How did Carter win Los Angeles County in 1976?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:14:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  How did Carter win Los Angeles County in 1976?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: How did Carter win Los Angeles County in 1976?  (Read 1608 times)
Arbitrage1980
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 769
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 07, 2020, 04:34:55 AM »

One would think that Carter, a Southern evangelical Christian, was a terrible cultural fit for L.A. county while Ford, a moderate Midwestern Republican, would be a much better fit. But Carter won the county by 2 points.
Logged
SingingAnalyst
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2020, 06:57:10 AM »

One would think that Carter, a Southern evangelical Christian, was a terrible cultural fit for L.A. county while Ford, a moderate Midwestern Republican, would be a much better fit. But Carter won the county by 2 points.
Solid support from Blacks and most of Hollywood, which was still enjoying the glow of the success of the movie "All the President's Men" starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman.

Again, we look back at 1976 as "ho-hum" or "Carter was an evangelical". That hurt him in the Boston area and possibly San Francisco, but probably nowhere else. Carter was clearly different from Ford on the environment, "welfare", aid to cities, and the then-hypothetical Martin Luther King holiday-- which enabled him to carry LA County, Cook County, and New York City.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2020, 09:43:29 AM »

Southern California is Evangelical Smiley
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,717


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2020, 10:55:35 AM »

Southern California was Evangelical Smiley

FTFY
Logged
Intell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,817
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2020, 12:36:17 PM »

One would think that Carter, a Southern evangelical Christian, was a terrible cultural fit for L.A. county while Ford, a moderate Midwestern Republican, would be a much better fit. But Carter won the county by 2 points.
Solid support from Blacks and most of Hollywood, which was still enjoying the glow of the success of the movie "All the President's Men" starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman.

Again, we look back at 1976 as "ho-hum" or "Carter was an evangelical". That hurt him in the Boston area and possibly San Francisco, but probably nowhere else. Carter was clearly different from Ford on the environment, "welfare", aid to cities, and the then-hypothetical Martin Luther King holiday-- which enabled him to carry LA County, Cook County, and New York City.

The busing crisis hurt Carter in boston not him being evangelical
Logged
sguberman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 301
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2020, 01:39:18 PM »

Does anyone know how much Los Angeles the city voted for Carter in 1976
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2020, 03:36:22 PM »

I couldn't find an exact number, but Los Angeles City has mostly been about 7 or 8% more Democratic than the county, so I'm guessing Carter probably got at minimum 56% of the vote.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2020, 05:20:05 PM »

How didn't he? The county was already D leaning in close elections and Nixon wasn't there to bail out the GOP this time.

Just because Humphrey lost the state on it alone doesn't mean it was perfect GOP turf.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2020, 12:13:18 PM »

Not everything is about fit ... New England broke hard toward good ole boy Bill Clinton from Arkansas who, according to quotes from Carville and others on the campaign that I have seen, was VERY intent on showing he was the Democrat who could regain the South.  He actually did a very good job of that (I remember seeing one time that Clinton was apparently furious he didn't flip Texas), all the while picking up a lot of Northeastern suburbs.

Additionally, it was former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a Mormon who was regarded as a very moderate governor during his stint and was attacked all throughout the GOP primaries as "not a real conservative" or whatever, who led the complete collapse of Democrats in many ancestral Southern areas.  At the time, people pointed to how all of the racists had abandoned the Democrats already because Obama was Black, but we obviously saw that talking point 110% backtracked after 2016 so that they could save face. Smiley

Carter won Los Angeles County, IMO, because Los Angeles was very Democratic already (urban voters were Democratic, regardless of "culture"), and it carried enough of the population to sway the county.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2020, 01:11:59 PM »

Not everything is about fit ... New England broke hard toward good ole boy Bill Clinton from Arkansas who, according to quotes from Carville and others on the campaign that I have seen, was VERY intent on showing he was the Democrat who could regain the South.  He actually did a very good job of that (I remember seeing one time that Clinton was apparently furious he didn't flip Texas), all the while picking up a lot of Northeastern suburbs.

Additionally, it was former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a Mormon who was regarded as a very moderate governor during his stint and was attacked all throughout the GOP primaries as "not a real conservative" or whatever, who led the complete collapse of Democrats in many ancestral Southern areas.  At the time, people pointed to how all of the racists had abandoned the Democrats already because Obama was Black, but we obviously saw that talking point 110% backtracked after 2016 so that they could save face. Smiley

Carter won Los Angeles County, IMO, because Los Angeles was very Democratic already (urban voters were Democratic, regardless of "culture"), and it carried enough of the population to sway the county.

