"Man. He really beat the shit out of Carter."

Thanks to the media and a lot of really stupid people.

Thanks so much for looking into this. I've been wondering for awhile why no one says that if you are really a "Reagan Democrat" (like my father), you have to be well on your way to or above 80 years old, you have to love Fox News, and you have to have been registered as a Republican for about 20 years now (even if you did vote for Clinton in 1992 against that wimp Bush, but remedied your vote in 1996 by going back to Dole).

The other interesting question arising from this "truism" is that it really only counts working class white men in the equation. At this point they are quite a tiny interest group with very little power.

I think people forget or downplay the impact of the Iran hostage crisis and the American economy on this particular election.
Carter looked ineffective both at home and abroad, and if there is one thing Americans will not tolerate, it is their president looking ineffective.
So no, I don't think it is worthwhile to worry about those voters anymore (who if they were 50 then are 80 or dead now anyway)

I guess Ezra never got BTD's "Only white people matter" memo.

Most of the "Reagan Democrats" of 1980 have a RIP after their name now.

That sea of red is highly misleading -- third party candidate John Anderson flipped the electoral votes of many states to Reagan in 1980. Unlike like Ralph Dumbass Nader, Anderson did not alter the outcome of the election, but without him Carter would have picked up many more states and the electoral vote count would have been much closer to the far narrower margin of the popular vote. In other words, while Reagan was the victor, he did not "beat the shit" out of Carter as he would Mondale four years later.

I was 28 then, and went for John Anderson, a vote I'd cheerfully take back if I could. The election of 1980 taught me that to spurn the lesser of two evils (as I then perceived the choice) serves merely to engorge the greater.

I think you've made a lot of sketchy assumptions here. There were a huge swath of Reagan Democrats who were in their 20's and 30's at the time. They are in their 50's now.

There are a huge swath of people who came of age during Reagan who grew up as Reagan-loving Democrats. That cohort of people are now in their late 30's and early 40's.

There was a huuuuuuuuge swath of labor Democrats who went for Reagan. I think you are wrong when you dismiss these people as powerless and/or unimportant. These categories are not mutually exclusive, I would note. So these labor Democrats, working class males is what I'm talking about, are also NASCAR dads and gun owners and veterans and hardline hawks.

Dismiss history or don't learn it at your peril. They are still reliable voters.

I think you've made a lot of sketchy assumptions here. There were a huge swath of Reagan Democrats who were in their 20's and 30's at the time. They are in their 50's now.

There are a huge swath of people who came of age during Reagan who grew up as Reagan-loving Democrats. That cohort of people are now in their late 30's and early 40's.

Simple-ish math would actually point out that most of the first group is in their sixties (and hey, look, they're heavily Republican now), and the second group apparently had the political sophistication to decide they were Democrats but still supported Reagan, all while in middle school or high school. The slightly more likely scenario is that -- particularly given the polarizing nature of the rhetoric at the time -- is that if you liked Reagan when you were a teenager/early 20's, you became a Republican.

Listen, I don't think it's right to dismiss large swaths of voters. But at the same time, this country's fetishization of the culture wars of the 70's and 80's -- and the resultant political fallout -- is one of the things retarding our progress as a modern industrialized nation.

@CfromC - Iran hostage was indeed a big issue, far more resonant than the economy, IMO. It was so big a TV show was born just to deal with it - Nightline - with each show beginning "Day so and so of the Hostage Crisis." Nightline conducted a phone-in poll just before the election. It just so happened I was taking a Soc Psych course in which we were studying the phenomenon of people without strong conviction changing their preference to conform to the majority ("backing the winner") and the prof asked if anyone participated in the Nightline poll. The two for Carter had trouble getting through (one never did) the one for Reagan had no trouble. Not only was the poll sample biased - it cost 50 cents, the viewership had been nightly reminded that Carter had failed to rescue the hostages - AT&T controlled input. Needless to say, Reagan came out ahead, though not by much.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention Reagan was an actual corporate shill, TV spokesperson for, guess who, AT&T through the late sixties.

Anderson got about 7%, surely almost all from Carter.

ps - "Reagan Democrat" is dog whistle for "white racist." That faction ain't dead.

Anderson got about 7%, surely almost all from Carter.

I believe you are wrong about that.

ps - "Reagan Democrat" is dog whistle for "white racist." That faction ain't dead.

That is also wrong, but also deeply ignorant and offensive.

Not wanting to apologize for the media and a lot of really stupid people, I'd just point out that in any given election there are really only 2 choices. There are various possible combinations of contrasts between two candidates. Imagine Ronald vs. Obama. Who do you think would win? Stupidity and the media being what they are, I think the movie-star attractive, smiling, self-assured white guy would win. In short, too much has been made of the "Reagan Democrats." How many democrats are really committed to the ideology of their party? We're all Americans, after all, etc. The backdrop of this election is, of course, different. This time it is the Repugs who have presided over highest-oil-prices ever imaginable, etc.

