Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Did the massive influx of "Reagan Democrats" in 1980 turn the GOP to the left?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:01 AM
Original message
Did the massive influx of "Reagan Democrats" in 1980 turn the GOP to the left?
I think the answer is clearly no.

So why are people worried about "Obama Republicans" turning our party to the right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LadyVT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. Oh, it's not that.
It's that many of these "Obama Republicans" say they are voting for him in order to eliminate Hillary Clinton as the rival to John McCain. When the general election comes, they'll vote for their own candidate. He hasn't needed their votes in the primaries for quite a while now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. I'm sure you have proof of this giant conspiracy of yours. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Well, some of it was solicited by his own campaign workers in NV, certainly.
Dunno about the other states, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.

Be a Democrat for a DAY!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/14/proobama-flier-urges-rep_n_81447.html




But there IS a Republicans for Obama website: http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=homepage

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Well, that flier has already been debunked...
Obama is not responsible for what people make in their own basement. One nut making a flier doesn't constitute a wide ranging conspiracy. As for the website you listed. There is nothing on there about "voting against Hillary". It is a site about "voting for Obama". It doesn't prove there is anykind of conspiracy against Hillary. So, stop playing the victim card for your cnadidate.


By the way, my wife is a republican and she voted for Obama and it had nothing to do with Hillary. He has crossover appeal. Only to desperate clinton supporters is that a somehow a bad thing. If you look at the polls it isn't even that bad. He tends to win republicans 2-1 over Hillary. Hardly a huge conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. That flyer has NOT "already been debunked." Your camp always says that even when it isn't
accurate.

A Precinct Captain who cannot spell ginned up that thing. Not some freelancer--a PRECINCT CAPTAIN. He had to get his marching orders from SOMEONE. He didn't pull that idea out of his ass all by himself. In his basement, or anywhere else.

It defies credulity that this fellow thought that shit up on his own. He was given marching orders, and told that he was in "Jim Phelps" territory, where the campaign would "disavow any knowledge of your actions."

Debunked, my ass. He was caught out, and knew if he was, he'd take the hit. He'll get a nice reward next year for his loyalty, IF Obama wins the prize.

It's Politics 101.

I can give you anecdotes, too about what my friends and neighbors are thinking, and how they are voting. And FWIW, I don't argue at ALL that Obama "wins Republicans 2-1 over Hillary." I'm sure he does--and they're crossing over to vote for him in primaries, in droves.

We'll see if those Republicans come back in November. I think a lot of them won't.

And what does it say about a candidate who "appeals to the GOP," really? That's a badge of HONOR?

If I wanted a Republican in office, I'd vote for one. Not a Democrat who "appeals" to them. Hell, if that's what we want in a candidate, we should have put Zell Miller up there....!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. again, you offer no proof that the Obama campaign
is trying to get republicans to switch for a day. You exaggerate the role of a precinct captain. Precinct captains are sometimes barely connected to the campaign.

And only in Bizarro Clinton Supporter World are crossover voters a bad thing. Obama will win in the GE because of his ability to appeal across the isle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. I just gave you some. You don't like it, so you call it "no proof."
A common approach with you guys.

If it looks like an OBAMA CAMPAIGN precinct captain, and it walks like an OBAMA CAMPAIGN precinct captain, and it talks like an OBAMA CAMPAIGN precinct captain, it's an OBAMA CAMPAIGN precinct captain.

That lame attempt to teflon this guy doesn't fly.

It's aisle, FWIW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. You have ZERO proof that the flier was made by the
Obama campaign. It came from a lone nut. NOT THE OBAMA campaign. Can you not separate the difference? Are you so dense, so slow, so immature that you can't fathom the possibility that the BS flier you posted did NOT come from the Obama campaign. It isn't proof. Show me a report from a respected Newspaper or media outlet that shows that their is a concerted effort from Obama to have Republicans cross for a day. Show me one campaign law that was broken. Show me anything that comes close to what you are alleging. Posting a scanned picture of some crappy little flier that looks like someone printed it out of their computer... is not PROOF.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. The website is pretty interesting. They're in with Obama for the long haul...
From their website: "and to encourage other Republicans to embrace Obama’s message of unity and competency and support his candidacy. "

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. repugs have had a strangle hold on government since reagan took office, and ever since they have been smart about keeping that control. Every once in a while they lose their grip, but it only takes them two years to grab back on.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
2. nope, it seems to have only emboldened them to go even further right...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Bingo
That's why Obama gave props to Raygun, and his plan seems to be essentially the same, but not in bizarro-world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. If there is such a thing as an Obama-Republican, they won't be coming over...
cause of any talk of 'hope & change', or that they like his shoes, or "It's morning in America!" re-gifted back at them (Reagan-Dems bought that one...we love the 'hope & change' bit just fine), they will be expecting Obama to deliver on some very specific items on their tick-list, many of which it is my sense have little to do with Liberal/Progressive ideals, but we'll see.

It's too late to turn around = In for a penny, in for a pound
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. You underestimate how many white men
...have been looking for an excuse to SHOW they aren't racist. There's a certain amount of "See! I'm not a racist, I voted for Obama!" among Republican men who are disaffected with Bush but can't stand McCain.


