Why did McGovern do so well in Massachusetts in 1972?

[Adlai Stevenson]

Its amazing that he beat Nixon by nearly ten points as he lost everywhere else expect D.C. I can't understand how, when Nixon beat McGovern 60%-37% in 1972, he lost Massachusetts; and yet when Reagan defeated Mondale 58%-40% in 1984 he won MA by 51%-48%.

Did Massachusetts shift to the right? Humphrey won big there in 1968 with 63% of the vote, so was there a decline from then on? Carter did only slightly better here than McGovern 56%-40%, not an amazing turnaround considering he won 13% more of the vote nationally in 1976. In 1980, also, Carter lost here. I'm sorry, I know it seems I'm answering my own questions here, but do you think Reagan's appeal to traditionally Democratic blue-collar Irish Catholics, a group he largely identified with due to his background, helped swing the state both times to him? As a final after-thought, Dukakis didn't even do that well here, he didn't even beat Bush by 10%, so there must have been some slippage from McGovern's time.

[TomC]

Yes, Reagan was more appealing than Nixon.

Also, wasn't McGovern's running mate Shriver, a Kennedy in-law? Perhaps locals pulled out all the stops in 72 more than they did in 1984. In 1980, perhaps Mass was disappointed that Ted lost the primary and didn't "rally the vote" for Carter.

[Gustaf]

All valid points. Back in those days Vp home state had much more significance than it does today (less polarized electorate and more home pride). Look at Maine in 1968 or Minnesota in 1980, for instance. Also, there is a clear "losing primary candidate" trend, Arizona in 2000 probably being the most recent example (and I suspect Carter's sweep in the South and close call in California might also be part of that trend).

[WalterMitty]

anti-war sentiment was very high in mass in 72, probably due to the high number of students in the state.

[TeePee4Prez]

In know I'm beating a dead horse here, but Reagan had incredible appeal to socially conservative leaning hypenated Catholics in Northeast urban areas such as Northeast Philly, Lower Bucks County, parts of Northeastern New Jersey, Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Lowell, Worcester, and South Boston.  A lot of the issues discussed in the infamous PA 13 thread would explain a lot of things especially in eastern Massachusetts.  Issues such as desegregation, welfare, and defense really hit the mood in these areas.   

[WalterMitty]

In know I'm beating a dead horse here, but Reagan had incredible appeal to socially conservative leaning hypenated Catholics in Northeast urban areas such as Northeast Philly, Lower Bucks County, parts of Northeastern New Jersey, Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Lowell, Worcester, and South Boston.  A lot of the issues discussed in the infamous PA 13 thread would explain a lot of things especially in eastern Massachusetts.  Issues such as desegregation, welfare, and defense really hit the mood in these areas.   

you are correct.

reagan played on people's fears rather than hopes (contrary to public opinion).  the people you mentioned were/are scared of the black family moving next door, communism etc.

the 'morning in america' stuff was nonsense.

i dislike reagan .  he was george wallace with charisma.

[dazzleman]

In know I'm beating a dead horse here, but Reagan had incredible appeal to socially conservative leaning hypenated Catholics in Northeast urban areas such as Northeast Philly, Lower Bucks County, parts of Northeastern New Jersey, Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Lowell, Worcester, and South Boston.  A lot of the issues discussed in the infamous PA 13 thread would explain a lot of things especially in eastern Massachusetts.  Issues such as desegregation, welfare, and defense really hit the mood in these areas.   

you are correct.

reagan played on people's fears rather than hopes (contrary to public opinion).  the people you mentioned were/are scared of the black family moving next door, communism etc.

the 'morning in america' stuff was nonsense.

i dislike reagan .  he was george wallace with charisma.

I think it would be fairer to say that he played to both people's hopes and fears.  That's what made him a great politician.  Those who don't play to people's fears in some way rarely get elected.  That's just a reality.  The best you can hope for is a politician who doesn't ONLY play to people's fears.

[TeePee4Prez]

In know I'm beating a dead horse here, but Reagan had incredible appeal to socially conservative leaning hypenated Catholics in Northeast urban areas such as Northeast Philly, Lower Bucks County, parts of Northeastern New Jersey, Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Lowell, Worcester, and South Boston.  A lot of the issues discussed in the infamous PA 13 thread would explain a lot of things especially in eastern Massachusetts.  Issues such as desegregation, welfare, and defense really hit the mood in these areas.   

you are correct.

reagan played on people's fears rather than hopes (contrary to public opinion).  the people you mentioned were/are scared of the black family moving next door, communism etc.

the 'morning in america' stuff was nonsense.

i dislike reagan .  he was george wallace with charisma.

