Iowa result in 1988

[Huckleberry Finn]

Have anybody any idea why Dukakis was so polular in Iowa in 1988? He got there 54. 7 percent of vote. Iowa was his third best state after D. C and Rhone Island!

[NorthernDog]

The biggest reason is that small farms went bankrupt by the thousands in the 1980s.  The economy in Iowa was probably the worst in the country.  Also, the increased Defense spending in the Reagan years did not benefit the state at all - there's no military bases and few if any defense manufacturers in the state. Iowa is probably the most "dovish" state in the union even today.

[NHPolitico]

Have anybody any idea why Dukakis was so polular in Iowa in 1988? He got there 54. 7 percent of vote. Iowa was his third best state after D. C and Rhone Island!

Lots of farm states weren't doing well. In 1984, Reagan won Iowa 53-46 versus 59-41 nationally.  Those Farm Aid concerts started in the mid-80s. Geraldine Ferraro went campaigning in the heartland in 1984 and asked these people why they were going with Reagan in spite of their troubles and they said because of the Morning in America message. They liked feeling positive and optimistic about the country.   Michael Deaver was a genius.

[nclib]

Have anybody any idea why Dukakis was so polular in Iowa in 1988? He got there 54. 7 percent of vote. Iowa was his third best state after D. C and Rhone Island!

Lots of farm states weren't doing well. In 1984, Reagan won Iowa 53-46 versus 59-41 nationally.  Those Farm Aid concerts started in the mid-80s. Geraldine Ferraro went campaigning in the heartland in 1984 and asked these people why they were going with Reagan in spite of their troubles and they said because of the Morning in America message. They liked feeling positive and optimistic about the country.   Michael Deaver was a genius.

Yes, Dukakis did do quite well in the Heartland--in addition to Iowa, he did better in MT, SD, and MO than nationally. But it looks like the Dems luck in the farm states may be over. The top 10 states to swing Republican from 1988 to 2000 were:

MT, WY, SD, ND, ID, WV, IA, TX, NE, AK

[NHPolitico]

Have anybody any idea why Dukakis was so polular in Iowa in 1988? He got there 54. 7 percent of vote. Iowa was his third best state after D. C and Rhone Island!

Lots of farm states weren't doing well. In 1984, Reagan won Iowa 53-46 versus 59-41 nationally.  Those Farm Aid concerts started in the mid-80s. Geraldine Ferraro went campaigning in the heartland in 1984 and asked these people why they were going with Reagan in spite of their troubles and they said because of the Morning in America message. They liked feeling positive and optimistic about the country.   Michael Deaver was a genius.

Yes, Dukakis did do quite well in the Heartland--in addition to Iowa, he did better in MT, SD, and MO than nationally. But it looks like the Dems luck in the farm states may be over. The top 10 states to swing Republican from 1988 to 2000 were:

MT, WY, SD, ND, ID, WV, IA, TX, NE, AK

I think it may be that there are fewer and fewer farmers, maybe. So, they vote on other things that favor the GOP candidate.  It's interesting that with such parity in the congressional districts (regarding party strength based on how the districts were redistricted) that the GOP went 4/5 in 2002.  That's a good indication of how Bush can do this year there.

[jravnsbo]

I agree about farm stuff.  However dovish IA is not.  It has been like one of the top 2 states hits with deployments for OIF.  IA and IL, you know us hard working farm kids

The biggest reason is that small farms went bankrupt by the thousands in the 1980s.  The economy in Iowa was probably the worst in the country.  Also, the increased Defense spending in the Reagan years did not benefit the state at all - there's no military bases and few if any defense manufacturers in the state. Iowa is probably the most "dovish" state in the union even today.

[jravnsbo]

Plus GOP is also looking out for Farmers too.  Ie farm bill, eliminating death tax to pass on family farms, ethanol production- ie new markets.

Have anybody any idea why Dukakis was so polular in Iowa in 1988? He got there 54. 7 percent of vote. Iowa was his third best state after D. C and Rhone Island!

Lots of farm states weren't doing well. In 1984, Reagan won Iowa 53-46 versus 59-41 nationally.  Those Farm Aid concerts started in the mid-80s. Geraldine Ferraro went campaigning in the heartland in 1984 and asked these people why they were going with Reagan in spite of their troubles and they said because of the Morning in America message. They liked feeling positive and optimistic about the country.   Michael Deaver was a genius.

Yes, Dukakis did do quite well in the Heartland--in addition to Iowa, he did better in MT, SD, and MO than nationally. But it looks like the Dems luck in the farm states may be over. The top 10 states to swing Republican from 1988 to 2000 were:

MT, WY, SD, ND, ID, WV, IA, TX, NE, AK

[nclib]

It's interesting that with such parity in the [Iowa] congressional districts (regarding party strength based on how the districts were redistricted) that the GOP went 4/5 in 2002.  That's a good indication of how Bush can do this year there.

True, but one of the districts [IA-5] was solidly GOP and the other 4 districts had incumbents (3 GOP, 1 Dem) who represented at least part of their new districts. Iowa tends to reward incumbents--in 2000, 3 districts elected incumbents while voting for the presidential candidate of the other party (Leach-Gore; Nussle-Gore; Boswell-Bush). In an open race IA1, IA3, and IA4 would be competitive and IA2 would lean Democratic.

[jravnsbo]

Well as I said on another thread Nussle and King both are interested in Governor in 2006.  King's seat in IA 5 is definately safe, other one would be competitive.

Latham in IA 4 is his, but he would like to move up too, maybe when Harkin quits.  or 6 years if Grassley does

Leach's seat is very competitive, but he will keep it until he retires.  He has too much power and influence and is a liberal Republican, which is why I was surprised at the all out effort against him in 2002.

It's interesting that with such parity in the [Iowa] congressional districts (regarding party strength based on how the districts were redistricted) that the GOP went 4/5 in 2002.  That's a good indication of how Bush can do this year there.

True, but one of the districts [IA-5] was solidly GOP and the other 4 districts had incumbents (3 GOP, 1 Dem) who represented at least part of their new districts. Iowa tends to reward incumbents--in 2000, 3 districts elected incumbents while voting for the presidential candidate of the other party (Leach-Gore; Nussle-Gore; Boswell-Bush). In an open race IA1, IA3, and IA4 would be competitive and IA2 would lean Democratic.

[WalterMitty]

reagan was quite unpopular in iowa by 87-88.

dont forget, bush finished 3rd in the iowa caucus, behind dole and robertson.