There's more of this than you think. My brother is one of these.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. You don't need to show anything in the voting booth
A person can pull the lever for McCain and then go around saying "I'm not a racist, I voted for Obama...".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. True... but they're saying it to themselves... proving it to themselves....
..it's a powerful thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. So you're saying white men are racist?
Why only white men? Why not red, or brown, or 'yellow', or black? Why only white? Don't bother to answer. You're referring to 'white guilt' as the basis for Obama's support among whites. I'm not able to agree as such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
9. No, but, Reagan's '84 victory helped the Democratic Party's turn to the right
~snip~

The DLC was established in the wake of President Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide victory, in which he won 49 states, over Democrat Walter Mondale. During the Democratic convention in San Francisco, Mondale had successfully beat back a challenge from Gary Hart, who predicted that unless the Democratic Party adopted a new image it would be decisively defeated. Mondale proved unable to respond effectively to charges from the Republican right and neoconservative Democrats that the Democratic Party was the party of progressives-which Jeane Kirkpatrick variously labeled as the "San Francisco Democrats" and the "blame America first" Democrats-who were out of touch with mainstream America. As Dan Balz and Ronald Brownstein concluded in their book Storming the Gates, "Mondale's landslide defeat exposed as a dead end the vision of regaining the White House by mobilizing an army of the disaffected with a message of unreconstructed liberalism."

Pondering the Mondale defeat, a gathering coalition of Southern Democrats and northern neoliberals expressed concerns that the Democratic Party faced extinction, particularly in the South and West, if the party continued to rely on its New Deal message of government intervention and kept catering to traditional constituencies of labor, minorities, and anti-war progressives. In 1985, Al From, an aide to Rep. Gillis Long (D-LA), took the lead in formulating a new messaging strategy for the party's centrists, neoliberals, and conservatives. Will Marshall, at that time Long's policy analyst and speechwriter, worked closely with From to establish the DLC and then became its first policy director.

In his "Saving the Democratic Party" memo of January 1985, From advocated the formation of a "governing council" that would draft a "blueprint" for reforming the party. According to From, the new leadership should aim to create distance from "the new bosses"-organized labor, feminists, and other progressive constituency groups-that were keeping the party from modernizing. From's memo sparked the formation of the Democratic Leadership Council in early 1985. According to Balz and Brownstein, "Within a few weeks, it counted 75 members, primarily governors and members of Congress, most of them from the Sunbelt, and almost all of them white; liberal critics instantly dubbed the group 'the white male caucus.'"

Although DLC members shared, for the most part, the neoliberal perspective of centrist Democrats such as Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, and Michael Dukakis, they took a much harsher, conservative stance on social justice and foreign policy issues. Regarding foreign policy, the DLC attempted to resurrect the hardline anticommunism of Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson but rejected the New Deal politics that Jackson and other traditional "New Deal liberals" embraced. In the late 1980s, DLC Democrats supported aid to the Contras, applauded Reagan's "Evil Empire" rhetoric, and offered their support to those militarists calling for missile defense and rejecting arms control negotiations. While the neoliberals foresaw an end to the Cold War, the DLC still viewed the Soviet Union as an unmitigated threat.

In a 1986 conference on the legacy of "Great Society" of the Johnson administration, DLC chairman Gov. Charles Robb of Virginia took up the neoconservative critique of liberalism first articulated in the early 1970s by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Norman Podhoretz, and other neoconservatives. According to Robb, "While racial discrimination has by no means vanished from our society, it's time to shift the primary focus from racism-the traditional enemy without-to self-defeating patterns of behavior-the enemy within." This speech signaled the end of the "New Politics" of the 1960s and 1970s in the Democratic Party and the rise of a new social conservatism in the party. Robb's speech opened room for Democratic Party stalwarts to back away from political agendas that proposed government initiatives to address poverty, discrimination, and crime, and to join the traditional conservatives and neoconservatives in opposing affirmative action, social safety-net programs, and job-creation initiatives. Thus, the New Democrats of the DLC added their voices to the chorus of those calling for stiffer sentences, an end to affirmative action, reduced welfare benefits, and less progressive tax policies.

~snip~


http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Well Hell, sounds even better, then
So let's turn the GOP to the left
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. !
Perhaps that is the grand scheme, lol! The DLC and Rove both appear to want a one-party system. How convenient, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calico1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. Good luck with that.
With all the "working together" and "reaching across the aisle" Democrats have done it has only served to move the party more to the Right. When Democrats and Republicans reach a "compromise" it means Democrats give in and Republicans give nothing.

And what does Obama say? He wants to work with them.

So like I said, Good luck with that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. How did Reagan do it?
Reagan swallowed up a lot of our party without turning the GOP to the left (for that matter, it went to the right).

We can, and will, do the same, just in reverse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
18. The influx helped turn the GOP to the left in economics
The "Reagan Democrats" were social conservatives and economic liberals.

They helped cement the rightward shift of the GOP as an anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-unwed mother, etc. party.

On the other hand, they reduced the power of the GOP fiscal conservative, big business wing of the party. This led to the ballooning deficits under Reagan, Bush The Elder, and Bush The Younger.

Fiscal irresponsibility in Washington led to the financiers and money-movers and shakers adopting the position that they had to look out for themselves. So they have been stealing what they can, squirreling it away offshore, and preparing to ride out the depression in the US.

The influx of the Reagan Democrats led to the wealthy becoming the least patriotic group in America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Yep--the party of fiscal responsibility became the party of drunken sailors!!
That is an excellent point you make. The DEMS were always labeled "tax and spend" types, but the GOP under Ronnie and beyond wasted no time becoming the "deficit spending buffoons--crazy with the nation's credit card" bunch.

So basically, now we're a nation of right wingnut ideas, up to our asses in debt, with a depression looming over our shoulder!

Gee, what swell things the influx of GOP voters to our team might bring!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC