Top 100 Mondale counties (1984, excluding D.C.)

[mianfei]

1. Macon, Alabama (+66.47%)
2. Shannon, South Dakota (+63.70%)
3. Jefferson, Mississippi (+56.06%)
4. Hancock, Georgia (+53.21%)
5. Zavala, Texas (+52.04%)
6. Duval, Texas (+51.36%)
7. Starr, Texas (+50.48%)
8. Brooks, Texas (+49.97%)
9. Jim Hogg, Texas (+47.34%)
10. Elliott, Kentucky (+47.17%)
11. New York, New York (+44.67%)
12. Greene, Alabama (+44.42%)
13. Knott, Kentucky (+44.16%)
14. Baltimore City, Maryland (+42.99%)
15. Claiborne, Mississippi (+42.04%)
16. Charles City County, Virginia (+38.70%)
17. St. Louis, Minnesota (+38.56%)
18. Lake, Minnesota (+37.75%)
19. Lowndes, Alabama (+36.90%)
20. San Francisco, California (+35.91%)
21. Menominee, Wisconsin (+35.74%)
22. Bullock, Alabama (+34.72%)
23. Bronx, New York (+34.11%)
24. Douglas, Wisconsin (+33.66%)
25. McDowell, West Virginia (+33.08%)
26. Mingo, West Virginia (+32.68%)
27. Floyd, Kentucky (+32.43%)
28. Houston, Tennessee (+31.84%)
29. Talbot, Georgia (+31.51%)
30. Dimmit, Texas (+31.04%)
31. Carlton, Minnesota (+30.36%)
32. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (+30.33%)
33. Jackson, Tennessee (+30.09%)
34. Grundy, Tennessee (+29.89%)
35. Deer Lodge, Montana (+29.75%)
36. St. Louis City, Missouri (+29.59%)
37. Holmes, Mississippi (+29.01%)
38. Sumter, Alabama (+28.39%)
39. Clay, Georgia (+28.31%)
40. Taliaferro, Georgia (+26.73%)
41. Maverick, Texas (+26.33%)
42. Beaver, Pennsylvania (+26.07%)
43. Logan, West Virginia (+25.70%)
44. Stewart, Tennessee (+25.47%)
45. Rio Arriba, New Mexico (+25.32%)
46. Macon, Georgia (+24.93%)
47. Suffolk, Massachusetts (+24.90%)
48. Silver Bow, Montana (+24.75%)
49. Fayette, Pennsylvania (+24.38%)
50. Humphreys, Tennessee (+23.92%)
51. Stewart, Georgia (+23.81%)
52. Petersburg City, Virginia (+23.19%)
53. Costilla, Colorado (+23.05%)
54. Kings, New York (+23.05%)
55. Northampton, North Carolina (+22.76%)
56. Fayette, West Virginia (+22.48%)
57. Wilcox, Alabama (+22.02%)
58. Newton, Texas (+21.57%)
59. Mower, Minnesota (+21.52%)
60. Buchanan County, Virginia (+21.26%)
61. Twiggs, Georgia (+21.12%)
62. Boone, West Virginia (+20.85%)
63. Reynolds, Missouri (+20.74%)
64. Wilkinson, Mississippi (+20.64%)
65. Webster, West Virginia (+20.12%)
66. Todd, South Dakota (+20.01%)
67. La Salle, Texas (+19.77%)
68. San Miguel, New Mexico (+19.68%)
69. Warren, North Carolina (+19.37%)
70. Wapello, Iowa (+19.37%)
71. Ramsey, Minnesota (+19.19%)
72. Sioux, North Dakota (+19.05%)
73. Greene, Pennsylvania (+18.94%)
74. Washington, Pennsylvania (+18.77%)
75. Rolette, North Dakota (+18.66%)
76. Trousdale, Tennessee (+18.66%)
77. Alameda, California (+18.64%)
78. Tunica, Mississippi (+18.26%)
79. Webb, Texas (+17.80%)
80. Fisher, Texas (+17.78%)
81. Prince George’s, Maryland (+17.63%)
82. Mahoning, Ohio (+17.57%)
83. Hertford, North Carolina (+17.18%)
84. Johnson, Iowa (+16.26%)
85. Calhoun, Georgia (+16.24%)
86. Perry, Tennessee (+16.23%)
87. Gogebic, Michigan (+16.16%)
88. Orleans Parish, Louisiana (+16.02%)
89. Allendale, South Carolina (+15.92%)
90. Brooke, West Virginia (+15.80%)
91. Noxubee, Mississippi (+15.63%)
92. Bertie, North Carolina (+15.63%)
93. Benton, Tennessee (+15.55%)
94. Chicot, Arkansas (+15.27%)
95. Smith, Tennessee (+15.20%)
96. Quitman, Georgia (+15.16%)
97. Lake, Tennessee (+14.96%)
98. Morgan, Kentucky (+14.94%)
99. Wayne, Michigan (+14.88%)
100. Anson, North Carolina (+14.79%)

