|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 05, 2020, 07:29:12 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)
  Nixon '72 in the South
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Nixon '72 in the South  (Read 4994 times)
Adlai Stevenson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,406
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 11, 2006, 02:25:11 pm »

Why in 1972 did Richard Nixon run so spectacularly well in the South?  He won almost 80% of the vote in Mississippi and in some counties must have come close to Democrat segregationist totals before the 1960s.  To do this he must have won some black voters, how did he manage that?  Or was McGovern so appallingly unpopular then?
Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,369
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2006, 03:35:54 pm »

Well, in 1968 he used a Southern Strategy to make sure Wallace didn't take too many votes away.  Nixon did this again in 1972.  However, at the same time, Nixon appealed to African-Americans with his support for affirmative action, which gave him something like 25% of the Afro-American vote.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,048


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2006, 04:59:49 pm »

True Democrat gave a very good explanation of Nixon and the south in 1972.

Another question along this line

Why did Nixon do so spectularly well in the 1972 election across the nation

One word

McGovern
Logged
adam
Captain Vlad
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,938


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -5.04

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2006, 11:42:02 pm »


Yep, that about sums it up. I think Democrats can blame McGovern for their long history of losing. He brought to life the extremist wing of the party and took it over. Since, there have been 2 democratic president...one was landslided in his run for re-election. The other, while making history in 92', had the luxury of running against Bob Dole in 96'.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,274


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2006, 12:20:02 am »


Yep, that about sums it up. I think Democrats can blame McGovern for their long history of losing. He brought to life the extremist wing of the party and took it over. Since, there have been 2 democratic president...one was landslided in his run for re-election. The other, while making history in 92', had the luxury of running against Bob Dole in 96'.


McGovern was more of a war hero than any of these warmongering chickenhawks will ever be.
Logged
adam
Captain Vlad
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,938


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -5.04

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2006, 12:30:53 am »


Yep, that about sums it up. I think Democrats can blame McGovern for their long history of losing. He brought to life the extremist wing of the party and took it over. Since, there have been 2 democratic president...one was landslided in his run for re-election. The other, while making history in 92', had the luxury of running against Bob Dole in 96'.


McGovern was more of a war hero than any of these warmongering chickenhawks will ever be.

You can't be a hero and garner 17 EVs against Richard Nixon. Those are called failures.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,274


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2006, 12:33:06 am »


Yep, that about sums it up. I think Democrats can blame McGovern for their long history of losing. He brought to life the extremist wing of the party and took it over. Since, there have been 2 democratic president...one was landslided in his run for re-election. The other, while making history in 92', had the luxury of running against Bob Dole in 96'.


McGovern was more of a war hero than any of these warmongering chickenhawks will ever be.

You can't be a hero and garner 17 EVs against Richard Nixon. Those are called failures.

Winning or losing one election does not determine how good of a person you are.
Logged
adam
Captain Vlad
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,938


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -5.04

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2006, 12:34:18 am »


Yep, that about sums it up. I think Democrats can blame McGovern for their long history of losing. He brought to life the extremist wing of the party and took it over. Since, there have been 2 democratic president...one was landslided in his run for re-election. The other, while making history in 92', had the luxury of running against Bob Dole in 96'.


McGovern was more of a war hero than any of these warmongering chickenhawks will ever be.

You can't be a hero and garner 17 EVs against Richard Nixon. Those are called failures.

Winning or losing one election does not determine how good of a person you are.

McGovern is probably a good guy, but he is far from being a political hero.
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2006, 12:45:58 am »

The Goldwater campaign significantly helped the Republicans in the south for years to come.
Logged
Rob
Bob
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,282
United States
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2006, 02:31:34 am »

Black turnout remained relatively low across the South, iirc.
Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,369
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 12, 2006, 06:22:57 am »

True Democrat gave a very good explanation of Nixon and the south in 1972.

Another question along this line

Why did Nixon do so spectularly well in the 1972 election across the nation

One word

McGovern

Nixon's approval at the time of the election was far below the 60% he received (I believe it was 55% of so), but the saying was "Hold your nose and vote for Nixon."  McGovern was seen as a crazy leftist, so Nixon played the moderate card, like LBJ in 1964.
Logged
adam
Captain Vlad
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,938


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -5.04

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 12, 2006, 12:51:24 pm »


Even that is under-statement. A lot of people seriously questioned the man's sanity. Nixon didn't have to campaign at all for that election.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,588


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 12, 2006, 01:52:41 pm »


Yep, that about sums it up. I think Democrats can blame McGovern for their long history of losing. He brought to life the extremist wing of the party and took it over. Since, there have been 2 democratic president...one was landslided in his run for re-election. The other, while making history in 92', had the luxury of running against Bob Dole in 96'.


McGovern was more of a war hero than any of these warmongering chickenhawks will ever be.

who are you speaking of?

dole?
hw bush?
Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,369
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 12, 2006, 02:47:08 pm »


Even that is under-statement. A lot of people seriously questioned the man's sanity. Nixon didn't have to campaign at all for that election.

I remember watching an All in the Family episode where Meathead inherited $400 and donated it to the McGovern telathon because the Democrats didn't have enough money: now that's just sad if it's true.
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 #14 on: June 12, 2006, 07:22:36 pm »


Yep, that about sums it up. I think Democrats can blame McGovern for their long history of losing. He brought to life the extremist wing of the party and took it over. Since, there have been 2 democratic president...one was landslided in his run for re-election. The other, while making history in 92', had the luxury of running against Bob Dole in 96'.


McGovern was more of a war hero than any of these warmongering chickenhawks will ever be.

You can't be a hero and garner 17 EVs against Richard Nixon. Those are called failures.

McGovern certainlly was a war hero during World War 2. And as others have mentioned, I don't see how one's heroism is determined by what percentage of the vote they got in the Presidential election.

As a Presidential candidate, yes, obviously he was a failure given his poor performance.
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 #15 on: June 12, 2006, 07:25:30 pm »


Even that is under-statement. A lot of people seriously questioned the man's sanity. Nixon didn't have to campaign at all for that election.

I remember watching an All in the Family episode where Meathead inherited $400 and donated it to the McGovern telathon because the Democrats didn't have enough money: now that's just sad if it's true.

Well, it's realistic. This was the last Presidential election before the current system of partial public fianancing for campaigns came into effect. Nixon vastly outspent McGovern in the campaign, the last one in which both parties didn't have equal amounts of money to spend after the conventions are over as is the system today.

It's also worth remembering that McGovern's election showing was obviously harmed greatly by Watergate. He still would have lost by a decent margin even without it (which is why it was particularly stupid for Nixon to do what he did; I guess he wasn't satisfied with just a large victory, he absolutely had to have a massive win), but it helped turn him into an embarassment.
Logged
Mr. Paleoconservative
Reagan Raider
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 560
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.29, S: 5.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 13, 2006, 11:17:43 pm »


Yep, that about sums it up. I think Democrats can blame McGovern for their long history of losing. He brought to life the extremist wing of the party and took it over. Since, there have been 2 democratic president...one was landslided in his run for re-election. The other, while making history in 92', had the luxury of running against Bob Dole in 96'.


McGovern was more of a war hero than any of these warmongering chickenhawks will ever be.

who are you speaking of?

dole?
hw bush?

Don't forget Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and many other Republicans who volunteered rather than dodge the draft and then have the nerve to send American Troops into war zones across the globe (costing some their lives).

Republican chickenhawks, what a joke.
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