Where was the Democratic Party infrastructure in 1980, 1980, and 1988?

[DiamondJay]

Now that we have a thread which follows the ol' GOP mantra "blame bill clinton first", i'm gonna defend the 42nd president and the truth. In 1980, we won 6 states and 49 electoral votes. In 1984, we won 1 state, and 13 electoral votes. And in 1988, we won 9 states and 111 electoral votes. Where was the party infrastructure then? check out the 1980 map the 1984 map and the 1988 map i almost shoulda let the maps do the talking and here is 2004 two elections after clinton compare the sheer numbers of EVs and popular votes. Why weren't we anywhere close to the 2000 EV totals in 1980, 1984, and 1988? Bill Clinton was gov of Arkansas at the time. that was the period the Republicans made huge gains, and you can't blame bill clinton.

[Frances]

1. Very interesting

Thanks for this info.

[Drunken Irishman]

2. You're only looking at it from the presidential level.

The Democratic Party still had major support at local levels, especially within the Senate and House throughout the 80s.

The Democrats lost those 3 elections because they nominated the wrong people. Oddly enough, Hillary Clinton looks more Mondale/Dukakis than she does Bill Clinton.

[Freida5]

3. Excellent post. I have always blamed Ted Kennedy's run in 1980

in the primary against Carter for allowing the Reagan Revolution to happen and to make our lives misable for a lot of year. Bush, Jr is a product and hopefully the last of Kennedy's campaign till the convention in 80. Bill Clinton began the turnaround that Kennedy started.

[Zynx]

4. I've studied this period for some time and I explain it in the following way:

With the Republicans' move to the right, the picked up our southern wing before we built up our strength in the North particularly chipping away at their suburban strength, which we have done over the past several elections. Republican social positions have alienated moderate northerners that used to vote Republican. Case in point is Illinois. Republican relative strength all over the north relative to their national vote share has been slipping for several elections.

[Alexander]

5. Keeping control of the US Congress.

Something it didn't do in the 90s.

Poor presidential candidates have little to do with Democratic Party infrastructure.

[DiamondJay]

6. congress means nothing without real liberals

who weren't in there anyway in the 103rd congress which went from 1993-1995, the last one before the GOP takeover, they were by and large boll-weevils who were the same people who got Reagans tax cuts thru, his abortion restrictions, arms build ups. I mention this because THOSE were the triangulators who stopped Clinton's healthcare reform, and allowing gays to serve openly, and his middle class tax cut. Part of the reason the GOP won congress in 1994 was that with a dem in the white house, they had a public face to trash their democratic opponent with, the liberal anti-Reagan democrat, who was not like the dems who voted with Reagan, or like Reagan himself. Wouldn't have been different with Tom Harkin or Jerry Brown as president. Reagan was the reason social conservatives moved to his party when they saw someone who was socially opposite reagan