Looking at this list, one sees the problem the Democratic Party had adjusting to the political reality of the 1980s – when socially radical Boomers had a free-market party and a party of more or less socially conservative labor unionists to choose from. The problem with labor unions in the land- and natural resource-poor high latitudes is clear today: they overprice opportunity-poor and ecologically dirt-cheap regions.

In that sense, freefalling Democratic support in unionized coal and timber counties, plus historically secessionist rural Middle Tennessee, may be a worthwhile price for consolidation the support of secular individuoegalitarians in the densely populated cities.

[Skill and Chance]

Hmmm... I don't think you can really call the Dems of 1984 socially conservative, though.  There was a socially conservative wing of the party up to the early 1960's, but it was mostly gone after 1968 and not particularly influential at the national level after 1933. 

[Intell]

The democrats of the 80's weren't socially conservative, and the republicans weren't radicals on social issues. The democrats were socially liberal, endorsed environmentalism, femenism, and were pro-choice, a more lenient approach to drugs, while the republicans were more socially conservative and all opposed all of the above mentioned things.

[smoltchanov]

Hmmm... I don't think you can really call the Dems of 1984 socially conservative, though.  There was a socially conservative wing of the party up to the early 1960's, but it was mostly gone after 1968 and not particularly influential at the national level after 1933. 

IMHO - yes and no. Of course typical "southern conservatives" (who were socially and racially conservative first, and economic conservative - second) were mostly gone by 1984. Some - remained, but even them usually moderated their position on at least some issues. But there were considerable number of (usually Catholic) socially conservative Democratic congressmen from North - the "pro-life, pro-labor and mostly pro-gun" type, which still exist in small number in Democratic caucus today (Lipinski, Peterson and their like)... At THAT time there was substantially more of them....

[smoltchanov]

The democrats of the 80's weren't socially conservative, and the republicans weren't radicals on social issues. The democrats were socially liberal, endorsed environmentalism, femenism, and were pro-choice, a more lenient approach to drugs, while the republicans were more socially conservative and all opposed all of the above mentioned things.

If so, who were following Democratic senators and congressmen of 1980th?

Sen Howell Heflin (D- AL)
Rep. Bill Nichols (D-AL)
Rep. Richard Shelby (D-AL)
Rep. Martin Russo (D-IL)
Rep. William Lipinski (D-IL)
Rep. Frank Annunzio (D-IL)
Rep. Robert Borski (D-PA)
Rep. Joseph Kolter (D-PA)
Rep. Gus Yatron (D-PA)
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)
Rep. Joseph Gaydos (D-PA)
Rep. Austin Murphy (D-PA)

And i intentionally limited myself to 3 states ONLY. In fact - i could add dozens (many dozens, really)  names of Democratic senators and congressmen of 1980th, who absolutely disagreed with your description - they were pro-life, mostly - anti-environment (many - pro-coal), anti-feminist and so on. Probably - a quarter of Democratic caucus of that time were like them or even more conservative (Sonny Montgomery, Marvin Leath, Charles Stenholm , Phil Gramm, Kent Hance and many other come to mind immediately)

[Intell]

The democrats of the 80's weren't socially conservative, and the republicans weren't radicals on social issues. The democrats were socially liberal, endorsed environmentalism, femenism, and were pro-choice, a more lenient approach to drugs, while the republicans were more socially conservative and all opposed all of the above mentioned things.

If so, who were following Democratic senators and congressmen of 1980th?

