Reply #102: OK

[wyldwolf]

In the first place, your claim that Carter gained support in '76 from Southern Democrats who'd "steadily given more support to Republicans" requires some explanation.

Why does it require "some explanation" other than the fact it is a fact? And it really isn't that difficult to see. Johnson won by a a landslide in 1964. In 1968, Nixon won a very close race yet the GOP didn't make inroads into the Congress, indicating that some Democrats who voted for Johnson in '64 voted for Nixon in '68. 1972 was even more dramatic, with Nixon winning in a landslide yet, again, the GOP did not receive corollary victories in the Congressional Elections. Democrats had retained power of the Congress. This fact reflects massive split ticket voting.

Then we come to 1976 - Carter's electoral sweep of the southern states was the first time a Democrat had swept the South since 1956. The south had steadily voted more and more for Republican presidential candidates (or Republican-like candidates like George Wallace) since 1960. And the trend began again in 1980 when Reagan garnered the vote of so-called Reagan Democrats.

As for the alleged 'boll weevils go home' and 'podium snub' incidents, I say again: find me a whole bunch of voters who were swayed by those, if they'd even heard about them, in 1980.

What difference does it make if they were swayed by those at that point? And I never said those incidents alone swayed voters. Many former Democratic voters had already abandoned us. Those two incidents were just symptoms of a more serious problem within the party in 1980 - an impression that the Democrats were not unified and not organized and largely ineffective. However, national media coverage of the event at the podium had disasterous results, along with other incidents.

I also feel it is a odd request to ask me to march out a bunch of voters who were swayed and have heard of those incidents. Do you want them to post here? You want a list of names? I can tell you this - many in my local party remember it. Two were there for it and have given me first person accounts.

... foreign policy failures proved the last straw for neoconservatives and many national security voters, convincing them that the Democratic Party was simply too weak and compromised to defend effectively the nation and helping to drive them to the Republicans... By 1980, many liberals were in open revolt against Carter, abandoning him to support Ted Kennedy's ultimately-doomed primary challenge even as the public was sending unmistakable signals that it was sick of Kennedy-style big government. The number of Americans who agreed with the statement that "the best government is one which governs least" had risen from 32 percent in 1973 to 59 percent in 1981, and liberal positions on crime and welfare were similarly unpopular.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0410.wallace-wells.html

This is why it's important to point out the likes of Michael Beschloss for what he is, the corporate media for what it is, and the DLC and their ilk for what they are, if we wish to defend a traditional Democratic agenda, represented by a wide spectrum of Democratic politicians which includes both Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter.

What does any of this have to do with the discussion? Other than the fact that you have discounted a source simply because you don't like what the source said. I've yet to see you source your statement that Michael Beschloss is "a guy who provides spin on corporate-media hot air shows in the guise of being a historian." It's really easy to discount a source if you don't like what they've said.

And we could go on forever about the DLC - an organization I largely support.