|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 30, 2020, 09:11:56 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: Torie, ON Progressive)
  Would Nixon have won in '60 had there been no voter fraud?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Poll
Question: ?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
#3
I don't know enough about the election
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 56

Author Topic: Would Nixon have won in '60 had there been no voter fraud?  (Read 2742 times)
/
darthebearnc
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,376
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 12, 2015, 05:01:11 pm »

Considering Nixon would have reached 270 by picking up both Illinois and Texas and both of those states were won by margins so small that they could have gone for Kennedy due to only voter fraud, who do you think would have won had voter fraud been nonexistent?
Logged
Asian Nazi
d32123
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,530
China


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2015, 05:07:27 pm »

There was voter fraud going on in both camps in Illinois in 1960.  It is impossible to know who would have won the state in a "fair" election.

And, of course, Kennedy probably would have won states like Mississippi, Florida, and Virginia if African Americans weren't being systematically disenfranchised. 

So, in my opinion, to say that Nixon was the legitimate winner in 1960 is wrong.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,275
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2015, 05:25:27 pm »

Texas wasn't close enough to be affected by voter fraud--Kennedy's margin there was 2%. That's as much of a crackpot theory as Dems claiming Ohio was stolen in 2004 and Kerry was the rightful winner.

It's possible that Illinois was stolen, but it's true that there was fraud on both sides, so it's impossible to know to what degree they canceled each other out. And Nixon winning Illinois isn't enough to cost Kennedy an EV majority.

There's a reason why Nixon didn't pursue legal challenges to the 1960 results more aggressively.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,635
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2015, 06:56:30 pm »

Doubtful.  Kennedy's margin among blacks exceeded any probable fraud.
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,112
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2015, 05:30:54 am »
« Edited: December 03, 2015, 05:33:45 am by MohamedChalid »

No, he would have won Illinois but still lose the EC with 282-247-8. He may have won the PV.

Logged
Cаквояжник
CELTICEMPIRE
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,809
Botswana


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2015, 12:59:00 pm »

And, of course, Kennedy probably would have won states like Mississippi, Florida, and Virginia if African Americans weren't being systematically disenfranchised. 

I could be wrong about this (and please correct me if I am), but weren't Southern blacks still opposed to the Democratic Party until 1964?
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,941
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2015, 01:04:58 pm »

And, of course, Kennedy probably would have won states like Mississippi, Florida, and Virginia if African Americans weren't being systematically disenfranchised. 

I could be wrong about this (and please correct me if I am), but weren't Southern blacks still opposed to the Democratic Party until 1964?

I don't think they were "unopposed" after either, but they saw the national Democratic Party as a (barely) better vehicle for their interests than the national Republican Party.  In most of the Deep South, Blacks had a choice between a racist party that fought for poor people or a racist party that fought for rich people.
Logged
Asian Nazi
d32123
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,530
China


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2015, 01:27:22 pm »

And, of course, Kennedy probably would have won states like Mississippi, Florida, and Virginia if African Americans weren't being systematically disenfranchised. 

I could be wrong about this (and please correct me if I am), but weren't Southern blacks still opposed to the Democratic Party until 1964?

Kennedy won blacks nationally 62-38 over Nixon, and I would be surprised if Southern blacks had substantially different preferences from Northern ones.  Northern blacks had been voting for Democrats for 28 years by this point too.
Logged
Cаквояжник
CELTICEMPIRE
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,809
Botswana


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2015, 01:57:20 pm »

And, of course, Kennedy probably would have won states like Mississippi, Florida, and Virginia if African Americans weren't being systematically disenfranchised. 

I could be wrong about this (and please correct me if I am), but weren't Southern blacks still opposed to the Democratic Party until 1964?

I don't think they were "unopposed" after either, but they saw the national Democratic Party as a (barely) better vehicle for their interests than the national Republican Party.  In most of the Deep South, Blacks had a choice between a racist party that fought for poor people or a racist party that fought for rich people.

And, of course, Kennedy probably would have won states like Mississippi, Florida, and Virginia if African Americans weren't being systematically disenfranchised. 

I could be wrong about this (and please correct me if I am), but weren't Southern blacks still opposed to the Democratic Party until 1964?

Kennedy won blacks nationally 62-38 over Nixon, and I would be surprised if Southern blacks had substantially different preferences from Northern ones.  Northern blacks had been voting for Democrats for 28 years by this point too.

That makes sense.  I had heard that the reason Northern African-Americans were willing to vote Democrat during the '30s and beyond because by that point Northern Democrats had dropped most of their appeals to racial prejudice and there was already a rift between the Northern and Southern wings of the party.  And that Southern African-Americans would have supported the Republican Party into the '40s at least had they not been prevented from voting.  I don't remember where I heard this though.
Logged
VPH
vivaportugalhabs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,462
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2015, 03:08:19 pm »

There was voter fraud going on in both camps in Illinois in 1960.  It is impossible to know who would have won the state in a "fair" election.

And, of course, Kennedy probably would have won states like Mississippi, Florida, and Virginia if African Americans weren't being systematically disenfranchised. 

So, in my opinion, to say that Nixon was the legitimate winner in 1960 is wrong.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,941
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2015, 04:13:05 pm »

There was voter fraud going on in both camps in Illinois in 1960.  It is impossible to know who would have won the state in a "fair" election.

And, of course, Kennedy probably would have won states like Mississippi, Florida, and Virginia if African Americans weren't being systematically disenfranchised. 

So, in my opinion, to say that Nixon was the legitimate winner in 1960 is wrong.

You think Southern Democrats kept Blacks from voting for their party's nominee so that Eisenhower's VP could become President?
Logged
Asian Nazi
d32123
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,530
China


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2015, 04:53:06 pm »

There was voter fraud going on in both camps in Illinois in 1960.  It is impossible to know who would have won the state in a "fair" election.

And, of course, Kennedy probably would have won states like Mississippi, Florida, and Virginia if African Americans weren't being systematically disenfranchised. 

So, in my opinion, to say that Nixon was the legitimate winner in 1960 is wrong.

You think Southern Democrats kept Blacks from voting for their party's nominee so that Eisenhower's VP could become President?

Did either of us say that?
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,941
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2015, 05:20:48 pm »

There was voter fraud going on in both camps in Illinois in 1960.  It is impossible to know who would have won the state in a "fair" election.

And, of course, Kennedy probably would have won states like Mississippi, Florida, and Virginia if African Americans weren't being systematically disenfranchised. 

So, in my opinion, to say that Nixon was the legitimate winner in 1960 is wrong.

You think Southern Democrats kept Blacks from voting for their party's nominee so that Eisenhower's VP could become President?

Did either of us say that?

You certainly implied Southern Blacks would have been a sure vote for Kennedy in those states.  And the ones systematically disenfranchising them were Democrats who would have clearly preferred Kennedy to Nixon in 1960.
Logged
Asian Nazi
d32123
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,530
China


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2015, 05:43:46 pm »

There was voter fraud going on in both camps in Illinois in 1960.  It is impossible to know who would have won the state in a "fair" election.

And, of course, Kennedy probably would have won states like Mississippi, Florida, and Virginia if African Americans weren't being systematically disenfranchised. 

So, in my opinion, to say that Nixon was the legitimate winner in 1960 is wrong.

You think Southern Democrats kept Blacks from voting for their party's nominee so that Eisenhower's VP could become President?

Did either of us say that?

You certainly implied Southern Blacks would have been a sure vote for Kennedy in those states.  And the ones systematically disenfranchising them were Democrats who would have clearly preferred Kennedy to Nixon in 1960.

It's not as if Southern Democrats could've gone "lol I'm going to enfranchise blacks to ensure Kennedy gets elected".  The potential social and political effects of enfranchising black Democrats were viewed by Southern whites (who, yes, were also Democrats more often than not) as much more threatening to the Southern white supremacist institution than letting a conservative Republican win an election and any Southerner, Republican or Democrat, who suggested otherwise was in danger both on an electoral and personal level.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,635
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2015, 07:23:42 pm »

And, of course, Kennedy probably would have won states like Mississippi, Florida, and Virginia if African Americans weren't being systematically disenfranchised. 

I could be wrong about this (and please correct me if I am), but weren't Southern blacks still opposed to the Democratic Party until 1964?
I don't know, but some of the county-level data in Alabama and other states seems to indicate that Nixon ran well in some of the black regions.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,635
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2015, 07:24:33 pm »

And, of course, Kennedy probably would have won states like Mississippi, Florida, and Virginia if African Americans weren't being systematically disenfranchised. 

I could be wrong about this (and please correct me if I am), but weren't Southern blacks still opposed to the Democratic Party until 1964?

I don't think they were "unopposed" after either, but they saw the national Democratic Party as a (barely) better vehicle for their interests than the national Republican Party.  In most of the Deep South, Blacks had a choice between a racist party that fought for poor people or a racist party that fought for rich people.

