What was the lowest point of the Democratic Party?

[OSR stands with Israel]

1984 was the low point of the Democratic Party. 


The map above was the projected map for 1988, IMO.  That's a glum map.  What it reflected was that at the Presidential level, the Democratic Party had virtually no base from which to build a successfull national campaign.  1984 made it clear that Carter in 1976 was a fluke, and strongly suggested that if the 1976 Democrat were anyone else but someone from the South positioned as Carter was, the party was not going to elect a President.  It's most electable candidates were Southern moderates, but its most likely nominees were Northern liberals.  It certainly could not be lost that the two (2) Northern liberals post-HHH lost 49 states, and while McGovern lost because of personal unpopularity, Reagen won and brought more Republicans with him (something Nixon did little of in 1972).  On top of that, the Democrats had lost the Senate; their ongoing control of the Congress was not something they could take for granted.

The reason this was a low point for the Democratic Party is because the party was at its most dependent on circumstances beyond its control to elect a President.  They had to hope there was an overriding issue that could get people to see them as the only viable alternative (which usually meant that they were dependent on economic downturns).  They had to hope that their nominee would be acceptable to a conservative electorate in the South, but they had to keep their liberal wing of the party placated, because, after all, the Democrats WERE the "Liberal" Party.  That led to quotes like this one from Rep. Peter Kostemayer

"We're not going to blow it this time. Just shut up, gays, women, environmentalists. Just shut up. You'll get everything you want after the election. But just, for the meantime, shut up so we can win."

Kostemayer actually said that.  He also reminded the representatives of those various groups that "No one wants to take the blame for blowing it this time." 

I ask you:  What kind of shape is a party in when it comes down to that?  The liberals couldn't shut up, and Michael Dukakis couldn't help himself. 

One has to wonder how 1992 would have gone had there been two (2) Northern Liberals on the ticket:



The comeback the Democrats made stems from two (2) developments; the shifting to the left, socially, of the New England states, and a stubborn economy .  Bush was also a poor candidate; he should have won and I still can't believe that he lost, but lose he did, and while he surged in the end, it wasn't enough. 

The problem with this take is that Democrats literally won a House majority in this election.  During Nixon's arguably even bigger landslide, they also won a Senate majority.  So I don't think anything from that era can be the answer!

The Democrats won House majorities, but they were dependent on continuing to elect Southern Democrats who said they were moderates or conservatives and who had voting records that, while more moderate than their 1960s counterparts, were still more conservative than the average Democrat. 

The Democratic Party actually elected a President in 1876, only to have it stolen.  They came close in 1880, and won the popular vote in 3 straight elections after that.  This was nowhere near as crippling as the McGovern and Mondale debacles.

I would say the 1920s was more of a low point for the Democrats than the 1980s given the Democrats not also lost 3 consecutive presidential landslides but also were in terrible shape downballot as well.

What about post-Reconstruction, pre-WWI?  There was a Republican trifecta straight through from 1896-1910 and nothing was particularly close at any level.  Dems looked hopeless outside of the South.

The Democrats were far stronger in the West and Border states in that period though while in the 1920s the Democrats were pretty much dead outside the South and the Solid South was beginning to break even before 1928 as well.

[Skill and Chance]

1984 was the low point of the Democratic Party. 


The map above was the projected map for 1988, IMO.  That's a glum map.  What it reflected was that at the Presidential level, the Democratic Party had virtually no base from which to build a successfull national campaign.  1984 made it clear that Carter in 1976 was a fluke, and strongly suggested that if the 1976 Democrat were anyone else but someone from the South positioned as Carter was, the party was not going to elect a President.  It's most electable candidates were Southern moderates, but its most likely nominees were Northern liberals.  It certainly could not be lost that the two (2) Northern liberals post-HHH lost 49 states, and while McGovern lost because of personal unpopularity, Reagen won and brought more Republicans with him (something Nixon did little of in 1972).  On top of that, the Democrats had lost the Senate; their ongoing control of the Congress was not something they could take for granted.

The reason this was a low point for the Democratic Party is because the party was at its most dependent on circumstances beyond its control to elect a President.  They had to hope there was an overriding issue that could get people to see them as the only viable alternative (which usually meant that they were dependent on economic downturns).  They had to hope that their nominee would be acceptable to a conservative electorate in the South, but they had to keep their liberal wing of the party placated, because, after all, the Democrats WERE the "Liberal" Party.  That led to quotes like this one from Rep. Peter Kostemayer

"We're not going to blow it this time. Just shut up, gays, women, environmentalists. Just shut up. You'll get everything you want after the election. But just, for the meantime, shut up so we can win."

Kostemayer actually said that.  He also reminded the representatives of those various groups that "No one wants to take the blame for blowing it this time." 

I ask you:  What kind of shape is a party in when it comes down to that?  The liberals couldn't shut up, and Michael Dukakis couldn't help himself. 

One has to wonder how 1992 would have gone had there been two (2) Northern Liberals on the ticket:



The comeback the Democrats made stems from two (2) developments; the shifting to the left, socially, of the New England states, and a stubborn economy .  Bush was also a poor candidate; he should have won and I still can't believe that he lost, but lose he did, and while he surged in the end, it wasn't enough. 

The problem with this take is that Democrats literally won a House majority in this election.  During Nixon's arguably even bigger landslide, they also won a Senate majority.  So I don't think anything from that era can be the answer!

The Democrats won House majorities, but they were dependent on continuing to elect Southern Democrats who said they were moderates or conservatives and who had voting records that, while more moderate than their 1960s counterparts, were still more conservative than the average Democrat. 

The Democratic Party actually elected a President in 1876, only to have it stolen.  They came close in 1880, and won the popular vote in 3 straight elections after that.  This was nowhere near as crippling as the McGovern and Mondale debacles.

I would say the 1920s was more of a low point for the Democrats than the 1980s given the Democrats not also lost 3 consecutive presidential landslides but also were in terrible shape downballot as well.

What about post-Reconstruction, pre-WWI?  There was a Republican trifecta straight through from 1896-1910 and nothing was particularly close at any level.  Dems looked hopeless outside of the South.

The Democrats were far stronger in the West and Border states in that period though while in the 1920s the Democrats were pretty much dead outside the South and the Solid South was beginning to break even before 1928 as well.

IDK though they still got really close to control of the House in 1922. 

[Orser67]

I certainly don't think it's 1984 (when Democrats controlled Congress) or 2016 (a single Republican presidential election victory sandwiched by two Democratic presidential victories).

There are there periods where Democrats were shut out of the presidency and both houses of Congress for at least a decade: 1861-1875, 1921-1931, and a period that imo should have been a poll option: 1897-1911.

There's no one right answer, but 1904 is kind of appealing to me because it covers all the bases: Roosevelt won a landslide election, Republicans had a dominant hold of both chambers of Congress, and Democrats had already been shut out of power for 8 years and had to wait another 6 years before ending the Republican trifecta. Other years have there merits as well: Republicans held absurd edges in Congress during Grant's first two years despite a relatively close presidential election in 1868, and 1920 is arguably the most dominant election victory any party has ever achieved.

[ReaganLimbaugh]

It's not on the list but they got their heads kicked in really, really bad in 1994.  I was on the Charlie Norwood campaign in 1994 in Georgia and he nuked establishment incumbent Don Johnson back into the stone age.

[PSOL]

April 9th, 1865