Challenge: Describe a Dukakis 88/Bush 92 voter

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Bush governed relatively moderately despite the lip service he gave to the far right (read his lips, no new taxes), raised taxes, signed things like the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Clinton on the other hand, was a relative disappointment, only a Democratic president could get away with taking a sledgehammer to the welfare state and killing any New Deal legacy remaining in the Democratic Party and the national discourse.

Plus Clinton's election paved the way for the radical right-wing GOP takeover of Congress in 1994.

I could see myself voting for Dukakis in 88 and Bush in 92 in hindsight.

Besides that, there actually WERE a lot of Dukakis 88/Bush 92 voters, especially if you look at the results and the county map of Iowa, where Dukakis performed substantially better since the farm crisis pushed Midwestern farm states to embrace the Democrats over the Republicans in power, but that had faded as an issue by 1992.

To use my reversed color Wiki maps to demonstrate....



1988
Dukakis: 54.71%
Bush: 44.50%

D+10.21%



1992
Clinton: 43.29%
Bush: 37.27%
Perot: 18.71%

D+6.01%

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Greek.

Except that the ones who would be swayed by Dukakis' ethnicity are usually the most liberal and Democratic of the bunch and would never vote for a Republican.

There may have been Greek-American voters who normally voted Republican but voted for Dukakis out of national pride in the hope of electing the first Greek-American president.

Since when are the people who would vote based on ethnic loyalties going to be "the most liberal and Democratic of the bunch"? If anything it would be conservative-leaning flag-wavers that would vote for a candidate solely out of ethnic pride.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Greek.

Except that the ones who would be swayed by Dukakis' ethnicity are usually the most liberal and Democratic of the bunch and would never vote for a Republican.

There may have been Greek-American voters who normally voted Republican but voted for Dukakis out of national pride in the hope of electing the first Greek-American president.

Since when are the people who would vote based on ethnic loyalties going to be "the most liberal and Democratic of the bunch"? If anything it would be conservative-leaning flag-wavers that would vote for a candidate solely out of ethnic pride.

Al Smith, 1928.

How does Al Smith in 1928 compare to Michael Dukakis in 1988? What we would consider "liberal" and "conservative" did not exist in 1928, there is little reason to believe that Smith voters were mostly "liberals" according to today's definition (or the definition in 1988). It would be hard to pidgeonhole Al Smith, or Herbert Hoover for that matter, into the post-New Deal ideas what it means to be "liberal" or "conservative". Smith was a 'wet' against prohibition which I suppose could be considered a "liberal" position, yet he was economically "conservative" and an outspoken critic of the New Deal. Herbert Hoover on the other hand was very interventionist in the economy, hardly a free-market 'Goldwater-Reagan' conservative. Calvin Coolidge was a staunchly conservative Protestant, but during his time as Governor of Massachusetts developed good relations with Irish-Americans and Catholic immigrant groups in general, which is why he remains the last Republican to have won Boston and New York City.

Up until the mid-20th century, ethnic groups in the United States were all mostly segregated into their own neighborhoods, their own churches, their own businesses, etc., and the Catholic-Protestant divide was a serious factor. When my grandfather served in the U.S. Navy during the Korean War era, they would put Catholics on one ship and Protestants on another. A Lutheran, his marriage to a Catholic in the 1950s was "scandalous" by the standards of the era but would hardly register as an issue today.

These kinds of sharp divides didn't exist in the 1980s. Other than a few isolated groups (Hasidic Jews, Amish, etc.), different ethnic groups mostly live side-by-side with one another, and many Americans are of mixed ethnicity themselves.

Today's liberal is not going to vote for a conservative candidate just because he comes from the same ethnic background. White liberals of all ethnicities were excited to elect a president who wasn't even from the same race, never mind ethnicity. A conservative is much more likely to still buy into the whole "national pride" thing. I would never vote for a candidate who shared the same ethnicities as me but who didn't share my values and progressive worldview.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Greek.

Except that the ones who would be swayed by Dukakis' ethnicity are usually the most liberal and Democratic of the bunch and would never vote for a Republican.

There may have been Greek-American voters who normally voted Republican but voted for Dukakis out of national pride in the hope of electing the first Greek-American president.

