How come McGovern won Massachusetts?

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

well?

[Guderian]

Kennedy's brother-in-law was his running mate and Massachusetts was never Nixonland.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Because--well, I really hate to say this--but they were insane.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Massachusetts was the only state to see through the evil that was Nixon.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Also, Massachusetts is the most liberal/Democratic state in the Union (see above) and it has been so for quite some time, certainly since 1972. Not only were they the only state to vote for McGovern, they were also the only state to give Clinton over 60% in 1996 (and Kerry in 2004). Further, the Democrats dominate the state; until recently, they were an all-Democratic state, and until 2008, the only such state--it voted for Obama in 2008, has a Democratic governor and lieutenant governor, (had) 2 Democratic senators and all representatives are Democrats.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Also, Massachusetts is the most liberal/Democratic state in the Union (see above) and it has been so for quite some time, certainly since 1972. Not only were they the only state to vote for McGovern, they were also the only state to give Clinton over 60% in 1996 (and Kerry in 2004). Further, the Democrats dominate the state; until recently, they were an all-Democratic state, and until 2008, the only such state--it voted for Obama in 2008, has a Democratic governor and lieutenant governor, (had) 2 Democratic senators and all representatives are Democrats.

Why didn't Massachusetts vote for Carter or Mondale in 1980 and 1984 then?

[Oakvale]

Also, Massachusetts is the most liberal/Democratic state in the Union (see above) and it has been so for quite some time, certainly since 1972. Not only were they the only state to vote for McGovern, they were also the only state to give Clinton over 60% in 1996 (and Kerry in 2004). Further, the Democrats dominate the state; until recently, they were an all-Democratic state, and until 2008, the only such state--it voted for Obama in 2008, has a Democratic governor and lieutenant governor, (had) 2 Democratic senators and all representatives are Democrats.

Why didn't Massachusetts vote for Carter or Mondale in 1980 and 1984 then?

I don't know about '84, but it was extremly close in 1980, under one percent IIRC. Primarily because of Anderson.

[Mechaman]

Also, Massachusetts is the most liberal/Democratic state in the Union (see above) and it has been so for quite some time, certainly since 1972. Not only were they the only state to vote for McGovern, they were also the only state to give Clinton over 60% in 1996 (and Kerry in 2004). Further, the Democrats dominate the state; until recently, they were an all-Democratic state, and until 2008, the only such state--it voted for Obama in 2008, has a Democratic governor and lieutenant governor, (had) 2 Democratic senators and all representatives are Democrats.

Why didn't Massachusetts vote for Carter or Mondale in 1980 and 1984 then?

Ronald Reagan had Irish Catholic ancestry on his father's side, his opponents did not.....that was all they needed to know.
I mean how else would he have won the heavily Democratic South Boston with 53% of the vote in 1980?
Though 1980 was mostly due to Anderson siphoning votes from Carter.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Also, Massachusetts is the most liberal/Democratic state in the Union (see above) and it has been so for quite some time, certainly since 1972. Not only were they the only state to vote for McGovern, they were also the only state to give Clinton over 60% in 1996 (and Kerry in 2004). Further, the Democrats dominate the state; until recently, they were an all-Democratic state, and until 2008, the only such state--it voted for Obama in 2008, has a Democratic governor and lieutenant governor, (had) 2 Democratic senators and all representatives are Democrats.

Why didn't Massachusetts vote for Carter or Mondale in 1980 and 1984 then?

I don't know about '84, but it was extremly close in 1980, under one percent IIRC. Primarily because of Anderson.

Yet Carter carried neighboring Rhode Island by 10 points that year.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Also, Massachusetts is the most liberal/Democratic state in the Union (see above) and it has been so for quite some time, certainly since 1972. Not only were they the only state to vote for McGovern, they were also the only state to give Clinton over 60% in 1996 (and Kerry in 2004). Further, the Democrats dominate the state; until recently, they were an all-Democratic state, and until 2008, the only such state--it voted for Obama in 2008, has a Democratic governor and lieutenant governor, (had) 2 Democratic senators and all representatives are Democrats.

Why didn't Massachusetts vote for Carter or Mondale in 1980 and 1984 then?

Ronald Reagan had Irish Catholic ancestry on his father's side, his opponents did not.....that was all they needed to know.
I mean how else would he have won the heavily Democratic South Boston with 53% of the vote in 1980?
Though 1980 was mostly due to Anderson siphoning votes from Carter.