Sen Howell Heflin (D- AL)
Rep. Bill Nichols (D-AL)
Rep. Richard Shelby (D-AL)
Rep. Martin Russo (D-IL)
Rep. William Lipinski (D-IL)
Rep. Frank Annunzio (D-IL)
Rep. Robert Borski (D-PA)
Rep. Joseph Kolter (D-PA)
Rep. Gus Yatron (D-PA)
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)
Rep. Joseph Gaydos (D-PA)
Rep. Austin Murphy (D-PA)

And i intentionally limited myself to 3 states ONLY. In fact - i could add dozens (many dozens, really)  names of Democratic senators and congressmen of 1980th, who absolutely disagreed with your description - they were pro-life, mostly - anti-environment (many - pro-coal), anti-feminist and so on. Probably - a quarter of Democratic caucus of that time were like them or even more conservative (Sonny Montgomery, Marvin Leath, Charles Stenholm , Phil Gramm, Kent Hance and many other come to mind immediately)

This of relevance to the democratic party nationally and of Water Mondale. The democrats that were socially conservative were the minority. The democratic party of the time was socially liberal, as was Water Mondale, but many senators were socially conservative and would've still agreed with my characterisation of the democratic party as a liberal party.

[smoltchanov]

The democrats of the 80's weren't socially conservative, and the republicans weren't radicals on social issues. The democrats were socially liberal, endorsed environmentalism, femenism, and were pro-choice, a more lenient approach to drugs, while the republicans were more socially conservative and all opposed all of the above mentioned things.

If so, who were following Democratic senators and congressmen of 1980th?

Sen Howell Heflin (D- AL)
Rep. Bill Nichols (D-AL)
Rep. Richard Shelby (D-AL)
Rep. Martin Russo (D-IL)
Rep. William Lipinski (D-IL)
Rep. Frank Annunzio (D-IL)
Rep. Robert Borski (D-PA)
Rep. Joseph Kolter (D-PA)
Rep. Gus Yatron (D-PA)
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)
Rep. Joseph Gaydos (D-PA)
Rep. Austin Murphy (D-PA)

And i intentionally limited myself to 3 states ONLY. In fact - i could add dozens (many dozens, really)  names of Democratic senators and congressmen of 1980th, who absolutely disagreed with your description - they were pro-life, mostly - anti-environment (many - pro-coal), anti-feminist and so on. Probably - a quarter of Democratic caucus of that time were like them or even more conservative (Sonny Montgomery, Marvin Leath, Charles Stenholm , Phil Gramm, Kent Hance and many other come to mind immediately)

This of relevance to the democratic party nationally and of Water Mondale. The democrats that were socially conservative were the minority. The democratic party of the time was socially liberal, as was Water Mondale, but many senators were socially conservative and would've still agreed with my characterisation of the democratic party as a liberal party.

I don't know what is "a party as a whole", when it is, essentially, a "mix" of 50 state parties and adheres to "big tent" policy (as both Democrats and Republicans proclaimed in 1980th). In such situation any ideological characterization of party becomes nonsense. Sure, a majority of party (about 2/3) was liberal socially and so on So what? About 1/3 was socially conservative and had excellent representation on Congress, among governors and in state legislatures. Mississippi or Alabama Democratic parties liberal in 1980th? They would laugh in your face and they would be absolutely correct. Even NOW - vast majority of, say, Democtatic caucus in Louisiana legislature is adamantly pro-life, much more "pro-business" then "pro-environment", not feminist, and so on. Because such is an opinion of most of their voters. California Democratic party (and it's representatives in Congress) - more or less yes, but even there not all congressmen fit your description.... Of course if you consider presidential candidates ONLY, and look at party solely on basis of THEIR views - then you are correct. But, IMHO, it's an extreme oversimplification of general picture. A migration of a lot of "staunch working class Democrats" of the past to Trump in 2016 is another  proof of it. And these prople were Democrats for decades and generations. What common do they have with your party description? Almost nothing.

[Intell]

The democrats of the 80's weren't socially conservative, and the republicans weren't radicals on social issues. The democrats were socially liberal, endorsed environmentalism, femenism, and were pro-choice, a more lenient approach to drugs, while the republicans were more socially conservative and all opposed all of the above mentioned things.

If so, who were following Democratic senators and congressmen of 1980th?

