Posted on 05/21/2014 1:12:11 PM PDT by cotton1706
The 1980 campaign brought about the dissolution of the old New Deal Coalition and the rise of the Reagan Democrat, a phrase coined by Newsweek political writer Peter Goldman after that historic election. Yet all campaigns cannot be viewed as isolated incidents but rather as a river flowing from one through the next. Conservative Democrats broke with Adlai Stevenson in 1952 to support Eisenhower and many broke with Hubert Humphrey in 1968 to support Republican Richard Nixon or George Wallace, another Democrat.
By 1972, many conservative Democrats supported Nixon over George McGovern so at least in presidential campaigns, culturally conservative Democrats were already moving away from their historic home. Only the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976, a southern populist reformer--and Watergate--and Betty Ford’s liberalism--forestalled the inevitable.
The Gipper’s massive victory in 1980 was fueled by more that 30 percent of Democrats nationwide, who took a powder on Carter after he moved to the left. Reagan received the same amount in the 1984 election in part because he’d done nothing to disappoint them and the liberal establishment nominated Walter Mondale, a good man who was trapped in a New Deal past.
Reagan ran again as the anti-establishment candidate of the future and swamped the lifetime Democrat, ironically with the help of Democrats. Yet the Establishment Republicans simply could not abide by the realigning elections of 1980, 1984, and 1994.
By the final years of the last century, some inside the GOP wanted the Reagan Revolution to be over, thus the phrase “compassionate conservative.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
And just as you wouldn't call a Democrat in politics or the media who supported his party's candidates but was a little more conservative than his party a "Reagan Democrat," so you shouldn't label people who don't vote for Obama "Obama Republicans" just because you disagree with them.
Some of these Obamacons were voting against Bush's foreign policy. They were the opposite of neocons, and I doubt they're that crazy for NSA surveillance nowadays. Others were Republicans who went over to Clinton in the 90s and never switched back. These people talk about the Clinton years as if they were a golden age. However they felt in 2008, their support for Obama nowadays is grim and dutiful more than anything else.
It's harder to generalize about the author's "Obama Republicans." If you were really in favor of abortion and gay marriage and immigration amnesty you voted for Obama in 2008. What I think he's talking about are Republicans who didn't make opposition to such things the cornerstone of their political worldview. He may have every reason in the world to oppose them, but ought to spend more time figuring out what they actually believe rather than painting them with such a broad brush.
The article was confusing until you see where he's coming from. And even now, I wonder how on target it is. Maybe it's more an emotional response to a few primary losses than anything that goes deeper than that.
Obama Republicans have also spread out among the state bureaucracies, the academies, Wall Street, Detroit, and nearly all of corporate America.
Well, no. Those are Democrats. Certainly in the universities. Wall Street and Detroit nowadays, too. To say nothing of civil servants at the state and federal levels. If Republicans get any votes at all from those places, why insult them?
Now for the history:
Conservative Democrats broke with Adlai Stevenson in 1952 to support Eisenhower and many broke with Hubert Humphrey in 1968 to support Republican Richard Nixon or George Wallace, another Democrat.
To some extent. But support for Eisenhower was as much personal as ideological. Veterans who'd served under Eisenhower backed him even if they were Democrats. Obviously they weren't committed liberals, but most of them weren't conservatives by conviction either. Politics didn't work that way back then -- or not so much as it does now. And the 1972 Nixon-McGovern race makes the author's point better than the 1968 Nixon-Humphrey-Wallace contest.
The Gipper’s massive victory in 1980 was fueled by more that 30 percent of Democrats nationwide, who took a powder on Carter after he moved to the left. Reagan received the same amount in the 1984 election in part because he’d done nothing to disappoint them and the liberal establishment nominated Walter Mondale, a good man who was trapped in a New Deal past.
Carter lost votes because he was incompetent (and petty). Liberal Democrats didn't like him much more than Conservative Democrats. Some wanted to dump Carter for Kennedy. Others deserted him for Anderson. And whether it had anything to do with the New Deal past or not, Mondale just didn't connect with voters. He may have had the wrong answers, but for many voters it looked like he just didn't have any answers at all.
What source are you suing for that description?
Eisenhower's gender gap in that election was pretty huge, with him winning females by a much larger margin than males.
The Stupid Party and its affiliates can't think beyond the letter after a person's name.
And, I would definitely say the answer to your last statement is, "collusion."
Eisenhower's gender gap in that election was pretty huge, with him winning females by a much larger margin than males.
