Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 18, 2018, 09:10:33 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: New features added! Click here for more information. Click here to configure new features.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Torie)
| | |-+  How did Dukakis do fairly well in Louisiana but very badly in New Hampshire?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: How did Dukakis do fairly well in Louisiana but very badly in New Hampshire?  (Read 838 times)
HenryWallaceVP
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 860


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -5.91

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 15, 2018, 01:10:54 pm »

Dukakis lost Louisiana by 10%, which, for a Democrat, is quite good. It was his best Southern state in the election, and he did much better there than Kerry, Obama, and Hillary (but not Bill) Clinton. It seems odd, though, that Dukakis would perform so well there, especially given his "Massachusetts Liberal" reputation during the election. Also, New Hampshire was the second most Republican state in the election, as Bush won over 60% of the vote there. Although New Hampshire was definitely Republican leaning at the time, Bush winning the state by over 60% seems odd, especially when considering that Dukakis was a New Englander.
Logged
MIKESOWELL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 357
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2018, 04:19:58 pm »

It's not really all that shocking. In the prior election, Reagan bear Mondale there by a 69 to 31 margin. Bush was a great fit for the state. New Hampshire has always been a fiscally conservative state. Bush with his "No new taxes!" pledge, and Gus New England roots, added with his moderate views on most issues, helped to sweep the state.
Dukakis performed pretty solidly in Louisiana. Bentsen may have helped a little there, but Louisiana still had democratic roots at the state and local levels in 1988.
Logged

Exactly what are Donald Trump's qualifications for the most powerful office in the world again?
North Fulton Democrat
mollybecky
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 481


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2018, 05:46:22 pm »

The Republicans were quite strong in New Hampshire at the statewide level in the 1980s.  John Sununu (who became Bush's chief of staff) was a very big supporter of Bush in the 1988 election.

Dukakis improved considerably over Mondale in Arkansas as well--so the Bentsen factor (which was significant in Texas) likely spilled over into the bordering states of Louisiana and Arkansas. 
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,804
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2018, 05:55:48 pm »

Late 1980s oil glut. The price of oil declined rapidly during most of the 1980s and reached a depth in 1988/89.  The 1988 Democratic platform actually supported the implementation of price supports for domestic oil producers, and this was very popular in the oil producing states of Texas and Louisiana. 
Logged

2017/18 Gubernatorial Endorsements:
AL - Kay Ivey (R)
CA - Gavin Newsom (D)
FL - Adam Putnam (R)
GA - Brian Kemp (R)
ID - Brad Little (R)
MI - Bill Schutte (R)
TN - Randy Boyd (R)

VA - Ed Gillespie (R)
TDAS04
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,126
Nepal


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2018, 07:19:35 pm »

Maybe one reason Louisiana was his best Southern state was because those Cajuns had less of a problem with his foreign-sounding name than other Southerners had.  Dukakis carried most of Cajun Country.
Logged

Economic:  -2.71
Social:  -5.74
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,745
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2018, 03:45:34 pm »

This is kind of like asking why FDR did really well in the South but poorly in the Northeast... it was the standard at the time that New Hampshire was a titanium R state and states like Arkansas and Louisiana still had a lot of residual New Deal Democratic strength left over.
Logged
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,584
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -4.70

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 19, 2018, 04:05:15 pm »

This is kind of like asking why FDR did really well in the South but poorly in the Northeast... it was the standard at the time that New Hampshire was a titanium R state and states like Arkansas and Louisiana still had a lot of residual New Deal Democratic strength left over.

I mean, it's really not as simple as that ... he did better in CERTAIN Southern states and still did well in only CERTAIN Northeastern states.  "That's the way it was" is a far from satisfying answer, IMO.
Logged

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

- Abraham Lincoln, 16th President
Southern Speaker Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,255
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 19, 2018, 05:08:18 pm »

Would it be logical to assume the more rural a Southern state was circa '88, the better Dukakis did in it?
Logged


Vote Lib Dem on May 7 - keep Clegg as deputy PM

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=244197.0
Different states!
Skill and Chance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,030
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 21, 2018, 11:18:29 am »

Would it be logical to assume the more rural a Southern state was circa '88, the better Dukakis did in it?

I think so, yes.  Dukakis was the last Dem nominee for whom rural support was > suburban support in most of the country.  Clinton 1992 continued this in much of the South, but not elsewhere.
Logged
twenty42
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 728
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2018, 04:06:16 am »

The South didn’t become more Republican than the nation until 2000. Reagan eked it out in 1980 despite winning by nearly 10 points (and still lost GA), and the Republican southern sweeps of 1984 and 1988 were more due to big national margins than anything. Also remember that Obama was a poor fit for the South in general...a 2008 Democratic margin would’ve likely given Gore and Kerry AR/TN and given Hillary GA.
Logged
TDAS04
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,126
Nepal


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2018, 07:30:37 pm »

The South didn’t become more Republican than the nation until 2000. Reagan eked it out in 1980 despite winning by nearly 10 points (and still lost GA), and the Republican southern sweeps of 1984 and 1988 were more due to big national margins than anything. Also remember that Obama was a poor fit for the South in general...a 2008 Democratic margin would’ve likely given Gore and Kerry AR/TN and given Hillary GA.