Since when are the people who would vote based on ethnic loyalties going to be "the most liberal and Democratic of the bunch"? If anything it would be conservative-leaning flag-wavers that would vote for a candidate solely out of ethnic pride.

Al Smith, 1928.

How does Al Smith in 1928 compare to Michael Dukakis in 1988? What we would consider "liberal" and "conservative" did not exist in 1928, there is little reason to believe that Smith voters were mostly "liberals" according to today's definition (or the definition in 1988). It would be hard to pidgeonhole Al Smith, or Herbert Hoover for that matter, into the post-New Deal ideas what it means to be "liberal" or "conservative". Smith was a 'wet' against prohibition which I suppose could be considered a "liberal" position, yet he was economically "conservative" and an outspoken critic of the New Deal. Herbert Hoover on the other hand was very interventionist in the economy, hardly a free-market 'Goldwater-Reagan' conservative. Calvin Coolidge was a staunchly conservative Protestant, but during his time as Governor of Massachusetts developed good relations with Irish-Americans and Catholic immigrant groups in general, which is why he remains the last Republican to have won Boston and New York City.

Up until the mid-20th century, ethnic groups in the United States were all mostly segregated into their own neighborhoods, their own churches, their own businesses, etc., and the Catholic-Protestant divide was a serious factor. When my grandfather served in the U.S. Navy during the Korean War era, they would put Catholics on one ship and Protestants on another. A Lutheran, his marriage to a Catholic in the 1950s was "scandalous" by the standards of the era but would hardly register as an issue today.

These kinds of sharp divides didn't exist in the 1980s. Other than a few isolated groups (Hasidic Jews, Amish, etc.), different ethnic groups mostly live side-by-side with one another, and many Americans are of mixed ethnicity themselves.

Today's liberal is not going to vote for a conservative candidate just because he comes from the same ethnic background. White liberals of all ethnicities were excited to elect a president who wasn't even from the same race, never mind ethnicity. A conservative is much more likely to still buy into the whole "national pride" thing. I would never vote for a candidate who shared the same ethnicities as me but who didn't share my values and progressive worldview.

I don't understand your post. Are you denying that people voted for Al Smith for ethnic reasons?

And of course you use the "no true liberal" fallacy. Al Smith was actually a liberal. Maybe not by today's standards, but for his time he was.

No, people voted for and against Al Smith for ethnic reasons.

And it's not a "no true liberal" fallacy, you are being silly. Trying to impose modern ideas of "liberal" and "conservative" on pre-New Deal era politicians is silly.

But to the extent that we can apply those labels, Herbert Hoover was arguably the more "liberal" candidate when it came to economic policies, favoring heavy government intervention, while Al Smith favored limited government, which is why he was such a vocal opponent of the New Deal.

And the discussion wasn't focused on the candidates but on the voters themselves. Most of the Irish and other ethnic Catholic immigrant groups (Italians, Poles, etc.) could hardly be said to have any political ideology at all. They voted for Smith because he was an urban New York City Catholic with diverse immigrant roots (while he is mostly identified as an Irish Catholic, Smith was equal parts Italian and German) they could identify with. It had nothing to do with being liberal.

And Irish-Americans, largely concentrated in NYC/Boston, had long been Democratic voters anyway, although the roots of that support are anything but liberal. Perhaps you might have heard of the New York City draft riots? Many Irish-Americans opposed Lincoln engaging the U.S. in the American Civil War and drafting them to fight and die for the freedom of black people that they couldn't care less about. Irish-Americans detesting the party of Lincoln were what made NYC and Boston regular Democratic counties in presidential elections. What was anomalous were the Republican victories in NYC/Boston in the 1920 and 1924 elections, but Smith's appeal to the urban voter, Irish as well as Italian, Polish, German, even Jewish voters supporting a fellow urban religious minority, were what made Boston and all 5 boroughs of New York City vote Democratic (along with narrowly flipping the states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island entirely) and make the nationwide popular vote substantially closer even in the midst of a third consecutive Republican landslide during the Roaring Twenties economic boom.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Greek.

Except that the ones who would be swayed by Dukakis' ethnicity are usually the most liberal and Democratic of the bunch and would never vote for a Republican.

