As I have gotten older, I’ve begun to realize that time seems to be moving faster and faster with each passing week. What felt like one excruciating wait in the fifth grade is now one whirlwind and a hangover away from appearing as I approach my 22nd year. Things are not slowing down, and that is a terrifying. But if you’re willing to brush aside some existential dread about the course of your life or finding happiness before it’s all over, there are quite a few upsides: the wait between seasons of your favorite HBO series feel shorter, the sting of a breakup takes less time to fade, and, if you’re me, it feels like we’re always in an election year!
While I was not alive when then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton snatched the keys to the White House from President George H.W. Bush in 1992, enveloping myself in the maps and political history of the time allows you to imagine what it most likely felt like to inhale the air of that era. No, it’s not enough to replace replace the memories of being there, but this exercise is still a luxury of youth none the less. Pretty soon, our minds may be filled with timespans so immense, there may not be enough room to throw ourselves into lives we didn’t actually live.
All of that to say: politics moves quick!
And I feel it’s time to get to the main attraction: beneath are the results of every presidential contest from 1992 to 2016 as well as baseline commentary about what these elections mean about the American political consciousness.
(winners in each category are bolded)
1992
Governor Bill Clinton (D-AR) vs. President George H.W. Bush (R-TX) vs. Ross Perot (I-TX)
Popular Vote:
Clinton~ 44, 909,889 (43.0%)
Bush~ 39,104,550 (37.4%)
Perot~ 19,743,821 (18.9%)
Electoral Vote:
Clinton~ 370
Bush~ 168
Perot~ 0
1996
President Bill Clinton (D-AR) vs. Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) vs. Ross Perot (I-TX)
Popular Vote:
Clinton~ 47, 401,185 (49.2%)
Dole~ 39,197,469 (40.4%)
Perot~ 8,085,294 (8.4%)
Electoral Vote:
Clinton~ 379
Bush~ 159
Perot~ 0
2000
Vice President Al Gore (D-TN) vs Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
Popular Vote:
Gore~ 50,999,897 (48.4%)
Bush~ 50,456,002 (47.9%)
Electoral College:
Gore~ 266
Bush~ 271
*one elector from the District of Columbia refused to vote out of protest*
2004
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) vs President George W. Bush (R-TX)
Popular Vote:
Kerry~ 59,028,444 (48.3%)
Bush~ 62,040,610 (50.7%)
Electoral College:
Gore~ 251
Bush~ 286
*one faithless elector from the Minnesota voted for John Edwards*
2008
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) vs Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
Popular Vote:
Obama~ 69,498,516 (52.9%)
McCain~ 59,948,323 (45.7%)
Electoral College:
McCain~ 173
Obama~ 365
2012
President Barack Obama (D-IL) vs Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA)
Popular Vote:
Obama~ 65,915,795 (51.1%)
McCain~ 60,933,504 (47.2%)
Electoral College:
Romney~ 206
Obama~ 332
2016
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D-NY) vs Businessman/Entertainer Donald Trump (R-NY)
Popular Vote:
Clinton~ 65,853,514 (48.2%)
Trump~ 62,984,828 (46.1%)
Electoral College:
Trump~ 306
Clinton~ 227
*seven faithless electors voted for other candidates*
Democrats won the popular vote in every one of these elections except for 2004.
West Virginia was Bill Clinton’s 3rd best contest in 1992: he won the state by around 13 points. Hillary Clinton would lose the state by 42 points 24 years later.
2008 saw Virginia going Democratic for the first time since 1964.
2016 saw Wisconsin going Republican for the first time since 1984.
Ohio has closely mirrored the national popular vote since 1960… until it didn’t: Trump won the state by 8 points in 2016 while loosing the national popular vote by 2.
I could go on…
Captured in these maps is a timestamp of perceived American values and sensibilities. While political candidates of all kind often strip away their unseen edges when it’s their time to shine in the electoral spotlight, each of these elections represents a choice presented to the country at the ballot box. Do you want change or the status quo? Do you want to move past the sex scandals of the previous administration or stick with the party that bolstered a strong economy? Do you trust the current President to keep your family safe? Do you believe one of the nominees should be locked up?
The intimateness of these questions, the personal ways they’re litigated in your neighborhood or friend groups, all of this tends to mask the brute force electoral math at the heart of campaigning for the White House. Analyzing these results from a geographic and demographic lens, the following points can be surmised about our American electoral sphere:
Zipcode Destiny
Looking at the popular vote, Bill Clinton’s ~5 point win in 1992 is one tick above Obama’s ~4 point win in 2012. However, from a geographic lens, the spread out nature of Clinton’s coalition is apparent to even the casual observer. Clinton, coming off the reigns of being Arkansas’ Governor, wins six states south of the Mason Dixon Line versus Obama’s two. While both Presidents won western states like New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada in their first bids for the White House, Clinton’s capturing of these states is evident of electoral outreach: none of them had gone for a Democrat since 1964, and all of them would flip back to the Republicans at least once before Obama sealed these states up for good. On the other hand, Obama’s domination of urbanized states represents the Democratic party’s increased consolidation of metro voters: Clinton would break ground for Democrats in the state of California with his 14 point win in 1992, but Obama would steamroll in the state 2o years later by a margin of 23 points. Similarly, Clinton captured New Jersey (the state with the highest population density) by a meager 2 points in 1992. Obama would win by 18 in 2012.
Meanwhile, recent Republican gains in rural states is outright shocking. Sixteen years apart, both Al Gore and Hillary Clinton won the popular vote (Clinton by 2 and Gore by 0.5) and lost the electoral college in their respective elections. Gore lost Kentucky by 15 Points while Hillary lost it by 3o. Gore nearly made West Virginia competitive with a modest six point loss. Hillary lost the state by a greater than 2-1 margin. Bush was able to beat back Democrats in the state of Missouri with a 3 point win. Trump won the state by 19 points 16 years later.
Before moving forward, it should be noted that none of these elections exist in a vacuum: the conditions around individual candidacies and individual moments in time are perhaps the biggest factor that goes into reasoning why one person is elected President over another. We could spend hours dissecting the valid reasons why George W. Bush was a better fit for the Boston suburbs in New Hampshire or why Hillary was uniquely bad at getting out the vote in the drift less counties of Wisconsin. Those points will be litigated on forums and in the media until the end of time, and they’re valid discussions. I’m trying to show you the results and attempt to compartmentalize them in the broader scheme of politics.
To that end, the past six elections have consistently shouted one thing with increasing volume each four years:
American politics is leaning into the rural vs. urban divide with the suburbs becoming the ultimate battle ground. No longer do we live in a time where candidates like Governor Kate Brown can rely on rural logging communities on Oregon’s southern coast to get across the finish line in a statewide race. Similarly, Oregon Republicans face historic losses year after year because they are locked out of not only Portland’s interior metro, but populous exurban communities in Washington and Clackamas counties. While there is still room for some candidates or causes to break the mold on the basis of a variety of different circumstances, the prevailing truth is that these trends have continued to dominate with each passing cycle.
A Different Perspective
While these trends are apparent by looking at baseline presidential results, there is room to appreciate the fact that a Clinton plus 9 win may put a different lens on the map than a Gore plus 0.5 result. The truth of the matter is that a close to even election may shed a better light on the geographical barriers that divide our American political and cultural lives into two halves. While it’s impossible to go back in time and make every election a nail biter, it is possible to dial back the state by state results to show what these elections would have looked like if they were more evenly divided.
And I have done just that! Follow along to the next post to see how these skewed election results shine a new light onto demographic trends discussed above.