1980: Men elected Ronald Reagan.

[denem]

The Reagan Revolution was not broadly based. The Reagan Revolution was male.

About a week ago, I was chastised for "demonizing Boomers" when suggesting boomers cashed in their chips in 1980. The Reagan coalition is analyzed here:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Reagan_coalition

As a male someone born in 1959, I stand by that statement. Reagan won the 30 - 44 year demographic by 54% - 37%, the biggest victory of all, compared with a 49% tie in 1976. No other age demographic swung so decisively. Whatever else, a lot of boomers voted with their wallets.

But men get the medal: 54% - 37% Reagan compared with 46 - 45 for women, the famous "Gender Gap". In 1976 there was no gap, both sexes voted 50 - 48 Carter.

Yes, there were all the other elements: the southern strategy, the blue collar initiative, the evangelical push, all coincident with an electorate which was by definition, majority Boomer , but above all else,

under a rhetoric of "welfare queens" "standing tall" and taking it up the The Soviets, The Reagan Revolution was an exercise of male power. The Rambo Revolution.

[Lost in CT]

1. Is like the way blacks voted down prop 8???

So the majority of woman voted for Reagan but it is all the mens fault...

Was this because of Anderson's dashing eyes, Carters tasteful cardigan or do you have another theory????

[denem]

2. There was no gender gap in 1976.

This was a swing of historic proportions.

[Lost in CT]

7. Fair enough it was just a little close to "It's all mens fault" for my tastes

:hi:

[denem]

11. And I am not trying to play a blame game.

I am looking to characterize the Reagan Revolution in a way that is politically useful now. The Reagan revolution was not broadly based by one metric, and that is a useful when interpreting history.

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. Absent blame, how do you anticipate making this information useful?

The obvious answer is that it's useful in getting recommends from DU'ers.

[Hello_Kitty]

13. I have a theory that more women will vote for a masculine-identified canditate

Than men will vote for one who is painted as embracing "feminine" values. This is regardless of the actual gender of the person. And it's why Republicans have been very successful at "feminizing" Democratic candidates, be they male or female. If they can break off enough women their way, even if it's not the majority, they win. Whereas Democrats typically have to get a LOT of women (of all races) to win, since the GOP still has a lock on white men. This usually happens when domestic issues are the top priority, as it was in this past election, and in 2006. Back in 2004, the War on Terra was a more pressing issue, so they were able to portray Kerry as "weak" enough that he barely won with women voters.

So my theory is that it's not men's fault, per se, but "masculinity" plays a big role in Republican victories.

[denem]

15. Maybe, it's something of a double bind for female candidate,

Being "tough enough" vs 'the castrating bitch' stereotype. When Hillary showed emotion in NH, she gained. I'm not sure.

[Hello_Kitty]

16. Ah, but it was a Democratic primary. Not the same as a general.

Both Obama and Edwards were more "feminine" than Clinton in a lot of ways, perception-wise. When Hillary showed a softer side, it helped her with Democratic women in NH who were more concerned with domestic issues than the projection of strength in foreign policy. Overall, though, I don't think Hillary lost because she was too "bitchy" or whatever. She lost because she miscalculated and didn't have a campaign strategy beyond Super Tuesday. Had she hired some better advisors, I fully believe she would be President right now.

[WI_DEM]

24. plurality, not majority. Reagan took the female vote by 1-point, but he didn't win over 50%

[noiretextatique]

50. "blacks" did not "vote down" prop 8

:eyes:

[Lost in CT]

52. Yes that was my point.... nt

[noiretextatique]

57. sorry...i misread your post eom

[bottomtheweaver]

3. That was the first election I voted in and I remember it

as an exercise in propaganda, mainly around Iran, which was almost immediately revealed to have cut a deal with Reagan-Bush. Big time propaganda, but not everybody was fooled. I remember "Nightline" getting launched with its ominous countdown on the days the "hostages" were in captivity, and all the other typical CIA shit that went down, so it strikes me that yes it was an "an exercise of male power," the same power Eisenhower warned us about in that famous speech.

