Massachusetts - 1980 & 1984

[Robespierre's Jaw]

A question I have always wanted to know. Why in 1980 and 1984 did Massachusetts vote for the Republican Party when Ronald Reagan was it's nominee. How could such a state that voted for George S. McGovern in 1972 vote for a Right-Winger some 8 and 12 years later?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

A question I have always wanted to know. Why in 1980 and 1984 did Massachusetts vote for the Republican Party when Ronald Reagan was it's nominee. How could such a state that voted for George S. McGovern in 1972 vote for a Right-Winger some 8 and 12 years later?

1980 had to do with the split between Anderson and Carter - Despite the fact that Anderson was a Republican he tended to get alot imo of the Social liberal vote. Carter really had no appeal at all among liberal intellectual types really. (Though there is a misconception that MA is full of them; that is of course not really true at all. But there is a more significant number of them then in most other states; which may explain why Carter won RI in 1980 but not MA; though Anderson was still significant in RI aswell.)

1984 was just a big landslide.

[CPT MikeyMike]

Keep in mind that in '88, Bush only lost by 8% in Massachusetts. Shows that Bush was able to hold his own there but I suspect that Massachusetts finally knew that Dukakis was a terrible governor.

[nclib]

A question I have always wanted to know. Why in 1980 and 1984 did Massachusetts vote for the Republican Party when Ronald Reagan was it's nominee. How could such a state that voted for George S. McGovern in 1972 vote for a Right-Winger some 8 and 12 years later?

1984 was just a big landslide.

True but 1972 was an even bigger landslide and McGovern won MA by 8%.

[Verily]

Largely Anderson in 1980. Gully Foyle made the argument well; Massachusetts was Anderson's best state. (Anderson ran particularly strongly among the 18-25 demographic and college students, both of which Massachusetts is famous for as the youngest and most college-heavy state in the country, and both of which have been Democratic demographics since the 1960s.)

Anderson won 15.15% in Massachusetts while Carter lost it by 0.15%. It is reasonable to suggest that around 60-70% of Anderson's supporters would have voted for Carter otherwise, which would give Carter a big victory in MA.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

For a Republican, Reagan had an unusual amount of appeal to ethnic (read: Catholic) working class voters. Other factors at work o/c, but that's what put him over the line there. The only congressional district that Carter easily won was the 8th.

[gorkay]

Carter would undoubtedly have won Massachusetts in 1980 without Anderson. In 1984, even though Mondale got a higher percentage of the PV than McGovern, Reagan was strong in every state. Mondale barely even won Minnesota.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

A question I have always wanted to know. Why in 1980 and 1984 did Massachusetts vote for the Republican Party when Ronald Reagan was it's nominee. How could such a state that voted for George S. McGovern in 1972 vote for a Right-Winger some 8 and 12 years later?

In 1980 it was the closest state in the election, and Anderson took 15% from Carter; in 1984, it was just a good old landslide.

[Verily]

For a Republican, Reagan had an unusual amount of appeal to ethnic (read: Catholic) working class voters. Other factors at work o/c, but that's what put him over the line there. The only congressional district that Carter easily won was the 8th.

I would say that it was more that Catholics felt less loyalty to a Southern Protestant preacher (Carter) than that Reagan appealed more to Catholics.

[WalterMitty]

For a Republican, Reagan had an unusual amount of appeal to ethnic (read: Catholic) working class voters. Other factors at work o/c, but that's what put him over the line there. The only congressional district that Carter easily won was the 8th.

I would say that it was more that Catholics felt less loyalty to a Southern Protestant preacher (Carter) than that Reagan appealed more to Catholics.

according to exit polls, w. bush did reasonably well with massachusetts catholics.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think the main reason McGovern carried Massachusetts is too many people in Massachusetts could not bring themselves to vote for Nixon under any circumstances. Why? See who Nixon ran against in 1960.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Massachusetts, believe it or not, was actually trending Republican in the 1980s up through to 1992 or so.  The reasoning was an influx of residents caused by the 1980s software boom—the area around I-495 was the "original" Silicon Valley.  (Conservative Ray Shamie only lost to John Kerry by 10% in 1984; had Elliot Richardson won the nomination instead, Republicans probably would have picked up the Senate seat and held it through 1996, if not longer.)

The Massachusetts software boom has since gone bust, of course (anyone even remember Spinnaker Software?), and the short period of increased Republican competition was short lived.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The software boom certainly hasn't made California more Republican.

[Kevinstat]

High education, high income voters vote differently today than in the 1980s and early 1990s.  California did have Pete Wilson, whose administration might have overlapped with the early stages of California's software boom.  And of course there is now the Governator.

[DownWithTheLeft]

The software boom certainly hasn't made California more Republican.

Ahnuld?

[phk]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interestingly, a Democrat, Gray Davis was elected in 1998 (with strong support from the SF Bay Area and Silicon Valley) while the dot-com bubble was heating up and was thrown out in 2003 when the bubble was basically finished.

The software boom certainly hasn't made California more Republican.

Ahnuld?

You do understand that the San Francisco Bay Area and Silicon Valley are amongst the most core Democratic parts of the state and did actually become more Democratic during the bubble era.

[J. J.]

In 1980, Carter was in trouble from the very beginning. We all know that. But, when you look at it state by state, you come up with reasoning for why he performed the way that he did in each state.

