Mass. Gov races in 1978 and 1990

[nclib]

Both are these are referred to as being liberal Republican vs. conservative Democrat, though the county maps are totally different. Any ideas?

1978:



1990:

[Maxwell]

Political enviorment changes + Edward King literally being conservative enough to endorse Ronald Reagan.

[smoltchanov]

For example - Berksire wasn't nearly as liberal (even radical)  in 70th as it became later, while Plymouth and Worcester (now, probably, two "most conservative counties in Massachusetts") were much more "ethnic Democratic" in 1978. Not only that, of course....

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Political enviorment changes + Edward King literally being conservative enough to endorse Ronald Reagan.

IIRC, King switched to the GOP after leaving office.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

For example - Berksire wasn't nearly as liberal (even radical)  in 70th as it became later, while Plymouth and Worcester (now, probably, two "most conservative counties in Massachusetts") were much more "ethnic Democratic" in 1978. Not only that, of course....

The Berkshires were historically Republican territory. It wasn't until the 1990s until Republicans finally lost their U.S. House and State Senate seats there.

[free my dawg]

Political enviorment changes + Edward King literally being conservative enough to endorse Ronald Reagan.

IIRC, King switched to the GOP after leaving office.

That he did.

[smoltchanov]

For example - Berksire wasn't nearly as liberal (even radical)  in 70th as it became later, while Plymouth and Worcester (now, probably, two "most conservative counties in Massachusetts") were much more "ethnic Democratic" in 1978. Not only that, of course....

The Berkshires were historically Republican territory. It wasn't until the 1990s until Republicans finally lost their U.S. House and State Senate seats there.

I know that. Sylvio Conte held this district with ease until 1991... But - thanks!

[Gass3268]

For example - Berksire wasn't nearly as liberal (even radical)  in 70th as it became later, while Plymouth and Worcester (now, probably, two "most conservative counties in Massachusetts") were much more "ethnic Democratic" in 1978. Not only that, of course....

The Berkshires were historically Republican territory. It wasn't until the 1990s until Republicans finally lost their U.S. House and State Senate seats there.

Isn't this region in many ways an extension of Vermont?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Massachusetts has always had an undercurrent of social conservatism in its Democratic Party because of the social conservatism of much of its Catholic base.  Throughout the 1970s into the 1980s, Massachusetts' most liberal Catholic Democrats were basically pro-life, and reliably so.  Edward King was able to tap into this social conservatism, and it was coupled with Massachusetts residents resentments toward Dukakis-era tax hikes and Dukakis's aloof personality; he was kind of a technocrat, and not a liberal in the Tip O'Neill tradition.  King lost in 1982 because he was far too conservative for Massachusetts, and the rest of the Democratic Party woke up.

In 1990, Democrat John Silber would have won, but for the fact that he (A) was not a reliable national Democrat (there was evidence that he supported Bush in 1988), and (B) he peppered the media with blunt statements known as "Silber Shockers".  Many of these "Silber Shockers" were criticisms of modern lifestyles that offended the kind of Yuppie base that Democrats began to lean on in Massachusetts.  One comment in particular that drove these folks nuts was Silber's comment of how children were now being raised in third-rate daycares instead of first-rate homes, a slap toward working mothers that proved too much to bear.  A significant number of liberals voted for Republican William Weld not just because of Silber's viewpoints, but because of fear that Silber, if elected Governor, would become a prominent social conservative in the Democratic Party that would become nationally divisive and hinder the party's chances of regaining the White House.  Silber was the kind of Democrat that would likely refrain from supporting the national ticket in 1992, and that just wouldn't do.

[RFayette]

Wow, it's amazing to look at how many right-wingers there used to be in the MADP; it seems like these days, liberals genuinely preferring the GOP candidate was a far more common occurrence.  Reading a globe article about John Silber, he sounds far more like a Harvey Mansfield or Charles Murray than a Noam Chomsky or standard liberal professor.

“My ­major contribution,” he said, “has been to declare that there is one university in the country with no interest in intellectual fads, in following propaganda and ideology.”

While I certainly don't agree with him ideologically on a lot of things, I really do miss the socon Democrats. 

[SATW]

Edward King seemed like a massive FF.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Wow, it's amazing to look at how many right-wingers there used to be in the MADP; it seems like these days, liberals genuinely preferring the GOP candidate was a far more common occurrence.  Reading a globe article about John Silber, he sounds far more like a Harvey Mansfield or Charles Murray than a Noam Chomsky or standard liberal professor.