[denem]

5. "We're gonna rock your Ayatollah, sock your Ayatollah, bomb Iran"

not such a good talking point in 2008"

[bottomtheweaver]

9. Yeah Iraq kind of took the steam out of that whole evil-Arab thing

but you wouldn't know it from the news.

[G_j]

14. on the mark

that is when I realized how seriously someone can rally against their best interest (and angels)
It was suicidal,
Then once Reagan was in, the coke started to flow. There was a lot of Rambo style testosterone poisoning going around.
That was my observation. macho and swagger, much like Bush attempted.

[hfojvt]

17. it was not all Iran, it was Soviets too, and stagflation and tax cuts

as well as the crazy no-sacrifice theory that tax cuts would actually increase revenues. Plus Carter was bashed by the media for a solid four years from Andrew Young to the Iran hostages.

Also, I wonder how much budget cutting he did. One thing that killed him in South Dakota. Yes, it is a red state, but Carter almost took it in 1976. Then he slashed a whole bunch of water projects in SD, and I think a comment was made by someone in his administration to the effect of "who cares about South Dakota, nobody lives there anyway". Well, SD wasn't even close in the 1980 Presidential election and 3 term Senator George McGovern got defeated too. Pork is another political 3rd rail.

[Hello_Kitty]

4. You're right. And now the GOP is a southern white male party.

They did a little too good of a job courting that demographic.

[denem]

6. Heh. And they are welcome to it.

No offense at all to Southern Dems, fighting the good fight. Viva Blue Texas!

[Joe the Liberal]

8. How is he even considered one of the best presidents?

his whole presidency was just a giant fraud, and his legacy is a giant illusion.

[Bonobo]

10. No we didn't.

So take a flying fuck at the moon!

[denem]

12. 37% of men voted Carter, DAH!

Obviously we all didn't.

[denem]

18. kick.

[juno jones]

19. K&R! n/t

[onenote]

20. 1980: Women Elected Ronald Reagan

In 1980, more women voted for Reagan than for Carter. So, if the male vote had divided evenly between the candidates, Reagan still would have won.

Simplistic analysis? Of course. It doesn't account for state by state variations which, of course, in an electoral college system, are pretty important.

My point is that broad brush claims like the one cited in the OP are usually misleading in some respect.

[denem]

21. The "Gender Gap" was the outstanding feature of 1980.

Of course voters, men and women elected Reagan, but it was Reagan's 17% advantage with men (vs 1% with women) that made the "Revolution"

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. ROFL! What An Absurd Statement That Is. When It Comes Down To It, About 1 Out Of Every 2 Women

voted for him, and about 1 out of ever 2 men voted for him.

So both men and women elected RR. But then, that's kind of a "no shit, sherlock" conclusion anyway.

[denem]

23. 1980: Reagan +17% men, +1% women.

The "Revolution" was male.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

26. Women Were Just As Much To Blame.

Spreads don't mean shit as it relates to the actual numbers, since quite a large % of men voted for neither. What were the actual numbers of men/women that voted for him? Fact is, if you have in one room 10 men that voted in the 1980 election and 10 women in another room that voted in the 1980 election, the statistics show it to be probable that 5 men in the first room voted for Reagan and 5 women in the second room voted for Reagan. The blame it on men conclusion in the OP is asinine.

[denem]

30. With 46% Reagan did worse with women than Ford (48%)

The whole stand tall, nuke Iran, show me the money stick was masculine in character.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. Irrelevant.

The facts remain the same. 10 men in a room, 10 women in a room. Likely 5 men voted for reagan, likely that 5 women voted for reagan. Deal with it. :hi:

[denem]

34. Change the numbers to a hundred in a room. What as assinine observation.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. Ok. 100 In A Room.

All voted for reagan. In the room would be 46 women and 54 men, all mixed together.

Now tell me... If there was a sign on the door that said "Reagan Voters" and some person stopped at the entrance, looked in the room filled with 46 women and 54 men, and yelled out with conviction "Men are to blame! Men elected Reagan!!!", wouldn't they be regarded as being just a tad friggin nuts?

If you looked into a room of 46 women and 54 men all mixed together, it would be pretty clear that both genders were responsible. Get a grip sometime.

[denem]

38. And in the Cater room there would be 55 women and 45 men.

That's the math.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

41. Thanks Captain Obvious. But It Does Little To Bolster Your Point.

Trust me... That person standing in front of the Reagan door who peeks inside the room and yells out "It's all the men's fault! Men elected Reagan!!!111" still would look like an irrational or ignorant fool. :hi:

[denem]

43. see #27. I've said it was a poor title..

The first words of the body was:

"The Reagan Revolution was not broadly based. The Reagan Revolution was male."

I stand by that.

If the outcome of the election had mirrored the female vote: 46 - 45 with the victory if there was one, turning on 11% of liberals who voted for Anderson - the Raegan's revolution would have been a damp squib at best.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

44. ROFLMAO

Sorry bub, but if that guy standing in front of the room mixed with 46 women and 54 men peeked inside and screamed out "It's a male revolution! See? A male revolution!!1111", he'd still be regarded as an irrational or ignorant fool. :hi:

[denem]

47. A thought experiment on a thought experiment on a thought experiment.

Spare me.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

49. Spare Yourself.

You can spare yourself by avoiding making such ridiculous assertions in the first place. :hi:

[mudesi]

42. What A Crock Of Shit

You're purposely not counting the 9% of men who didn't vote for either candidate.

And wow, you say the revolution was male because of a gap of a WHOLE NINE PERCENT?!?!?! 46% of WOMEN voted for Reagan!

[denem]

45. Carter needed the votes. He got 37% men. Reagan got 54% men.

Regan got less women 46% than Ford. Case closed.

[mudesi]

46. What's Your Point?

Really, do you have one? Carter needed the other 50% of voters who did not bother to vote at all, either. Why don't you blame them?

[denem]

48. Do you even read the threads: #11. And I am not trying to play a blame game..

[leftofthedial]

25. based on your own post, the claim in your title is inaccurate.

54% of men elected raygun.

Even that is false, since voter turnout was no greater than 54% in 1980.

Therefore, legitimately you can only claim that approximately 29% of men elected ronnie raygun.

[denem]

27. Agreed. I choose my title poorly..

I point I was trying to make is that the character of the "Revolution" was male.

Reagan not only failed to win a majority of women voters
he got a lower percentage of women (46%) than Ford (48%)

[Echo In Light]

28. I suppose "dickhead" can be gender neutral

[denem]

31. as much as pussy.

[Echo In Light]

33. Sure. As in, "those dickheads sure are a bunch of worthless pussies."

Doesn't really accomplish anything, however...

[Arugula Latte]

29. I'm female. I was 14 and became a staunch liberal when Reagan came along.

I hated him with every fiber of my being from the very first.

[Zywiec]

35. What about 1984?

[denem]

39. The NSDAP did well in 1934 too.

[NashVegas]

40. Check Out These Polls

http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/research/topics/documents/GGPrtyID.pdf

Near the bottom you'll find Reagan's approval numbers, and in every grouping, taken every year, there's a gender gap. 5% at the narrowest, 15% at the widest.

Even in 1984, when women voted for Reagan 55-45, they still disapproved.

As for Mondale/Ferraro:

In addition, Ferraro appears to have turned off both male and female Southerners, many of whom are not ready for a woman Veep, much less a fast-talking one from Queens. "She made the South ours," declared Reagan's political director Edward Rollins. Said Florence Robinson of Memphis: "I'm a liberated woman, but I don't think a woman should be running things in Washington."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,950187-3,00.html

[benld74]

36. THIS MAN DID NOT VOTE FOR REAGAN! or BUSH1, or BUSH2!

[noiretextatique]

51. white and male power

white people voted for ronald reagan because he promised them a return to the 1940's when white supremacy was law. his not-so-subtle racist message resonated with many white people who were resentful about "the excesses of the sixties and seventies" (translation: attempts to level the playing field and create a more inclusive, equitable society).