Insofar as there were Reagan Democrats, it is completely ridiculous to try to replay the election of 1980 and figure out how the Democrats can win this time in 2008. I agree with Ezra that this talk is based on the narcissism of those pundits who came of age around that time.

Latinos were about 6% of the population in 1980. Now they're 12%. Asians made up 1.5% of the population in 1980, and are now getting close to 4%. Voters under 30 barely remember Ronald Reagan, the the 80s-era baby boomlet is now larger than the baby boomers.

It behooves us not to try to think to ourselves, "how can we recreate the Democratic coalition that Reagan splintered?" but rather, "how can be form a winning coalition, given present realities?" The nation is in a different place than it was in 1980, and we should keep that in mind, rather than trying to dwell on how to get a "do over" from a fight that we lost 30 years ago.

I'm pretty tired of still hearing this after all these years.

I'll cheerfully concede that a majority of Anderson voters would have probably voted Carter if forced at gunpoint to choose between him and Reagan.

But there were many of us who left the GOP with Anderson in 1980. We were Republicans when that meant balanced budgets and old-style fiscal conservatism - and moderation on social issues, before the evangelicals entered the political wars on the side of the GOP.

If no Anderson, some of us would have voted for Reagan, and many of us would have not cast a vote for President at all in 1980. Eventually, the vast majority of us would have become Democratic voters regardless; Anderson speeded up the transition by being a halfway house on the road out of the party.

Actually it isn't about "Reagan" Democrats that I hear about all the time in the Media but "working whites" and the problem Obama supposedly has with them.

According to the rightwingers and the MSM, "elite" Democrats always have a problem with working people. So I'm wondering just what that demographic really looks like -- as far as age and regional distribution are concerned.

Anderson drew a lot of liberals who were unhappy with Carter. One of Carter's many failures as a politician were his inability to connect with Congress (he'd had the same problem with a more conservative Democratic legislature in Georgia) and his inability to really connect with liberal interest groups. It was evident then as now that he was an intelligent man with far reaching ideas and real decency. But he also did nutty things like put foreign policy in the hands of people of vastly different ideas like Andrew Young at the UN and Brzenski on the security side. Anderson, ultimately, didn't make much difference, but Carter's own ineptitude as a politician did. BTW, I missed the registration deadline that year--I'd just moved. i would have voted for Carter. I even got to meet him. But, then as now, it was apparent that he was a poor politician/manager, and would lose.

Ezra, what I think is your main point, that things are different now, is quite correct and frankly, cannot be overstated. It's true we should (should, not do) learn from history but that can just as easily mislead us as instruct us. The country, the electorate, most everything is much different now than it was in 1980. I think the thing the DLC-centrists overlook when pining to reach the raygun-dems of yesteryear is that reagan offered something different than what was generally felt to be the norm. It was a huge part of the appeal.

Now, the rethugs only offer more of the same and it's a much more strident, more hard-lined more of the same. It doesn't have that cross party lines appeal.

For their own reasons, the base, the 20-30% of Rs out there won't change. The rest are begging for something better. They're, not steal anyone's tagline, hoping for something different than the rethug standard that's been in place for the last three decades.

And to take this a little off topic, I think that also impacts Clinton. I think her national stature is dimmed, somewhat, by being identified with the last few administrations and I would opine that yearning for someone different is the breeze at Obama's back.

One final thing, it's not far off to connect raygun-dems with the dog whistle racists of the right. Those r-dems may admit it but they are attracted to the right wing rhetoric of race and class. I think that's obvious despite the protestations of one commentor here.

"But there were many of us who left the GOP with Anderson in 1980. We were Republicans when that meant balanced budgets and old-style fiscal conservatism - and moderation on social issues, before the evangelicals entered the political wars on the side of the GOP."

Just once before I die I hope to get a chance to vote for such a candidate. Just once the opportunity to vote for someone you hope wins instead of the lessor of two evils.

Since we're dealing with a completely non-existent demographic, how about reaching out to the Roosevelt Republicans? Or better yet, those bitter Harding Libertarians?

It's almost 30 GODDAMN YEARS since the destructive Reagan era began. Instead of mindlessly repeating the DC chatter about non-existent 'Reagan Democrats', how about dealing in the reality-based community for a change? If even so-called progressives like Ezra blindly repeat Karl Rove idiocies, what exactly is the point of his punditry?

We were Republicans when that meant balanced budgets and old-style fiscal conservatism - and moderation on social issues

Just once before I die I hope to get a chance to vote for such a candidate.

I think that Reagan is being given too much credit for the 1980 victory. Whatever forces that led to the decision of the Iranians to hold the hostages till immediately after the inauguration should get much of the credit. Imagine what would have happened if the hostages had been released just three months before the inauguration.

First, John Anderson didn't get a lot of anything.

Second, more than one person here has referred to Reagan voters as "stupid" - they may have been wrong (I agree), but calling people who vote for the things you disagree with stupid doesn't reflect well on the speaker.

Third, Tom Traubert has it right that Ezra's making some sketchy assumptions, many of which people here are accepting without examination. Reagan took existing voting coalitions and yes, splintered them. It was never a simple explanation for how he did it (i.e. they weren't all "stupid"), or who went over (I.e. they weren't all "old"), and Democrats have, in some ways, never completely recovered (hence the accurate admonition that Clinton's victories were slender ones, and may not be repeatable).

Finally, I think Ezra's right that we need to think about a new coalition... but it's odd to think that a party that plans to be the party that cares about working people may in this election turn many of them away, on purpose. That seems self destructive, not a new coalition. If we need a new coalition, yes, expanding our reach in various minority communities is key. But it's also the case that in reaching across class, we need to reach poorer, less educated people. And I think, strangely, a lot of Democrats are struggling with that. And we need to work on it, badly.

Totally shallow and irrelevant, but back in 1980 the media still generally used red for Democrats and Blue for Republicans, so people started calling the 1980 electoral map "Lake Reagan".

If there are lots of people out there who would vote for Dems but for their antiquated attitudes about race, why isn't someone trying to figure out how to change their minds about race, rather than villifying those people for being stupid?

I guess only white men are considered 'working class' these days, because thats the only definition that actually has Obama with a real problem in the general election.

Black Construction worker = creative class layabout, White construction worker = Salt of the earth, Real American!

Hostage crisis was very important. Also the press was highly overtly partisan (for the first time) against Carter. Three: Reagan promised no taxes, no oil/environment crisis, and greed (business, especially the armaments business) is good. We have had thirty years to see how that kind of magical thinking worked out.

Did Reagan "Democrats" ever exist? They didn't vote for McGovern in 1972 and a lot them apparently voted for Wallace or Nixon in '68. (Nixon still would have won if all Wallace voters had voted Dem)I think it is a lot more likely that they always were center/right swing voters. The GOPers have been using this group as if they were some stalwart Democratic part of the electorate that Reagan was able to capture with his magical powers. It feeds perfectly into the media meme of "Democrats are powerless". The real fact is "Reagan Democrats", 28 years later, are a subset of "Republican Seniors".

Which is why I howl with laughter whenever I hear the jabbering class speculate about the Reagan Dems. But I do wonder how the "FOX Liberals" will vote this year.

A lot of Republicans voted for Anderson because they thought that Reagan was too much of an ideologue -- voodoo economics and all.

A lot of Democrats voted for Reagan, especially labor Democrats, because of the economy. It was bad, runaway inflation at 13%. Double-digit unemployment. Wage stagnation. Mortgage interest rates at 15% and rising. Reagan made it worse, of course. His economic policies caused a deep, destructive recession, which may have been inevitable anyway. His social policies destroyed the labor movement. Yes, the Iran hostage situation was a factor as well, but it was the economy.

Yet, since Ezra is doing maps, ldo the electoral map of 1984.

The reality is that non-Hispanic whites still make up a majority of the voting public. Dismissing them all as "racist" is downright ignorant and suggests that you might want to get out more. The reality is that people over 40 consistently vote at much higher rates than those under 35 or 40. You can't wish away that reality. The reality is that people with a high school diploma are a significant portion of the voting population.

Educate yourself:
Voting and Registration Data

You are trying to wish away reality. We all know how that turns out.

A few thoughts: (1) the Reagan Dems were a subset of the white working class; union members then & now tended to be more reliable Dems, but their numbers already were shrinking; (2) in discussing blocs, there can be wide probablistic relationships with voting---Jews, Blacks, & gays overwhelmingly vote for Dems, evangelicals for GOPers (but a little less overwhelmingly so, yet many big groups are heterogenous--the GOP has cut away at the "Catholic vote", but American Catholicism is diverse enough to have generated leaders/scommentators as different as Fr. Coughlin, Dorthothy Day, Bill Donoghue (?sp) and Andrew Greeley, Labor is a world that has run the gamut from Walter Reuther to Jimmy Hoffa; it helps not get monolitic where it doesn't make sense; (3) the folks that Reagan drew away from the Dems had been on their way to the GOP for years--the Civil Rights movement created worries for them and Nixon did well in cultivating them.

It's easy for liberals to denigrate working class voters, while forgetting that there are similar strains of social conservativism among church-going African Americans, for example. At an organizational level, liberals began moving away from Labor in the 50s--probably a function of the hearings into corrupt unions like the Teamsters and Longshoremen. The liberal movements of the 60s would talk about working class people rhetorically, by did not engage them. Ebvironmentalists are much better at addressing the needs of poor or working class people in obscure foreign countries than right here. the women's movement got lost in intramural stuff like what to do with lesbians, and got attached to abortion rather than addressing economic rights (I'm gay & pro-choice, but can't help noting how the women's movement has cut itself off from most women), and the list goes on. When factories began to close and jobs went overseas, liberals sidn't do much except may be comment. Even the union people really didn't have agood reason to affiliate with liberals for decades. I'm a PhD with a professional job, but also blue collar roots and the social movements of the last several decadesand my own economic rise have only strengthened by general sense of educated liberals as myopic, often condescending and impractical people.