I really doubt that Reagan's ancestry had that much of an impact. Working class folk in South Boston weren't digging through candidates' family trees to decide who to vote for.

[Hash]

To explain 1984 and perhaps 1980, Massachusetts is more working-class than a lot of people think and it had a larger number of Reagan Democrats than most people think.

[Mechaman]

Also, Massachusetts is the most liberal/Democratic state in the Union (see above) and it has been so for quite some time, certainly since 1972. Not only were they the only state to vote for McGovern, they were also the only state to give Clinton over 60% in 1996 (and Kerry in 2004). Further, the Democrats dominate the state; until recently, they were an all-Democratic state, and until 2008, the only such state--it voted for Obama in 2008, has a Democratic governor and lieutenant governor, (had) 2 Democratic senators and all representatives are Democrats.

Why didn't Massachusetts vote for Carter or Mondale in 1980 and 1984 then?

Ronald Reagan had Irish Catholic ancestry on his father's side, his opponents did not.....that was all they needed to know.
I mean how else would he have won the heavily Democratic South Boston with 53% of the vote in 1980?
Though 1980 was mostly due to Anderson siphoning votes from Carter.

I really doubt that Reagan's ancestry had that much of an impact. Working class folk in South Boston weren't digging through candidates' family trees to decide who to vote for.

They didn't have to.  It isn't impossible to tell whether or not someone is part Irish.  Sure it might not be as easy to tell as if someone is black, but Reagan had enough for it to be noticeable.  I don't give a sh*t what his ethnic composition was, but workingclass folk in South Boston probably identified quite strongly with politicians they felt some kind of comradeship with.  I didn't just make this up, I've heard from quite a few places that Reagan was very popular with Irish Americans.  Remember, this was almost thirty years ago and attitudes were still a bit backwards (even in *gasp* Massachusetts).
It might not have been as strong of an effect as someone like the Kennedy bros, but it was enough to attract workingclass folk.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Also, Massachusetts is the most liberal/Democratic state in the Union (see above) and it has been so for quite some time, certainly since 1972. Not only were they the only state to vote for McGovern, they were also the only state to give Clinton over 60% in 1996 (and Kerry in 2004). Further, the Democrats dominate the state; until recently, they were an all-Democratic state, and until 2008, the only such state--it voted for Obama in 2008, has a Democratic governor and lieutenant governor, (had) 2 Democratic senators and all representatives are Democrats.

Why didn't Massachusetts vote for Carter or Mondale in 1980 and 1984 then?

Ronald Reagan had Irish Catholic ancestry on his father's side, his opponents did not.....that was all they needed to know.
I mean how else would he have won the heavily Democratic South Boston with 53% of the vote in 1980?
Though 1980 was mostly due to Anderson siphoning votes from Carter.

I really doubt that Reagan's ancestry had that much of an impact. Working class folk in South Boston weren't digging through candidates' family trees to decide who to vote for.

They didn't have to.  It isn't impossible to tell whether or not someone is part Irish.  Sure it might not be as easy to tell as if someone is black, but Reagan had enough for it to be noticeable.  I don't give a sh*t what his ethnic composition was, but workingclass folk in South Boston probably identified quite strongly with politicians they felt some kind of comradeship with.  I didn't just make this up, I've heard from quite a few places that Reagan was very popular with Irish Americans.  Remember, this was almost thirty years ago and attitudes were still a bit backwards (even in *gasp* Massachusetts).
It might not have been as strong of an effect as someone like the Kennedy bros, but it was enough to attract workingclass folk.

Do you have any actual evidence that this theory of yours is true?

[Mechaman]

Also, Massachusetts is the most liberal/Democratic state in the Union (see above) and it has been so for quite some time, certainly since 1972. Not only were they the only state to vote for McGovern, they were also the only state to give Clinton over 60% in 1996 (and Kerry in 2004). Further, the Democrats dominate the state; until recently, they were an all-Democratic state, and until 2008, the only such state--it voted for Obama in 2008, has a Democratic governor and lieutenant governor, (had) 2 Democratic senators and all representatives are Democrats.

Why didn't Massachusetts vote for Carter or Mondale in 1980 and 1984 then?

