why did Nixon tank in California in 1972?

[freepcrusher]

I mean its often said home state effects occur during a reelection effort, but Nixon ran a whopping five points or so behind his national %. It might have been that CA was an inelastic state at the time.

In the 1974 Almanac of American Politics it said that CA republicans were really in deep sh**t during that time since they lost eight seats in the state assembly in 1972 and the republicans % of the house popular vote being the lowest in eight years. Reagan as governor had mediocre approval ratings and the state had recently elected two D senators for the first time ever.

[Sbane]

I think Mcgovern was a good candidate for the type of liberalism present in California. While a lot of working class, lunchpail Democrats in other parts of the country wouldn't vote for Mcgovern, California liberals felt very comfortable doing so.

[Mechaman]

I think Mcgovern was a good candidate for the type of liberalism present in California. While a lot of working class, lunchpail Democrats in other parts of the country wouldn't vote for Mcgovern, California liberals felt very comfortable doing so.

Yeah McGovern was pretty popular out west, considering the massive landslide he was losing.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

John Hospers was from California too, so that might have cost Nixon a lot of votes there.

[Stranger in a strange land]

John Hospers was from California too, so that might have cost Nixon a lot of votes there.

Hospers only got 980 votes in California.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I doubt there was much of a state-to-national effect, since the federal government is a lot different from a state government.  Why would a person who is unhappy with a state party vote against that party's candidate for a national office?  It just doesn't make any sense.

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

California didn't shift as Republican in 1972 as the rest of the country.  It's not like McGovern was super-popular there.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

A 14% victory is "tanking" now?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

A 14% victory is "tanking" now?

In context, yeah.  Nixon didn't do well in Oregon or Washington either, but broke 60% in all the surrounding states save Montana.  It's an interesting contrast.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

A 14% victory is "tanking" now?

In context, yeah.  Nixon didn't do well in Oregon or Washington either, but broke 60% in all the surrounding states save Montana.  It's an interesting contrast.

It's probably because those states are all liberal strongholds.

[Mr.Phips]

I was just thinking about this the other day.  McGovern put in a very good performance here in 1972(only losing by 13 points) when he lost nationally by 24.  It was probably one of the few places(along with Massachussetts and Oregon and Washington), where Vietnam and foreign policy were hurting Nixon in 1972. 

California was also the only state where there was a Congressional district(in San Francisco) that switched from McGovern in 1972 to Ford in 1976. 

[old timey villain]

You know, it can be argued that California became more Democratic than the nation as a whole sometime in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but it just didn't show up because of Republican landslides and the fact that two GOP presidents in that era were from California.

1976 is the lone exception, but that was an interesting case. Neither Carter or Ford could be considered more liberal or more conservative as a whole. It was a moderate Republican (with a feminist wife) against a southern Democrat, so you saw Carter winning conservative areas like the rural central valley and Ford winning more liberal areas like Marin county.

Anyway, 1972 is probably the first election where you see Democratic strength taking root in California, but it didn't come to full fruition until 1992.

[DINGO Joe]

Of course, the greater question why did Dukakis tank in 1988?