Mass. Gov races in 1978 and 1990

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Massachusetts has always had an undercurrent of social conservatism in its Democratic Party because of the social conservatism of much of its Catholic base.  Throughout the 1970s into the 1980s, Massachusetts' most liberal Catholic Democrats were basically pro-life, and reliably so.  Edward King was able to tap into this social conservatism, and it was coupled with Massachusetts residents resentments toward Dukakis-era tax hikes and Dukakis's aloof personality; he was kind of a technocrat, and not a liberal in the Tip O'Neill tradition.  King lost in 1982 because he was far too conservative for Massachusetts, and the rest of the Democratic Party woke up.

In 1990, Democrat John Silber would have won, but for the fact that he (A) was not a reliable national Democrat (there was evidence that he supported Bush in 1988), and (B) he peppered the media with blunt statements known as "Silber Shockers".  Many of these "Silber Shockers" were criticisms of modern lifestyles that offended the kind of Yuppie base that Democrats began to lean on in Massachusetts.  One comment in particular that drove these folks nuts was Silber's comment of how children were now being raised in third-rate daycares instead of first-rate homes, a slap toward working mothers that proved too much to bear.  A significant number of liberals voted for Republican William Weld not just because of Silber's viewpoints, but because of fear that Silber, if elected Governor, would become a prominent social conservative in the Democratic Party that would become nationally divisive and hinder the party's chances of regaining the White House.  Silber was the kind of Democrat that would likely refrain from supporting the national ticket in 1992, and that just wouldn't do.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Wow, it's amazing to look at how many right-wingers there used to be in the MADP; it seems like these days, liberals genuinely preferring the GOP candidate was a far more common occurrence.  Reading a globe article about John Silber, he sounds far more like a Harvey Mansfield or Charles Murray than a Noam Chomsky or standard liberal professor.

“My ­major contribution,” he said, “has been to declare that there is one university in the country with no interest in intellectual fads, in following propaganda and ideology.”

While I certainly don't agree with him ideologically on a lot of things, I really do miss the socon Democrats. 

New York's Democratic Party was the same way.  It's a function of the largest cities being SO one-party Democratic that conservatives who wanted to get elected made their home in the Democratic Party, remained conservative on the issues they cared about, and moderated their voting records leftward to accommodate the Democratic leadership in Congress or in their state legislature as needed.

Elizabeth Warren would never make it in that MADP.  But Billy Bulger did.  Ed King and Louise Day Hicks did for a while.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Wow, it's amazing to look at how many right-wingers there used to be in the MADP; it seems like these days, liberals genuinely preferring the GOP candidate was a far more common occurrence.  Reading a globe article about John Silber, he sounds far more like a Harvey Mansfield or Charles Murray than a Noam Chomsky or standard liberal professor.

“My ­major contribution,” he said, “has been to declare that there is one university in the country with no interest in intellectual fads, in following propaganda and ideology.”

While I certainly don't agree with him ideologically on a lot of things, I really do miss the socon Democrats. 

New York's Democratic Party was the same way.  It's a function of the largest cities being SO one-party Democratic that conservatives who wanted to get elected made their home in the Democratic Party, remained conservative on the issues they cared about, and moderated their voting records leftward to accommodate the Democratic leadership in Congress or in their state legislature as needed.

Elizabeth Warren would never make it in that MADP.  But Billy Bulger did.  Ed King and Louise Day Hicks did for a while.

At the same time we really shouldn't devalue that many of these types, if they had lived in the New Deal era, would be considered political hacks.  It wasn't until Democratic Catholic dominated political institutions (particularly organised labor) lost a lot of their steam that the Social conservatism of these types really stood out.

Point is, the talking point of "conservative ethnic Democrats and liberal white protestant Republicans" often misses an entire sea change of political focus that occurred between 1968-present day.

I would agree with you on that. It's not like it used to be.

One of the differences between the Democratic Party in MA and the Democratic Party of NY was who stood atop of the Democratic Party in each state.

In MA, there was no question who was the top Dem; it was JFK.  JFK's Presidential portrait hung in working class bars in Boston and other MA cities long after his death.  (It's been 33 years since I've been in MA, but I'll bet it hangs there in some to this day.)  Not until the uprisings in South Boston over school busing for integration in the mid-seventies was there the kind of antagonism in its Democratic politics that there was in NY's.  NY didn't have such a figure, and during the Nixon years, NY's top Democrat (after leaving the GOP) was NYC Mayor John Lindsay, who personified the silk-stocking liberal who governed for the wealthy and the poor but who reflected contempt for the middle class and working class.  (The REAL "Archie Bunker" people of NYC were probably registered Democrats who voted for conservative Democrats in the primary and Republican for President.)