U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-08-2019, 06:26 PM
 
Location: Houston
22,497 posts, read 11,584,513 times
Reputation: 9072

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie gein View Post
I guess these people never noticed the polls leading up to the 1972 election. In the last six months of the race McGovern was never closer than 16 percentage point behind and going into November he was 20-25 points behind.
Yes, made the Watergate burglary even more ridiculous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-08-2019, 06:53 PM
 
Location: Upstate NY
35,432 posts, read 10,481,794 times
Reputation: 33476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonyafd View Post
Does anyone here remember George McGovern? He was the democrat who was trounced by Richard Nixon in 1972. This was less than two years before Nixon resigned in disgrace.

We democrats watch CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and listen to NPR on the radio. We read the East coast and West coast newspapers. Some of the East coast newspapers are especially tough on Trump. Lets look at Donald Trump. He is the white people's champion. Many are under the delusion that he will bring back those jobs that could actually feed and house a family. What is true about him is that he is the first one to really end the Marshall plan. He recognizes that America is in competition with the rest of the world, and the treaties that have sped up the loss of good jobs in America must be repudiated.

Getting back to the title of this thread. There was an amusing cartoon in Playboy in late 72 or early 73 that has the caption at the bottom of the page which says "I can't understand why McGovern lost, everyone I know voted for him".

Is there reason to believe that we are in that McGovern Syndrome bubble now by expecting an overwhelming democratic victory? If so why?

LOL Who's expecting an overwhelming Democrat victory?

And that "joke" is, in fact, a take on something a liberal film critic was reported as saying (and claimed she didn't)--that she couldn't understand how Nixon became president because she didn't know of anyone who voted for him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2019, 07:11 PM
 
1,739 posts, read 591,669 times
Reputation: 1332
Hey OP, get your own material!

Who will be the Pauline Kael of the 2020 election?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2019, 07:12 PM
 
7,045 posts, read 2,508,676 times
Reputation: 3563
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
Those under 30 have always been overwhelmingly liberal. As they move to higher tax brackets and as the center moves left they become conservatives.
Not true.

While some individuals may grow more conservative as they age, the politics of a generation are determined by events of young adulthood, and for the majority remain set for life. That’s why generations have distinct political differences that persist even as they age.

Quote:
On an individual level, of course, many people’s political views evolve over the course of their lives. But academic research indicates not only that generations have distinct political identities, but that most people’s basic outlooks and orientations are set fairly early on in life. As one famous longitudinal study of Bennington College women put it, “through late childhood and early adolescence, attitudes are relatively malleable…with the potential for dramatic change possible in late adolescence or early adulthood. [b]ut greater stability sets in at some early point, and attitudes tend to be increasingly persistent as people age.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ting-behavior/

Last edited by Bureaucat; 06-08-2019 at 07:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2019, 07:45 PM
 
Location: Houston
22,497 posts, read 11,584,513 times
Reputation: 9072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bureaucat View Post
Not true.

While some individuals may grow more conservative as they age, the politics of a generation are determined by events of young adulthood, and for the majority remain set for life. Thatís why generations have distinct political differences that persist even as they age.


https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ting-behavior/
Just look at the Republican versus Democrat vote for those under 30 in the seventies and you will find similar stats for those under thirty today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2019, 07:50 PM
 
7,045 posts, read 2,508,676 times
Reputation: 3563
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
Just look at the Republican versus Democrat vote for those under 30 in the seventies and you will find similar stats for those under thirty today.
Believe what you want, but that old adage is simply not true. Events during teen and early adult years tend to brand generations for life. Not individuals, certainly, but broadly enough to effect generational political identity. With the boomer generation, there was always a break between the older boomers and the younger ones. For older boomers, those primary figures/events were JFK and the Civil Rights Era. They tended to be more liberal. For the younger boomers, they were more influenced positively or negatively by Jimmy Carter/Ronald Reagan, and remained steadfast conservatives.

If it were simply a process of becoming more conservative as you had something to conserv, then every generation would uniformly become conservative as they age. Instead each generation has its political markers, that are determined in early adulthood and kept for life.

Last edited by Bureaucat; 06-08-2019 at 08:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2019, 07:53 PM
 
1,739 posts, read 591,669 times
Reputation: 1332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bureaucat View Post
Believe what you want, but that old adage is simply not true.
You are generally a well-informed poster, but your near-religious adherence to the demographic destiny hypothesis, and its necessary corollary of sticky Millennial liberalism, is a blind spot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2019, 08:09 PM
 
Location: Texas
26,719 posts, read 11,205,600 times
Reputation: 6148
McGovern won only because the front running favorite of the left, the bigot George Wallace was shot. Humphrey won the popular vote receiving 25.5 of the vote, McGovern had 25.3 and Wallace who was shot and didn't campaign the last 1/3 of the election had 23.5. The party of the klan strikes again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2019, 08:45 PM
 
7,045 posts, read 2,508,676 times
Reputation: 3563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist View Post
You are generally a well-informed poster, but your near-religious adherence to the demographic destiny hypothesis, and its necessary corollary of sticky Millennial liberalism, is a blind spot.
Demographics isn’t destiny at all, but the country has irrevocably changed since McGovern and the 1972 campaign. That’s what this thread is about. The same group (white non-college) that fueled the Nixon landslide of 1972 and the Reagan landslide of 1984 just isn’t big enough to produce the same margins they did back then. Let me rephrase that. Producing the same percentages as before now produces millions of fewer votes. Remember, Trump received the same percentage of the white non-college vote in 2016 that Reagan got in 1984. They just represent a much smaller portion of the electorate. It doesn’t mean that a Trump couldn’t win in a similar landslide, but he would have to attract a much broader electorate to even come close. He would have to do much better among college grads and minorities to pull it off, and/or get a higher percentage of white blue collar than Nixon or Reagan ever dreamed of.

Last edited by Bureaucat; 06-08-2019 at 09:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2019, 09:09 PM
509
 
2,972 posts, read 4,077,143 times
Reputation: 3521
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie gein View Post
I guess these people never noticed the polls leading up to the 1972 election. In the last six months of the race McGovern was never closer than 16 percentage point behind and going into November he was 20-25 points behind.
NOBODY except the truly clueless thought McGovern was going to win.

I was living in Berkeley in 1972. And as I voted for George I said..."you really don't deserve this vote". Hey, if you have a kid in Berkeley saying that.....he had no chance in the real world.

I was surprised with Reagan's win in 1980 and I was living in Idaho. I think in that case, being a Federal government employee, I was definitely in the camp that I didn't know anybody that voted for Reagan. I voted for Anderson.

Now in 2016....that was a total hoot. NOBODY expected that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top