I agree with almost all of this, but re: the bolded part I’d add that Clinton didn’t do particularly well in the South in 1992/1996 for a victorious Democrat despite being aided by Ross Perot, who almost certainly cost Bush GA (and arguably KY) and Dole KY (and arguably TN). Even with Perot winning 22% of the vote in TX, Clinton became the first Democrat to win without that state.

Hot take: I think even Carter's showing in the South in 1980 (especially in rural areas and small towns) was more impressive than Clinton's in 1992/1996 when you factor in the environment and different fundamentals, it’s just obscured by the fact that the poor guy lost so many Southern states (and MA + NY) by hilariously narrow margins, which makes the map a little deceptive.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2020, 01:25:47 PM »

Not everything is about fit ... New England broke hard toward good ole boy Bill Clinton from Arkansas who, according to quotes from Carville and others on the campaign that I have seen, was VERY intent on showing he was the Democrat who could regain the South.  He actually did a very good job of that (I remember seeing one time that Clinton was apparently furious he didn't flip Texas), all the while picking up a lot of Northeastern suburbs.

Additionally, it was former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a Mormon who was regarded as a very moderate governor during his stint and was attacked all throughout the GOP primaries as "not a real conservative" or whatever, who led the complete collapse of Democrats in many ancestral Southern areas.  At the time, people pointed to how all of the racists had abandoned the Democrats already because Obama was Black, but we obviously saw that talking point 110% backtracked after 2016 so that they could save face. Smiley

Carter won Los Angeles County, IMO, because Los Angeles was very Democratic already (urban voters were Democratic, regardless of "culture"), and it carried enough of the population to sway the county.

I agree with almost all of this, but re: the bolded part I’d add that Clinton didn’t do particularly well in the South in 1992/1996 for a victorious Democrat despite being aided by Ross Perot, who almost certainly cost Bush GA (and arguably KY) and Dole KY (and arguably TN). Even with Perot winning 22% of the vote in TX, Clinton became the first Democrat to win without that state.

Hot take: I think even Carter's showing in the South in 1980 (especially in rural areas and small towns) was more impressive than Clinton's in 1992/1996 when you factor in the environment and different fundamentals, it’s just obscured by the fact that the poor guy lost so many Southern states (and MA + NY) by hilariously narrow margins, which makes the map a little deceptive.

This was the map if  1980 was Reagan +3 instead of Reagan +10


Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 09, 2020, 02:40:20 PM »

Not everything is about fit ... New England broke hard toward good ole boy Bill Clinton from Arkansas who, according to quotes from Carville and others on the campaign that I have seen, was VERY intent on showing he was the Democrat who could regain the South.  He actually did a very good job of that (I remember seeing one time that Clinton was apparently furious he didn't flip Texas), all the while picking up a lot of Northeastern suburbs.

Additionally, it was former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a Mormon who was regarded as a very moderate governor during his stint and was attacked all throughout the GOP primaries as "not a real conservative" or whatever, who led the complete collapse of Democrats in many ancestral Southern areas.  At the time, people pointed to how all of the racists had abandoned the Democrats already because Obama was Black, but we obviously saw that talking point 110% backtracked after 2016 so that they could save face. Smiley

Carter won Los Angeles County, IMO, because Los Angeles was very Democratic already (urban voters were Democratic, regardless of "culture"), and it carried enough of the population to sway the county.

I agree with almost all of this, but re: the bolded part I’d add that Clinton didn’t do particularly well in the South in 1992/1996 for a victorious Democrat despite being aided by Ross Perot, who almost certainly cost Bush GA (and arguably KY) and Dole KY (and arguably TN). Even with Perot winning 22% of the vote in TX, Clinton became the first Democrat to win without that state.

Hot take: I think even Carter's showing in the South in 1980 (especially in rural areas and small towns) was more impressive than Clinton's in 1992/1996 when you factor in the environment and different fundamentals, it’s just obscured by the fact that the poor guy lost so many Southern states (and MA + NY) by hilariously narrow margins, which makes the map a little deceptive.