Sen Howell Heflin (D- AL)
Rep. Bill Nichols (D-AL)
Rep. Richard Shelby (D-AL)
Rep. Martin Russo (D-IL)
Rep. William Lipinski (D-IL)
Rep. Frank Annunzio (D-IL)
Rep. Robert Borski (D-PA)
Rep. Joseph Kolter (D-PA)
Rep. Gus Yatron (D-PA)
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)
Rep. Joseph Gaydos (D-PA)
Rep. Austin Murphy (D-PA)

And i intentionally limited myself to 3 states ONLY. In fact - i could add dozens (many dozens, really)  names of Democratic senators and congressmen of 1980th, who absolutely disagreed with your description - they were pro-life, mostly - anti-environment (many - pro-coal), anti-feminist and so on. Probably - a quarter of Democratic caucus of that time were like them or even more conservative (Sonny Montgomery, Marvin Leath, Charles Stenholm , Phil Gramm, Kent Hance and many other come to mind immediately)

This of relevance to the democratic party nationally and of Water Mondale. The democrats that were socially conservative were the minority. The democratic party of the time was socially liberal, as was Water Mondale, but many senators were socially conservative and would've still agreed with my characterisation of the democratic party as a liberal party.

I don't know what is "a party as a whole", when it is, essentially, a "mix" of 50 state parties and adheres to "big tent" policy (as both Democrats and Republicans proclaimed in 1980th). In such situation any ideological characterization of party becomes nonsense. Sure, a majority of party (about 2/3) was liberal socially and so on So what? About 1/3 was socially conservative and had excellent representation on Congress, among governors and in state legislatures. Mississippi or Alabama Democratic parties liberal in 1980th? They would laugh in your face and they would be absolutely correct. Even NOW - vast majority of, say, Democtatic caucus in Louisiana legislature is adamantly pro-life, much more "pro-business" then "pro-environment", not feminist, and so on. Because such is an opinion of most of their voters. California Democratic party (and it's representatives in Congress) - more or less yes, but even there not all congressmen fit your description.... Of course if you consider presidential candidates ONLY, and look at party solely on basis of THEIR views - then you are correct. But, IMHO, it's an extreme oversimplification of general picture. A migration of a lot of "staunch working class Democrats" of the past to Trump in 2016 is another  proof of it. And these prople were Democrats for decades and generations. What common do they have with your party description? Almost nothing.

The democratic party, the national party was liberal, as were most of the democratic party outside the south. Now if you went to MS, AL, a lot of these areas only had democrats legislature due to old-school democrats conservative democrats still being prevalent, and even they would recognise the national party was conservative, and hence they didn't vote for them for president.

A long of these strong votes for the democrats, were based upon the working class.

Now the migration of the WWC to the republicans, is there any proof the WWC were by any means more socially conservative, at least than the middle class as a whole. Now these democrats voted for socially liberal presidents and in many cases senators (Western PA, WV, Eastern and Western KY, TN, Appalachian Counties of AL were all solidly democratic).

They voted for socially liberal candidates for presidents. The highest vote that McGovern got for president, were unionised counties in Knott County, KY and Elliot County. The vote for McGovern, was higher with a unionised workers, and then amongst then amongst the working class, this was especially the case with Dukakis and Mondale. There voters weren't pro-business.


Now the swing to the republican party, has been for a variety of reasons, a declining focus of the democrats on the WWC, gun Control, and a perception of culture of the democrats being culturally elitist and out of touch, when 20 years back it would have been the perception of the democrats being for the working man. This did not change with abortion being more mentioned and the democrats being more socially liberal, (the only issue to which this had affect would be Gun Control).

Even with the swing to the republicans amongst the working class, Obama was stronger amongst the WWV than other whites, and won whites making under 50k in 2008. These voters didn't switch to Trump because of abortion or SSM, but because of cultural issues (if you see that as social than so be it) such as nationalism, patriotism and identity, those values are what propelled Trump to win, along with economic anxiety and an increasing amount of people who are severely underemployed.

Social Issues are overrated as the reason for the swing, and outside the deep south, the democrats were more socially liberal relative to the republican party, and these working class areas voted for socially liberal presidents and senators.

The Mississipi democratic party might have been conservative, as might have been the AL, SC, TN, OK but other state democratic parties were either economically left-wing and to the left of the republicans on social issues or just social liberal in general. All these parties had an element of social liberalism as their platform.

[smoltchanov]

^ Let's simply agree to disagree. You will stick to your arguments and they will be very convincing for you  (but - not for me) and vice versa.... I would simply say that all "ideological ratings" for so broad-based and heterogeneous parties, as Democratic and Republican were until 1990th at least, remind me an old russian anecdote about "median temperature in hospital".... Now, when BOTH parties became much more polarized and ideologized - another matter. And it became utterly boring.....