And, of course, Kennedy probably would have won states like Mississippi, Florida, and Virginia if African Americans weren't being systematically disenfranchised. 

I could be wrong about this (and please correct me if I am), but weren't Southern blacks still opposed to the Democratic Party until 1964?

Kennedy won blacks nationally 62-38 over Nixon, and I would be surprised if Southern blacks had substantially different preferences from Northern ones.  Northern blacks had been voting for Democrats for 28 years by this point too.

That makes sense.  I had heard that the reason Northern African-Americans were willing to vote Democrat during the '30s and beyond because by that point Northern Democrats had dropped most of their appeals to racial prejudice and there was already a rift between the Northern and Southern wings of the party.  And that Southern African-Americans would have supported the Republican Party into the '40s at least had they not been prevented from voting.  I don't remember where I heard this though.
The main reason blacks started voting Democrat in the 1930s (at least Northern blacks) was a response to the New Deal.
Logged
Bigby
Mod_Libertarian_GOPer
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2015, 08:12:09 pm »

Yes, since Illinois and Texas would tide Nixon over. If there were no voter fraud at all, Kennedy would have gotten all of the Byrd EVs as well.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,914
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 03, 2015, 08:25:52 pm »

And, of course, Kennedy probably would have won states like Mississippi, Florida, and Virginia if African Americans weren't being systematically disenfranchised. 

I could be wrong about this (and please correct me if I am), but weren't Southern blacks still opposed to the Democratic Party until 1964?

I don't think they were "unopposed" after either, but they saw the national Democratic Party as a (barely) better vehicle for their interests than the national Republican Party.  In most of the Deep South, Blacks had a choice between a racist party that fought for poor people or a racist party that fought for rich people.

Winthrop Rockefeller.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,941
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2015, 03:47:24 pm »

And, of course, Kennedy probably would have won states like Mississippi, Florida, and Virginia if African Americans weren't being systematically disenfranchised. 

I could be wrong about this (and please correct me if I am), but weren't Southern blacks still opposed to the Democratic Party until 1964?

I don't think they were "unopposed" after either, but they saw the national Democratic Party as a (barely) better vehicle for their interests than the national Republican Party.  In most of the Deep South, Blacks had a choice between a racist party that fought for poor people or a racist party that fought for rich people.

Winthrop Rockefeller.

Is not your typical Southern Republican of the '50s and '60s.
Logged
Clarko95
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,945
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2015, 08:51:38 pm »

There was voter fraud going on in both camps in Illinois in 1960.  It is impossible to know who would have won the state in a "fair" election.

And, of course, Kennedy probably would have won states like Mississippi, Florida, and Virginia if African Americans weren't being systematically disenfranchised.  

So, in my opinion, to say that Nixon was the legitimate winner in 1960 is wrong.

You think Southern Democrats kept Blacks from voting for their party's nominee so that Eisenhower's VP could become President?

Did either of us say that?

You certainly implied Southern Blacks would have been a sure vote for Kennedy in those states.  And the ones systematically disenfranchising them were Democrats who would have clearly preferred Kennedy to Nixon in 1960.

Dude, get a clue about 1960.

Both Nixon and Kennedy basically agreed on every issue. The only difference between Nixon and Kennedy was really that Nixon was like, "I'll do exactly what Senator Kennedy is proposing, but I'll do it in such a way that is still pro-business, balances the budget, keeps the dollar strong, and is STRONG ON DEFENSE".

That's literally it. If you do some Google searches of the debates (not just the famous televised one) and newspaper reader commentary reaction, a recurring theme from Republican commenters was "Nixon agrees with Kennedy too much".

In 1960, Blacks were faced with two pro-civil rights candidates, except one was an economic liberal and the other a bit less liberal. Considering the economic hardships black Americans have faced (and still do) for all of American history, they are going to vote for the party of comprehensive social safety nets and widespread government investment and a higher minimum wage, not the guy who keeps going on about a strong dollar, business taking precedence over labor, and balancing the budget.

The Republican Party had become the moderate heroes of civil rights, while the Democrats had a hardcore Dixiecrat wing and a pro-civil rights wing at the same time. Stop viewing things in such black-and-white terms.

Make peace with the fact that the Republican Party stopped gunning for civil rights after Reconstruction, and starting in the 1970s began to actively undermine them. I'm happy there are people like you who want to change the party going forward, but you cannot rewrite the past.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines