The 1960 Race

[Ryan]

There seesm to be a lot of interest in the 1960 race especially as to the question of it being "fixed".

I'm starting this thread for people to vent their opinions on the issue

There was actually a discussion on this topic on in another thread. I've posted all the discussion posts till now over here but its a major mess since there were too many to do one by one. I would be grateful if everyone could post a summary of their views here. Then I will delete the two behemoth posts that follow.

Also after that if everyone could please get around to deleting their posts on this topic from the Senate 2004 discussion thread, it would be much appreciated.
I will myself do so in a day or two,
Thanks,
Ryan.

[Ryan]

Telfeyan  
 
 
DarthKosh
Jr. Member


Posts: 62




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #20 on: November 21, 2003, 05:57:04 pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: rbt48 on November 21, 2003, 08:33:17 am
Nixon pledged to campaign in all 50 states in 1960.  He kept his pledge and went to Alaska during the critical last week of the campaign.  He did carry Alaska, but getting those 3 electoral votes, according to some, cost him close larger states (IL, MO, MN) and with them, the Presidency.
 
 

Voter fraud in Texas and Chicago is what caused Nixon the election.  
 Report to moderator    Logged  
 
 
 
nym90
Newbie


Posts: 41



 
    Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #21 on: November 21, 2003, 08:27:57 pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, there would have had to have been a lot of fraud in Texas...Kennedy won it by 2%, or about 46,000 votes. It seems highly unlikely that margin could have been produced by fraud.
Is there evidence to support the claim that Texas was stolen for Kennedy?  
 Report to moderator    Logged  
 
 
 
rbt48
Newbie


Posts: 15




    Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #22 on: November 21, 2003, 08:49:39 pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the main argument about Texas in 1960 is that LBJ so thoroughly controled Texas (from county court house to the state capitol), that even if he needed 100,000 votes, his friends and followers would have manufactured them.  One must wonder why they came up with 46,258 extra votes:  perhaps just to deflect suspicion.

Illinois in 1960 is much more certain the result of fraud.  The Daley forces weren't even coy about altering results.  They held back results in early Wed morning until they saw how big a margin they needed to overcome from downstate.  Several precincts in Chicago were 100% for Kennedy--no Nixon votes, no minor party candidates, no write-ins.  Similar stories came from St Louis where the Missouri margin for Kennedy was 9,990 votes.  
 Report to moderator    Logged  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R. Bruce Telfeyan  
 
 
Realpolitik
Full Member


Posts: 244




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #23 on: November 21, 2003, 10:23:18 pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daley certainly commited fraud in 1960... however the GOP machine in the rest of the State was doing exactly the same thing.

Call it quits  
 Report to moderator    Logged  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If there are two or more ways to do something and one of them results in a catastrophe, then someone will do it that way"
~Murphy's Law~  
 
 
JNB
Newbie


Posts: 14




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #24 on: November 22, 2003, 02:29:27 am »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Realpolitik, wrong. Downstate IL at the time did and still as a Democratic machine in the St. Claire and Madison county suburbs of St Louis, and further south of there, untill recently, that area was dominated by Democrats(albiet of a more southren stripe). Rock Island was and still is dominated by Democrats as well. So if you have any proof of GOP fraud in 1960, please present it.  
 Report to moderator    Logged  
 
 
 
DarthKosh
Jr. Member


Posts: 62




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #25 on: November 22, 2003, 02:43:13 am »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Realpolitik on November 21, 2003, 10:23:18 pm
Daley certainly commited fraud in 1960... however the GOP machine in the rest of the State was doing exactly the same thing.

Call it quits
 
 

LBJ had the same control in Texas that Daley had in Chicago.  
 Report to moderator    Logged  
 
 
 
Realpolitik
Full Member


Posts: 244




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #26 on: November 22, 2003, 04:09:55 pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Er... have you actually seen a map of the 1960 election in Illinois?
 