[Oak2004]

53. Looking at the responses here, I'd be forced to conclude that white men have never, as a group, been

at fault for anything.

Get real. Just because you, individually, as a white man, did not participate in something largely created and supported by white men does not nullify a statement that some movement or act was largely the work of white men.

And yes, most distasteful things in US history have been the work of white men for the simple reason that, until relatively recently, white men in America held virtually all power, and still, collectively, hold most power. That white men collectively hold most of the country's wealth and power makes me, personally, feel no urgent need to protect white men as a group from criticism.

What puzzles me is why the only group ever mentioned on DU that can always count on a fanatical defense of itself, 100% of the time, is white men. Well, maybe not "puzzles" me (the reason is obvious) so much as puzzles me as to why the fanatical defenders of white men believe their mission is compatible, or can even be passed off as compatible, with progressive principles. There's no route to equality among citizens that doesn't involve white men as a group divesting their near monopoly of wealth and power. That divestiture won't happen without some hard look at the numbers and some criticism, boys. If white men are above criticism, this society is above change.

If it makes the insecure white men at DU feel any better, it is equally true that the Apollo Program was largely the work of white men. There. You guys went to the moon. Happy?

(Oh-- and to the many, many, white men who read the original post, understood it, and didn't feel the need to take the criticism personally and defend yourself: thank you. You get it.)

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. Collective guilt as a progressive value. Nice. n/t

[AllentownJake]

62. Correction an elite group of white men

Most white men live lives of quiet desperation. The elites simply had a scape goat in the past for them being in that position.

[noiretextatique]

70. it wasn't just the elites who elected reagan

a lot of people who had no damn reason to vote for him did so. in doing so, they voted against their own best interests.

[AllentownJake]

72. Yes

and there was some scape goating going on during that campaign.

[lumberjack_jeff]

54. What brings this up?

Men elected Lincoln and voted for womens suffrage too.

Every day is a good day to criticize men, I guess.

[denem]

58. What happened in 1980 was the male and female votes went their separate ways.

When I hear about the Reagan "revolution", I recall that Reagan got less women voters than Ford. This has been erased from the popular narrative.

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. You didn't answer my question.

a) how is this relevant today, and
b) what is actionable about it?

A useful response to this factoid might be to consider what we Democrats can do in the way of outreach to men, but DU being DU, that isn't on the radar.

[denem]

64. In all that is written about the Reagan Revolution very little is

devoted to why Reagan failed with women in 1980. It's an important topic, overlooked and certainly misread by Mondale/Ferraro. When then next Republican saint comes charging out of the valley to capitalize on difficult economic times, Reagan's failures could well be useful in crafting a more proactive response.

Reagan's successes have been done to death (literally). His initial failure with women is more interesting.

[lumberjack_jeff]

65. "Why Reagan failed with women in 1980"

I'm getting dizzy from the spin. More women voted for Reagan than either of the other candidates. When did "win" = fail?

[denem]

73. Reagan got less votes with women (46%) in 1980 than Ford in 76.(48%)

Whether they chose to vote Carter or third party, they certainly didn't eat it up.

[janet118]

59. What about the Anderson factor?

Independent John Anderson won about 6.6% of the total vote in 1980. He was popular with moderate Republicans, college educated liberals, and young voters. He was equally popular with men and women. He didn't really affect the outcome because Carter lost so badly with every demographic.

The Reagan campaign was a combination of happy talk and wedge issues, as in "Look, there's a bright city on the hill where abortion is punishable by death and welfare queens are forced to do your windows!" Carter, on the other hand, was an outsider who was marginalized and ridiculed by the Washington elite. The Iranian hostage situation was indeed used as a club to hammer Carter daily on Nightline. Coupled with the long gas lines and higher fuel prices, Carter's reality-based, common sense call for conservation and the development of alternative energy sources made it easy for them to portray him as a big party pooper. The media loved Reagan. He told them and us pretty lies about how great we were and how smart we were and how tough we were. The media loved it and their viewers ate it up. Gag!!!!