Liberals have failed to recognize the economic instability that goes with blue collar life. Even though I cam efrom a union household, I lived through layoffs. I also lived through strikes (and was even a striker myself). The notion that other people get ahead with some kind of apprent breaks is central to the appeal of Republicans to working class voters and the faux populist message has not had a counter by anything else unless you belonged to a union. And unions have been pretty timid and impotent for years.

Bottom line--liberals have some real problems in connecting to blue collar voters. OTOH, blue collar voters aren't a monlith and reviving (and engaging) labor is one way to do it. The Poeple Nixon & Reagan cultivated are dying or dead. But their children aren't necessarily much different, although they have grown up in a world where issues about race haven't been quite as personal and many of them have very different lives from their parensts.

The one cavaet to all of this is probably the South. In the Midwest where I grew-up, you can take rather conservative people kicking and screaming to something new and they might like it. In the South, you need something like the Civil Rights movement and the subsequent changes in laws. I wouldn't write-off all of the South (even though I hated living there, partly because of the neo-feudalism), but I think it takes something different to win there and some recognition that as there is more than one Catholic or blue collar vote, there's more than one South and the places that look the most amenable (like greater Atlanta) often aren't the places that can be won.

Anderson got about 7%, surely almost all from Carter.

I believe you are wrong about that.

Wrong about what? that he got ~7%? Dat's a fack. That he drew mostly from Carter? Well, he chose a Dem governor for VP, got plus ink from Gary Trudeau, was endorsed by Gore Vidal, publicly rued his vote on the Gulf of Tonkin, proposed a 50 cent tax on gasoline, and in '84 supported Mondale.

That is also wrong, but also deeply ignorant and offensive.
I got no idea what "deeply ignorant" means. Who do you suppose the white racists Dems voted for?

If you're deeply offended by words and ideas, life is gonna continually cause serial aneurysms.

re: "...back in 1980 the media still generally used red for Democrats and Blue for Republicans..."

The long-standing historical association would have been red for the "reds", or the party of the left...

HOWEVER, prior to 2000--and in effect through the 2000 election--the mainstream media more or less alternated the colors from election to election. Since the 2000 election and the following commentaries on "red America"/ "red states" and "blue America"/ "blue states", everyone has converged on using blue for the Democrats and red for the Republicans.

But as indicated, this is a VERY recent development.

Addendum: for an example, see the Clinton-Dole 1996 electoral map at this link:

http://rulers.org/1996-11.html

Clinton red, Dole blue.

Also, people tend to forget how tight the race was until the very last minute. The race was close to a dead heat until the very last weekend. Warren Mitofskyi (PDF):

The CBS/New York
Times post-election poll did show late switches in preference. The CSR polls showed the contest tied on Saturday, a 5 point Reagan margin on Sunday and a 10 point Reagan margin in their final poll on election eve.

So these labor Democrats, working class males is what I'm talking about, are also NASCAR dads and gun owners and veterans and hardline hawks.

As webbmark pointed out, that means you're not talking about Democrats at all. You're talking about a group of voters that has reliably voted Republican for close to 30 years.

What's scaring the crap out of Republicans right now is that Obama is actually very appealing to this group of voters (excepting the hard-core racists). He didn't get 70% of the vote in Illinois by only getting liberals and minorities in Cook County to vote for him -- he won over a lot of the rural, working-class white voters in the rest of the state. So they're going to try and do everything they can to trigger a "color arousal" response (as Pam Spaulding calls it) to try and get a knee-jerk "I won't vote for a black man" reaction out of them.

There is going to be some percentage of the people who voted for Clinton who will refuse to vote for Obama because of race, but I think that will be a smaller group than Republicans are hoping. We have actually moved forward on race since 1980, even if we're not quite where we should be.

I remember my own feelings in that election - I was (and remain) a conservative Republican of that era, committed to making sure the government stays fiscally conservative and minimizing unneeded regulations. Jimmy Carter seemed weak and ineffective when the Iranian crisis arose (I'd have dressed a bunch of CIA/special forces types in college t-shirts, sent them to seize the Iranian embassy, and then offered to swap our diplomats for theirs.)

I have voted the straight Democratic ticket ever since Reagan revealed his true colors as a big government religious fanatic. He never wanted to decrease government's size - he just wanted to cut much-needed government regulations affecting big business (the S&L crisis when Reagan relaxed regulations that Carter enforced) and replace it with regulations governing our personal lives.

The "Reagan Democrats" (largely big labor blue collar types) were the ones whose jobs got shipped overseas or "downsized" when Reagan broke the unions. The movie "Roger and Me" tells their story quite clearly.