Ronald Reagan had Irish Catholic ancestry on his father's side, his opponents did not.....that was all they needed to know.
I mean how else would he have won the heavily Democratic South Boston with 53% of the vote in 1980?
Though 1980 was mostly due to Anderson siphoning votes from Carter.

I really doubt that Reagan's ancestry had that much of an impact. Working class folk in South Boston weren't digging through candidates' family trees to decide who to vote for.

They didn't have to.  It isn't impossible to tell whether or not someone is part Irish.  Sure it might not be as easy to tell as if someone is black, but Reagan had enough for it to be noticeable.  I don't give a sh*t what his ethnic composition was, but workingclass folk in South Boston probably identified quite strongly with politicians they felt some kind of comradeship with.  I didn't just make this up, I've heard from quite a few places that Reagan was very popular with Irish Americans.  Remember, this was almost thirty years ago and attitudes were still a bit backwards (even in *gasp* Massachusetts).
It might not have been as strong of an effect as someone like the Kennedy bros, but it was enough to attract workingclass folk.

Do you have any actual evidence that this theory of yours is true?

I will admit there might have been other factors, like Anderson running in 1980, the overall popularity of Reagan in 1984, how cliched American liberalism seemed by the 80's, Mondale running a horrible campaign, but I don't believe that it is too insane to suggest that his ancestry might've had a little to do with it.  Afterall if you remember, Al Smith, an Irish Catholic, won Massachusetts in 1928 although Massachusetts voted over 60% Republican in the preceding two elections.
I don't have any hard irrevokable 100% can't be disproven evidence, but there are sources out there that do suggest Reagan's ancestry helped take quite a few votes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_American#Irish_in_politics_and_government
Ronald Reagan openly boasted about his Irishness.
There are also plenty of sources that back up my claim that Reagan did in fact "win" the Irish American voter.
http://www.indypressny.org/nycma/voices/311/series/election2008/

I don't know why this is such an insane claim for you to entertain, it's almost like arguing that Barack Obama's African ancestry helped him win more African American votes than the usual Democrat (though since they win at least 80% of the African American vote that's really not saying anything).

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Also, Massachusetts is the most liberal/Democratic state in the Union (see above) and it has been so for quite some time, certainly since 1972. Not only were they the only state to vote for McGovern, they were also the only state to give Clinton over 60% in 1996 (and Kerry in 2004). Further, the Democrats dominate the state; until recently, they were an all-Democratic state, and until 2008, the only such state--it voted for Obama in 2008, has a Democratic governor and lieutenant governor, (had) 2 Democratic senators and all representatives are Democrats.

Why didn't Massachusetts vote for Carter or Mondale in 1980 and 1984 then?

Ronald Reagan had Irish Catholic ancestry on his father's side, his opponents did not.....that was all they needed to know.
I mean how else would he have won the heavily Democratic South Boston with 53% of the vote in 1980?
Though 1980 was mostly due to Anderson siphoning votes from Carter.

I really doubt that Reagan's ancestry had that much of an impact. Working class folk in South Boston weren't digging through candidates' family trees to decide who to vote for.

They didn't have to.  It isn't impossible to tell whether or not someone is part Irish.  Sure it might not be as easy to tell as if someone is black, but Reagan had enough for it to be noticeable.  I don't give a sh*t what his ethnic composition was, but workingclass folk in South Boston probably identified quite strongly with politicians they felt some kind of comradeship with.  I didn't just make this up, I've heard from quite a few places that Reagan was very popular with Irish Americans.  Remember, this was almost thirty years ago and attitudes were still a bit backwards (even in *gasp* Massachusetts).
It might not have been as strong of an effect as someone like the Kennedy bros, but it was enough to attract workingclass folk.

Do you have any actual evidence that this theory of yours is true?

I will admit there might have been other factors, like Anderson running in 1980, the overall popularity of Reagan in 1984, how cliched American liberalism seemed by the 80's, Mondale running a horrible campaign, but I don't believe that it is too insane to suggest that his ancestry might've had a little to do with it.  Afterall if you remember, Al Smith, an Irish Catholic, won Massachusetts in 1928 although Massachusetts voted over 60% Republican in the preceding two elections.
I don't have any hard irrevokable 100% can't be disproven evidence, but there are sources out there that do suggest Reagan's ancestry helped take quite a few votes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_American#Irish_in_politics_and_government
Ronald Reagan openly boasted about his Irishness.
There are also plenty of sources that back up my claim that Reagan did in fact "win" the Irish American voter.
http://www.indypressny.org/nycma/voices/311/series/election2008/

I don't know why this is such an insane claim for you to entertain, it's almost like arguing that Barack Obama's African ancestry helped him win more African American votes than the usual Democrat (though since they win at least 80% of the African American vote that's really not saying anything).

