What happened to the Democrats between 1988 and 1992

[old timey villain]

I think 1992 brought on a realignment of sorts. I've mentioned it on a number of threads. It appears that at the Presidential level, the Democratic party has done much better since 1992. The party has had 3 strong wins, one close loss, and one virtual tie. Compare that to massive defeats in 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1988.

I have a few theories:

1) Cold War melts: After the USSR fell in the early 90s, being able to stand up to the commies wasn't an issue anymore. It seems like the Republicans owned this trait up until then. But afterwards, other issues took center stage that the Democrats could stake their claim on. At the same time, the defense industry collapses in states like California, allowing it to trend leftward.

2) The Democratic party embraces corporate America: To be fair, both parties have always been in the left and right pocket of big business. But by 1992, seeking a new image, the New Democrats become more openly friendly to big business, embracing things like corporate welfare and becoming more willing to lessen regulations on them as well as lowering their tax rates. The corporations see them as more of an ally and the relationship becomes less adversarial.

3) Christian Coalition overkill: The religious right's influence on the GOP had been growing since Reagan. But by 1992, they become not just one influence, but THE influence. A vulnerable Bush panders to this group like never before to beef up support and the image of the Republican party being controlled by far right religious leaders like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson sticks. The Democratic party, not nearly as influenced by them, is now perceived as being more moderate.

4) Brown power: By the 90s, Hispanics and Asians become a sizable voting block, capable of swinging elections. At the same time, the Democratic party openly reaches out to them moreso than the GOP. They have been reliably D constituencies since then in many states, which has turned red states like California into blue states, creating a minority lock.

5) Republican fatigue: From 1968 to 1992, Repulican presidents dominated, occupying the White House for 20 out of 24 years. Nixon, Reagan and Bush shifted the country significantly to the right, at least economically. By 1992, the tide was receding, Republicans had worn out their welcome, and there was a natural shift to the Democrats.

And one theory that might be more useful for modern times:

6) The Carter problem: After 1980, Democratic presidential candidates seemed to always be in the shadow of Jimmy Carter, whose presidency is not recalled fondly by most. Reagan and Bush needed only to remind people of the inflation, energy costs, unemployment, terrorism and malaise of 1977 to 1981, and in contrast they look much better. Clinton erases the Carter problem. His presidency oversaw an economic boom, record low unemployment and a relatively peaceful international stage. As a result people no longer associate Democratic administrations with the horrible Carter years, but instead the wonderful Clinton years. Even today, Mitt Romney is harkening back to the Clinton 90s to get votes.

So do these explanations seem legit? What do you think?

[phk]

The 1990s was a very economically conservative time.

[morgieb]

Minority vote, Democrats moving right, etc.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

It's sad that Democrats sold out on their principles to get more campaign money.

[BritishDixie]

One more point is that they came up with a credible candidate in 1992, in comparison to their previous candidates, who ran incompetent campaigns, with such chestnuts as "my daughter thinks arms control is the most important issue facing the nation" and "I will raise taxes if elected".