Two points: (1) there are a bunch of fiscal conservative social liberal Republicans (like me) voting for the Democratic candidate (hopefully Obama) this year. (2) The "Reagan Democrats" were largely fueled by our humiliation and powerlessness over the Iranian hostage crisis, so they voted for somebody who'd use Teddy Roosevelt's "big stick." In this election, however, we've had almost 8 years of "big stick" usage - all it has gotten us is a quagmire in Iraq, empowerment of Iran, and a broken economy.

People have tried Reaganomics - and found themselves without jobs, homes, or health care. I very much doubt there'll be a big "McCain Democrat" movement. (Not that the Democrats aren't quite capable of making McCain seem the lesser of two evils, especially if they nominate Hillary Clinton - just that (thanks to W) this election will be more about Obama Republicans than Reagan Democrats.

"Deeply ignorant" means that you don't know what you are talking about and you look silly pulling smoke out of your ass. It was just a more polite way of saying that.

Rich's post is a good, solid synopsis of Democratic politics, illustrated in painful detail right here on this thread.

Whatever forces that led to the decision of the Iranians to hold the hostages till immediately after the inauguration should get much of the credit.

That was GHW Bush's dirty secret deal with the mullahs to continue to hold the hostages in exchange for weapons - a treasonous interference in US foreign policy for partisan purposes for which he has never been held accountable.

We have to start looking at "working class white men" like just another interest group like "latinos." Both parties can make gains by pulling away voters from either demographic, but the dynamics of creating a party coalition are such that we're talking about a "game of inches" when it comes to winning elections by stripping pieces of those groups away.

I have no doubt that Obama's policies will do more for working class whites than McCain's will. However, unless economics are their specific interest they're voting on, Obama isn't going to do more than peel away some of McCain's support there.

Insofar as "working class whites" are important to Obama, it's that his campaign needs to find the working class whites who are interested in his message and get them to the polls. Trying to out-Republican John McCain when it comes grabbing their votes isn't going to help: those voters are solidly in the Republican column and have been for decades.

To clear up a small point, Nixon barely beat Humphrey in '68.

You'd think it would be disconcerting to liberals that the working class doesn't think too much of them. Rather than face up to their rejection, however, and deal with it productively, liberals diss the working class by calling them "racists" and "Archie Bunkers." (Put another way: "We're way too cool for your guys." Yeah, that'll work.)

Both Clinton and Obama are moderate Democrats.

We have to start looking at "liberals" as just another interest group. Trying to out-Ralph Nader the liberals isn't going to help. They've been solidly in the Green Party column and have been voting for Ralph Nader for decades.

There's not just a hint of racism and sexism in the wistful desire to "get back" Reagan Democrats instead of build a coalition of various interest groups that lean liberal. The latter strategy---the only kind that will work---leaves the possibility open that women and non-whites will control the party. The Presidential nominations this time out show that possibility is not going to hurt anything but some white male pride.

I disagree with your sweeping statement that building "a coalition" of various interest groups "that lean liberal" is going to work. That's wishful thinking. African-Americans generally don't "lean liberal." Latinos generally don't "lean liberal." Union members don't usually "lean liberal." As a matter of fact, only about 30% of Democrats "lean liberal." People, male and female, who are in the labor force generally don't "lean liberal."

What interest groups are you talking about that potentially make up the majority of voters such that the majority of electoral votes end up in the Dem column?

It isn't helpful to alienate potential allies, which make up a big chunk of the electorate, by making sweeping stereotypical assumptions about them and proceed to insult their character and intelligence. Jes saying.

White people make up less and less of the electorate every election, a process thats only been accelerating over the last decade. Republicans have been the party of white resentment for a good long time now, and they are about to enter a period of our history when thats going to kill them for a generation. It's not like we ever have, or ever will, lose white folks by a 10-90% margin. We will keep losing them, but we'll do just fine as long as we keep 35-40% of them. A win is a win, no matter who makes up your coalition.

And no tom, you're not 'jes saying' You're stirring up trouble, either because you're a Republican troll or because you're all butthurt that you aren't the most important person on the planet.

Three cheers for Rand Careaga, who wrote above: "The election of 1980 taught me that to spurn the lesser of two evils (as I then perceived the choice) serves merely to engorge the greater."

I sometimes think that about 50% of political consulting consists of dreaming up ways to get people to forget this essential fact! I just hope that many, many voters this year will remener, "the election of [fill in date...2000, Nader voters? 1992, Perot voters?] taught me that to spurn the lesser of two evils (as I then perceived the choice) serves merely to engorge the greater."

Or 2008, Clinton voters?

Nope, "Reagan Democrat" IS White Racist, dear. As an African-American I have never in been 61 years been able to afford being "offended." I was much too busy trying to no get killed!

Well, here's the fatal flaw in your thinking. You are basing your projections on primary voting. Primary voters are not representative of the general electorate. No one has seen either Democratic candidate go up against the Republican as yet. So all your slicing and dicing is pretty much irrelevant, seeing as how you are slicing up Democratic voters and not taking into account Republicans, Independent, Libertarians, Greens, etc.

