The South in 1980?

[Mr.Phips]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Being a southerner helped Carter immensely.  That helped him avoid what would have been a McGovern like defeat in 1980.

[morgieb]

Carter is a Southerner.

Plus back then most of it was still more than willing to elect the right kind of Democrat. Reagan was a very good candidate for the region though, hence why he won most of the states there.

[TDAS04]

Being a Southerner (especially a "bumpkin" from the rural Deep South) clearly inflated Carter's showing in the South in both 1976 and 1980, while Reagan was certainly stronger against Carter in 1980 than Ford was in 1976.

However, it is interesting to note that while Carter carried most Southern states in 1976 and came close in several in 1980, he did not win the Southern white vote either time.  Ford received 52% of Southern whites against Carter, and Reagan obtained 60% in 1980.  Carter won the South in 1976 because black voters put him over the top, and of course because he got enough white voters to win the region, which has not happened for a Democratic presidential candidate since.

Also, it is possible that black turnout increased in 1980, resulting in close results in Mississippi and a few other states.

[Mr.Phips]

Being a Southerner (especially a "bumpkin" from the rural Deep South) clearly inflated Carter's showing in the South in both 1976 and 1980, while Reagan was certainly stronger against Carter in 1980 than Ford was in 1976.

However, it is interesting to note that while Carter carried most Southern states in 1976 and came close in several in 1980, he did not win the Southern white vote either time.  Ford received 52% of Southern whites against Carter, and Reagan obtained 60% in 1980.  Carter won the South in 1976 because black voters put him over the top, and of course because he got enough white voters to win the region, which has not happened for a Democratic presidential candidate since.

Also, it is possible that black turnout increased in 1980, resulting in close results in Mississippi and a few other states.

Yes, Ford did much better than Reagan did among blacks.

[ElectionsGuy]

This was the turning point in the South for Dixie. Carter, being a Southerner, helped a lot. The South likes democrats that seem rural, common-man like, and populist. They do not like people who seem like liberal elites (Obama, Kerry). Bill Clinton did better than average in Dixie areas, because he seemed like a populist to them (and just being southern really does it too). Without a southern democrat, the South turned more republican as they realized they were more in line with them on social issues/values, small government, etc. and also many had felt the democratic party had left them and become too liberal. It has remained conservative with the exception of 1992 and 1996.

[barfbag]

The south is where the election would've been decided if things were a couple points closer. Carter won a few states there and was very close in most others with the exception of TX, FL, and VA. I'm going to do a map based on if Dole was the nominee now.

[Indy Texas]

1. If you look at the results, they're so close in some states that you can almost say it was random chance that Carter didn't win those states. Some Democrats felt that Carter would have done better on the West Coast had he not conceded so early; and arguably the fact that Reagan was nearly sweeping the East Coast may have incited some Westerners who would have voted for Carter to just stay home and not bother. But the polls in the South are among the first to close and they likely would not have heard about the results in early states before voting themselves.

2. Carter did well in the South because he was from the South and because he was running, more or less, as a center-right Democrat. He cut capital gains taxes, deregulated major industries like commercial aviation and trucking, and upset many Congressional Democrats by demanding spending cuts in areas like infrastructure. Contrary to Republican narratives, Carter was not a liberal. He came across as weak on foreign policy matters, but there's nothing inherently liberal or conservative about that.

And what about Reagan? Well, he was a Californian by way of Illinois. Unlike Carter, who was a vocal born-again Christian who taught Sunday school at a small town Baptist church, Reagan wasn't particularly religious. He invoked religious imagery at times for rhetorical purposes, but Reagan was not "one of them" in that regard. He was a movie actor and a divorcé. And while Carter served honorably in the Pacific as a Navy officer, Reagan's military service was limited to making propaganda movies in a studio in Los Angeles.