Carter didn't have a clue how to fight back. He wasn't able to reach out and engage a coalition of all the splinter groups formed after the Viet Nam War ended. All the anti-war, environmentalist, anti-apartheid, feminist and anti-nuke activists that were out there waiting for a leader who spoke to them.

[denem]

60. "The media loved it and their viewers ate it up" - that's the point. Women didn't.

Anderson got 11% of the vote of those who identified as liberals. Without Anderson, a majority of women would most probably have voted against Reagan.

[janet118]

66. I'm not so sure . . .

Feminists certainly voted against Reagan in both 1980 and 1984. But they were a minority of women. Anderson's support was exactly equal among men and women. The gender gap was definitely there, but it was not large enough to make a difference. See the Mondale/Ferraro election in 1984 - they lost the women's vote to Reagan by 12 points even with a woman VP. Abortion was an even bigger issue in that election. And Ronnie was still playing the happy-talking, tough guy character. The media was still worshipping him - esp. after his brush with assassination. So where did the gender gap go?

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

63. All I can add to this is a discussion is to tell you what my father,

told me on election night in 1980. Daddy was a life-long Democrat and was at that time a precinct captain in the 18th Ward in Chicago. When I asked him what happened, he said this "The American people voted for a fantasy. He's only ever been a lousy grade-B actor who's only claim to fame is that he played George Gipp in a movie about Knute Rockne that was made 40 years ago. They've forgotten that he turned on SAG in the 1950's and made acccusations against innocent people that took their liveliehoods away from them. He's a racist, a union-buster and a coward as well, making progaganda movies for the studios in Hollywood, when he was perfectly fit to serve in some other capacity during the War."

My late father despised both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. He continued to work as a precinct captain until the 1984 election. When Reagan won again, he decided to retire and enjoy what time he had left. He said to me before he died in 1991 that Reagan was a curse and a disaster that the American people in their stupidity brought upon themselves.

My first vote in a Presidentail election was in 1972. I was 19 and I voted for the most decent and a real hero who flew bombing missions over Germany in WWII, George McGovern. I have never voted for a single Republican in my entire life and God knows after the last eight years, I can say with certainty I never will. To the last one, Republicans are the most corrupt and mean-spirited people I have ever run across in my life. They are scumbags, nothing more, nothing less. :rant:

[janet118]

67. Your father was one smart guy.

'72 was the first election I voted in and I, too, voted for McGovern. I still believe his "Come Home, America" speech given after he won the Democratic nomination was one of the most touching speeches I've ever heard. See Hunter Thompson's "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72" for the application of gonzo journalism to that whole bizarro election.

[noiretextatique]

71. your dad sounds like my dad

i wish they both had lived to see obama elected :-(

[onenote]

68. another factoid to consider: more women voted than men

Notwithstanding the article in the OP suggesting that men "outvoted" women by 52/48 in the 1980 election, it is generally understood that in absolute numbers, more women have been voting in presidential elections than men for the last four decades.

Here is the census bureau data: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/p20-370/tab01.pdf

As you can see, over 5 million more women voted than men; put another way, out of every 100 voters in 1980, 53 were women and 47 were men.

What that means, using the "people in a room" model from upthread, is that if you put a representative sample of 500 voters in a room, 265 would be women and 235 would be men. If you then asked all of those in the room who voted for anyone other than Reagan to leave, you'd be left with 249 people -- 122 would be women and 127 would be men.

I suspect anyone taking a look at a room with 249 people wouldn't readily know that there were five more men there than women.

Yes men voted more heavily for Reagan than women. But it was not nearly as one sided as the OP suggests when you account for the fact that women did vote more for Reagan than for Carter and women voted more than men.

[struggle4progress]

69. I blame the 45% who didn't vote: they could easily have overcome St Ronnie's lead among

rich old white guys

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_80.html
http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm

[Zhade]

74. STUPID men, at that.

NT!