It's typical of clueless amateur prognosticators. Your theories are pretty much meaningless and wishful thinking. As I said before, you ought to get off the internet and get out in reality more often.

If there are lots of people out there who would vote for Dems but for their antiquated attitudes about race, why isn't someone trying to figure out how to change their minds about race, rather than villifying those people for being stupid?

You can't be serious. You cannot POSSIBLY be asking that question.

Wow! West Virginia went for Carter? All those ignorant racist hicks? My goodness.

There was a huuuuuuuuge swath of labor Democrats who went for Reagan. I think you are wrong when you dismiss these people as powerless and/or unimportant.

Any "labor" Democrats who voted for Reagan or any Republican after August 5, 1981 [*], is some kind of friggin' moron. I find it hard to believe that such people could read a ballot.

([*] That's when Reagan destroyed PATCO.)

Tom, Al gore won the popular vote with 36% of the white vote. Thats not a theory, your lame-brained notion that you and people like you are the only 'real' voters, thats a theory.

Ezra, the termed Reagan Democrat was coined by pollster Stanley Greenberg in 1985 in his study of white ethnic, largely unionized autoworkers around Detroit
and their role Reagan’s 17 million vote blowout over Mondale.

Obama partisans would have you believe that the white working-class voted for Reagan and will not vote for Obama because they are/were racists. It is certainly true with some small segment of this group but there is no evidence it holds true for the vast majority.

They are seeking to discredit downscale voters (they are all Appalachians) because they are hoping to transition the party to one controlled by and pursuing policies geared toward affluent social liberals. Obama and Obama partisans want to build a coalition and party comprised of social liberals, upscale knowledge workers, and disaffected Republicans with African Americans providing the votes necessary to displace the beer track with the wine track.

According to writers at Open Left and other pro Obama bloggers this new coalition will be process oriented and pursue reformist measures once in power. It will not pursue liberal economic policies however. Throughout the primary season Obama partisans have pretended class doesn’t matter and will continue to do so. The Democratic Party will turn its back on the working class at the time this group is in the worst shape in 50 years and is increasingly composed of women and Latinos.

Ezra why didn't you asked Texiera about his book "America's Forgotten Majority: Why the White Working Class Still Matters?" In it he argues white, working-class men left the party largely because of the economic pounding they took from 1979 to 1998, when white non-college-educated men saw their inflation-adjusted wages fall by 15%.

Using polling data, he also debunked the myth that this represented a swing towards rightwing, conservative values. Polls show that on issues such as abortion, gay rights and the environment, these voters, like most of the country, became slightly more liberal in the 1980s and 1990s. Nor did working-class white men become more anti-government. They did, however, become more disappointed in government, feeling that public programs had done little for them.

trollite

Try harder. It was 42% and is easy to find in any exit poll from 2000.

I think most folks are off key about Reagan's pull.

First off, Reagan was charismatic as hell. He was also basically honest, unlike the current crop of Bushists.

Second, "Reagan Democrats stem more from the Iran Hostage business and the credit crunch than from some etherial appeal for the Republicans. By 1984, facing Mondale was a piece of cake. The name "Reagan Democrat" is from 1985, and is misleading.

In all, Reagan's time was one of bumpy economic times, neglectful domestic issue times, and dirty filthy wars funded by an explosion of drugs.

There was no substitute for 2nd rate Democratic candidates when it comes to explaining Republican victories from 1980, to 1992.

But times are changing. I love how wingers conflate the old saws about Reagan Democrats, and have suddenly redicoved that there are people living in Appalachia. It makes me laugh.

This election is a referendum about Bush and his wars, the miserable economy, and Bush's lack of workable foreign and energy policies. But more than that, this election is about change. We can't go on like we are.

I don't see McCain as the agent for any meaningful change, especially as it applies to domestic policies.

@class warfare in the Democratic Party

Thanks for the cracked analysis. Now go back to the your Freeper cavern.

Yet, another insightful comment by trollite.

Here's a dose of reality for you amateur prognosticators. Whites were 81% of the voters in 2000. Gore got 42% of the white vote, 62% of Latino, 55% of Asians.

Gore got 50% of age 50-64 but only 45% of 30 -49 year olds. He didn't get a majority of the age 20's voters. Okay?

Gore got substantial majorities of lower income voters, didn't get a majority of voters who make over $30,000 per year.

He got 59% of the Union vote.

He got 53% of the "Moderate" vote.

"Liberals" made up 20% of the voters in 2000. Okay? 20%.

So yeah, go on and fantasize about throwing all the moderates, union members, and whites overboard to make up your "ruling liberal majority" wherever that's going to come from. And that's what it is, a big fantasy. Hopefully, us Democrats who live in the real world can hold our party together long enough to send the Republicans out into the wilderness where they need to be for about 50 years.