There may have been Greek-American voters who normally voted Republican but voted for Dukakis out of national pride in the hope of electing the first Greek-American president.

Since when are the people who would vote based on ethnic loyalties going to be "the most liberal and Democratic of the bunch"? If anything it would be conservative-leaning flag-wavers that would vote for a candidate solely out of ethnic pride.

Al Smith, 1928.

How does Al Smith in 1928 compare to Michael Dukakis in 1988? What we would consider "liberal" and "conservative" did not exist in 1928, there is little reason to believe that Smith voters were mostly "liberals" according to today's definition (or the definition in 1988). It would be hard to pidgeonhole Al Smith, or Herbert Hoover for that matter, into the post-New Deal ideas what it means to be "liberal" or "conservative". Smith was a 'wet' against prohibition which I suppose could be considered a "liberal" position, yet he was economically "conservative" and an outspoken critic of the New Deal. Herbert Hoover on the other hand was very interventionist in the economy, hardly a free-market 'Goldwater-Reagan' conservative. Calvin Coolidge was a staunchly conservative Protestant, but during his time as Governor of Massachusetts developed good relations with Irish-Americans and Catholic immigrant groups in general, which is why he remains the last Republican to have won Boston and New York City.

Up until the mid-20th century, ethnic groups in the United States were all mostly segregated into their own neighborhoods, their own churches, their own businesses, etc., and the Catholic-Protestant divide was a serious factor. When my grandfather served in the U.S. Navy during the Korean War era, they would put Catholics on one ship and Protestants on another. A Lutheran, his marriage to a Catholic in the 1950s was "scandalous" by the standards of the era but would hardly register as an issue today.

These kinds of sharp divides didn't exist in the 1980s. Other than a few isolated groups (Hasidic Jews, Amish, etc.), different ethnic groups mostly live side-by-side with one another, and many Americans are of mixed ethnicity themselves.

Today's liberal is not going to vote for a conservative candidate just because he comes from the same ethnic background. White liberals of all ethnicities were excited to elect a president who wasn't even from the same race, never mind ethnicity. A conservative is much more likely to still buy into the whole "national pride" thing. I would never vote for a candidate who shared the same ethnicities as me but who didn't share my values and progressive worldview.

I don't understand your post. Are you denying that people voted for Al Smith for ethnic reasons?

And of course you use the "no true liberal" fallacy. Al Smith was actually a liberal. Maybe not by today's standards, but for his time he was.

No, people voted for and against Al Smith for ethnic reasons.

And it's not a "no true liberal" fallacy, you are being silly. Trying to impose modern ideas of "liberal" and "conservative" on pre-New Deal era politicians is silly.

But to the extent that we can apply those labels, Herbert Hoover was arguably the more "liberal" candidate when it came to economic policies, favoring heavy government intervention, while Al Smith favored limited government, which is why he was such a vocal opponent of the New Deal.

And the discussion wasn't focused on the candidates but on the voters themselves. Most of the Irish and other ethnic Catholic immigrant groups (Italians, Poles, etc.) could hardly be said to have any political ideology at all. They voted for Smith because he was an urban New York City Catholic with diverse immigrant roots (while he is mostly identified as an Irish Catholic, Smith was equal parts Italian and German) they could identify with. It had nothing to do with being liberal.

And Irish-Americans, largely concentrated in NYC/Boston, had long been Democratic voters anyway, although the roots of that support are anything but liberal. Perhaps you might have heard of the New York City draft riots? Many Irish-Americans opposed Lincoln engaging the U.S. in the American Civil War and drafting them to fight and die for the freedom of black people that they couldn't care less about. Irish-Americans detesting the party of Lincoln were what made NYC and Boston regular Democratic counties in presidential elections. What was anomalous were the Republican victories in NYC/Boston in the 1920 and 1924 elections, but Smith's appeal to the urban voter, Irish as well as Italian, Polish, German, even Jewish voters supporting a fellow urban religious minority, were what made Boston and all 5 boroughs of New York City vote Democratic (along with narrowly flipping the states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island entirely) and make the nationwide popular vote substantially closer even in the midst of a third consecutive Republican landslide during the Roaring Twenties economic boom.

BY your logic, Roosevelt was the Conservative and Hoover was the Liberal in 1932.