It seems local GOP candidates are good at playing to racial fears and the Democrats have to walk a tighrope being they can't be out of touch with their semi-racist constituents yet at the same time they need support from the party.  My opposition to Section 8 has nothing to do with the black family next door because I have also seen whites abuse it and ruin neighborhoods as well.  However, I'm not going to cave in to a racial bullsh**t being stirred up in these debates, which a lot of my neighbors and even family like to get stirred into and they look stupid.

[Erc]

It's not that too far off compared to prior years.  In 1968, Humphrey loses the nationwide PV by a bit under 1%, but wins Massachusetts by over 30 points: 63.01 - 32.89

In '64, already a landslide year, Johnson won 76% of the vote.

For obvious reasons, Kennedy did well there in 1960.


My question is...why did McGovern hold on in MA but not RI?  Nixon won RI by over six points in 1972 (and lost MA by 9 points), despite losing it in '68 by a larger margin than in MA.  And in 1964, Johnson broke 80% there..

[dazzleman]

It's not that too far off compared to prior years.  In 1968, Humphrey loses the nationwide PV by a bit under 1%, but wins Massachusetts by over 30 points: 63.01 - 32.89

In '64, already a landslide year, Johnson won 76% of the vote.

For obvious reasons, Kennedy did well there in 1960.


My question is...why did McGovern hold on in MA but not RI?  Nixon won RI by over six points in 1972 (and lost MA by 9 points), despite losing it in '68 by a larger margin than in MA.  And in 1964, Johnson broke 80% there..

I'd say for the same reason that Reagan won Massachusetts in 1980, but Carter won Rhode Island.

Though the two states usually vote the same, there is a subtle difference in the type of Democrat that holds sway in each of these states.

The Massachusetts Democrat is more likely to be a socially liberal 'new age' white collar Democrat, while the Rhode Island Democrat is more likely to be the traditional working class Democrat.

In 1980, without the Vietnam War as an issue, enough of the white collar 'new age' Democrats drifted over to Anderson to give the state to Reagan, while in Rhode Island, enough of the more traditional Democrats remained loyal to Carter for him to carry the state.

Likewise, in 1972, with the Vietnam War still an issue, the white collar 'new age' Democrats, who were far more anti-war than the traditional Democrats, went for McGovern, while the more traditional Democrats in Rhode Island -- the type Nixon had been heavily courting -- leaned more to Nixon.

I hope this explanation makes some sense.

[minionofmidas]

It's not that too far off compared to prior years.  In 1968, Humphrey loses the nationwide PV by a bit under 1%, but wins Massachusetts by over 30 points: 63.01 - 32.89

In '64, already a landslide year, Johnson won 76% of the vote.

For obvious reasons, Kennedy did well there in 1960.


My question is...why did McGovern hold on in MA but not RI?  Nixon won RI by over six points in 1972 (and lost MA by 9 points), despite losing it in '68 by a larger margin than in MA.  And in 1964, Johnson broke 80% there..

I'd say for the same reason that Reagan won Massachusetts in 1980, but Carter won Rhode Island.

Yeah, I agree, McGovern wouldn't have won if it wasn't for Anderson.
No actually I did get what you were saying.

[dazzleman]

It's not that too far off compared to prior years.  In 1968, Humphrey loses the nationwide PV by a bit under 1%, but wins Massachusetts by over 30 points: 63.01 - 32.89

In '64, already a landslide year, Johnson won 76% of the vote.

For obvious reasons, Kennedy did well there in 1960.


My question is...why did McGovern hold on in MA but not RI?  Nixon won RI by over six points in 1972 (and lost MA by 9 points), despite losing it in '68 by a larger margin than in MA.  And in 1964, Johnson broke 80% there..

I'd say for the same reason that Reagan won Massachusetts in 1980, but Carter won Rhode Island.

Yeah, I agree, McGovern wouldn't have won if it wasn't for Anderson.
No actually I did get what you were saying.

Haha, you're funny....

I really think Anderson had a big effect on McGovern carrying Massachusetts in 1972....

[Rob]

Its amazing that he beat Nixon by nearly ten points as he lost everywhere else expect D.C. I can't understand how

Antiwar students + loyally Democratic working class + Kennedy influence + high unemployment = McGovern victory.