In
my previous entry today, I broke down the twenty year voting trends of all current swing states. This entry focuses on the propensity of states and swing states to vote for third party candidates / insurgents. The following table lists the propensity of each state to vote for a third party candidate based on 1992, 1996 and 2000 election results (swing states in bold):
- Alaska
- Maine
- Montana
- Vermont
- Rhode Island
- Massachusetts
- Minnesota
- Wisconsin
- Utah
- Oregon
- Connecticut
- Colorado
- North Dakota
- Idaho
- Washington
- Hawaii
- Nebraska
- New Hampshire
- Kansas
- Wyoming
- Nevada
- California
- Ohio
- Delaware
- Arizona
- New York
- Missouri
- New Jersey
- Pennsylvania
- New Mexico
- Iowa
- Michigan
- West Virginia
- Texas
- Florida
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Oklahoma
- Maryland
- D.C.
- Kentucky
- South Dakota
- Virginia
- Arkansas
- Louisiana
- South Carolina
- Alabama
- Tennessee
- North Carolina
- Georgia
- Mississippi
(Methodology: The nationwide vote for the major third party candidate in 1992, 1996 and 2000 was divided by the vote each state gave to that candidate in 1992, 1996, and 2000. For example, in 1992 Ross Perot received 18.91% of the national vote, and 10.85% of the Alabama vote. This gave Alabama a score of 57.38 for 1992. The each state had its three scores totaled, and the state with the highest total was ranked first.)
Perhaps the most striking trend this table reveals is that states with smaller minority populations are far more likely to vote for third party candidates than states with moderately sized or large minority populations. The second most striking trend is that among the seven swing states in the top 15 of this table, all but two of them (the two smallest) have been trending toward the GOP during the past twenty years.
Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin have the greatest propensity to vote for third party candidates of any swing state except ME and CT. Further, all five states have been trending toward the GOP during the past two decades, as my analysis from earlier today suggested (Dukakis actually did better in these five states than Gore). Still further, all five of these states have minority populations that are disproportionately small compared to the nation as a whole.
What I am wondering is if "outsiders" and one-time insurgents Clark and Dean, both of whom found a significant percentage of their early support among white males who have a propensity to support insurgents / outsiders / third-party candidates, would be able to capitalize on this sort of an image in the general election. The last time a major party nominated an "insurgent" was Carter in 1976, so there is a dearth of information that would indicate whether or not a major party nominee could ever be viewed as an "insurgent" by the country at large (and, more importantly, in the five states that I mentioned).
If Clark or Dean were in fact able to come off as insurgent outsiders, then the advantages they would gain in CO, MN, OR, WA and WI combined with the already positive trends for Democrats in AZ, FL, MI, NH, NM, NV and PA would severely complicate electoral math for Republicans in a close election. So, whether or nor Clark and/or Dean would be able to capitalize on such an image and how they would best go about forging such an image are important questions. If anyone has any thoughts, I'd love to hear them.
Later on: Do other regions beside the south favor "one of their own?"