In 1932, yes, FDR ran on what we would consider a "conservative" platform, attacking Hoover for spending too much and running up deficits, promising to balance the budget. Of course once in power FDR continued, expanded, and altered the Keynesian interventionist economic policies of Hoover.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Greek.

Except that the ones who would be swayed by Dukakis' ethnicity are usually the most liberal and Democratic of the bunch and would never vote for a Republican.

There may have been Greek-American voters who normally voted Republican but voted for Dukakis out of national pride in the hope of electing the first Greek-American president.

Since when are the people who would vote based on ethnic loyalties going to be "the most liberal and Democratic of the bunch"? If anything it would be conservative-leaning flag-wavers that would vote for a candidate solely out of ethnic pride.

Al Smith, 1928.

How does Al Smith in 1928 compare to Michael Dukakis in 1988? What we would consider "liberal" and "conservative" did not exist in 1928, there is little reason to believe that Smith voters were mostly "liberals" according to today's definition (or the definition in 1988). It would be hard to pidgeonhole Al Smith, or Herbert Hoover for that matter, into the post-New Deal ideas what it means to be "liberal" or "conservative". Smith was a 'wet' against prohibition which I suppose could be considered a "liberal" position, yet he was economically "conservative" and an outspoken critic of the New Deal. Herbert Hoover on the other hand was very interventionist in the economy, hardly a free-market 'Goldwater-Reagan' conservative. Calvin Coolidge was a staunchly conservative Protestant, but during his time as Governor of Massachusetts developed good relations with Irish-Americans and Catholic immigrant groups in general, which is why he remains the last Republican to have won Boston and New York City.

Up until the mid-20th century, ethnic groups in the United States were all mostly segregated into their own neighborhoods, their own churches, their own businesses, etc., and the Catholic-Protestant divide was a serious factor. When my grandfather served in the U.S. Navy during the Korean War era, they would put Catholics on one ship and Protestants on another. A Lutheran, his marriage to a Catholic in the 1950s was "scandalous" by the standards of the era but would hardly register as an issue today.

These kinds of sharp divides didn't exist in the 1980s. Other than a few isolated groups (Hasidic Jews, Amish, etc.), different ethnic groups mostly live side-by-side with one another, and many Americans are of mixed ethnicity themselves.

Today's liberal is not going to vote for a conservative candidate just because he comes from the same ethnic background. White liberals of all ethnicities were excited to elect a president who wasn't even from the same race, never mind ethnicity. A conservative is much more likely to still buy into the whole "national pride" thing. I would never vote for a candidate who shared the same ethnicities as me but who didn't share my values and progressive worldview.

I don't understand your post. Are you denying that people voted for Al Smith for ethnic reasons?

And of course you use the "no true liberal" fallacy. Al Smith was actually a liberal. Maybe not by today's standards, but for his time he was.

No, people voted for and against Al Smith for ethnic reasons.

And it's not a "no true liberal" fallacy, you are being silly. Trying to impose modern ideas of "liberal" and "conservative" on pre-New Deal era politicians is silly.

But to the extent that we can apply those labels, Herbert Hoover was arguably the more "liberal" candidate when it came to economic policies, favoring heavy government intervention, while Al Smith favored limited government, which is why he was such a vocal opponent of the New Deal.

And the discussion wasn't focused on the candidates but on the voters themselves. Most of the Irish and other ethnic Catholic immigrant groups (Italians, Poles, etc.) could hardly be said to have any political ideology at all. They voted for Smith because he was an urban New York City Catholic with diverse immigrant roots (while he is mostly identified as an Irish Catholic, Smith was equal parts Italian and German) they could identify with. It had nothing to do with being liberal.

And Irish-Americans, largely concentrated in NYC/Boston, had long been Democratic voters anyway, although the roots of that support are anything but liberal. Perhaps you might have heard of the New York City draft riots? Many Irish-Americans opposed Lincoln engaging the U.S. in the American Civil War and drafting them to fight and die for the freedom of black people that they couldn't care less about. Irish-Americans detesting the party of Lincoln were what made NYC and Boston regular Democratic counties in presidential elections. What was anomalous were the Republican victories in NYC/Boston in the 1920 and 1924 elections, but Smith's appeal to the urban voter, Irish as well as Italian, Polish, German, even Jewish voters supporting a fellow urban religious minority, were what made Boston and all 5 boroughs of New York City vote Democratic (along with narrowly flipping the states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island entirely) and make the nationwide popular vote substantially closer even in the midst of a third consecutive Republican landslide during the Roaring Twenties economic boom.

