Change In Correlation Between 1968 And The 1980 Primaries

The change in correlation between 1968 and the 1980 primaries show how dramatically the parties had become ideologically sorted by that time. In 1964 there were likely conservatives and moderates who were turned off by Goldwater’s campaign and rhetoric, or persuaded by Lyndon Johnson’s campaign and his status as Kennedy’s successor. 1968 is likely an outlier due to George Wallace’s campaign, which while it might have been closer ideologically to some non-southern conservative voters then Nixon’s campaign, his predicted share based on ideology was weighed down by his lack of a campaign outside of the South and by distaste for his open racism. In 1972 moderates defecting to Nixon due to McGovern’s poor campaign likely also weighed down the

The quote is in fact one of three Carville coined to keep the staffers of the campaign on message, the other two being “Change versus more of the Same,” and “Don’t forget about Health Care.” The Clinton campaign would focus on the economy and domestic issues like the deficit, and in both cases he struck a more moderate tone. The campaign in general was a great departure from the campaign of any democrat before, and appeared in certain ways to be a repudiation of the previous three democratic campaigns. While Clinton was strongly pro-choice, and favored ending the military’s ban on homosexuals, he was in favor of the death penalty, and the Democratic platform in 1992 took a hardline stance with regard to crime. The Democratic platforms since 1972 had grown increasingly large and dominated by special interests, with the 1980 and 1984 platforms being notably factitious and bloated respectively. The 1980 platform was dominated by the conflict between Carter supporters and Kennedy supporters, while the 1984 platform, in an attempt to be everything to everyone bloated to almost 45,000 words (Borrelli, 2001). While the problem of divisiveness and length were both dealt with in 1988, the fundamental problem of too much control by special interests was not, as Borrelli points