|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 29, 2020, 11:28:42 AM

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: ON Progressive)
  How did George Bush win New Jersey so handily in 1988?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: How did George Bush win New Jersey so handily in 1988?  (Read 3270 times)
Liberalrocks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,753
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -4.35

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 12, 2017, 11:17:00 PM »

Willie Horton and the suburbs....
Logged
HenryWallaceVP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,350


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -5.91


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 11, 2018, 11:26:46 PM »

I was also surprised to see how close Massachusetts was in this election. Why did Dukakis, the incumbent Governor of Massachusetts, only win his home state by about 8%?
Logged
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,429
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 12, 2018, 01:16:16 AM »

I was also surprised to see how close Massachusetts was in this election. Why did Dukakis, the incumbent Governor of Massachusetts, only win his home state by about 8%?
I'm not exactly sure, but one of the most interesting facts about the 1988 election is that Dukakis only under-performed George McGovern in one state - and that state was Massachusetts.
Logged
#PACK THE COURTS
Solid4096
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,636


Political Matrix
E: -9.25, S: -8.88

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 12, 2018, 01:36:00 PM »

Better question: Why did he do so well in New Hampshire?
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,645
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 12, 2018, 02:39:35 PM »

Because back then it was suburbanites who were racists and unreachable by the Democratic message, whereas now it's rurals. Smiley
Logged
Keep cool-idge
Benjamin Harrison he is w
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,774
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 12, 2018, 05:27:25 PM »

Because back then it was suburbanites who were racists and unreachable by the Democratic message, whereas now it's rurals. Smiley
Nice lol
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,949
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: January 12, 2018, 05:38:35 PM »

Because back then it was suburbanites who were racists and unreachable by the Democratic message, whereas now it's rurals. Smiley

As you're well aware of Tom, times change. Smiley
Logged
libertpaulian
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,227
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: January 12, 2018, 11:54:55 PM »

Better question: Why did he do so well in New Hampshire?
Women weren't so angry back then.
Logged
darklordoftech
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,721
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: January 16, 2018, 10:42:19 PM »

Because back then it was suburbanites who were racists and unreachable by the Democratic message, whereas now it's rurals. Smiley
To be fair, outside of West Virginia and Iowa, Bush soundly won rural America.
Logged
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,429
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: January 16, 2018, 11:57:01 PM »

Because back then it was suburbanites who were racists and unreachable by the Democratic message, whereas now it's rurals. Smiley
To be fair, outside of West Virginia and Iowa, Bush soundly won rural America.
This isn't really true. Dukakis did well in places like Northern Alabama, East Kentucky, Western PA... In fact, I'm pretty sure that a slight majority of counties he won were rural.
Logged
darklordoftech
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,721
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: January 17, 2018, 03:25:48 AM »

Because back then it was suburbanites who were racists and unreachable by the Democratic message, whereas now it's rurals. Smiley
To be fair, outside of West Virginia and Iowa, Bush soundly won rural America.
This isn't really true. Dukakis did well in places like Northern Alabama, East Kentucky, Western PA... In fact, I'm pretty sure that a slight majority of counties he won were rural.
Still, I'm sure that most Trump 2016 voters who were 18+ in 1988 are Bush 1988 voters.
Logged
mathstatman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,299
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: January 17, 2018, 10:18:12 AM »

Because back then it was suburbanites who were racists and unreachable by the Democratic message, whereas now it's rurals. Smiley
To be fair, outside of West Virginia and Iowa, Bush soundly won rural America.
This isn't really true. Dukakis did well in places like Northern Alabama, East Kentucky, Western PA... In fact, I'm pretty sure that a slight majority of counties he won were rural.
Still, I'm sure that most Trump 2016 voters who were 18+ in 1988 are Bush 1988 voters.
True, especially because (1) the 1988 election had no age gradient to speak of, with most voters under 25, under 30, under 40, etc. voting for Bush, whereas in 2016 those old enough to vote in 1988 went 53% Trump; (2) many suburbanites for Bush in 1988 had moved (or retired) to exurban or rural areas by 2016.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,645
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: January 17, 2018, 01:45:43 PM »

Because back then it was suburbanites who were racists and unreachable by the Democratic message, whereas now it's rurals. Smiley

As you're well aware of Tom, times change. Smiley

I think more accurately, partisans change who they demonize as subhuman garbage and who they build up as enlightened and smart based on who is willing to lend them an electoral hand at the moment. Smiley
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,949
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: January 17, 2018, 01:55:18 PM »

Because back then it was suburbanites who were racists and unreachable by the Democratic message, whereas now it's rurals. Smiley

As you're well aware of Tom, times change. Smiley

I think more accurately, partisans change who they demonize as subhuman garbage and who they build up as enlightened and smart based on who is willing to lend them an electoral hand at the moment. Smiley

I mean, does it really matter in the present day who may or may not have supported racist pedophiles decades ago? I'm more concerned with who did a month ago. Smiley
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.156 seconds with 12 queries.