BY your logic, Roosevelt was the Conservative and Hoover was the Liberal in 1932.

In 1932, yes, FDR ran on what we would consider a "conservative" platform, attacking Hoover for spending too much and running up deficits, promising to balance the budget. Of course once in power FDR continued, expanded, and altered the Keynesian interventionist economic policies of Hoover.

Ah.

Then you realize Dukakis would also be a Conservative.

Um, not sure how you drew that conclusion from my post. Dukakis was a largely non-ideological technocrat, obviously as a Democrat from Massachusetts he leaned somewhat liberal depending on the issue but was a moderate overall.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Greek.

Except that the ones who would be swayed by Dukakis' ethnicity are usually the most liberal and Democratic of the bunch and would never vote for a Republican.

There may have been Greek-American voters who normally voted Republican but voted for Dukakis out of national pride in the hope of electing the first Greek-American president.

Since when are the people who would vote based on ethnic loyalties going to be "the most liberal and Democratic of the bunch"? If anything it would be conservative-leaning flag-wavers that would vote for a candidate solely out of ethnic pride.

Al Smith, 1928.

How does Al Smith in 1928 compare to Michael Dukakis in 1988? What we would consider "liberal" and "conservative" did not exist in 1928, there is little reason to believe that Smith voters were mostly "liberals" according to today's definition (or the definition in 1988). It would be hard to pidgeonhole Al Smith, or Herbert Hoover for that matter, into the post-New Deal ideas what it means to be "liberal" or "conservative". Smith was a 'wet' against prohibition which I suppose could be considered a "liberal" position, yet he was economically "conservative" and an outspoken critic of the New Deal. Herbert Hoover on the other hand was very interventionist in the economy, hardly a free-market 'Goldwater-Reagan' conservative. Calvin Coolidge was a staunchly conservative Protestant, but during his time as Governor of Massachusetts developed good relations with Irish-Americans and Catholic immigrant groups in general, which is why he remains the last Republican to have won Boston and New York City.

Up until the mid-20th century, ethnic groups in the United States were all mostly segregated into their own neighborhoods, their own churches, their own businesses, etc., and the Catholic-Protestant divide was a serious factor. When my grandfather served in the U.S. Navy during the Korean War era, they would put Catholics on one ship and Protestants on another. A Lutheran, his marriage to a Catholic in the 1950s was "scandalous" by the standards of the era but would hardly register as an issue today.

These kinds of sharp divides didn't exist in the 1980s. Other than a few isolated groups (Hasidic Jews, Amish, etc.), different ethnic groups mostly live side-by-side with one another, and many Americans are of mixed ethnicity themselves.

Today's liberal is not going to vote for a conservative candidate just because he comes from the same ethnic background. White liberals of all ethnicities were excited to elect a president who wasn't even from the same race, never mind ethnicity. A conservative is much more likely to still buy into the whole "national pride" thing. I would never vote for a candidate who shared the same ethnicities as me but who didn't share my values and progressive worldview.

I don't understand your post. Are you denying that people voted for Al Smith for ethnic reasons?

And of course you use the "no true liberal" fallacy. Al Smith was actually a liberal. Maybe not by today's standards, but for his time he was.

No, people voted for and against Al Smith for ethnic reasons.

And it's not a "no true liberal" fallacy, you are being silly. Trying to impose modern ideas of "liberal" and "conservative" on pre-New Deal era politicians is silly.

But to the extent that we can apply those labels, Herbert Hoover was arguably the more "liberal" candidate when it came to economic policies, favoring heavy government intervention, while Al Smith favored limited government, which is why he was such a vocal opponent of the New Deal.

And the discussion wasn't focused on the candidates but on the voters themselves. Most of the Irish and other ethnic Catholic immigrant groups (Italians, Poles, etc.) could hardly be said to have any political ideology at all. They voted for Smith because he was an urban New York City Catholic with diverse immigrant roots (while he is mostly identified as an Irish Catholic, Smith was equal parts Italian and German) they could identify with. It had nothing to do with being liberal.

