Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The states that went to Wallace would have probably gone to Nixon if Wallace hadn't been in the race.
But the post-mortems for the election were mixed as to the effects of Wallace's campaign in the nation's industrial areas.
The "Law and Order" issue had as much to do with students rioting on college campuses as it did with African Americans engaged in ghetto rioting. Students rioting was probably more disturbing to white industrial workers as college students were people of privilege that got out of fighting in the war or working at a job, yet still acted out. The Democrat convention that year really helped put the issue in the forefront.
The Civil Rights Act was already safely passed by 1968, that fight was over.
Student protests against the Vietnam War was hard for WWII vets to handle, and the anti-war element of the Democratic Party did undercut blue collar white support for Humphrey. The law and order issue, was more in response to the riots after the MLK assassination. That violence, coupled with white resentment over what some saw as Great Society programs geared too much to helping blacks, helped drive Northern white ethnics to the GOP. In the southern states carried by Wallace especially, race played a large part. The same forces that drove southern states to Goldwater in '64 and Wallace '6&, finally led to a new Solid South in 1972. In the Deep South racial relations in general are never "over". The Deep South has traditionally had 1 political party rule, supported by the overwhelming majority of white voters, in opposition to whatever political force is representing minorities at that time. It's the only Region of the country where the white vote has been traditionally racially polarized.
Last edited by Bureaucat; 05-14-2015 at 04:13 PM..
In the Deep South racial relations in general are never "over". The Deep South has traditionally had 1 political party rule, supported by the overwhelming majority of white voters, in opposition to whatever political force is representing minorities at that time. It's the only Region of the country where the white vote has been traditionally racially polarized.
History shows you are wrong on this.
The South went for Carter in 76 (not so much after he proved to be ineffectual and ran for reelection), as well as Clinton in the 90's.
Plenty of other prominent deep south white Democrats- Gore and Edwards come to mind immediately.
The reason why Democrats are doing poorly in the region isn't race or the civil rights act, they were supreme in the south until much more recent times. Nixon in 72 and Reagan swept the nation, not just the south.
Don't ever expect Nate Silver to stick with his predictions. He will be continually adjusting his odds as the election nears. Those adjustments have always happened ever since he was using his parameters in advising professional sports teams' managers and owners.
Don't ever expect Nate Silver to stick with his predictions. He will be continually adjusting his odds as the election nears. Those adjustments have always happened ever since he was using his parameters in advising professional sports teams' managers and owners.
Everyone adjusts predictions based on new information.
Pretty good article, and its right, this race can be won by a republican. ts going to depend on who.
I don't see any Republican option as one who can win. Bush has the best chance but wont win due to Bush fatigue, Paul is an outside chance as is Rubio. Walker isn't in yet so we don't know his chances. Cruz will only get his base and maybe a little more than half "home team Republicans" but not enough of the independents he truly needs. Carson is even a smaller fraction than Cruz. Fiorina doesn't have a true platform, it's just "We need a woman president and Hillary isn't a good option so vote for me."
I don't see any Republican option as one who can win. Bush has the best chance but wont win due to Bush fatigue, Paul is an outside chance as is Rubio. Walker isn't in yet so we don't know his chances. Cruz will only get his base and maybe a little more than half "home team Republicans" but not enough of the independents he truly needs. Carson is even a smaller fraction than Cruz. Fiorina doesn't have a true platform, it's just "We need a woman president and Hillary isn't a good option so vote for me."
That's fine. I don't see a viable Democrat candidate who can win. Your side has one candidate, Hillary, and she is unelectable.
I agree: a very interesting article. Mr. Silver certainly won my respect during the last Presidential election (when I started to read his stuff). Democrats should read his articles with care.
The Democrats have had their head in the sand since 2010, unfortunately. The success of 2008 and 2012 blinded them to some big problems in the party -- namely, lack of a next generation of superstars to take over the party, and failure to articulate policy goals now that Health Care reform has been passed. I have been screeching about it for years to anyone who will listen.
Don't ever expect Nate Silver to stick with his predictions. He will be continually adjusting his odds as the election nears. Those adjustments have always happened ever since he was using his parameters in advising professional sports teams' managers and owners.
He didn't predict a Republican would win. He just said a Republican CAN win, and many Democrats don't see that.
You libs need to stop co-opting terms. The blue wall has always meant the police.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.......oh, I know, probably something about "voter fraud." 
