Four consecutive 20+ point PV swings from 1964-1976

[twenty42]

1964–D+22.4
1968–R+23.3
1972–R+22.5
1976–D+25.2

What I find interesting/ironic about this is that the 1960s-70s are often considered a high point of tumult and controversy in American history, yet numbers show it was also arguably the low point of political polarization. There was still a very large swing vote despite the incessant violence and depression of the era. It provides an interesting contrast with the 2000s-10s, where political views remain highly polarized and baked in despite facing a lot of the same cultural issues we were facing two generations ago.

Also utterly remarkable is that the NPV swung 38 points from 1956 to 1964 and then 46 points from 1964 to 1972. Almost makes you wonder if any true partisans even existed during those 16 years.

[Del Tachi]

I wonder what those swings look like if you remove the Southern states

[Stranger in a strange land]

1964–D+22.4
1968–R+23.3
1972–R+22.5
1976–D+25.2

What I find interesting/ironic about this is that the 1960s-70s are often considered a high point of tumult and controversy in American history, yet numbers show it was also arguably the low point of political polarization. There was still a very large swing vote despite the incessant violence and depression of the era. It provides an interesting contrast with the 2000s-10s, where political views remain highly polarized and baked in despite facing a lot of the same cultural issues we were facing two generations ago.

Also utterly remarkable is that the NPV swung 38 points from 1956 to 1964 and then 46 points from 1964 to 1972. Almost makes you wonder if any true partisans even existed during those 16 years.

Because polarization in those days wasn't along political party lines, and the Democrats and Republicans each still had Conservative, Moderate, and Liberal factions. Up until the 1980s or so, American Political Parties were coalitions of interest groups that only very vaguely had a unifying ideology.

[RINO Tom]

1964–D+22.4
1968–R+23.3
1972–R+22.5
1976–D+25.2

What I find interesting/ironic about this is that the 1960s-70s are often considered a high point of tumult and controversy in American history, yet numbers show it was also arguably the low point of political polarization. There was still a very large swing vote despite the incessant violence and depression of the era. It provides an interesting contrast with the 2000s-10s, where political views remain highly polarized and baked in despite facing a lot of the same cultural issues we were facing two generations ago.

Also utterly remarkable is that the NPV swung 38 points from 1956 to 1964 and then 46 points from 1964 to 1972. Almost makes you wonder if any true partisans even existed during those 16 years.

Because polarization in those days wasn't along political party lines, and the Democrats and Republicans each still had Conservative, Moderate, and Liberal factions. Up until the 1980s or so, American Political Parties were coalitions of interest groups that only very vaguely had a unifying ideology.

We've changed how we look at ideology.  Today, we see a "liberal" Republican from Vermont because he was pro-choice and a "conservative" Democrat from Arkansas because he was pro-life, but the interest that unified them arguably WAS the ideology, or at least the one that mattered.  A more natural political alignment if you ask me.

[Del Tachi]

1964–D+22.4
1968–R+23.3
1972–R+22.5
1976–D+25.2

What I find interesting/ironic about this is that the 1960s-70s are often considered a high point of tumult and controversy in American history, yet numbers show it was also arguably the low point of political polarization. There was still a very large swing vote despite the incessant violence and depression of the era. It provides an interesting contrast with the 2000s-10s, where political views remain highly polarized and baked in despite facing a lot of the same cultural issues we were facing two generations ago.

Also utterly remarkable is that the NPV swung 38 points from 1956 to 1964 and then 46 points from 1964 to 1972. Almost makes you wonder if any true partisans even existed during those 16 years.

Because polarization in those days wasn't along political party lines, and the Democrats and Republicans each still had Conservative, Moderate, and Liberal factions. Up until the 1980s or so, American Political Parties were coalitions of interest groups that only very vaguely had a unifying ideology.

We've changed how we look at ideology.  Today, we see a "liberal" Republican from Vermont because he was pro-choice and a "conservative" Democrat from Arkansas because he was pro-life, but the interest that unified them arguably WAS the ideology, or at least the one that mattered.  A more natural political alignment if you ask me.

Hmmm....I might be missing something, but what ideology was that?  Both Republicans and Democrats had very healthy, robust conservative and liberal wings that feuded openly throughout most of the 20th Century. 

[RINO Tom]

1964–D+22.4
1968–R+23.3
1972–R+22.5
1976–D+25.2

What I find interesting/ironic about this is that the 1960s-70s are often considered a high point of tumult and controversy in American history, yet numbers show it was also arguably the low point of political polarization. There was still a very large swing vote despite the incessant violence and depression of the era. It provides an interesting contrast with the 2000s-10s, where political views remain highly polarized and baked in despite facing a lot of the same cultural issues we were facing two generations ago.

