Public perception of the Democratic party 1970s and 1980s

[old timey villain]

So a lot of people say Republicans are having a hard time winning elections because they have an image problem. Well, was the same true for Democrats in the 70s and 80s when they only won the white house a single time?

What was the public perception of the party- too liberal, soft on crime, controlled by far left special interests, weak, stuck in the past? It had to be at least some of that.

And when did the Democrats finally fix their image problem?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well it the South, it was pretty much, "Theys all commies, save for ole Jaime Whitten (insert different name for each district/state in the South)".

[tpfkaw]

What was the public perception of the party- too liberal, soft on crime, controlled by far left special interests, weak, stuck in the past? It had to be at least some of that.

And when did the Democrats finally fix their image problem?

All of the above, and circa the Oklahoma City bombing.

[Mr. Morden]

In 1991, in the wake of the Allied victory in the Gulf War and Bush's sky high job approval numbers, the perception was that Bush was a lock for reelection, which would have made four GOP presidential election victories in a row.  Many thought that the GOP had some kind of long term structural advantage on the presidency (while the Dems had a corresponding advantage at the Congressional level) that would be hard to break.

[HansOslo]

According to Reiham Salam and Ross Douthat in «Grand New Party», a large portion of the white working class and lower middle class had a perception of the Democrats as the party that coddled criminals and welfare cheats.  That was part of the reason for why Reagan and Nixon did so well with this group. The Carter era probably ruined their reputation for economic competence (even though Carter wasn’t as bad or as left wing as many people believed).

The Democrats probably started fixing this in 1988, when they nominated Dukakis. Dukakis wasn’t really the “Massachusetts liberal” of popular imagination. He had governed Massachusetts as a technocrat. He was however perceived as a leftwinger, and that was all that mattered.

I think Clinton did a lot to change the Democrats image. Clinton supported the death penalty, and during the 1992 campaign he made a point of overseeing Ricky Ray Rector’s execution in Arkansas.  So they couldn’t say that Clinton was soft on crime. Between 1988 and 1992 the Soviet Union had collapsed and the Cold War was over, thus removing one of the issues binding the Eisenhower coalition together. And the economic downturn of the early 1990s at least cast doubt about the Republicans competence in running the economy.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The Democrats were seen as a party that was going to force a radical liberal social agenda on people.  This was a result of the nominating processes put forth by the McGovern commission prior to 1972 that changed the rules as to who could be a delegate.  It pretty much assured that any Democratic Presidential candidate had to be approved by the feminist left, the Black establishment, and a number of liberal special interest groups that were not popular with the nation as a whole.

This changed in 1992, when the Democrats put on their "Cultural War" convention in Houston.  I did not fully recognize the effect of that time, but it deeply offended Northeastern swing voters to the point where the Northeast became the "Solid Northeast".  As the social liberals repulsed many swing voters in the Midwest, the social conservatives of Houston in 1992 repulses the Northeast swing votes, and in the Midwest as well.

Since then, for better or worse, we have become a more socially liberal nation, and a more racially integrated, and racially/ethnically diverse nation.  It is the predominantly white and aging GOP that is off-putting on TV, as opposed to the younger, more diverse Democrats.  We are a very, very different people then we were in 1972.  If the 1972 election were re-run in today's environment, McGovern would have done significantly better, and may have actually won.

[Mr.Phips]

The fact that Democrats had solid majorities in the House. Governorships, state legislatures, and the Senate(except for '81-'87), public perception of Democrats must have been quite high.  The whole "Democrats were too liberal to win Presidential races" meme during that period was a myth and has hurt Democrats dearly since 1992.  Democrats didn't win Presidential elections during that period simply because Republicans kept getting lucky with the timing of the business cycles.

[old timey villain]

The fact that Democrats had solid majorities in the House. Governorships, state legislatures, and the Senate(except for '81-'87), public perception of Democrats must have been quite high.  The whole "Democrats were too liberal to win Presidential races" meme during that period was a myth and has hurt Democrats dearly since 1992.  Democrats didn't win Presidential elections during that period simply because Republicans kept getting lucky with the timing of the business cycles.