2000
Group....All ....Gore...Bush
RACE
White....81% ....42% ...55%
AGE
30-49 ...45% ....48% ...50%
50-64 ...24% ....50% ...48%
UNION HOUSEHOLD
Yes .....26% ....59% ...37%
PARTY
Dem .....39% ....87% ...11%
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Liberal .20% ....81% ...13%
Moderate 50% ....53% ...45%
SEX
Women ...52% ....54% ...44%

Source: Demographics of How Groups Voted in the 2000 Presidential Election

And here's another point.

Ezra:
But it's worth remembering that Reagan was elected almost three decades ago.

OMG! Three decades ago! Dude! That's 30 years! Whoa! Those voters who cast their first vote for Ronald Reagan must all be dead of old age!. Why, most of them would be in their 50's if they had lived that long!!!!

Except, um, in 2004 over 50's made up 43% of voters. There's about 70 million of them registered to vote, around 70% of those actually vote. (According to 2004 stats.)

So yeah, let's see, there's about 70 million younger than 50 registered to vote. Around 50 percent of them actually get out to vote. And as I pointed out, not all of them are part of your "ruling liberal majority."

And, here's another clue. There are a lot of people in their 50's and 60's who are damn good liberals. Ever consider that?

I'd venture to say that the distribution of voting Democrats who identify as "liberal" is a U-shaped curve.

Tom Taubert, democrats vote for Democrats and Republicans vote for Republicans. There's little point in trying to sway the votes to Democrats of voters who vote for Republicans... and that's actually the point. The people who were "Reagan Democrats" in the 1980s are now pretty firmly "Republicans." Now, if you think that getting Republicans to vote for a Democrat is a good electoral strategy, the Clinton campaign might be hiring.

States like Michigan and Pennsylvania are now firmly in the Democratic column. No Democrat is ever going to win white men. It just doesn't happen anymore. Obama's strategy is to attract large numbers of swayable independents, picking up votes in states like Colorado and Ohio and perhaps Virginia. Ultimately, I think this will work, though the election will be close, and the working class whites who vote for Obama will be Democrats who are amenable to his economic message. Those who like what McCain has to say on the war and abortion issues and are motivated to vote based on that will vote for McCain, and there's not much that Obama can do about that.

See, you are wrong about that. A lot of Democrats voted for Reagan both times but came back into the fold after the Pappy Bush recession. ("It's the economy, stupid"? Ring a bell?)

Good luck with that winning strategy, there, anon, where you need a majority but strive to alienate most voting demographic groups to achieve it. Now, what is that economic message again? Ponies for everyone? Yeah, I'll take one.

"Now, if you think that getting Republicans to vote for a Democrat is a good electoral strategy, the Clinton campaign might be hiring."

Of course you are probably already working on Team Obama since this was their early primary strategy and disaffected Republicans are a key constituency in their new coalition.

Wealthy social liberals who vote Republican are great because you just say Hope and Change and they fit right into our neo-liberal world. Working class Republicans voters on the other hand need to be enticed with more progressive trade, healthcare and economic policy and that is a real pain in the ass and not worth the trouble.

Tom, now you're attacking 'liberals'? I thought your BS shtick was how much we needed working class white? I'd suggest you look into how many black folks self-Identify as 'conservative', despite their political leanings, and determine for yourself if maybe those numbers aren't a bit inflated.

Tom ,you do realize that that the first voters who voted for Reagan were part of a very small generation, don't you? You do realize that the reason people focus on 'millenials' is the same reason they focus on 'boomers', because those generations dwarf all generations before and in between? It's nothing personal, those generations just won't ever wield any real power. Hell, there's a good chance that there won't be more than 1 or 2 Presidents from either of them.

But hey, you can keep on being a resentful prick if you want. I really don't give a fuck.

Actually, most people seem to have forgotten that Carter was way ahead of Reagan throughout the election, until the very last night before the election, when he foolishly agreed to one more debate against Reagan, not realising that Reagan's campaign had stolen the Carter camp's debate briefing book, and Reagan made mincemeat out of him, which is not suprising when you consider that he knew every argument Carter would make in advance.

I'm not "attacking liberals." I'm ridiculing the idea, put forward by Amanda Marcotte above, that you can form a ruling "liberal" majority by throwing all the Democrats overboard that don't have the same priorities. She said "it was the only way it would work."

And I'm ridiculing the idea put forth by others here, on the basis of slicing and dicing the Democratic primary vote, that Obama can win the general election by insulting and alienating traditional Democratic voters.

And I'm ridiculing the idea that people who may have voted for Ronald Reagan in the 80's are just too damn old to vote, or dead.

I did that by presenting hard data to demonstrate why these ideas are, um, outside the realm of reality, and for that I have been insulted and my character maligned, which is par for the course for irrational amateur prognosticators on the internet tubes.

I'd suggest you actually ask any number of African Americans if they identify themselves as "liberal." I'm sure that Ehrenstein would say yes, but I think you'll find that they generally don't self-identify as "liberal."