“My ­major contribution,” he said, “has been to declare that there is one university in the country with no interest in intellectual fads, in following propaganda and ideology.”

While I certainly don't agree with him ideologically on a lot of things, I really do miss the socon Democrats. 

New York's Democratic Party was the same way.  It's a function of the largest cities being SO one-party Democratic that conservatives who wanted to get elected made their home in the Democratic Party, remained conservative on the issues they cared about, and moderated their voting records leftward to accommodate the Democratic leadership in Congress or in their state legislature as needed.

Elizabeth Warren would never make it in that MADP.  But Billy Bulger did.  Ed King and Louise Day Hicks did for a while.

[Mechaman]

Wow, it's amazing to look at how many right-wingers there used to be in the MADP; it seems like these days, liberals genuinely preferring the GOP candidate was a far more common occurrence.  Reading a globe article about John Silber, he sounds far more like a Harvey Mansfield or Charles Murray than a Noam Chomsky or standard liberal professor.

“My ­major contribution,” he said, “has been to declare that there is one university in the country with no interest in intellectual fads, in following propaganda and ideology.”

While I certainly don't agree with him ideologically on a lot of things, I really do miss the socon Democrats. 

New York's Democratic Party was the same way.  It's a function of the largest cities being SO one-party Democratic that conservatives who wanted to get elected made their home in the Democratic Party, remained conservative on the issues they cared about, and moderated their voting records leftward to accommodate the Democratic leadership in Congress or in their state legislature as needed.

Elizabeth Warren would never make it in that MADP.  But Billy Bulger did.  Ed King and Louise Day Hicks did for a while.

At the same time we really shouldn't devalue that many of these types, if they had lived in the New Deal era, would be considered political hacks.  It wasn't until Democratic Catholic dominated political institutions (particularly organised labor) lost a lot of their steam that the Social conservatism of these types really stood out.

Point is, the talking point of "conservative ethnic Democrats and liberal white protestant Republicans" often misses an entire sea change of political focus that occurred between 1968-present day.

[muon2]

I lived in MA from 1979 to 1987 and the political changes of that decade were quite interesting. As the 80's began politics typically pit white ethnic blue-collar Dems against patrician Rockefeller Pubs. There was a strong libertarian and anti tax streak as well that produced successful referendums to limit property taxes in 1980 and overturn the mandatory use of seat belts in 1986. The difference between MA and NH was the Dem stronghold of Boston.

When Reagan was elected he made a direct appeal to the white ethnic Reagan Dems and carried them along with the state in 1984. But the Dems who controlled the statehouse in 1981 were working to gerrymander the Pubs out of their seats (eg Margaret Heckler). The high-tech Route 128 corridor was coming into its own, but many of the tech workers were moving to the low tax haven of NH. That hurt the Pub base for state house and congressional elections.

The last piece was the flip of small town libertarian Pubs to Dem as happened throughout New England at the time. That really didn't take hold until the 1990's, and I didn't witness it firsthand. From my frequent visits back there since 1987, it seems that the social justice issues of the Rockefeller Pubs were more important than the low tax platform. When the GOP went fully for social conservatism, small town New England found a more comfortable home with the Dems. However, the suburbs didn't trust the Boston stranglehold of the legislature and supported Pub governors as a check against their power.

[Torie]

Is there any rural part of the US that has a higher percentage of white Democratic voters than the Berkshires?  I'm old enough to remember Silvo Conte.

[smoltchanov]

Is there any rural part of the US that has a higher percentage of white Democratic voters than the Berkshires?  I'm old enough to remember Silvo Conte.

If only somewhere in Vermont

Conte was a very good congressman. The only qualm i have to his voting record is him being pro-life (and that's explainable - he was a Catholic after all). I don't know single similar Republican from this part of Massachusetts now (even in legislature)

[ElectionsGuy]

Vermontification

[Fuzzy Bear]

Wow, it's amazing to look at how many right-wingers there used to be in the MADP; it seems like these days, liberals genuinely preferring the GOP candidate was a far more common occurrence.  Reading a globe article about John Silber, he sounds far more like a Harvey Mansfield or Charles Murray than a Noam Chomsky or standard liberal professor.

“My ­major contribution,” he said, “has been to declare that there is one university in the country with no interest in intellectual fads, in following propaganda and ideology.”

