populated, and usually reasonably coherent even when they're gerrymandered.  This is a bit idiosyncratic though.

    However--again, I'm not trying to bash Bill Clinton.  Eh, that's disingenuous.  The Clinton story really annoys me, and yes, I'm still annoyed by the whole "Hillary Clinton: Champion of the Reagan Democrat" thing from the 2008 primaries.  I should probably just move on, since that whole period was insane, and I don't even like my own diaries from back then.

    But Bill's a very good politician.  I just think the nature of his political skills, and their relationships to the overall trends of the two parties, might be misunderstood.

    For example--it's possible that, as a good politician, he got votes where it was most fertile for a Democrat--which, at that time, was suburbia.  Maybe not.  But this diary is my attempt to contribute to that discussion.

    27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

    by Xenocrypt on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 03:27:26 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  OK (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I tend to be a "the more numbers, the better" guy, but I see both sides.

      I supported Obama from pretty early, once I was convinced that he would run a solid campaign -- but I never got into the primary wars.

      For example--it's possible that, as a good politician, he got votes where it was most fertile for a Democrat--which, at that time, was suburbia.
      Well, sure. Even lousy politicians get votes where it is most fertile. ;) I'm generally pretty suspicious of generalizations about Joe Sixpack, or Walmart Moms, or blue-collar voters, etc.

      Hmm, I'll think about this some more.

      Election protection: there's an app for that!
      Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

      by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 04:51:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Even after reading this (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jncca, Inoljt, WisJohn

      I still buy into Hillary doing better as a bubba candidate in certain areas.  She would've done better in Appalachia and would've changed PA-12's fate as the only Kerry/McCain district.  I think that's because I think a lot of realigning has occurred between the time period you discuss and the 2008 election.  A lot of population has been lost in these areas due to the loss of jobs slanted towards being unionized.  Also, the Democratic Party has more fully shifted towards urban liberalism versus rural populism.  I think Hillary would've done better, but enough to make any electoral difference?  Nope.

      As for my over-all comments, great job, great topic, and a really great read.  First, I think it is really important that someone finally did the leg work to look into this.  But as I note above, I want to point out that this is only a snap-shot of the greater political period of re-alignment that we are finally nearing the end of with the parties switching places.

      What I love about your study is that two of the main regions discussed are the South and its traditional Democratic counter-part in the North, Appalachia.  When someone talks about a Democratic "bubba" vote, these are the two regions people immediately think of as where we can do better.  But your study shows that they diverged when it came to Bill Clinton.  Frankly, I'm not too surprised by Bill doing worst than Dukakis in SW PA and the like because as a Minnesotan, I've long looked at maps trying to figure out how the hell we're the longest running blue state in the country.  Obviously it's because of Mondale being on the ticket in 1984, blah blah blah, but maps make it more fun.  And my conclusion from that exercise was that there was still plenty of traditional Democratic voting power in the rural North and it was the urban populations that threw 1984 to Reagan so decisively.  And your study shows that Clinton did worse with the rural Northern Democrats while he improved greatly with the urban population.  To me, that simply speaks to re-alignment becoming more regular.

      Furthermore, concerning the South, your study shows that there was a "bubba" effect here.  And if one were to believe my above thoughts, that'd mean Clinton had normal re-alignment occurring in the North, and he had a "bubba" effect in the South.  This brings to mind Jimmy Carter, who under what your study has found should also be considered as having a "bubba effect" by the punditry and over-all political science concerning he had the same electoral bubba effect as Clinton did.  So then one must almost wonder if there is no such thing as a "bubba" effect; both simply went against re-alignment trends in the South because they are from there.  And, Barack Obama will do better in IL than usual and today is Monday.

      Great work, clearly made me think.  :)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site