Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 16, 2019, 11:25:20 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Torie)
| | |-+  Pennsylvania and New York 1984
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Pennsylvania and New York 1984  (Read 384 times)
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,337


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 06, 2019, 03:00:55 pm »

Why did PA vote to the left of NY in 1984
Logged

Favorite Politicians from the last 50 years:




Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1
Calthrina950
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,932
United States


P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2019, 03:00:02 am »

Why did PA vote to the left of NY in 1984

There was a thread about this very topic before, and on that thread, it was said that Mondale's strength in Southwestern Pennsylvania (Allegheny, Westmoreland, Greene, Washington Counties, etc.) and in Philadelphia itself helped to keep the state within single digits. Black voters did not like Reagan at all, and thus Philadelphia voted more heavily Democratic than New York City. In New York, Reagan got over 40% in Queens, won Staten Island with more than 60% of the vote, and managed to do relatively well in the other three boroughs, even hitting 30% in Manhattan, if I am not mistaken.

He dominated Westchester, Rockland, Nassau, and Sussex Counties, and swept most of upstate New York except for Albany and Ithaca. I assume that ethnic white voters in New York City, and white-collar, upper-crust white professionals in the city and in the suburbs, helped Reagan. Mondale's performance in Pennsylvania can also be explained by the presence of more unionized white-working class voters, who reacted adversely to the Reagan Administration's economic policies.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2019, 03:05:51 am by Calthrina950 »Logged
Intell
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,583
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2019, 08:13:09 pm »

What he said.
Logged

Indy Texas
independentTX
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,483


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2019, 05:55:15 pm »

People have this misguided belief that Reagan monolithically won "heartland areas" in a landslide in 1984 because of Muh Reagan Democrats.

Rural voters and small town voters by and large were not in love with Ronald Reagan. His economic policies indisputably hurt them during his presidency. Reagan was the president for Sunbelt suburbanites in California and Florida and the Tristate and Chicagoland suburbs who just wanted their taxes cut indiscriminately and wanted criminals locked up with the keys thrown away.

If you compare Nixon's 1972 landslide to Reagan's 1984 landslide, this becomes even clearer. Nixon's coalition was much more rural and downscale: he overperformed Reagan by leaps and bounds in central Pennsylvania for example. Meanwhile, Reagan did much better than Nixon in places like the San Francisco Bay area and the Northeast.
Logged

The Republican Party Dream: Forcing a teenage rape victim to give birth to a baby, and then locking the baby up in a cage because its mother was seeking asylum at the border.
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,337


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2019, 06:07:48 pm »

People have this misguided belief that Reagan monolithically won "heartland areas" in a landslide in 1984 because of Muh Reagan Democrats.

Rural voters and small town voters by and large were not in love with Ronald Reagan. His economic policies indisputably hurt them during his presidency. Reagan was the president for Sunbelt suburbanites in California and Florida and the Tristate and Chicagoland suburbs who just wanted their taxes cut indiscriminately and wanted criminals locked up with the keys thrown away.

If you compare Nixon's 1972 landslide to Reagan's 1984 landslide, this becomes even clearer. Nixon's coalition was much more rural and downscale: he overperformed Reagan by leaps and bounds in central Pennsylvania for example. Meanwhile, Reagan did much better than Nixon in places like the San Francisco Bay area and the Northeast.


I thought Reagan was disliked in Appalachia compared to Nixon (in many areas he did worse there in 84 than Nixon did in 68) but I thought Reagan did pretty well in other rural areas
Logged

Favorite Politicians from the last 50 years:




Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1
Intell
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,583
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2019, 07:51:49 pm »

People have this misguided belief that Reagan monolithically won "heartland areas" in a landslide in 1984 because of Muh Reagan Democrats.

Rural voters and small town voters by and large were not in love with Ronald Reagan. His economic policies indisputably hurt them during his presidency. Reagan was the president for Sunbelt suburbanites in California and Florida and the Tristate and Chicagoland suburbs who just wanted their taxes cut indiscriminately and wanted criminals locked up with the keys thrown away.

If you compare Nixon's 1972 landslide to Reagan's 1984 landslide, this becomes even clearer. Nixon's coalition was much more rural and downscale: he overperformed Reagan by leaps and bounds in central Pennsylvania for example. Meanwhile, Reagan did much better than Nixon in places like the San Francisco Bay area and the Northeast.


