How did the Republicans hang onto PA, IL and CA 1988?

[sg0508]

IL was a 13 pt win for Reagan and yes, the GOP had won there every time starting in 68 until 92, but that probably should have been a state Dukakis could have had.  I know the suburban towns outside of Cooke used to be heavily republican, and that likely saved Bush, but was there anything else? 

Also in PA, that was one of Reagan's weakest states in 84 (53-46%) and ironically, he performed stronger in NY.  How in the heck did Dukakis not capture PA in 88?  I've heard it had something to do with gun laws, but I could be mistaken. 

In CA, that was often called "The last gift from Reagan" as it was our last time carrying the state in a national race.  Bush held on there by 3.5 pts and my guess is that it was all Reagan's doings.

Any insight?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Dukakis ran a poor campaign. Those states ( though maybe not California because of Reagan ) would have voted for a generic democrat this time.

[Landslide Lyndon]

From what I have read, Bush swamped Dukakis at the suburbs thanks in big part to the Willie Horton ads.
Crime was a big problem back then and suburbanites saw Dukakis as soft and too liberal. That was also the reason why Bush carried Maryland, one of the Carter states in 1980.

[memphis]

[Badger]

From what I have read, Bush swamped Dukakis at the suburbs thanks in big part to the Willie Horton ads.
Crime was a big problem back then and suburbanites saw Dukakis as soft and too liberal. That was also the reason why Bush carried Maryland, one of the Carter states in 1980.

Gun control indeed was a big issue hammered on in PA and MD. There was a gun control inititive on the ballot in MD which brought the NRA vote out big time and pushed Bush Sr. over the top there.

[Husker]

I don't think Dukakis ran that great of a campaign and was seen as out of touch by many Americans. He shares a similar characteristic with John Kerry in that regard. Plus, Reagan was still popular in a lot of the country and the GOP wasn't as heavily influenced by the evangelical right and neoconservatives in 1988 either. So, it's probably a reasonable argument to say that many moderate swing voters probably just couldn't pull the lever for Dukakis. Had it not been for the Farm Crisis and a terrible drought in the Corn Belt, it is questionable whether Dukakis would have carried IA and WI. So perhaps a counter argument could be made that Dukakis could have done even worse?

PA seems to be getting more republican in the west and less republican in the east. My guess is that Bush Sr. still was winning a lot of the wealthy moderate vote in the suburbs that is now going to Obama. In IL, the republican party was much more formidable back then and Chicago wasn't trouncing out the rural vote as much. As Chicago has gained more minorities and seen an increase in minority voting, the democratic share has gone way up. As the suburban areas become more "urbanized" they have become more and more democratic as well. It is worth pointing out that Bush got a respectable 43.4 in Cook County back in 1988... kind of hard to imagine any republican getting anywhere near that now.

CA was also less urbanized and had far fewer minorities voting back in 1988, so a similar argument could be made for it too.

[sg0508]

I read also that Bush killed him in suburbia, but then how did we not hang onto WA and OR too?  Back in the 80s, King County didn't kill us like it does now and if you won big in the suburbs, you could carry WA. 

Wasn't it also true that Bush made a serious late charge in my native NY too?  He campaigned hard here the last month or so and made the final margin respectable.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I read also that Bush killed him in suburbia, but then how did we not hang onto WA and OR too?  Back in the 80s, King County didn't kill us like it does now and if you won big in the suburbs, you could carry WA. 

Wasn't it also true that Bush made a serious late charge in my native NY too?  He campaigned hard here the last month or so and made the final margin respectable.

Because both are two of the most liberal states.

[sg0508]

Starting in 1952, we won WA and OR every time except for 1964 (and WA in 1968).  There was no reason for us to lose both of them in 88.

[Antonio the Sixth]

How can I explain that ?

Do you just know the ideological shift of the GOP between 1952 and 1981 ? These parties have absolutely not in common, and Dewey, Eisenhower or Rockefeller would be democrats today ( or Snowe/Collins-type republicans ).

[TeePee4Prez]

PA-  Truncation of Democratic party from the western PA suburbs in 1988 to the eastern PA suburbs in 2008.  You also have to remember the economy of western PA during the 1980s was in near Depression status and with people losing jobs and homes right and left, social issues got swept under the rug.  Meanwhile in the east, wealthy suburbanites still saw the GOP as the tax cut party hence they won there.  Economic issues tended to trump social issues pre-Newt Gingrich.  Also the professionals in the Southeast tended to have fairly secure jobs back then.  Such is not the case nowadays and I've even seen a slight tick to the economic left in the Philly suburbs.  Also, Clinton was popular in the East and didn't exactly kill them on taxes like Carter did, in fact they didn't increase at all for many suburban voters under Clinton.

[minionofmidas]

I read also that Bush killed him in suburbia, but then how did we not hang onto WA and OR too?  Back in the 80s, King County didn't kill us like it does now and if you won big in the suburbs, you could carry WA. 

You didn't win the rural parts like you do now, back then. And there were fewer suburbs (of course, King is full of suburbs anyways).

[defe07]

I seriously think that the Republicans won IL in '88 because of many factors. First of all, the Dukakis scandal when he was Governor of MA (which I think swung many big states like IL, PA, etc.) Second, IL used an electoral system called Cumulative Vote, where voters had 3 votes and could allocate them to any candidate they want or split them. This system caused the rural Democrats and urban Republicans to have a bigger voice in their legislature's actions. Thus, I think, the party machines of both parties were held accountable in some ways. Compared to now, IL was actually a good state where transparency was well known. 

[Landslide Lyndon]

I seriously think that the Republicans won IL in '88 because of many factors. First of all, the Dukakis scandal when he was Governor of MA (which I think swung many big states like IL, PA, etc.) Second, IL used an electoral system called Cumulative Vote, where voters had 3 votes and could allocate them to any candidate they want or split them. This system caused the rural Democrats and urban Republicans to have a bigger voice in their legislature's actions. Thus, I think, the party machines of both parties were held accountable in some ways. Compared to now, IL was actually a good state where transparency was well known. 

WTF?

[CJK]

I think the bigger mystery is how the Republicans hung on to Maryland.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I think the bigger mystery is how the Republicans hung on to Maryland.

Because that's where the Willie Horton murders took place.

[defe07]

Willie Horton case (low blow for the Dukakis campaign)+ Reagan's popularity + Bushie's Law and Order stances = Grab onto PA, IL and CA. I could be wrong but this is my POV. 

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I seriously think that the Republicans won IL in '88 because of many factors. First of all, the Dukakis scandal when he was Governor of MA (which I think swung many big states like IL, PA, etc.) Second, IL used an electoral system called Cumulative Vote, where voters had 3 votes and could allocate them to any candidate they want or split them. This system caused the rural Democrats and urban Republicans to have a bigger voice in their legislature's actions. Thus, I think, the party machines of both parties were held accountable in some ways. Compared to now, IL was actually a good state where transparency was well known. 

WTF?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I think the bigger mystery is how the Republicans hung on to Maryland.

Because that's where the Willie Horton murders took place.

I could not agree more.

You cannot possibly be serious.

[pogo stick]

I say PA was by luck. IL was still republican in many ways. CA was a gift from Reagan. Um...Maryland is obviously because of the Willie Horton Murders