The "hot take" is definitely true in a purely "data"-oriented sense, but I think it should be noted how many ancestral Democrats (specifically in rural areas and small towns) had died off between 1980 and 1992; that is as relevant as the erosion between 2004 and 2016, after all.  I do agree that, given how badly he lost nationally, Carter's 1980 performance in the South was impressive, but I think Clinton faced an inherently more Republican South, too.
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,282
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2020, 05:08:44 PM »
« Edited: July 12, 2020, 05:23:20 PM by Battista Minola 1616 »

Not everything is about fit ... New England broke hard toward good ole boy Bill Clinton from Arkansas who, according to quotes from Carville and others on the campaign that I have seen, was VERY intent on showing he was the Democrat who could regain the South.  He actually did a very good job of that (I remember seeing one time that Clinton was apparently furious he didn't flip Texas), all the while picking up a lot of Northeastern suburbs.

Additionally, it was former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a Mormon who was regarded as a very moderate governor during his stint and was attacked all throughout the GOP primaries as "not a real conservative" or whatever, who led the complete collapse of Democrats in many ancestral Southern areas.  At the time, people pointed to how all of the racists had abandoned the Democrats already because Obama was Black, but we obviously saw that talking point 110% backtracked after 2016 so that they could save face. Smiley

Carter won Los Angeles County, IMO, because Los Angeles was very Democratic already (urban voters were Democratic, regardless of "culture"), and it carried enough of the population to sway the county.

I agree with almost all of this, but re: the bolded part I’d add that Clinton didn’t do particularly well in the South in 1992/1996 for a victorious Democrat despite being aided by Ross Perot, who almost certainly cost Bush GA (and arguably KY) and Dole KY (and arguably TN). Even with Perot winning 22% of the vote in TX, Clinton became the first Democrat to win without that state.

Hot take: I think even Carter's showing in the South in 1980 (especially in rural areas and small towns) was more impressive than Clinton's in 1992/1996 when you factor in the environment and different fundamentals, it’s just obscured by the fact that the poor guy lost so many Southern states (and MA + NY) by hilariously narrow margins, which makes the map a little deceptive.

This was the map if  1980 was Reagan +3 instead of Reagan +10




It's funny how under Jimmy Carter the split was not between North and South, but between East and West. I am always shocked that he couldn't win New Mexico in 1976, which has otherwise always voted for the popular vote winner.
Logged
Arbitrage1980
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 769
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 14, 2020, 09:15:13 PM »

Not everything is about fit ... New England broke hard toward good ole boy Bill Clinton from Arkansas who, according to quotes from Carville and others on the campaign that I have seen, was VERY intent on showing he was the Democrat who could regain the South.  He actually did a very good job of that (I remember seeing one time that Clinton was apparently furious he didn't flip Texas), all the while picking up a lot of Northeastern suburbs.

Additionally, it was former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a Mormon who was regarded as a very moderate governor during his stint and was attacked all throughout the GOP primaries as "not a real conservative" or whatever, who led the complete collapse of Democrats in many ancestral Southern areas.  At the time, people pointed to how all of the racists had abandoned the Democrats already because Obama was Black, but we obviously saw that talking point 110% backtracked after 2016 so that they could save face. Smiley

Carter won Los Angeles County, IMO, because Los Angeles was very Democratic already (urban voters were Democratic, regardless of "culture"), and it carried enough of the population to sway the county.

I agree with almost all of this, but re: the bolded part I’d add that Clinton didn’t do particularly well in the South in 1992/1996 for a victorious Democrat despite being aided by Ross Perot, who almost certainly cost Bush GA (and arguably KY) and Dole KY (and arguably TN). Even with Perot winning 22% of the vote in TX, Clinton became the first Democrat to win without that state.

Hot take: I think even Carter's showing in the South in 1980 (especially in rural areas and small towns) was more impressive than Clinton's in 1992/1996 when you factor in the environment and different fundamentals, it’s just obscured by the fact that the poor guy lost so many Southern states (and MA + NY) by hilariously narrow margins, which makes the map a little deceptive.

Yeah, lot of close southern states in 1980. Reagan won TN by 0.3%, AR by 0.6%, AL by 1.3%, MS by 1.3%, KY by 1.5%, SC by 1.5%, NC by 2.1%. Those states were close due to Carter's strength with rural whites. The GOP's realignment of the South happened with the growing economic hubs of the "New South" before trickling down to the rural areas. Reagan's 3 best southern states in 1980 were FL, TX, VA, due to his strength in NOVA, Miami, Orlando, Tampa, Dallas, Houston.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.04 seconds with 12 queries.