I thought Reagan was disliked in Appalachia compared to Nixon (in many areas he did worse there in 84 than Nixon did in 68) but I thought Reagan did pretty well in other rural areas

He did well in non-unionised, non-working class rural areas like every republican does. But in even rural counties that were historically Republican but had a working-class base tended much more democratic during the Reagan presidency
Logged

Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,337


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2019, 08:03:27 pm »

People have this misguided belief that Reagan monolithically won "heartland areas" in a landslide in 1984 because of Muh Reagan Democrats.

Rural voters and small town voters by and large were not in love with Ronald Reagan. His economic policies indisputably hurt them during his presidency. Reagan was the president for Sunbelt suburbanites in California and Florida and the Tristate and Chicagoland suburbs who just wanted their taxes cut indiscriminately and wanted criminals locked up with the keys thrown away.

If you compare Nixon's 1972 landslide to Reagan's 1984 landslide, this becomes even clearer. Nixon's coalition was much more rural and downscale: he overperformed Reagan by leaps and bounds in central Pennsylvania for example. Meanwhile, Reagan did much better than Nixon in places like the San Francisco Bay area and the Northeast.


I thought Reagan was disliked in Appalachia compared to Nixon (in many areas he did worse there in 84 than Nixon did in 68) but I thought Reagan did pretty well in other rural areas

He did well in non-unionised, non-working class rural areas like every republican does. But in even rural counties that were historically Republican but had a working-class base tended much more democratic during the Reagan presidency

Yah In 1988 blue collar voters of all types (outside the south) swung heavily against the GOP.


But in 84 for example Reagan did very well in Western WI , and NW IL as well
Logged

Favorite Politicians from the last 50 years:




Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1
Intell
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,583
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2019, 08:49:36 pm »

People have this misguided belief that Reagan monolithically won "heartland areas" in a landslide in 1984 because of Muh Reagan Democrats.

Rural voters and small town voters by and large were not in love with Ronald Reagan. His economic policies indisputably hurt them during his presidency. Reagan was the president for Sunbelt suburbanites in California and Florida and the Tristate and Chicagoland suburbs who just wanted their taxes cut indiscriminately and wanted criminals locked up with the keys thrown away.

If you compare Nixon's 1972 landslide to Reagan's 1984 landslide, this becomes even clearer. Nixon's coalition was much more rural and downscale: he overperformed Reagan by leaps and bounds in central Pennsylvania for example. Meanwhile, Reagan did much better than Nixon in places like the San Francisco Bay area and the Northeast.


I thought Reagan was disliked in Appalachia compared to Nixon (in many areas he did worse there in 84 than Nixon did in 68) but I thought Reagan did pretty well in other rural areas

He did well in non-unionised, non-working class rural areas like every republican does. But in even rural counties that were historically Republican but had a working-class base tended much more democratic during the Reagan presidency

Yah In 1988 blue collar voters of all types (outside the south) swung heavily against the GOP.


But in 84 for example Reagan did very well in Western WI , and NW IL as well

Including the south.
Logged

lfromnj
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,502


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2019, 10:42:30 pm »

People have this misguided belief that Reagan monolithically won "heartland areas" in a landslide in 1984 because of Muh Reagan Democrats.

Rural voters and small town voters by and large were not in love with Ronald Reagan. His economic policies indisputably hurt them during his presidency. Reagan was the president for Sunbelt suburbanites in California and Florida and the Tristate and Chicagoland suburbs who just wanted their taxes cut indiscriminately and wanted criminals locked up with the keys thrown away.

If you compare Nixon's 1972 landslide to Reagan's 1984 landslide, this becomes even clearer. Nixon's coalition was much more rural and downscale: he overperformed Reagan by leaps and bounds in central Pennsylvania for example. Meanwhile, Reagan did much better than Nixon in places like the San Francisco Bay area and the Northeast.


I thought Reagan was disliked in Appalachia compared to Nixon (in many areas he did worse there in 84 than Nixon did in 68) but I thought Reagan did pretty well in other rural areas

He did well in non-unionised, non-working class rural areas like every republican does. But in even rural counties that were historically Republican but had a working-class base tended much more democratic during the Reagan presidency

Yah In 1988 blue collar voters of all types (outside the south) swung heavily against the GOP.


But in 84 for example Reagan did very well in Western WI , and NW IL as well

Including the south.

They didnt swing that hard inside the south. TN actually swung R.
Logged
Hydera
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,370


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2019, 11:48:09 pm »



This was Pennsylvania's employment chart in the mid 1970s and mid 1980s

And this was NY's



Considering NY was more suburban and less dependent on manufacturing it makes sense that the tax cuts had a much larger effect on NY than PA.


As for why in 1988 NY voted to the left of PA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Cuomo
« Last Edit: January 12, 2019, 11:59:44 pm by Hydera »Logged

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