 Report to moderator    Logged  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If there are two or more ways to do something and one of them results in a catastrophe, then someone will do it that way"
~Murphy's Law~  
 
 
JNB
Newbie


Posts: 14




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #27 on: November 22, 2003, 04:30:32 pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, the counties with the biggst population in Southren IL, St Clair county and Madison counties, across the river from St Louis, went solidly for JFK.  
 Report to moderator    Logged  
 
 
 
nym90
Newbie


Posts: 41



 
    Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #28 on: November 22, 2003, 08:02:12 pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see how LBJ could have had that much control, having only been a Senator. Had he been Governor, he could have appointed political cronies to high positions, but I just can't see how a Senator could have that much power to manufacture that many votes. Even if only 46,000 were manufactured, that's 1 out of every 50 statewide, and I doubt the fraud could have been spread exactly evenly statewide.
Then, rbt, you use the standard conspiracy theory argument of saying that the evidence that makes the conspiracy less likely (the fact that the vote margin was relatively confortable) is deliberately manufactured by the conspiracy itself as cover. Obviously, once a conspiracy has been established in one's mind, that line of logic can be used to refute any evidence...
It gets to be pretty convoluted when you are saying that not only did Johnson steal the election, but he stole it by a large enough margin so as to deflect suspiscion.
Nixon should have demanded a recount if the election was stolen. The reason he didn't challenge the election in court is because he knew he wouldn't win. He didn't even challenge Illinois, much less Texas.  
 Report to moderator    Logged  
 
 
 
DarthKosh
Jr. Member


Posts: 62




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #29 on: November 22, 2003, 09:32:46 pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: nym90 on November 22, 2003, 08:02:12 pm
I don't see how LBJ could have had that much control, having only been a Senator. Had he been Governor, he could have appointed political cronies to high positions, but I just can't see how a Senator could have that much power to manufacture that many votes. Even if only 46,000 were manufactured, that's 1 out of every 50 statewide, and I doubt the fraud could have been spread exactly evenly statewide.
Then, rbt, you use the standard conspiracy theory argument of saying that the evidence that makes the conspiracy less likely (the fact that the vote margin was relatively confortable) is deliberately manufactured by the conspiracy itself as cover. Obviously, once a conspiracy has been established in one's mind, that line of logic can be used to refute any evidence...
It gets to be pretty convoluted when you are saying that not only did Johnson steal the election, but he stole it by a large enough margin so as to deflect suspiscion.
Nixon should have demanded a recount if the election was stolen. The reason he didn't challenge the election in court is because he knew he wouldn't win. He didn't even challenge Illinois, much less Texas.
 
 

LBJ was the power broker in Texas and he was the only one.  Nixon didn't challege it because he thought it would be bad for the country not because he thought he would loose.  
 
 

[Ryan]

)  
 
Realpolitik
Full Member


Posts: 244




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #30 on: November 22, 2003, 09:53:18 pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darth... you belive Richard Nixon?  
 Report to moderator    Logged  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If there are two or more ways to do something and one of them results in a catastrophe, then someone will do it that way"
~Murphy's Law~  
 
 
DarthKosh
Jr. Member


Posts: 62




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #31 on: November 22, 2003, 11:25:22 pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Realpolitik on November 22, 2003, 09:53:18 pm
Darth... you belive Richard Nixon?
 
 

Over LBJ yes.  
 Report to moderator    Logged  
 
 
 
Realpolitik
Full Member


Posts: 244




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #32 on: Today at 01:32:12am »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've heard of people being partizan but...  
 Report to moderator    Logged  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If there are two or more ways to do something and one of them results in a catastrophe, then someone will do it that way"
~Murphy's Law~  
 
 
DarthKosh
Jr. Member


Posts: 62




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #33 on: Today at 03:38:10am »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Realpolitik on Today at 01:32:12am
I've heard of people being partizan but...
 
 

Back when LBJ was alive he was a king in Texas and if he wanted the race fixed in Texas it would have been.  
 Report to moderator    Logged  
 
 
 
Realpolitik
Full Member


Posts: 244




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #34 on: Today at 03:39:23pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...But did he? There is no evidence for it at all.

Nixon rigged an entire election, overthrew a democratically elected government in Chile, is responsible for the Khmer Rouge, bugged the DNC and prolonged the Vietnam War.

Amoungst other things.  
 Report to moderator    Logged  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If there are two or more ways to do something and one of them results in a catastrophe, then someone will do it that way"
~Murphy's Law~  
 
 
~  
 
 
Ryan
Full Member


Posts: 189



 
    Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #36 on: Today at 10:08:03pm »      

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: nym90 on November 22, 2003, 08:02:12 pm
I don't see how LBJ could have had that much control, having only been a Senator. Had he been Governor, he could have appointed political cronies to high positions, but I just can't see how a Senator could have that much power to manufacture that many votes.  
 