And Irish-Americans, largely concentrated in NYC/Boston, had long been Democratic voters anyway, although the roots of that support are anything but liberal. Perhaps you might have heard of the New York City draft riots? Many Irish-Americans opposed Lincoln engaging the U.S. in the American Civil War and drafting them to fight and die for the freedom of black people that they couldn't care less about. Irish-Americans detesting the party of Lincoln were what made NYC and Boston regular Democratic counties in presidential elections. What was anomalous were the Republican victories in NYC/Boston in the 1920 and 1924 elections, but Smith's appeal to the urban voter, Irish as well as Italian, Polish, German, even Jewish voters supporting a fellow urban religious minority, were what made Boston and all 5 boroughs of New York City vote Democratic (along with narrowly flipping the states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island entirely) and make the nationwide popular vote substantially closer even in the midst of a third consecutive Republican landslide during the Roaring Twenties economic boom.

BY your logic, Roosevelt was the Conservative and Hoover was the Liberal in 1932.

In 1932, yes, FDR ran on what we would consider a "conservative" platform, attacking Hoover for spending too much and running up deficits, promising to balance the budget. Of course once in power FDR continued, expanded, and altered the Keynesian interventionist economic policies of Hoover.

Ah.

Then you realize Dukakis would also be a Conservative.

Um, not sure how you drew that conclusion from my post. Dukakis was a largely non-ideological technocrat, obviously as a Democrat from Massachusetts he leaned somewhat liberal depending on the issue but was a moderate overall.

So basically, you don't have an argument at all, your just pulling random thoughts together. Nice waste of my time.

Honestly I have no clue what you're trying to argue.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Greek.

Except that the ones who would be swayed by Dukakis' ethnicity are usually the most liberal and Democratic of the bunch and would never vote for a Republican.

There may have been Greek-American voters who normally voted Republican but voted for Dukakis out of national pride in the hope of electing the first Greek-American president.

Since when are the people who would vote based on ethnic loyalties going to be "the most liberal and Democratic of the bunch"? If anything it would be conservative-leaning flag-wavers that would vote for a candidate solely out of ethnic pride.

Al Smith, 1928.

How does Al Smith in 1928 compare to Michael Dukakis in 1988? What we would consider "liberal" and "conservative" did not exist in 1928, there is little reason to believe that Smith voters were mostly "liberals" according to today's definition (or the definition in 1988). It would be hard to pidgeonhole Al Smith, or Herbert Hoover for that matter, into the post-New Deal ideas what it means to be "liberal" or "conservative". Smith was a 'wet' against prohibition which I suppose could be considered a "liberal" position, yet he was economically "conservative" and an outspoken critic of the New Deal. Herbert Hoover on the other hand was very interventionist in the economy, hardly a free-market 'Goldwater-Reagan' conservative. Calvin Coolidge was a staunchly conservative Protestant, but during his time as Governor of Massachusetts developed good relations with Irish-Americans and Catholic immigrant groups in general, which is why he remains the last Republican to have won Boston and New York City.

Up until the mid-20th century, ethnic groups in the United States were all mostly segregated into their own neighborhoods, their own churches, their own businesses, etc., and the Catholic-Protestant divide was a serious factor. When my grandfather served in the U.S. Navy during the Korean War era, they would put Catholics on one ship and Protestants on another. A Lutheran, his marriage to a Catholic in the 1950s was "scandalous" by the standards of the era but would hardly register as an issue today.

These kinds of sharp divides didn't exist in the 1980s. Other than a few isolated groups (Hasidic Jews, Amish, etc.), different ethnic groups mostly live side-by-side with one another, and many Americans are of mixed ethnicity themselves.

Today's liberal is not going to vote for a conservative candidate just because he comes from the same ethnic background. White liberals of all ethnicities were excited to elect a president who wasn't even from the same race, never mind ethnicity. A conservative is much more likely to still buy into the whole "national pride" thing. I would never vote for a candidate who shared the same ethnicities as me but who didn't share my values and progressive worldview.