I've been wondering for awhile why no one says that if you are really a "Reagan Democrat" (like my father), you have to be well on your way to or above 80 years old, you have to love Fox News, and you have to have been registered as a Republican for about 20 years now...

Posted by: af | May 25, 2008 12:22 PM

my dad did vote for reagan (in '80, not in '84), he likes watching o'really, he just got a pacemaker for his 82nd birthday, and i have convinced him to vote for obama (it took very little persuasion)

I was 26 in 1980 and for the first and only time in my life I voted Republican. That vote haunts me to this day!

I will never be able to apology enough to Jimmy Carter.

Shorter Tom Traubert: I will fight this straw to the death!

So all your slicing and dicing is pretty much irrelevant, seeing as how you are slicing up Democratic voters and not taking into account Republicans, Independent, Libertarians, Greens, etc.

Well, let's take a look at the numbers from when Obama won his Senate seat in Illinois, shall we?

Exit polls reported the following breakdown for Obama voters:

94% Democrat
74% independent/other
40% Republican

That last number is what has Republicans shitting themselves right about now. When almost half of your voters decamp to the other party at the same time that independents are fleeing in large numbers, you're in deep shit.

I think there is going to be a Reagan-like exodus this year, and it's going to be Republicans voting for Obama, not the other way around. The Republican establishment is going to work their asses off between now and November trying to whip up the racists because that's their only chance in hell, but I think they're overestimating the number of hard core racists who won't vote Obama no matter what. I think a lot of people are willing to be convinced, even if they're racist in other ways.

Taubert, there is a distinct difference between "white voters" in general and the ever-shrinking group of white, socially conservative man who are union members ("Reagan Democrats"). You're conflating the two in order to impress upon everyone the importance of white voters. The group that found the Republican message compelling became compelling. What are the Democrats going to do? Outflank the republicans by going on a campaign through the midwest telling this group that Affirmative Action and immigration are keeping them down and the best way to get ahead is to vote for Democrats, rather than Republicans? If that message appeals to them, they have Republicans to vote for. Insofar as they can be swayed by Democrats, it's because they find the Dems' economic message more compelling.

Democratic gains are going to be made by turning the inner-ring suburbs Democratic, not fighting battles that were lost 30 years ago.

Oh, please. Obama was running against Alan Keyes for crissakes. Get real.

Look, I've made my case and provided hard data about recent and historical population voting behavior to support my arguments. If you'd rather reside in some kind of dream world where we all get free ponies, by my guest. Go ahead and keep conjuring up some kind of mystical majority out of whole cloth. The facts are that you can't fashion enough voters that will yield a majority of electoral votes out of some combination of under-thirties and liberals whom you haven't completely alienated with your arrogant and divisive behavior.

"Turning inner-ring suburbs Democratic." (Huge eye roll.)

Rich, 2:49 PM: "But, then as now, it was apparent that he [Carter] was a poor politician/manager, and would lose."

Actually, the election was a tossup going into the final weekend. If anything, the polls favored Carter: Reagan was feared as a wild man who might lob a nuke into the men's room at the Kremlin (yes I know that was Goldwater, but it's fun to say). I was an undergrad at the time: I remember my statistics professor, moderately prominent, sometimes quoted in the paper, defending himself and his peers for missing the Reagan landslide.

I've always thought that the "landslide" came from the feckless "vote with the winner" types who polled as "DK" or weakly for Carter until the last minute. The media-GOP propaganda machine was just getting rolling.

Hey Tom, you might want to try and look at Obama's website before you start spouting Clinton/McCain rhetoric that he has none, it is quite clearly labelled on the site. Great article though and I think it proves the point that yesterday's election history is not going to matter come the general election. Senator Obama's win will redefine politics as we know it.

A lot of hat and very little light in the posts. What is important is the answer.

The answer is to V-O-T-E. Make sure you are registered and that every like-minded person you know is registered. Put in for the day off from work (now, so it's a lock) so that you can help get elderly neighbors and others to the polls. Bring your ID and a camera in case you see shenanigans.

The truth of the matter is a lot of people, especially the young, students and the poor don't vote in the numbers that older adults and more affluent adults do. Get yourself and those who need help to the polls. Make sure they are registered EARLY so that no provisional ballots are issued to your people. Provisional ballots do not get counted- plain and simple.

It can be done, but the time to get organized is NOW- not election day. Register AND verify that the information and your registration are accurate. This stuff is more important than handing out leaflets and knocking on doors or even giving money.

I think people forget or downplay the impact of the Iran hostage crisis and the American economy on this particular election.

Laptop Batteries
Laptop Batteries discount laptop battery

If you don't know about jewelry knowledge, but want to action you can see jewelry fashion review,then maybe you can save your money!

Good post! Thanks for your information!

There is nothing wrong with a democrat. This is so good to see.
fort lauderdale truck accident lawyer