I actually disagree.  On October 25-26/1980 polling (10 days out), Gallup (then the premier pollster) had Carter 45%, Reagan 42%, Anderson 9%.  Carter had either tied or beaten Reagan in every Gallup poll since mid August.  The debate happened after that.  It was only after that Carter began a rapid decline.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very true, but it was a combination of factors.  Boston had been racked by (de facto) desegregation issues.  Busing was an issue and this played to the GOP in general and blue collar support for Reagan in particular.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing#Boston.2C_Massachusetts

(Reagan, ironically, had a relatively high number of Black appointments while Governor.)
That was one factor; the ground was kind of prepared with white voters.

I'm not sure how well the MA economy was in 1980, but I think it was in collapse like the rest of the Northeast.  That also prepared the ground.

Then there was Kennedy.  He challenged Carter in the primary, and in the later primaries did well, but his initial campaign was a disaster.  At the DNC, they appeared on stage, but Kennedy would not embrace Carter and likewise kept his distance during the rest of 1980.  (There was actually a move to heal the party behind Mondale.)  That was felt strongly in MA.

Bush, who was closely associated with New England in 1980, helped a bit.

All of there things made Reagan more attractive than Carter, at least to white working class voters.

I agree that the key was Anderson.  He he not run, Carter would have probably won about 55%-45%.  Perhaps if one or two of these other factors had been present, Carter might have eked out a very minor victory. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The software boom certainly hasn't made California more Republican.

Ahnuld?

By that logic I could argue something is causing Wyoming to become Democratic. Prior to the software boom California was capable of voting for Republicans for President (see 1988) and Arnold's main source of support was clearly not the Silicon Valley areas. And what phknrocket1k said above.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The software boom certainly hasn't made California more Republican.

For some reason, software developers seem to be more libertarian leaning than anything else.  (Small L libertarian, that is.)  In the 1980s, these folk were in the GOP camp.  As Republicans took control and started to become a social-issues oriented party, the group as a whole started to move back towards the Democrats.

[Хahar 🤔]

The software boom certainly hasn't made California more Republican.

For some reason, software developers seem to be more libertarian leaning than anything else.  (Small L libertarian, that is.)  In the 1980s, these folk were in the GOP camp.  As Republicans took control and started to become a social-issues oriented party, the group as a whole started to move back towards the Democrats.

There's also the fact that the boom has resulted in an influx of Democratic-leaning Chinese and Indians.

[WalterMitty]

the asians loved bob dole though

[Michael Z]

The software boom certainly hasn't made California more Republican.

Ahnuld?

He's quite liberal for a Republican. Plus Arnold won because he's Arnold, not because he's a Republican.

[bullmoose88]

There's also the fact that the boom has resulted in an influx of Democratic-leaning Chinese and Indians.

Chinese Americans, until recently, actually were a Republican leaning group  [anti-communism etc].  Perhaps this has changed, but probably not until Clinton.

[Verily]

There's also the fact that the boom has resulted in an influx of Democratic-leaning Chinese and Indians.

Chinese Americans, until recently, actually were a Republican leaning group  [anti-communism etc].  Perhaps this has changed, but probably not until Clinton.

In any case, they certainly do not account for Marin and San Mateo's extreme Democratic lean (ignoring SF itself) given that neither demographic is as Democratic as those counties as a whole.

[gorkay]

In 1980, Carter was in trouble from the very beginning. We all know that. But, when you look at it state by state, you come up with reasoning for why he performed the way that he did in each state.

I actually disagree.  On October 25-26/1980 polling (10 days out), Gallup (then the premier pollster) had Carter 45%, Reagan 42%, Anderson 9%.  Carter had either tied or beaten Reagan in every Gallup poll since mid August.  The debate happened after that.  It was only after that Carter began a rapid decline.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very true, but it was a combination of factors.  Boston had been racked by (de facto) desegregation issues.  Busing was an issue and this played to the GOP in general and blue collar support for Reagan in particular.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing#Boston.2C_Massachusetts

(Reagan, ironically, had a relatively high number of Black appointments while Governor.)
That was one factor; the ground was kind of prepared with white voters.

I'm not sure how well the MA economy was in 1980, but I think it was in collapse like the rest of the Northeast.  That also prepared the ground.

Then there was Kennedy.  He challenged Carter in the primary, and in the later primaries did well, but his initial campaign was a disaster.  At the DNC, they appeared on stage, but Kennedy would not embrace Carter and likewise kept his distance during the rest of 1980.  (There was actually a move to heal the party behind Mondale.)  That was felt strongly in MA.

Bush, who was closely associated with New England in 1980, helped a bit.

All of there things made Reagan more attractive than Carter, at least to white working class voters.

I agree that the key was Anderson.  He he not run, Carter would have probably won about 55%-45%.  Perhaps if one or two of these other factors had been present, Carter might have eked out a very minor victory. 

I don't agree that Carter would have won without Anderson. I think Reagan still would have won, but his EV total would have been much smaller. In the PV it probably would've been 53-46 or something like that. If I recall the 1980 polls correctly, Carter was trailing badly at first. Then he began to come back, and all the polls were close for the last couple of months leading up to the election. In fact I think most of the polls on the eve of the election showed him within the margin of error. But there were a lot of undecided or swayable voters that year who didn't make their decision until the last few days, and they went overwhelmingly to Reagan.