Um, the South became more Republican the the nation at the presidential level in 1984.  Every ex-Confederate state (except TN) voted for Reagan that year by a greater margin than the national PV.  They all voted to the right of the nation in 1988.  Even when Clinton/Gore was the ticket, this was still the case in 1992 (except for AR) and 1996 (except for AR & LA).
Logged

Economic:  -2.71
Social:  -5.74
twenty42
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 728
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 29, 2018, 02:57:16 pm »

The South didn’t become more Republican than the nation until 2000. Reagan eked it out in 1980 despite winning by nearly 10 points (and still lost GA), and the Republican southern sweeps of 1984 and 1988 were more due to big national margins than anything. Also remember that Obama was a poor fit for the South in general...a 2008 Democratic margin would’ve likely given Gore and Kerry AR/TN and given Hillary GA.

Um, the South became more Republican the the nation at the presidential level in 1984.  Every ex-Confederate state (except TN) voted for Reagan that year by a greater margin than the national PV.  They all voted to the right of the nation in 1988.  Even when Clinton/Gore was the ticket, this was still the case in 1992 (except for AR) and 1996 (except for AR & LA).

Wasn't 2012 the first Democratic win in history where the Republican swept the Deep South?
Logged
TDAS04
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,126
Nepal


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 29, 2018, 03:15:49 pm »

The South didn’t become more Republican than the nation until 2000. Reagan eked it out in 1980 despite winning by nearly 10 points (and still lost GA), and the Republican southern sweeps of 1984 and 1988 were more due to big national margins than anything. Also remember that Obama was a poor fit for the South in general...a 2008 Democratic margin would’ve likely given Gore and Kerry AR/TN and given Hillary GA.

Um, the South became more Republican the the nation at the presidential level in 1984.  Every ex-Confederate state (except TN) voted for Reagan that year by a greater margin than the national PV.  They all voted to the right of the nation in 1988.  Even when Clinton/Gore was the ticket, this was still the case in 1992 (except for AR) and 1996 (except for AR & LA).

Wasn't 2012 the first Democratic win in history where the Republican swept the Deep South?

1964 and 2008?  In any case, why does Clinton carrying one or two Deep South states preclude the South being more Republican than the nation?  Clinton/Gore carried only four out of eleven Confederate states each time.  
« Last Edit: April 29, 2018, 03:34:11 pm by TDAS04 »Logged

Economic:  -2.71
Social:  -5.74
twenty42
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 728
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 29, 2018, 04:44:58 pm »

The South didn’t become more Republican than the nation until 2000. Reagan eked it out in 1980 despite winning by nearly 10 points (and still lost GA), and the Republican southern sweeps of 1984 and 1988 were more due to big national margins than anything. Also remember that Obama was a poor fit for the South in general...a 2008 Democratic margin would’ve likely given Gore and Kerry AR/TN and given Hillary GA.

Um, the South became more Republican the the nation at the presidential level in 1984.  Every ex-Confederate state (except TN) voted for Reagan that year by a greater margin than the national PV.  They all voted to the right of the nation in 1988.  Even when Clinton/Gore was the ticket, this was still the case in 1992 (except for AR) and 1996 (except for AR & LA).

Wasn't 2012 the first Democratic win in history where the Republican swept the Deep South?

1964 and 2008?  In any case, why does Clinton carrying one or two Deep South states preclude the South being more Republican than the nation?  Clinton/Gore carried only four out of eleven Confederate states each time.  

Johnson carried NC, TN, and AR, and Barry carried NC in 2008. Historically speaking, a Democrat needs Southern states to win a presidential election.
Logged
TDAS04
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,126
Nepal


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 29, 2018, 05:02:03 pm »

Johnson carried NC, TN, and AR, and Barry carried NC in 2008.

Those aren't Deep South states.

Historically speaking, a Democrat needs Southern states to win a presidential election.

I'm not saying otherwise, but it's inaccurate to say that the South didn't become more Republican than the nation (presidentially-speaking) before 2000.
Logged

Economic:  -2.71
Social:  -5.74
Fuzzy Bear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,740
United States


View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 29, 2018, 07:47:10 pm »

Maybe one reason Louisiana was his best Southern state was because those Cajuns had less of a problem with his foreign-sounding name than other Southerners had.  Dukakis carried most of Cajun Country.

The Catholic Cajun South Louisiana was more Democratic at the Presidential level than the Protestant North.  This ended somewhat abruptly around 2004, and the Obama years erased the differences.

Bill Clinton carried Louisiana 52-40 in 1996.  Thank about that.  Gore WOULD have carried it had he not been so strongly associated with the anti-fossil fuel movement. 

The outmigration of blacks displaced by Hurricane Katrina was significant.  I consider it the catalyst for the total downballot shift to the GOP in LA.  Gov. Katherine Blanco's  inept performance during Katrina didn't help, either.
Logged

"The family cannot be constituted like the liberal state, nor can it be governed entirely by that state's principles. Yet the family serves as the seedbed for the virtues required by a liberal state. The family is responsible for teaching lessons of independence, self-restraint, responsibility, and right conduct, which are essential to a free, democratic society. If the family fails in these tasks, then the entire experiment in democratic self-rule is jeopardized."-Barbara Dafoe Whitehead
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines