Talk:Reagan Democrat/Archive 1

Archive 1

necesary

Is this article necessary? --Magnus Manske 14:10 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

I suspect that this article has the potential to accrete worthwhile information. The detachment of traditionally democrat voting portions of the electorate from the Democratic Party and the extent to which it was capitalised upon by the particular political style of Ronald Reagan is a relatively coherent topic. There is scope for comparison with the phenomenon of Essex Man in the United Kingdom. -- Alan Peakall 14:16 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

Too broad

This article seems way too broad in its definition. The phenomenon of Democratic crossovers is somewhat accurate as described here, but the term "Reagan Democrat" is basically used, in my experience, only in reference to the 1980 and 1984 elections (with some holdover effects for the George Bush elections). The general use of the term is less in terms of "southern strategy" white votes (who were defecting by the 1960s, but rather to urban ethnic (i.e. Irish, Polish, etc) northern votes who had previously voted Democratic based on Union affiliations but who swung to Reagan less on "racial issues" but on economic security and national pride issues. -- Decumanus 02:01, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Next generation

The phenomena continues in the children of Reagan Democrats who may have faulty perception of the late President. Their antagonists refer to them as Reagan Youth ala the Hitler Youth. -- Sparky 21:35, 30 Jun 2004

Nonsense

I'm with Magnus here. If this article is anything like a fair representation of the idea then frankly it seems like nonsense to me - some party hack's buzzword to avoid actually explaining why his candidate lost. So, your guy gets less votes than you hoped for, and that makes it a "phenomenon" which deserves a fancy name? The whole second paragraph is logically backwards. Mondale didn't lose because of a mysterious organisation of "Reagan Democrats", he lost because a whole bunch of people preferred the other guy - then someone made up the name to describe them, regardless of whether or not they'd ever been members of the Democratic Party. As for "defecting", that would be interesting if you're talking about party members quitting one party and joining another. If not - and I doubt that it is - then it's just wrong. I'd suggest a redirect to swinging voter if it existed, but such an article probably never will because it's a very unremarkable "phenomenon". Securiger 10:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I rewrote the article and provided some scholarly sources. The term was not used to describe southern whites, who permanently became Republicans. It describes northern ethnics who were Democrats before and after Reagan. Rjensen 01:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"Swinging voter"? Do you mean swing voter? -Archola 07:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Disaster article

The older version of this article was a disaster. It said nothing about the Reagan Democrats, and instead talked about a totally different and much earlier phenomenon that had nothing to do with Reagan. It did not rely on any sources. Rjensen 01:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The latest rersion to an old version of the article is just not very good. It talks about everything except the Reagan Democrats. The opening sentence is simply confusing. Psephology! (the term has not been used since the 1970s). It includes southerners who are not normally called Reagan Democrats. It's full of POV (eg references to Kennedy), it does not explain what happened to the Reagan Democrats after 1984, it doesn't explain why the term is used cautiously (the term is not used except historically) and contains no references. The one useful point is very brief reference to Greenberg book. Rjensen 04:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Obama?

Is there really any reason to include Obama Republicans in the article. There were also McCain Democrats. Obama only recieved around 10% of the Republican vote anyway. Rockyobody (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Role of Catholics

According to sociologist William Donohue, the phenomenon of Reagan Democrats has a lot to do with the fact that Catholic voters were split on the issue of abortion and had been marginalized within the Democratic Party since the passing of Roe v. Wade. [1] ADM (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Major bias issues

This article talks about "economic prosperity" that occurred under Reagan? What economic prosperity? The economy worsened during the Reagan years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.189.168 (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

National Security and Immigration?

That sounds like a transposition of 2000s Conservative talking points on 1980. Reagan was generally libertarian on his approach to immigration - he also signed a sweeping amnesty. "National security" is not really a good term either - Reagan was more concerned with the larger Cold War than domestic terrorism (foreign attacks on American targets in Europe were an issue). Now this is anecdotal, but from my recollection, these issues drove Democrats into the Reagan camp: 1. Abortion, the Equal Rights Amendment, and other gender/social issues 2. Welfare, and the perception that the system benefited unemployed (and minority) recipients over working class (and white) taxpayers 3. Opposition to moderate Republican and Democratic detente policies 4. A perception that Carter was weak in the Iranian Hostage Crisis 5. Anxiety over the loss of industrial jobs (ironic, given Reagan's general orientation toward free trade).

66.68.207.59 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

There are definite differences between those people shifting to Reagan and to Trump (or even to George W. Bush in 2000). Consider that Trump carried many of the banner McGovern and Mondale counties by two-to-one or larger margins, especially in Appalachia and the Upper Midwest. Examples are Elliott, Knott and Breathitt in Kentucky, or Red Lake and Swift in Minnesota. Key reasons for the difference are:

1. Environmental issues in coal, metal mining, and logging counties have driven voters in those counties drastically away from the Democrats, but were of negligible importance for Democrats deserting in the 1970s and 1980s. (Remember that Nixon was responsible for far-reaching environmental legislation in the term before the 1972 presidential election).
2. Immigration was not a major political issue in the 1970s or 1980s. It only became significant during the 1990s, after it became clear to traditionalist conservatives that policies implemented with the Immigration Act of 1965 were radically altering America’s demography. For the type of mining or logging county noted above, immigration is an extremely critical issue because of its ability to lower wages and because of its effects on the culture of what have usually been sundown counties where minorities, especially blacks, have been rigidly excluded for many generations.
3. Gun control – not discussed here – is another issue that differentiates Democratic counties shifting after the Clinton presidency from Reagan Democrats. Like immigration, gun control was an insignificant political issue in the 1970s and 1980s, but became so in the late 1990s. For voters in the remote logging and mining counties of the Upper Midwest and Appalachia (and the West), and also for most historically Democratic voters in other white rural areas, restrictive gun control at Federal level is intolerable and opposition non-negotiable. (As a sidelight, some strong opponents of gun control are strong supporters of arms control or even disarmament.)
4. Opposition to détente policies would have failed to persuade most historically Democratic voters who supported Trump (or even supported George W. Bush) to vote for Ronald Reagan in the 1980s or for Nixon in the 1970s. In the type of county noted previously, which remained loyal to McGovern amidst a landslide that saw him carry only 130 counties nationwide, the prevalent opinion has been that the US should keep out of foreign entanglements altogether.
5. In the Scandinavian-American parts of the Upper Midwest, and also in such counties as Columbia in Oregon or Grays Harbor, Pacific and Wahkiakum in Washington, opposition to abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment would have been largely absent or weak. Despite their records of racial exclusion and hostility, these counties are not highly religious, but much more isolationist. Opposition to abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment was mostly characteristic of suburban Catholic areas, which become much more ethnically diverse as a result of immigration, or of the South, or of areas that already voted Republican before 1968.

Luokehao, 12:19:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect word usage

"A Reagan Democrat is a traditionally Democratic voter in the United States,"

The proper term is 'Democrat voter'. The election process is democratic, a Democrat Party voter is not. 2607:FCC8:BD15:BD00:5817:A23A:2CC4:111A (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are incorrect. It is the Democratic party, not the Democrat party. The process is small-d democratic. The voter is capital-D Democratic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:EF3C:6100:F8D7:689:40D6:27A (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)