Ok, then explain 1976. The US was coming out of a very bad recession and Ford was tied to the still very unpopular Nixon after pardoning him. Carter started the general election with a very wide lead over Ford but ended up only winning by two. Was that just Carter being a bad candidate or something internal within the Democratic party?

And by the way, Republicans have a majority in the house even though polls constantly show that congressional Democrats are more popular.

[Mr.Phips]

The fact that Democrats had solid majorities in the House. Governorships, state legislatures, and the Senate(except for '81-'87), public perception of Democrats must have been quite high.  The whole "Democrats were too liberal to win Presidential races" meme during that period was a myth and has hurt Democrats dearly since 1992.  Democrats didn't win Presidential elections during that period simply because Republicans kept getting lucky with the timing of the business cycles.

Ok, then explain 1976. The US was coming out of a very bad recession and Ford was tied to the still very unpopular Nixon after pardoning him. Carter started the general election with a very wide lead over Ford but ended up only winning by two. Was that just Carter being a bad candidate or something internal within the Democratic party?

The recession had ended in summer 1975 and these were the days when bounce backs from recessions were much more rapid than they are now.  Jobs and GDP growth started to turn around in fall 1975 and by fall 1976, unemployment had fallen to about 7.5% from its 9% peak.  Without Watergate, Ford would have won easily.

[barfbag]

They weren't nearly as far left as now. The 70's and 80's saw some pretty pathetic candidates from the Democratic Party while Reagan and Nixon were seen as exceptional. McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis were all unelectable and Carter without Watergate and a weak economy would have probably lost in 1976. Also helping Carter was his southern base. The perception of the party wasn't as strong as the mid 20th century either as they did slide to the left on social issues. Again though, they weren't as far left as they are now. The country has changed and they've run better candidates like Clinton and Obama who can package the party as a winning sale. While Gore would have lost an embarrassing defeat against a candidate better than George W. Bush. Kerry was even worse but Bush had a lot going against him in 2004 with Iraq. Had Iraq not been an issue, Kerry would've lost by about 8-11.

[Down the Gurney]

There was an obvious difference in opinion concerning the national vs. the various regional parties.
The national Dems were essentially seen, rightfully, as a bunch of fossilized Cold War liberals who harbored the near treasonous New Left.
Statewide parties were a whole different matter, though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The fact that Democrats had solid majorities in the House. Governorships, state legislatures, and the Senate(except for '81-'87), public perception of Democrats must have been quite high. 

It was quite high for Jaime Whitten, John Stennis and James Eastland if you were a resident of Tupelo, MS in say 1975. That also would apply down ballot further to State Senate, State House and so forth. THat is why I said, "Commie SOB Libs, save for my Congressman, my Senator and my Governor", in the South or put another way, "Our Democrats are different".  Carter changed that to some extent in 1976, and Clinton did so again in 1992, but he had impact elsewhere that was more permenent such as the capture of a lot of white collar suburbanites in the Northeast who for the first time felt a recession severely and were alienated by the cultural direction of the GOP. 

[Bandit3 the Worker]

What was the public perception of the party- too liberal, soft on crime, controlled by far left special interests, weak, stuck in the past? It had to be at least some of that.

I was around in the '80s, and most people didn't think of the Democrats as that.

[barfbag]

What was the public perception of the party- too liberal, soft on crime, controlled by far left special interests, weak, stuck in the past? It had to be at least some of that.

I was around in the '80s, and most people didn't think of the Democrats as that.

By the 70's and 80's, I would've definitely been a Republican, but it their lack of success at the national level was due to not having any quality candidates or party leaders while the Republicans had prominent figures like Nixon and Reagan. Nixon may have been the best politician the Republicans have ever seen and Reagan was an exceptional charismatic leader who lit up the room.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The Democrats were seen as a party that was going to force a radical liberal social agenda on people.  This was a result of the nominating processes put forth by the McGovern commission prior to 1972 that changed the rules as to who could be a delegate.  It pretty much assured that any Democratic Presidential candidate had to be approved by the feminist left, the Black establishment, and a number of liberal special interest groups that were not popular with the nation as a whole.