There were a number of factors that led to support for Reagan among working class ethnic whites, Irish or otherwise. It had little to do with his ancestry. Reagan also won 63% of the New York Italian vote. Was he Italian too?

Anyway, this is all besides the point. Massachusetts wasn't necessarily the most Democratic state in the country. There needs to be a better explanation as to why McGovern pulled off a 9-point victory here in the midst of a nationwide landslide defeat.

[Mechaman]

Also, Massachusetts is the most liberal/Democratic state in the Union (see above) and it has been so for quite some time, certainly since 1972. Not only were they the only state to vote for McGovern, they were also the only state to give Clinton over 60% in 1996 (and Kerry in 2004). Further, the Democrats dominate the state; until recently, they were an all-Democratic state, and until 2008, the only such state--it voted for Obama in 2008, has a Democratic governor and lieutenant governor, (had) 2 Democratic senators and all representatives are Democrats.

Why didn't Massachusetts vote for Carter or Mondale in 1980 and 1984 then?

Ronald Reagan had Irish Catholic ancestry on his father's side, his opponents did not.....that was all they needed to know.
I mean how else would he have won the heavily Democratic South Boston with 53% of the vote in 1980?
Though 1980 was mostly due to Anderson siphoning votes from Carter.

I really doubt that Reagan's ancestry had that much of an impact. Working class folk in South Boston weren't digging through candidates' family trees to decide who to vote for.

They didn't have to.  It isn't impossible to tell whether or not someone is part Irish.  Sure it might not be as easy to tell as if someone is black, but Reagan had enough for it to be noticeable.  I don't give a sh*t what his ethnic composition was, but workingclass folk in South Boston probably identified quite strongly with politicians they felt some kind of comradeship with.  I didn't just make this up, I've heard from quite a few places that Reagan was very popular with Irish Americans.  Remember, this was almost thirty years ago and attitudes were still a bit backwards (even in *gasp* Massachusetts).
It might not have been as strong of an effect as someone like the Kennedy bros, but it was enough to attract workingclass folk.

Do you have any actual evidence that this theory of yours is true?

I will admit there might have been other factors, like Anderson running in 1980, the overall popularity of Reagan in 1984, how cliched American liberalism seemed by the 80's, Mondale running a horrible campaign, but I don't believe that it is too insane to suggest that his ancestry might've had a little to do with it.  Afterall if you remember, Al Smith, an Irish Catholic, won Massachusetts in 1928 although Massachusetts voted over 60% Republican in the preceding two elections.
I don't have any hard irrevokable 100% can't be disproven evidence, but there are sources out there that do suggest Reagan's ancestry helped take quite a few votes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_American#Irish_in_politics_and_government
Ronald Reagan openly boasted about his Irishness.
There are also plenty of sources that back up my claim that Reagan did in fact "win" the Irish American voter.
http://www.indypressny.org/nycma/voices/311/series/election2008/

I don't know why this is such an insane claim for you to entertain, it's almost like arguing that Barack Obama's African ancestry helped him win more African American votes than the usual Democrat (though since they win at least 80% of the African American vote that's really not saying anything).

There were a number of factors that led to support for Reagan among working class ethnic whites, Irish or otherwise. It had little to do with his ancestry. Reagan also won 63% of the New York Italian vote. Was he Italian too?

Anyway, this is all besides the point. Massachusetts wasn't necessarily the most Democratic state in the country. There needs to be a better explanation as to why McGovern pulled off a 9-point victory here in the midst of a nationwide landslide defeat.

So it's more of an overall white working class ethic explanation?
Granted.

As for McGovern, I think I agree with what someone said earlier about the Kennedy influence in the state (Shriver being on the ticket) or just a random "F*** you" Nixon movement that popped up in Massachusetts.
I guess it's like asking why Maine and Vermont were the only states to not vote for FDR in 1936.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Also, Massachusetts is the most liberal/Democratic state in the Union (see above) and it has been so for quite some time, certainly since 1972. Not only were they the only state to vote for McGovern, they were also the only state to give Clinton over 60% in 1996 (and Kerry in 2004). Further, the Democrats dominate the state; until recently, they were an all-Democratic state, and until 2008, the only such state--it voted for Obama in 2008, has a Democratic governor and lieutenant governor, (had) 2 Democratic senators and all representatives are Democrats.