Five percent? Statistically significant, sure, but huge?
The states Stevenson carried were Southern states most people would consider to be more conservative. John J. Sparkman, Stevenson's running mate, also wouldn't be considered a conservative in national terms. Eisenhower did quite well in states and among populations that we now think of as liberal. That suggests to me that ideology was less important than the author implies.
I’m not busy, for one thing, I don’t write narratives to paint pictures.
A 6% gap of the female vote over the male vote in the favor of the republican, is a huge gap to some, “Women’s impact on national elections was not felt to a significant degree until the 1952 election, when the proportion of women voting for Dwight D. Eisenhower was six percent higher than the percentage the candidate pulled among men.”
But what I was asking you about, is where to find the veteran numbers between 1948 and 1952 you are basing your description on.
That would, indeed, be a preferable situation.
But how do you propose to achieve such an admirable outcome?
But the bar is high.
2/3rds of the Senate must agree to convict.
That's next to impossible to achieve.
Instead of impeachment, though, what about the requirement that officials like Holder go through a confidence vote process if more than 40% of the Senate have concerns?
It should be no surprise that the Republicans on Capitol Hill offer nothing of opposition to Obama. They can best be labeled the “Rollover Caucus.”
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
That’s exactly why I have come to not shive a git whether the GOP takes control of the Senate or not. What good would it do? I’d rather enjoy seeing Mitch McConnell suffer the pain of defeat. Same goes for Thad Cochran and Lindsey Graham. I hope the 36% who did not vote for McConnell on Tuesday, don’t vote for him again in November. They can skip the top race and vote in the down-ballot races or, hell, vote for Grimes. But, why vote for a power hungry tyrant who vowed to crush you because you’re a Conservative and he’s an Obama a** kisser.
It should be no surprise that the Republicans on Capitol Hill offer nothing of opposition to Obama. They can best be labeled the “Rollover Caucus.”
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
That’s exactly why I have come to not shive a git whether the GOP takes control of the Senate or not. What good would it do? I’d rather enjoy seeing Mitch McConnell suffer the pain of defeat. Same goes for Thad Cochran and Lindsey Graham. I hope the 36% who did not vote for McConnell on Tuesday, don’t vote for him again in November. They can skip the top race and vote in the down-ballot races or, hell, vote for Grimes. But, why vote for a power hungry tyrant who vowed to crush you because you’re a Conservative and he’s an Obama a** kisser.
In the last presidential election the gender gap was something like 20%. Eisenhower carried both men and women, something that more recent candidates have had trouble doing.
Moreover, I'm more than a bit skeptical about this "gender gap" business. Pollsters get the 1948 election results wrong, and then four years later they "discover" a "gender gap" that wasn't present before in their (clearly flawed) data? How do we know it wasn't there all along?
Pollsters didn't ask about veteran status, so we don't have hard numbers for that. My understanding was that veterans turned out for Ike. Gallup, though, tells us that Stevenson actually carried the under 30 vote in 1952.
I’m not busy, for one thing, I don’t write narratives to paint pictures.
Not exactly sure what you mean. It looks to me like you write plenty of narratives and paint plenty of pictures. Fortunately, the rest of the country doesn't follow you wherever it is that you're going.
More irrelevant nothings.
The only breakthrough, is that my original question was finally answered, you made up your claims about veterans.
To: x
*””To some extent. But support for Eisenhower was as much personal as ideological. Veterans who’d served under Eisenhower backed him even if they were Democrats.””*
What source are you using for that description?
Eisenhower’s gender gap in that election was pretty huge, with him winning females by a much larger margin than males.
22 posted on 5/21/2014 2:38:42 PM by ansel12
There's no polling data on how veterans voted in 1952. I relied on what I'd always heard about Eisenhower's appeal to veterans. You can find it expressed in A Nation Forged in War: How World War II Taught Americans to Get Along by Thomas A. Bruscino:
Eisenhower had a special appeal among veterans. They connected with him in a way that they rarely did with generals.
You find similar sentiments expressed in many other accounts of the day. I assumed this translated to votes for Ike at the polls, and to some extent it must have.
If I went too far so be it. Die-hard Democrats probably didn't vote Republican in 1952 just because they had served under Eisenhower.
But you haven't shown me anything to indicate that much of Eisenhower support was personal rather than ideological, or that WWII veterans weren't more supportive of Eisenhower than of Dewey, or that there really was (by today's standards) a "huge gender gap" in 1952.
Gee, that’s nice, thanks for your opinions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.