This changed in 1992, when the Democrats put on their "Cultural War" convention in Houston.  I did not fully recognize the effect of that time, but it deeply offended Northeastern swing voters to the point where the Northeast became the "Solid Northeast".  As the social liberals repulsed many swing voters in the Midwest, the social conservatives of Houston in 1992 repulses the Northeast swing votes, and in the Midwest as well.

Since then, for better or worse, we have become a more socially liberal nation, and a more racially integrated, and racially/ethnically diverse nation.  It is the predominantly white and aging GOP that is off-putting on TV, as opposed to the younger, more diverse Democrats.  We are a very, very different people then we were in 1972.  If the 1972 election were re-run in today's environment, McGovern would have done significantly better, and may have actually won.

How Trump and his Trumpublicans confounded this is still kind of amazing to me. 

We ARE a different people now then we were in 1972, yet 1972's candidate won in 2016.

[progressive85]

The leadership of the Democratic Party was incredibly weak - rivaling that of its leadership vacuum in the late 19th century.

Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis... these may have been very decent, intelligent, thoughtful public servants, but strong, charismatic leaders who made you excited with a fire in the belly?  Low energy, no excitement.

The problem with them was more than strictly ideological.  The problem was that they became emasculated. 

Even if you didn't know anything about these two men, which one honestly gives you more confidence that he can restore American greatness?

[SingingAnalyst]

Most of the comments in this thread help to explain why I believe Bill Clinton to be the most gifted national politician of my lifetime.

Bill Clinton's 1992 support of welfare reform, equal opportunity without necessarily equal results, and the death penalty completely changed the party dynamic at the Presidential level.

From 1968 through 1988, the Dems won the PV in just 1 of 6 elections, and narrowly at that. Incompetent, weak, soft on crime, soft on Communism-- the Dems at the Presidential level were seen as all that.

Since then, the Dems have lost the PV only once in 7 elections-- and narrowly at that.

An interesting question is how DJT will be viewed 20 years from now? As a national disgrace? As the savior of the GOP? As a little of both? As something else?

[darklordoftech]

The Democrats were perceived as ivory tower professors who didn't understand how people felt, hence Clinton saying, "I feel you."

[WestVegeta]

The Democrats were seen as a party that was going to force a radical liberal social agenda on people.  This was a result of the nominating processes put forth by the McGovern commission prior to 1972 that changed the rules as to who could be a delegate.  It pretty much assured that any Democratic Presidential candidate had to be approved by the feminist left, the Black establishment, and a number of liberal special interest groups that were not popular with the nation as a whole.

This changed in 1992, when the Democrats put on their "Cultural War" convention in Houston.  I did not fully recognize the effect of that time, but it deeply offended Northeastern swing voters to the point where the Northeast became the "Solid Northeast".  As the social liberals repulsed many swing voters in the Midwest, the social conservatives of Houston in 1992 repulses the Northeast swing votes, and in the Midwest as well.

Since then, for better or worse, we have become a more socially liberal nation, and a more racially integrated, and racially/ethnically diverse nation.  It is the predominantly white and aging GOP that is off-putting on TV, as opposed to the younger, more diverse Democrats.  We are a very, very different people then we were in 1972.  If the 1972 election were re-run in today's environment, McGovern would have done significantly better, and may have actually won.

How Trump and his Trumpublicans confounded this is still kind of amazing to me. 

We ARE a different people now then we were in 1972, yet 1972's candidate won in 2016.

Hey, Wallace was decently popular in 1972

[junior chįmp]

The fact that Democrats had solid majorities in the House. Governorships, state legislatures, and the Senate(except for '81-'87), public perception of Democrats must have been quite high.  The whole "Democrats were too liberal to win Presidential races" meme during that period was a myth and has hurt Democrats dearly since 1992.  Democrats didn't win Presidential elections during that period simply because Republicans kept getting lucky with the timing of the business cycles.

From the 70s through to part of the 90s, the Democratic Party was still seen as the party of ''the little guy''....with Clinton, it became transformed into the party of the wealthy liberal professional:

[SingingAnalyst]

Humorist Dave Barry perhaps said it best: “The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/117210-the-democrats-seem-to-be-basically-nicer-people-but-they

This insight from the late 1980s I think fairly reflects public perceptions of the parties at the time. How things have changed.