I don't understand your post. Are you denying that people voted for Al Smith for ethnic reasons?

And of course you use the "no true liberal" fallacy. Al Smith was actually a liberal. Maybe not by today's standards, but for his time he was.

No, people voted for and against Al Smith for ethnic reasons.

And it's not a "no true liberal" fallacy, you are being silly. Trying to impose modern ideas of "liberal" and "conservative" on pre-New Deal era politicians is silly.

But to the extent that we can apply those labels, Herbert Hoover was arguably the more "liberal" candidate when it came to economic policies, favoring heavy government intervention, while Al Smith favored limited government, which is why he was such a vocal opponent of the New Deal.

And the discussion wasn't focused on the candidates but on the voters themselves. Most of the Irish and other ethnic Catholic immigrant groups (Italians, Poles, etc.) could hardly be said to have any political ideology at all. They voted for Smith because he was an urban New York City Catholic with diverse immigrant roots (while he is mostly identified as an Irish Catholic, Smith was equal parts Italian and German) they could identify with. It had nothing to do with being liberal.

And Irish-Americans, largely concentrated in NYC/Boston, had long been Democratic voters anyway, although the roots of that support are anything but liberal. Perhaps you might have heard of the New York City draft riots? Many Irish-Americans opposed Lincoln engaging the U.S. in the American Civil War and drafting them to fight and die for the freedom of black people that they couldn't care less about. Irish-Americans detesting the party of Lincoln were what made NYC and Boston regular Democratic counties in presidential elections. What was anomalous were the Republican victories in NYC/Boston in the 1920 and 1924 elections, but Smith's appeal to the urban voter, Irish as well as Italian, Polish, German, even Jewish voters supporting a fellow urban religious minority, were what made Boston and all 5 boroughs of New York City vote Democratic (along with narrowly flipping the states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island entirely) and make the nationwide popular vote substantially closer even in the midst of a third consecutive Republican landslide during the Roaring Twenties economic boom.

BY your logic, Roosevelt was the Conservative and Hoover was the Liberal in 1932.

In 1932, yes, FDR ran on what we would consider a "conservative" platform, attacking Hoover for spending too much and running up deficits, promising to balance the budget. Of course once in power FDR continued, expanded, and altered the Keynesian interventionist economic policies of Hoover.

Ah.

Then you realize Dukakis would also be a Conservative.

Um, not sure how you drew that conclusion from my post. Dukakis was a largely non-ideological technocrat, obviously as a Democrat from Massachusetts he leaned somewhat liberal depending on the issue but was a moderate overall.

So basically, you don't have an argument at all, your just pulling random thoughts together. Nice waste of my time.

Honestly I have no clue what you're trying to argue.

Are you just copying me lol?

It never ceases to amaze me how far people will go to defend their "team". In your case, you couldn't even imagine that liberal ethnics might vote for a candidates based on race or ethnicity, which I find hilarious.

Honestly, you're all over the map, we've gone over a whole slew of different issues and I've gone through history lessons going back to Abraham Lincoln and later 1928/1932. In your last post you drew some ridiculous conclusion that my remarks about what happened in the 1932 election proved that Michael Dukakis is a 'Conservative', which left me feeling as though I'm wasting my time, not yours.

I never said that I "couldn't even imagine that liberal ethnics might vote for a candidates based on race or ethnicity", I disputed a claim that modern liberal Democrats would be the most likely to vote based on ethnicity when I believe they would be the least likely.

Greek-American liberal Democrats almost certainly did vote for Michael Dukakis- because he was the more liberal candidate in the race and a Democrat. Undoubtedly they would feel some pride in voting for the first Greek-American president. But if Dukakis were the conservative Republican candidate, I doubt Greek-American liberal Democrats would vote for him.

Also race is a separate issue with a whole different set of dynamics at play. This discussion focused primary on the voting patterns of white ethnics and the ethnicities of white presidential candidates.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

George McGovern was a Ford '76/Carter '80 voter.

Is that a real picture?

Yeah, it's from the night of the Super Bowl in 1993, when Dallas beat Buffalo. Another shot:

Oh OK.  I thought maybe it was election night 1994 as it looked like Chelsea was crying.

Would a 14-year-old really be crying because her father's political party lost control of the House of Representatives?