Unusual Presidential Elections

[Ryan]

My theory is that Massachusetts voters are more liberal than those in Rhode Island, especially culturally, and thus were more likely to support McGovern, but Rhode Island has more "traditional" Democrats (the state is heavily Catholic, with Catholics that seem more devout than those in Massachusetts) who were more attracted to Carter. Rhode Island is just as Democratic if not slightly moreso than Massachusetts, but seems less liberal.

Well I'll admit I dont know enough about New England to give an informed opinion, but your theory sounds plausible.
Its a similar situation right now in the South. A majority of most states probably self-identifies with republicans but the degree of commitment depends on the extent of their conservatism. Those not so solidly conservative are more likely to defect to the Demorats in a landslide year for them (just as Massachusetts democrats did for Reagan in the 80's)

[Ryan]

But yes, 1980 especially was somewhat of an aberration in Massachusetts, as it was only the 7th most Democratic state in the nation that year, after usually being one of the 2 most Democratic along with Rhode Island for most of the last 40 years.

Nice analysis NYM.  I've heard a theory that states who have a candidate rejected in the primaries are not enthusiastic for the primary winner.  In '80 Ted Kennedy challenged Carter in the primaries and did a lot of harm to his support in MA.  I think you can see the same phenomenon in AZ in '00, where McCain challenged Bush, or in KS in '88 where Dole challenged Bush, or CA for Ford in '76, when Reagan lost the nomination.  There's ceratinly exception to this-Bill Bradley lost to Gore in '00 but NJ went solidly for Gore-but the theory may explain less than expected vote margins in many cases.

All too true. This is a factor many of us have neglected. I completely forgot about Kennedy's run in 1980. I was just compiling my 2004 prediction map and while I refused to put Arizona on the tossup list, I was at a loss to explain the anemic GOP % there. Then of course I remembered McCain
Since GWB and him get on well know and 2000 is a long way back I see no probs for GOP in Arizona in 2004.

[Ryan]

The Difference is in WHO will do the rioting......in 1968 it showcased the schisms in the DEMOCRATIC base. In 2004 it will be nutcase far left activists making fools of themselves (and showing exactly what Bush is up against)

U think Karl Rove hasnt factored the demonstrations into his calculations??? ??

Speaking of the Chicago riots in 1968, what are the chances for a more peaceful, but still sizeable, demonstration outside the Republican convention in New York, September of next year? New York has probably more Democrats around it than any other city, but Rove chose the city because he thinks he can exploit the 9/11 attack to favor his candidate.

[Ryan]

Why I took it as an honest and reasonable suggestion. I was just gonna forward it to the DNC.
And every day after the convention (so after dusk) the democratic senators and representatives should take a stroll through the streets to reconnect with the base. Now that would be good Democracy