Why was the Democratic Party so weak (Presidential level) from 1972 to 1988?

[Higgins]

In 1968, Hubert Humphrey was a pretty strong candidate. He lost in a relatively close race because he refused to break with Johnson until the very end, and because of the racial divide in the Democratic Party. He was strong enough however to give Nixon a good run for his money in 1968.

In 1972 (and yes, I know Nixon's people ratbanged the strongest nominees, but still) you had a shellacking in November of George McGovern. To be honest, I do not even think that Muskie could've won even without tampering.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter emerged as the contender and only managed to beat the most boring man to occupy the White House by 30 electoral votes and 2 million popular votes. He could barely beat Nixon's chosen successor two years and 3 months after Nixon resigned.

In 1980, Carter was blasted off the map by Reagan, winning only 6 states.

In 1984, Mondale won one only state.

In 1988, Dukakis was also handily defeated by Bush the Elder, who, let's be honest, was no paragon of charisma, with Bush gaining over 400 Electoral votes, as well as winning most of the states in the Union (40 to Dukakis' 10), and had an 8% lead in the popular vote as well.

So my question is, while the Democrats were able to generally hold Congress (with the exception of the Senate in '80) from 1954 through 1994, why were Democratic candidates so resoundingly beaten in every election from 1972 through 1988, minus '76? Why was the party so weak at that level in those years? Why were there no truly good candidates, and why instead we were given backbenchers or totally weak men like Dukakis and Mondale and even Carter? Was there really no one who was the Democratic equivalent of Reagan in that 16 year span?

[Fight for Trump]

"The Reagan decade, they moaned, was a terrible time in America, and they said the only way to prevent worse times is to turn our country's fate and our country's future over to the Party that gave us McGovern, Mondale, Carter, and Michael Dukakis. Where do they find these leaders?" - Patrick J. Buchanan

[Mr. Smith]

Too much focus on The South, not enough on The West...especially not California.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Due to the fact Bobby Kennedy was killed, had he lived he could have brought California into the Democratic column.  It was the Reagan Revolution after Bobby Kennedy and after Vietnam which lasted until the end of the Dubya years.

[RINO Tom]

Too much focus on The South, not enough on The West...especially not California.

Jimmy Carter 1976 was literally their only victory during that time...?

[Mr. Smith]

Too much focus on The South, not enough on The West...especially not California.

Jimmy Carter 1976 was literally their only victory during that time...?

Exactly!

And he barely eked it out, and went onto lose even that in '80, because the region was already trending away anyway. Not to mention the vulnerabilities to racial dogwhistles.

Meanwhile Democrats literally outnumbered the GOP in California by 1970. JFK won the state against a native son on Election Night, LBJ ran as a Westerner and was well rewarded for it, Humphrey won Washington and was only slightly behind in LA County, and then in '72, the region was actually leftwards of the nation...while the oh so precious South was Nixon's best area!

Logically, capitalizing on The Pacific, while running up The Northeast and Midwest should've been priority.

But Dems decided to be nostalgic, and while The South did move back for a bit, it wasn't on a stable coalition that was doomed to collapse the moment something went wrong...and it did.

And more insult to the injury, Carter was a completely bad fit, which allowed Ford and Reagan to reverse the trends that the 60's and early 70's took time to establish, and it literally took until Dukakis to fix and Clinton to actually take advantage of.

But a Church or Jackson Presidency wouldn't have f*(ked up so bad with The Water Wars, the former could've solidified leftist support and the latter could've been a more fitting sort of moderate. And since they wouldn't have made rookie mistakes, their accomplishments would've rung.

[Higgins]

Too much focus on The South, not enough on The West...especially not California.

Jimmy Carter 1976 was literally their only victory during that time...?

Exactly!

And he barely eked it out, and went onto lose even that in '80, because the region was already trending away anyway. Not to mention the vulnerabilities to racial dogwhistles.

Meanwhile Democrats literally outnumbered the GOP in California by 1970. JFK won the state against a native son on Election Night, LBJ ran as a Westerner and was well rewarded for it, Humphrey won Washington and was only slightly behind in LA County, and then in '72, the region was actually leftwards of the nation...while the oh so precious South was Nixon's best area!

Logically, capitalizing on The Pacific, while running up The Northeast and Midwest should've been priority.

But Dems decided to be nostalgic, and while The South did move back for a bit, it wasn't on a stable coalition that was doomed to collapse the moment something went wrong...and it did.

And more insult to the injury, Carter was a completely bad fit, which allowed Ford and Reagan to reverse the trends that the 60's and early 70's took time to establish, and it literally took until Dukakis to fix and Clinton to actually take advantage of.

But a Church or Jackson Presidency wouldn't have f*(ked up so bad with The Water Wars, the former could've solidified leftist support and the latter could've been a more fitting sort of moderate. And since they wouldn't have made rookie mistakes, their accomplishments would've rung.

Gotta respond to this in full when I get home from work tomorrow but I think the South was the least of Carter's problems in 1980. Even if he carried every single Southern State he still would've lost with 149 electoral votes.

And the era from 68 to 80 was by far the Reagan Revolution. The Reagan Revolution really didn't begin until '76.