While I certainly don't agree with him ideologically on a lot of things, I really do miss the socon Democrats. 

New York's Democratic Party was the same way.  It's a function of the largest cities being SO one-party Democratic that conservatives who wanted to get elected made their home in the Democratic Party, remained conservative on the issues they cared about, and moderated their voting records leftward to accommodate the Democratic leadership in Congress or in their state legislature as needed.

Elizabeth Warren would never make it in that MADP.  But Billy Bulger did.  Ed King and Louise Day Hicks did for a while.

At the same time we really shouldn't devalue that many of these types, if they had lived in the New Deal era, would be considered political hacks.  It wasn't until Democratic Catholic dominated political institutions (particularly organised labor) lost a lot of their steam that the Social conservatism of these types really stood out.

Point is, the talking point of "conservative ethnic Democrats and liberal white protestant Republicans" often misses an entire sea change of political focus that occurred between 1968-present day.

I would agree with you on that. It's not like it used to be.

One of the differences between the Democratic Party in MA and the Democratic Party of NY was who stood atop of the Democratic Party in each state.

In MA, there was no question who was the top Dem; it was JFK.  JFK's Presidential portrait hung in working class bars in Boston and other MA cities long after his death.  (It's been 33 years since I've been in MA, but I'll bet it hangs there in some to this day.)  Not until the uprisings in South Boston over school busing for integration in the mid-seventies was there the kind of antagonism in its Democratic politics that there was in NY's.  NY didn't have such a figure, and during the Nixon years, NY's top Democrat (after leaving the GOP) was NYC Mayor John Lindsay, who personified the silk-stocking liberal who governed for the wealthy and the poor but who reflected contempt for the middle class and working class.  (The REAL "Archie Bunker" people of NYC were probably registered Democrats who voted for conservative Democrats in the primary and Republican for President.) 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

My guess is that it had to do with the general shift of wealthy New Englanders from Republican to Democrat.  However, Weld was more of a moderate to liberal Republican, and I think the Democrat in 1990 may have been a bit more conservative; in which case, you can probably scratch my theory.

[smoltchanov]

My guess is that it had to do with the general shift of wealthy New Englanders from Republican to Democrat.  However, Weld was more of a moderate to liberal Republican, and I think the Democrat in 1990 may have been a bit more conservative; in which case, you can probably scratch my theory.

Democrat in 1990 (John Silber) was not "a bit", but substantially more conservative then Weld (and, probably, not only on social issues)

[Oldiesfreak1854]

My guess is that it had to do with the general shift of wealthy New Englanders from Republican to Democrat.  However, Weld was more of a moderate to liberal Republican, and I think the Democrat in 1990 may have been a bit more conservative; in which case, you can probably scratch my theory.

Democrat in 1990 (John Silber) was not "a bit", but substantially more conservative then Weld (and, probably, not only on social issues)

How in the world did the Democrats nominate him for Governor of one of the most liberal states?

[smoltchanov]

My guess is that it had to do with the general shift of wealthy New Englanders from Republican to Democrat.  However, Weld was more of a moderate to liberal Republican, and I think the Democrat in 1990 may have been a bit more conservative; in which case, you can probably scratch my theory.

Democrat in 1990 (John Silber) was not "a bit", but substantially more conservative then Weld (and, probably, not only on social issues)

How in the world did the Democrats nominate him for Governor of one of the most liberal states?

Well, i have rather vague memory of primary that year, but it was after all problems of Dukakis (on both state and national level) in the late 80th, and his only serious opponent (Francis Bellotti) was unpopular too. That happens from time to time. If i am correct - Weld managed even to win Cambridge (sometimes called "People's Republic of Cambridge", and usually something like 4:1 or 5:1 Democratic) that year...Weld was not simply more liberal, but much more liberal then Silber on social issues, and not especially conservative on economy too. After all - it's Massachusetts: sometime in 90th it elected at least nominal Republican Ralph Martin as Suffolk county (Boston) DA. He was both Black and much more liberal then his Democratic opponents too..

[sg0508]

I'd be willing to bet Dukakis' final two years in office following the presidential loss didn't help the Democrats in '90.  Like most governors who had been around "a while", he faded in popularity if I'm not mistaken, leaving the door open for the GOP.  I believe he increased taxes quite a bit those final two years, which didn't do his parties any favors.