3. You could argue Anderson was the most liberal candidate in the race, in which case he would have drawn more votes from the Democrat than the Republican. Anderson's base was supposed to be old-school liberal Republicans in the Northeast and the Midwest; the problem is there just weren't that many of them by that point and they tended to be much more loyal to their party than the conservative Democrats were to theirs. (Which is why liberal Republicans like Charles Mathias endorsed and campaigned for Barry Goldwater in 1964 while Southern Democrats didn't lift a finger to help LBJ).

Either way, Anderson did terribly in the South. He was very much an inside-the-Beltway darling and a favorite of cosmopolitan, cultured types (his endorsements included Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Gore Vidal) in the way that Jon Huntsman was in the 2012 primaries.

[Miles]

It bugs me how most of the deep south states just barely broke for Reagan.

[Liberalrocks]

1.What could Carter have done to push the South in his favor.

The carter campaign did not see the full extent of the Reagan landslide coming as the polling didn't fully predict the size of his loss. While they may have thought they were a few points behind, they assumed they had most of the south locked up as their "base". Thus they proably  were not considered swing states to the extent that the normal northern states were. I'm sure had Carter known he was in for a trouncing he could have campaigned in Arkansas, Tennessee, the Carolina's Alabama and had perhaps flipped at least a few while still losing badly.


2.Why Did Carter do so well in the South?.
Carter had an evangelical appeal that many southerners liked in addition to being "one of them." The south was not quite as republican back then as it is today.

3.Did Anderson hurt Carter more then Reagan?.

Yes Anderson did, However I think most of it was felt in Northern Democratic states most notably Massachusetts where just a few thousand votes was the difference. Also New York may have been winnable for Carter without Anderson.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Being a southerner helped Carter immensely.  That helped him avoid what would have been a McGovern like defeat in 1980.

This, plus the fact that Carter and Reagan were both very religious.  The religious conservatives may have become disillusioned with Carter, but enough of them supported him to make the South close.

[buritobr]

OK, Carter is a Southener. But what about Al Gore? He carried zero confederacy states.

And Carter? He is pro-civil rights for blacks, against capital punishment, environmentalist and pro legalization of marijuana.

Maybe, in some issues, Carter is more liberal than Gore.

Why did Carter have much better results among white southeners than Gore?

Did the political orientation of white southeners change from 1976 and 1980 to 2000?

[TDAS04]

OK, Carter is a Southener. But what about Al Gore? He carried zero confederacy states.

And Carter? He is pro-civil rights for blacks, against capital punishment, environmentalist and pro legalization of marijuana.

Maybe, in some issues, Carter is more liberal than Gore.

Why did Carter have much better results among white southeners than Gore?

Did the political orientation of white southeners change from 1976 and 1980 to 2000?

The South became much more Republican by 2000.  Also, Carter did not have the same liberal reputation back in 1976 or 1980 that he does today.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

IIRC, Carter was pro-capitol punishment as governor and president.

[barfbag]

OK, Carter is a Southener. But what about Al Gore? He carried zero confederacy states.

And Carter? He is pro-civil rights for blacks, against capital punishment, environmentalist and pro legalization of marijuana.

Maybe, in some issues, Carter is more liberal than Gore.

Why did Carter have much better results among white southeners than Gore?

Did the political orientation of white southeners change from 1976 and 1980 to 2000?

Different times and Gore ran after 8 years of a Democrat.

[old timey villain]

On the Al Gore thing, there are a lot of differences between 1980 and 2000.

In 1980 Carter was the only southerner running and still had some appeal in the south over Reagan because of that. But in 2000 there were two southerners running and Bush seemed like more of a true southerner than Gore because he was more conservative and hadn't been in Washington for the past eight years.

[Indy Texas]

Being a southerner helped Carter immensely.  That helped him avoid what would have been a McGovern like defeat in 1980.

This, plus the fact that Carter and Reagan were both very religious.  The religious conservatives may have become disillusioned with Carter, but enough of them supported him to make the South close.