Also utterly remarkable is that the NPV swung 38 points from 1956 to 1964 and then 46 points from 1964 to 1972. Almost makes you wonder if any true partisans even existed during those 16 years.

Because polarization in those days wasn't along political party lines, and the Democrats and Republicans each still had Conservative, Moderate, and Liberal factions. Up until the 1980s or so, American Political Parties were coalitions of interest groups that only very vaguely had a unifying ideology.

We've changed how we look at ideology.  Today, we see a "liberal" Republican from Vermont because he was pro-choice and a "conservative" Democrat from Arkansas because he was pro-life, but the interest that unified them arguably WAS the ideology, or at least the one that mattered.  A more natural political alignment if you ask me.

Hmmm....I might be missing something, but what ideology was that?  Both Republicans and Democrats had very healthy, robust conservative and liberal wings that feuded openly throughout most of the 20th Century.

Obviously there were some straight-up conservative, right wing Democrats (ala the Byrds in VA or Strom Thurmond) and some legitimately liberal-across-the-board Republicans (ala Javitz or Mathias), but "conservative Democrat" largely meant "conservative FOR A DEMOCRAT" and the opposite for a "liberal Republican," IMO.  Your more conservative Democrats were still, by and large, an ally in many liberal causes, as were your more liberal Republicans with many conservative causes.  For example, your "liberal Republicans" who accepted the New Deal were still campaigning on stalling its expansion and running it in a more efficient manner.  A lot of the "conservative Democrats" narrative revolves around civil rights, which I flatly reject as a left-right issue, so I'll bypass that nonsense ... but even your "conservative Democrats" in the South who were anti-union, for example, were going to be more supportive of infrastructure and education spending funded by some wealth redistribution than a supposedly "liberal" Rockefeller Republican would have been.

Again, these are huge generalizations.  But, if you ask me, egalitarian Democrats with varying cultural and social views depending on region vs. largely "status-quo defending," conservative-on-class-issues Republicans with the same varying cultural and social views depending on region makes more sense than the tribal mess we have now.  It was also pretty clearly better for governing.

[OSR stands with Israel]

1964–D+22.4
1968–R+23.3
1972–R+22.5
1976–D+25.2

What I find interesting/ironic about this is that the 1960s-70s are often considered a high point of tumult and controversy in American history, yet numbers show it was also arguably the low point of political polarization. There was still a very large swing vote despite the incessant violence and depression of the era. It provides an interesting contrast with the 2000s-10s, where political views remain highly polarized and baked in despite facing a lot of the same cultural issues we were facing two generations ago.

Also utterly remarkable is that the NPV swung 38 points from 1956 to 1964 and then 46 points from 1964 to 1972. Almost makes you wonder if any true partisans even existed during those 16 years.

Because polarization in those days wasn't along political party lines, and the Democrats and Republicans each still had Conservative, Moderate, and Liberal factions. Up until the 1980s or so, American Political Parties were coalitions of interest groups that only very vaguely had a unifying ideology.

We've changed how we look at ideology.  Today, we see a "liberal" Republican from Vermont because he was pro-choice and a "conservative" Democrat from Arkansas because he was pro-life, but the interest that unified them arguably WAS the ideology, or at least the one that mattered.  A more natural political alignment if you ask me.

Hmmm....I might be missing something, but what ideology was that?  Both Republicans and Democrats had very healthy, robust conservative and liberal wings that feuded openly throughout most of the 20th Century.

Obviously there were some straight-up conservative, right wing Democrats (ala the Byrds in VA or Strom Thurmond) and some legitimately liberal-across-the-board Republicans (ala Javitz or Mathias), but "conservative Democrat" largely meant "conservative FOR A DEMOCRAT" and the opposite for a "liberal Republican," IMO.  Your more conservative Democrats were still, by and large, an ally in many liberal causes, as were your more liberal Republicans with many conservative causes.  For example, your "liberal Republicans" who accepted the New Deal were still campaigning on stalling its expansion and running it in a more efficient manner.  A lot of the "conservative Democrats" narrative revolves around civil rights, which I flatly reject as a left-right issue, so I'll bypass that nonsense ... but even your "conservative Democrats" in the South who were anti-union, for example, were going to be more supportive of infrastructure and education spending funded by some wealth redistribution than a supposedly "liberal" Rockefeller Republican would have been.

Again, these are huge generalizations.  But, if you ask me, egalitarian Democrats with varying cultural and social views depending on region vs. largely "status-quo defending," conservative-on-class-issues Republicans with the same varying cultural and social views depending on region makes more sense than the tribal mess we have now.  It was also pretty clearly better for governing.

Well what about Conservative Democrats who were part of the Conservative Coalition . They certianly are what you would call just not Conservative for Democrats but Conservatives in General .