|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 07, 2020, 03:03:35 pm
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)
  Georgetown County, South Carolina
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Georgetown County, South Carolina  (Read 2753 times)
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 17, 2005, 07:44:16 am »

This county is a bit odd...

--1900--
Republican 451
Democrat 446
Other 0

--1904--
Democrat 728
Republican 0
Other 0
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,271



WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2005, 07:54:27 am »

The vote total decreased by a pretty noticable margin; I'd guess it's something to do with blacks not being able to vote again by 1904.  That doesn't explain the 250+ vote jump for the Democrat in 1904.

Georgetown, by the way, is the butt of many jokes, at least in lowcountry SC.
Logged
Virginian87
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,602
Political Matrix
E: -3.55, S: 2.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2005, 07:56:52 am »

The vote total decreased by a pretty noticable margin; I'd guess it's something to do with blacks not being able to vote again by 1904.  That doesn't explain the 250+ vote jump for the Democrat in 1904.

That would make sense.

Georgetown, by the way, is the butt of many jokes, at least in lowcountry SC.

I thought it was a nice place with nice beaches.  What's bad about it?

Logged
RBH
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,173


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2005, 11:49:51 pm »

Something strikes me as slightly fraudulent about the South Carolina elections. More than just the typical conditions of voting in that area.

South Carolina in general, 1892-1952

1892: 78-19 Dems
1896: 85-14 Dems
1900: 93-7 Dems
1904: 95-5 Dems
1908: 94-6 Dems
1912: 96-1-3 Dems
1916: 97-2 Dems
1920: 96-4 Dems
1924: 97-2 Dems
1928: 91-9 Dems
1932: 98-2 Dems
1936: 99-1 Dems
1940: 96-4 Dems
1944: 88-4 Dems
1948: 72-24-4 Strom
1952: 51-49 Dems
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,654


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2005, 12:00:56 am »

Something strikes me as slightly fraudulent about the South Carolina elections. More than just the typical conditions of voting in that area.

South Carolina in general, 1892-1952

1892: 78-19 Dems
1896: 85-14 Dems
1900: 93-7 Dems
1904: 95-5 Dems
1908: 94-6 Dems
1912: 96-1-3 Dems
1916: 97-2 Dems
1920: 96-4 Dems
1924: 97-2 Dems
1928: 91-9 Dems
1932: 98-2 Dems
1936: 99-1 Dems
1940: 96-4 Dems
1944: 88-4 Dems
1948: 72-24-4 Strom
1952: 51-49 Dems

That sounds about right for South Carolina, considering the fact that most black people couldn't vote during those times.  They were hardcore Democrats: in 1948, hardcore Strom Thurmond supporters and then in 1952, like much of the South, lukewarm to Adlai Stevenson.
Logged
RBH
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,173


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2005, 12:11:48 am »

If you want to get technical, I think Strom endorsed Eisenhower in 1952
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,654


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2005, 12:15:28 am »

If you want to get technical, I think Strom endorsed Eisenhower in 1952

Also a good explanation.  Smiley
Logged
Virginian87
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,602
Political Matrix
E: -3.55, S: 2.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2005, 08:00:15 am »


Yes, those were the days...except for the segregation and all.
Logged
skybridge
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,919
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 18, 2005, 08:58:37 am »

Something strikes me as slightly fraudulent about the South Carolina elections. More than just the typical conditions of voting in that area.

South Carolina in general, 1892-1952

1892: 78-19 Dems
1896: 85-14 Dems
1900: 93-7 Dems
1904: 95-5 Dems
1908: 94-6 Dems
1912: 96-1-3 Dems
1916: 97-2 Dems
1920: 96-4 Dems
1924: 97-2 Dems
1928: 91-9 Dems
1932: 98-2 Dems
1936: 99-1 Dems
1940: 96-4 Dems
1944: 88-4 Dems
1948: 72-24-4 Strom
1952: 51-49 Dems

So what? It's still South Carolina.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,239
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 18, 2005, 10:36:45 am »

Turnout. Look at the turnout. That's what, a 2% turnout in the 1920s?
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,239
United States


P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 21, 2005, 10:18:46 pm »

When you know every single race is going to be won by whoever wins the Democratic nomination, there ain't exactly a lot of motivation to go vote in the general election, is there?
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