Was the Senate Class of 1980 the most stark example of the coattail effect sweeping them to power

[OSR stands with Israel]

1980:



1986:



Like just look how many close seats Republicans flipped in 1980 how many seats they then lost in 1986 by a close margin as well. It seems like this class was extremely reliant on coattails/wave conditions to win and the fact that many of them lost by close margins in 1986 shows without that effect many were unable to win tight races without being carried over the finish line.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

I mean Carter himself may have cost them Idaho.

[progressive85]

It also shows how the Southern realignment that was underway in the 1980s hadn't fully cemented itself yet by 1986 (FL, AL, GA, NC all were pickups for Democrats even though Ronald Reagan had easily won all four of those states two years before).

[Brittain33]

Yes, and the new senators from FL, GA, AL, and NC were not at all ready for prime time, which is why they lost (or would have, in John East's case) in 1986. All respect to Jeremiah Denton's service.

[Orser67]

1980 may well be the best single example, but 1920->1926 and 1932->1938 look pretty similar.

[Benjamin Frank]

Hard to tell because 1980 was the followup to the 1974 Senate election. Although the Democrats only gained a net of 4 seats in 1974, going from 57 to 61, if that election hadn't been the Watergate election, it's very likely a number of vulnerable Democratic incumbents would have lost in 1974 like George McGovern of South Dakota.

[Lief 🗽]

It’s what happens when the enemy of the people news media calls the election before the western half of the country is done voting and Democratic turnout craters.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It’s what happens when the enemy of the people news media calls the election before the western half of the country is done voting and Democratic turnout craters.

Only Idaho though was within 5 points so that probably only cost the Dem one senate seat in 1980.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Hard to tell because 1980 was the followup to the 1974 Senate election. Although the Democrats only gained a net of 4 seats in 1974, going from 57 to 61, if that election hadn't been the Watergate election, it's very likely a number of vulnerable Democratic incumbents would have lost in 1974 like George McGovern of South Dakota.

Well the reason I would say this also is due to 1986 as many of the same senators who were narrowly elected in 1980(especially in the South) were narrowly defeated in 1986. In fact literally every GOP gain in the South in 1980: AL, GA, NC, FL were all within 5 points in 1980 and in 1986 they lost each and everyone of those seats and 3 of the 4 by under 5 points.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Slade Gorton (WA) hold the very unusual distinction of being defeated for re-election to both of his state’s US Senate seats.

I think he might be the only person to have accomplished this, at least in the century since we’ve have direct election of Senators.

[Indy Texas]

Slade Gorton (WA) hold the very unusual distinction of being defeated for re-election to both of his state’s US Senate seats.

I think he might be the only person to have accomplished this, at least in the century since we’ve have direct election of Senators.

Chapman Revercomb (R-WV) also managed that. (His second defeat, in 1958, was to Robert Byrd, who ran to his right on race issues and made Revercomb's vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1957 into an issue.)

[politicallefty]

It’s what happens when the enemy of the people news media calls the election before the western half of the country is done voting and Democratic turnout craters.

Only Idaho though was within 5 points so that probably only cost the Dem one senate seat in 1980.

Arizona? For some reason, I never noticed until now that Barry Goldwater held on by less than 10k votes in 1980. A very slight shift could've knocked off Barry Goldwater, which would've been even more fitting considering how many iconic Senators on the left went down that year.

[SInNYC]

I define coattail effect to be people voting for you because the top of the ticket drew you to the polls, so no.

Reagan in 1980 was considered an extremist pushing extremist policies (voodoo economics according to his veep), though he was spun as a good manager/leader. He won not because people agreed with him. but because Carter was that unpopular - the summer 2000 economy was perceived as terrible and the Iran hostage crisis was on the news nonstop (and this mainstream news, in pre-Fox times). So, it was a combination of southern realignment and the perception of Carter (and by extension Ds) as a bumbling incompetent.

[Orser67]

I define coattail effect to be people voting for you because the top of the ticket drew you to the polls, so no.

Yeah, that's how I generally think about it, too, although I give credit to OP for defining what they meant when they used the term.

I also tend to agree with your analysis of Reagan. With that said, from the perspective of a strong presidential candidate lifting up their party's congressional candidates, I wonder how many 20th+21st century presidential candidates actually had strong coattails. Other than Reagan, the only recent-ish presidential candidate I can think of who took office and whose parties had very strong performances in both houses of Congress was Obama. Before Reagan, there was maybe LBJ in '64 and Truman in '48. You could point to some other examples such as Eisenhower in '52, but Republicans didn't exactly have a dominant performance in the congressional elections that year. There's also some good examples in the 1920s and 1930s, but I wonder to what extent e.g. Harding, Hoover, and FDR '32 helped their party's candidates as opposed to benefiting from strong environments for their respective parties.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I define coattail effect to be people voting for you because the top of the ticket drew you to the polls, so no.

Reagan in 1980 was considered an extremist pushing extremist policies (voodoo economics according to his veep), though he was spun as a good manager/leader. He won not because people agreed with him. but because Carter was that unpopular - the summer 2000 economy was perceived as terrible and the Iran hostage crisis was on the news nonstop (and this mainstream news, in pre-Fox times). So, it was a combination of southern realignment and the perception of Carter (and by extension Ds) as a bumbling incompetent.

This is not really true, Reagan in 1976 was but by 1979 he had the support of most of the GOP establishment and he was widely expected to be the GOP nominee from 1977 onwards.

Also the reason I brought this up is just not cause of 1980 but cause of 1986 as so many of the same races were so close but without the Reagan wave they were unable to get across the finish line.