The Solid South was really bad for Southern presidential politics (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 15, 2024, 01:32:04 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  The Solid South was really bad for Southern presidential politics (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The Solid South was really bad for Southern presidential politics  (Read 5646 times)
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,337
United States


« on: July 29, 2012, 09:42:56 PM »

Good analysis, though I firmly believe Huey Long would have been President if he'd lived past 1935.

Which is pretty sad.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,337
United States


« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2012, 07:29:27 PM »

It's not certain if those, who voted TR would automatically vote for Taft.
This is assuming they did.  Much of the reason Wilson won was because Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican vote.  (Much like Nixon's first election in 1968 owed itself in part to Wallace and Humphrey splitting the Democratic vote.)

Well it has to be wondered if many Dixiecrats would vote for Humphrey, "The Happy Warrior". I mean, the Deep South had already ditched the Dems in 1964, and 1960 showed that both Republicans and faithless electors could win Southern states.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 12 queries.