Talk:Reagan Democrat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
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)
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
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)
[edit] 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)