[mianfei]

The democrats of the 80's weren't socially conservative, and the republicans weren't radicals on social issues. The democrats were socially liberal, endorsed environmentalism, femenism, and were pro-choice, a more lenient approach to drugs, while the republicans were more socially conservative and all opposed all of the above mentioned things.

I was not saying that the Republicans were socially liberal!

I was saying that in the 1980s a socially liberal to the point of being radical Boom Generation received the choice between a committed conservative free-market Republican Party and a Democratic Party that as the list of Mondale’s best 100 counties shows was largely based upon unions and minorities:

• 45 of Mondale’s top 100 counties were majority-minority counties
• More than twenty were unionized counties without chance of competing in a globalised economy in their then-extant form, and many were faced with declining reserves

Hmmm... I don't think you can really call the Dems of 1984 socially conservative, though.  There was a socially conservative wing of the party up to the early 1960's, but it was mostly gone after 1968 and not particularly influential at the national level after 1933. 

IMHO - yes and no. Of course typical "southern conservatives" (who were socially and racially conservative first, and economic conservative - second) were mostly gone by 1984. Some - remained, but even them usually moderated their position on at least some issues. But there were considerable number of (usually Catholic) socially conservative Democratic congressmen from the North - the "pro-life, pro-labor and mostly pro-gun" type, which still exist in small number in Democratic caucus today (Lipinski, Peterson and their like)... At THAT time there was substantially more of them....

Critical point. People even today do not realize (or perhaps, are not taught solidly enough if at all) that the meaning of the Democratic Party’s debacle against the conservative Reagan was not a more conservative electorate. The Reagan Era was the heart of the Sexual Revolution and in academia saw the flowering of so-called “cultural Marxism” in the form of women’s studies, black studies, homosexual studies and so on. The same was true in art and literature – radical feminist anti-religion novels like The Handmaid’s Tale were appearing precisely when Reagan nearly won fifty states.

Having numerous “pro-life” members constituted a huge barrier to attracting such sexually liberal voters as the Boomers proved to be.

As some evidence, Peter F. Nardulli, Jon K. Dalager and Donald E. Greco in ‘Voter Turnout in U. S. Presidential Elections: An Historical View and Some Speculation’ (from the September 1996 issue of Political Science and Politics) showed that the most socially liberal group – the urban core dwellers – were voting in the 1984 presidential election at only 88 percent the rate of the national a whole, as against 95 percent or more between 1928 and 1968. No doubt this reflected that the growth of these new social movements meant inner city residents simply had no candidate remotely close to meeting their own voter preferences. The fact that even with a more socially liberal Democratic Party in the 1990s this trend actually intensified suggests that the radical individualism and egalitarianism of these groups intensified more rapidly than the Democratic Party could take up their views.

[Intell]

^ Let's simply agree to disagree. You will stick to your arguments and they will be very convincing for you  (but - not for me) and vice versa.... I would simply say that all "ideological ratings" for so broad-based and heterogeneous parties, as Democratic and Republican were until 1990th at least, remind me an old russian anecdote about "median temperature in hospital".... Now, when BOTH parties became much more polarized and ideologized - another matter. And it became utterly boring.....

I really don't understand why the social conservatism of lower level democratic congressman, matters at all to these counties voting for solid left-wingers and social liberals, with Mondale and Dukakis. The democratic party nationally was socially liberal, and outside the deep south, generally had a socially liberal platform, and was generally more socially liberal than the republicans of a given state.

[RINO Tom]

Hmmm... I don't think you can really call the Dems of 1984 socially conservative, though.  There was a socially conservative wing of the party up to the early 1960's, but it was mostly gone after 1968 and not particularly influential at the national level after 1933.

I'm fine with you saying that the Democrats didn't have a socially conservative wing in the 1980s, but then you also have to spare me the bullshlt that all of the old Southern Democrats were, in any meaningful way, "conservative," as it relates to modern conservatism.  Most Southern politicians, at the national level, were Democrats into the mid-'90s, after all.

[LLR]

11. New York, New York (+44.67%)

More proof that we're the best

[Intell]

Hmmm... I don't think you can really call the Dems of 1984 socially conservative, though.  There was a socially conservative wing of the party up to the early 1960's, but it was mostly gone after 1968 and not particularly influential at the national level after 1933.