I wouldn't consider Reagan anywhere near the level of presidents like Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. Reagan used a lot of religious imagery and rhetoric in his speeches, and certainly didn't object to support from the Religious Right, but he viewed Christianity as important in the way that conservatives like Disraeli viewed it - not literally as a matter of Heaven and Hell or Life and Death, but simply as one of the major institutions that made up civil society and therefore one that needed to be respected and preserved. In Disraeli's case, the [Anglican] Church was literally a part of British life. In Reagan's case, Christianity was part of the wholesome American cultural melee along with baseball and apple pie and Friday night football games and all that.

When you look at how little Reagan actually gave the Christian Right during his time in office and how much political support they gave him in return, it was a remarkably good investment on his part. Roe v. Wade was still the law of the land when he left office. But, "Jesus wants us to break federal law to help the 'freedom fighters' in Central America and lower income tax rates for rich people."

[barfbag]

On the Al Gore thing, there are a lot of differences between 1980 and 2000.

In 1980 Carter was the only southerner running and still had some appeal in the south over Reagan because of that. But in 2000 there were two southerners running and Bush seemed like more of a true southerner than Gore because he was more conservative and hadn't been in Washington for the past eight years.

Not only that but in 1980 the south was in transition. We didn't see it throughout the 70's and 80's because 4 out of the 5 elections were GOP landslides and the one that wasn't was a Democrat landslide in the south. Had things been closer, we could've seen the south continuously shift to the right in the 70's and 80's.

[minionofmidas]

 Ford received 52% of Southern whites against Carter

So, in short, deep within the margin of error of any exit poll subsample?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I know Carter came extremely close in Kentucky.

Quite frankly, there's no excuse for the Republicans to win Kentucky by such a wide margin in more recent times.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Reagan wasn't particularly religious. He rarely prayed or went to church, and he and his wife dabbled in astrology, which is a big no-no in evangelical congregations. In spite of all of this, the Religious Right believed he was a devout Christian, which for political purposes, is what matters.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Reagan wasn't particularly religious. He rarely prayed or went to church, and he and his wife dabbled in astrology, which is a big no-no in evangelical congregations. In spite of all of this, the Religious Right believed he was a devout Christian, which for political purposes, is what matters.

Added to that the fact that his denomination of choice wasn't exactly of the Religious Right...

[Mopsus]

Ronald Reagan won forty-four states in 1980, but the election was considerably closer than the map would have you believe; if you give Jimmy Carter every every state in which Ronald Reagan received a plurality of the vote (except Washington and Oregon, both of which he won by around ten points), both candidates receive exactly 269 electoral votes, which would have sent the election to the heavily Democratic House of Representatives, where the President surely would have been re-elected to a second term. This scenario isn't that implausible, given that Reagan won many states by a very slim margin - Kentucky, for example, he won by a mere 1.5 percentage points.

I know that all this isn't entirely germane to the thread... but the topic got me thinking, and this post was the result.

[barfbag]

He seems to have hurt Carter more in the northeast when looking at numbers, but one would think it would be the opposite. In the south, Anderson was hardly a factor.

[Indy Texas]

Reagan wasn't particularly religious. He rarely prayed or went to church, and he and his wife dabbled in astrology, which is a big no-no in evangelical congregations. In spite of all of this, the Religious Right believed he was a devout Christian, which for political purposes, is what matters.

Added to that the fact that his denomination of choice wasn't exactly of the Religious Right...

He was Presbyterian wasn't he? Do we know if he was a member of the Presbyterian Church USA (Mainline) or the Presbyterian Church in America (Evangelical)?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Reagan wasn't particularly religious. He rarely prayed or went to church, and he and his wife dabbled in astrology, which is a big no-no in evangelical congregations. In spite of all of this, the Religious Right believed he was a devout Christian, which for political purposes, is what matters.

Added to that the fact that his denomination of choice wasn't exactly of the Religious Right...

He was Presbyterian wasn't he? Do we know if he was a member of the Presbyterian Church USA (Mainline) or the Presbyterian Church in America (Evangelical)?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bel_Air_Presbyterian_Church