Nym, by this I take it that you are the first democrat I have met who agrees that Tom DeLay does not control Texas.  (after all he was not a governor there)

Actually you would be right. Neither he nor LBJ ever has controlled Texas. They did and do have a huge amount of respect and influence predicated upon their national status and ability to deliver for Texas.

However do any of you really believe either a Republican or Democrat candidate in the 1960's had to personally control a state party machinery to get it to fix elections for him???

I do believe there was "fixing" in Texas and Illinois and it had less to do with Kennedy or Johnson's personal power than with the vested interest of state parties to see their man in the White House.




 
 Report to moderator    Logged  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am travelling from November 03 to Febuary 04 so I will only be able to check in every few days and make a couple of posts. I mention this because I may not be able to reply to every reaction or question directed at me- may be a good thing as I think 200 posts in the last month was a bit much  
 
 
Ryan
Full Member


Posts: 189



 
    Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #37 on: Today at 10:14:08pm »      

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Realpolitik on Today at 03:39:23pm
...But did he? There is no evidence for it at all.

Nixon rigged an entire election, overthrew a democratically elected government in Chile, is responsible for the Khmer Rouge, bugged the DNC and prolonged the Vietnam War.

Amoungst other things.
 
 

Well he also perhaps prevented a third world war by thawing relations with Russia and China, was responsible for enacting many vital social reforms including rights for women and minorities etc etc

I'm not denying that his Presidency (my least favorite GOP tenure in the white house) was disgraceful in many respects but it is historically incorrect to demonize Nixon alone. I do believe he really cared about the country but had the same fallacies that many politicians of his age did.





 
 Report to moderator    Logged  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am travelling from November 03 to Febuary 04 so I will only be able to check in every few days and make a couple of posts. I mention this because I may not be able to reply to every reaction or question directed at me- may be a good thing as I think 200 posts in the last month was a bit much  
 
 
Ryan
Full Member


Posts: 189



 
    Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #38 on: Today at 10:19:37pm »      

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to whether Nixon conceded the election for the good of the country; well it may have been one reason but also he was very unlikely to actually see the results changed and a long recount process could have affected his future political aspirations.

PS He was unlikely to see the results changed not because they were correct but because without the vast media presence and accountability that exists today; the recounts would have been fixed as well  
 
 

[Ryan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about America's aggressiveness in pursuing terrorists after 9/11? I believe that would have been the same under Gore.

That's one of the things I was refering to . Everyone keeps ranting and raving about how WONDERFUL of a job President Bush did during 9/11. Gore would have done the SAME thing, or anyone who was President would. And you can't convince me otherwise. Any President would have acted  like that in a time of crises.

I agree upto a point. Certain things would have been the same but a lot wouldn't. Let me run this by you............... If Bush was President the first time the WTC got hit in 1993, do you see him lobbing a few missiles into Afghanistan and leaving it at that?? Not quite huh??

That was the Clinton response and Al Gore supported it.

Now how would that same Al Gore have been different in 2001?? What else COULD and I repeat COULD have happened??
Most people take our intervention in Afghanistan for granted. That was because Bush was certain about going after Al Quaida from the word go. No one could doubt his sincerity of purpose. Al Gore in true Clintonian tradition would have tried for a far greater international consensus and take a lot longer to exhaust "diplomatic" alternatives. This would have been taken by Al Quaida as a sign of weakness and so on...........

I realise that this is conjecture (as is the opposing viewpoint) and I'm not going to go into a long drawn out discussion of it with anyone.

I just think that one cannot assume that another leader would have followed the exact same strategies because they made "common sense" at the time. Tell me, cant you identify any other events where a reasonably competent leader, due to any number of factors, took actions that in hindsight seem to be VERY misguided???

I would think of LBJ in Vietnam and you would think no doubt of a republican president, but point is no one can be sure what Al Gore or anyone else would have done after 9/11. I myself firmly believe Gore would have managed to do something disastrous and I am happy he wasn't in the White House at the time. I believe that Bush's actions at the time were right on the money and I am very pleased with my vote for him in 2000.

[Ryan]

AND once again we have all (meself included ) managed to shift onto a completely different topic from the one indicated

LOL the reason this is so funny (for any newcomer) is that I created this link becuase the discussion on the 1960 race itself started in the wrong thread

Anyways this time I will not be creating a new thread. I'll just put this phenomenon on to the fact that we are so intellectually dynamic and leave it at that