I'm fine with you saying that the Democrats didn't have a socially conservative wing in the 1980s, but then you also have to spare me the bullshlt that all of the old Southern Democrats were, in any meaningful way, "conservative," as it relates to modern conservatism.  Most Southern politicians, at the national level, were Democrats into the mid-'90s, after all.

And most of them were conservative.

[smoltchanov]

^ Let's simply agree to disagree. You will stick to your arguments and they will be very convincing for you  (but - not for me) and vice versa.... I would simply say that all "ideological ratings" for so broad-based and heterogeneous parties, as Democratic and Republican were until 1990th at least, remind me an old russian anecdote about "median temperature in hospital".... Now, when BOTH parties became much more polarized and ideologized - another matter. And it became utterly boring.....

I really don't understand why the social conservatism of lower level democratic congressman, matters at all to these counties voting for solid left-wingers and social liberals, with Mondale and Dukakis. The democratic party nationally was socially liberal, and outside the deep south, generally had a socially liberal platform, and was generally more socially liberal than the republicans of a given state.

Not wanting to reignite our discussion again, but i remember Democratic (and Republican) parties of 1980th quite well (i began to study American politics seriously about Watergate time -substantially earlier then that). And i can't characterize either by one word. Yes, liberals generally prevailed in Democratic party, but not by much - about 2:1 at most. The whole regions (South, Appalachian region, many areas of industrial North-East and MidWest with ethnic Catholics) sent dozens, if not hundreds congressmen and senators, who didn't fit your description. You could find almost everyone (except strong segregationists of the past, it was REALLY a done deal) in the party: conservatives (not the right-wingers of modern "Freedom caucus", but - undoubtely a conservatives), moderates, pro-labor, but socially conservative types (especially in states like Illinois or Pennsylvania, which i mentioned above) - almost everyone. The word i use describing a party of THAT period is "heterogeneous". Liberals had enough strength to almost always nominate more or less liberal candidate for President (Mondale, Dukakis), but a big chunk of the party essentially "sabotaged" their campaigns because it had nothing in common with them except "D" letter after name (there is some logic in it, isn't it?). Republican party of 1980th, BTW, wasn't as cohesive and conservative as it's now - it was more conservative then in 1960th-1970th (no more Case's, Javits'es or Brooke's, but with Mathias, Hatfield and their like). So, what i object to is a usage of "standard labels" ("liberal", "conservative", "pro-choice", "feminist", "pro-environment", and so on) in description of WHOLE parties. If you would write, for example "by 1980th liberal wing of Democratic party became strong enough to almost always guarantee a nomination of liberal candidate for President" - well, no objections then. But usage of such descriptors for the WHOLE party??? I remember that parties too well to agree with that.

P.S. As i said in the beginning - i don't want to reignite our discussion again. It's simply a more or less detailed explanation of my view. Right now, when Democratic party basically exterminated everyone, but liberals (plus few centrists) in itself, and Republican - everyone, but conservatives (plus even less centrists) - your description seems to be much more precise to me then for 1980th parties.....

P.S. 2 Hope - now i explained my position clear enough..

[Intell]

Ok many members in the democratic party were conservative, that is true. However if we look at the overall social platform of the democratic party, they were liberal. This was also the case with most of the state democratic parties. Now the counties mentioned above, didn't abandon the democratic party, as they voted overwhelmingly for Mondale and Dukakis, and the top poster stated this;

"Looking at this list, one sees the problem the Democratic Party had adjusting to the political reality of the 1980s – when socially radical Boomers had a free-market party and a party of more or less socially conservative labor unionists to choose from."

This claim is false.

[muon2]

As a latter half Boomer who spent college in the late 70's and grad school in the 80's, I think there's another factor at play. In my poli-sci class in 1976 we saw data that self-identified conservatives outnumbered self-identified liberals by better than three to one. Most Americans either thought of themselves as moderates or conservatives.

Liberals at that time were often thought of as advocating economic socialism, and the elements of social liberalism that were emerging from the hippies of the 60's still hadn't penetrated the larger sense of liberalism. John Anderson's campaign in 1980 was the first I saw that really tried to mix some of the new social liberalism with traditional Republican views on economics. But Anderson's position didn't exist in 1984.

That meant that the perceived dynamics were largely between New Deal moderates and the emerging Reagan free-market conservatives. Mondale was seen as a return to traditional New Deal governance in contrast to Reagan's policies of decentralizing economics away from Washington.