Why didn't Massachusetts vote for Carter or Mondale in 1980 and 1984 then?

Ronald Reagan had Irish Catholic ancestry on his father's side, his opponents did not.....that was all they needed to know.
I mean how else would he have won the heavily Democratic South Boston with 53% of the vote in 1980?
Though 1980 was mostly due to Anderson siphoning votes from Carter.

I really doubt that Reagan's ancestry had that much of an impact. Working class folk in South Boston weren't digging through candidates' family trees to decide who to vote for.

They didn't have to.  It isn't impossible to tell whether or not someone is part Irish.  Sure it might not be as easy to tell as if someone is black, but Reagan had enough for it to be noticeable.  I don't give a sh*t what his ethnic composition was, but workingclass folk in South Boston probably identified quite strongly with politicians they felt some kind of comradeship with.  I didn't just make this up, I've heard from quite a few places that Reagan was very popular with Irish Americans.  Remember, this was almost thirty years ago and attitudes were still a bit backwards (even in *gasp* Massachusetts).
It might not have been as strong of an effect as someone like the Kennedy bros, but it was enough to attract workingclass folk.

Do you have any actual evidence that this theory of yours is true?

I will admit there might have been other factors, like Anderson running in 1980, the overall popularity of Reagan in 1984, how cliched American liberalism seemed by the 80's, Mondale running a horrible campaign, but I don't believe that it is too insane to suggest that his ancestry might've had a little to do with it.  Afterall if you remember, Al Smith, an Irish Catholic, won Massachusetts in 1928 although Massachusetts voted over 60% Republican in the preceding two elections.
I don't have any hard irrevokable 100% can't be disproven evidence, but there are sources out there that do suggest Reagan's ancestry helped take quite a few votes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_American#Irish_in_politics_and_government
Ronald Reagan openly boasted about his Irishness.
There are also plenty of sources that back up my claim that Reagan did in fact "win" the Irish American voter.
http://www.indypressny.org/nycma/voices/311/series/election2008/

I don't know why this is such an insane claim for you to entertain, it's almost like arguing that Barack Obama's African ancestry helped him win more African American votes than the usual Democrat (though since they win at least 80% of the African American vote that's really not saying anything).

There were a number of factors that led to support for Reagan among working class ethnic whites, Irish or otherwise. It had little to do with his ancestry. Reagan also won 63% of the New York Italian vote. Was he Italian too?

Anyway, this is all besides the point. Massachusetts wasn't necessarily the most Democratic state in the country. There needs to be a better explanation as to why McGovern pulled off a 9-point victory here in the midst of a nationwide landslide defeat.

So it's more of an overall white working class ethic explanation?
Granted.

As for McGovern, I think I agree with what someone said earlier about the Kennedy influence in the state (Shriver being on the ticket) or just a random "F*** you" Nixon movement that popped up in Massachusetts.
I guess it's like asking why Maine and Vermont were the only states to not vote for FDR in 1936.

Well Maine and Vermont are pretty easy to explain considering they just about always voted Republican.

[Bo]

Because liberal hippies hated Nixon and because JFK's brother-in-law was on the ticket.

[Inoljt]

It's because Nixon kept on calling McGovern a crazy Massachusetts liberal.

That tends not to work well in Massachusetts.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

It's because Nixon kept on calling McGovern a crazy Massachusetts liberal.

That tends not to work well in Massachusetts.

I thought that the term "Massachusetts liberal" came to use because of McGovern winning Massachusetts, not the other way around?

[hcallega]

Massachusetts has always liked McGovern more than the average bear. He did very well there in 1984, despite the fact that his campaign never had a shot of winning the nomination. This is a state that has a lot of college kids who sprung for him in '72 but had grown up by '80 and '84. Also a lot of moderate GOPers who personally disliked Nixon but had no problem with Ronnie.

[LastMcGovernite]

I think the better question is: why didn't he win the other 49 states?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think the better question is: why didn't he win the other 49 states?

^^^

[Scam of God]

Because Massachusetts was sane.

[President Mitt]

Because Massachusetts didn't hate America.