U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-14-2018, 10:37 AM
 
11,217 posts, read 4,533,946 times
Reputation: 16257

Advertisements

Kennedy's good looks played an essential part in his first election win over Nixon and would still play a part in an election today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-14-2018, 09:56 PM
 
Location: Upstate NY
32,872 posts, read 9,699,915 times
Reputation: 31134
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
He'd have easily been reelected. The economy was good and he was well liked by the public. Vietnam was going on, but was just a blip on the horizon in 1963. JFK was a decent president, but he had the good fortune to be regarded as a better president than he actually was. When Johnson ran against Goldwater in 1964, he didn't beat him, he crushed him. The vote tally was something on the order of 61% to 38%. In 1964, the democrats were almost destined to win the presidency.

That's one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever read here.

The fact that Johnson trounced Goldwater in 1964 had nothing to do with either the failings of Goldwater or the virtues of LBJ, and everything to do with voters' emotional response after JFK's assassination.

And even that love affair with Democrats, LBJ in particular, didn't last long.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2018, 06:14 AM
 
Location: 912 feet above sea level
1,942 posts, read 706,948 times
Reputation: 10762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty View Post
The fact that Johnson trounced Goldwater in 1964 had nothing to do with either the failings of Goldwater or the virtues of LBJ, and everything to do with voters' emotional response after JFK's assassination.
Right.

It had nothing to do with Goldwater's avowed and framed extremism.

It had nothing to do with Goldwater's inability to consolidate Republicans due to such things as opposing the Civil Rights Act.

It had nothing to do with Goldwater's penchant for flippant remarks regarding which parts of the United States he disliked, atomic war, gutting or eliminating entirely various entitlements, or his intense disregard for the most recent Republican President who at the time retained popularity and influence in the GOP.

Instead, it was all because voters decided that - a year later - that a vote for LBJ was a vote for JFK - even though JFK and LBJ were nothing alike.

What an incisive historical analysis you've served up...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2018, 06:58 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NYUSA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way.
7,093 posts, read 2,130,382 times
Reputation: 1901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulsker 1856 View Post
Right.

It had nothing to do with Goldwater's avowed and framed extremism.

It had nothing to do with Goldwater's inability to consolidate Republicans due to such things as opposing the Civil Rights Act.

It had nothing to do with Goldwater's penchant for flippant remarks regarding which parts of the United States he disliked, atomic war, gutting or eliminating entirely various entitlements, or his intense disregard for the most recent Republican President who at the time retained popularity and influence in the GOP.

Instead, it was all because voters decided that - a year later - that a vote for LBJ was a vote for JFK - even though JFK and LBJ were nothing alike.

What an incisive historical analysis you've served up...
Personally, I prefer this historical analysis:

Quote:
...Republicans began embracing libertarian ideas about a decade before the Libertarian Party was formed. Barry Goldwater embraced individual liberty as a paramount political value in the early ‘60’s.

... The proposed Civil Rights Act of 1964 presented libertarian philosophy with a wrenching choice. In theory, libertarians loathed racial discrimination, but breaking Jim Crow would demand a sweeping expansion of Federal power that would intervene deeply into private life. The dilemma was that African Americans’ repression rose not so much from government as from the culture, ignorance and bigotry of their white neighbors.

The Civil Rights Acts proposed to do something that libertarian ideology insisted was impossible –expand personal freedom by expanding central government power. Goldwater made a fateful decision to break from the core of the Republican Party and oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act. His decision alienated the black community and shined a glaring light on a fatal weakness in libertarian theory. ...
History rhymes:

Quote:
...Two major policy obstacles block Libertarians from mainstream credibility. The first is their refusal to grapple with real-world economics, waving an ‘invisible hand’ over every problem and declaring it fixed. Worse though is their strange civil rights conundrum. Paradoxically, the party of ‘liberty’ would tear down every protection against racial discrimination. Republicans troubled by their party’s white nationalism will find little relief among present-day Libertarians. ...
The Libertarian Civil Rights Paradox

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisla.../#c2b64424caeb
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2018, 09:47 PM
 
8,714 posts, read 8,883,680 times
Reputation: 27179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulsker 1856 View Post
Right.

It had nothing to do with Goldwater's avowed and framed extremism.

It had nothing to do with Goldwater's inability to consolidate Republicans due to such things as opposing the Civil Rights Act.

It had nothing to do with Goldwater's penchant for flippant remarks regarding which parts of the United States he disliked, atomic war, gutting or eliminating entirely various entitlements, or his intense disregard for the most recent Republican President who at the time retained popularity and influence in the GOP.

Instead, it was all because voters decided that - a year later - that a vote for LBJ was a vote for JFK - even though JFK and LBJ were nothing alike.

What an incisive historical analysis you've served up...
Freud believed that if you were accusing someone of something, you were probably doing it yourself. She says my statement that Johnson crushed Goldwater in the 1964 election is "ridiculous". I'd encourage anyone who is interested to look at this poster's history and judge for themselves who makes "ridiculous posts".

Only a couple of Presidents ever got 60% plus of the popular vote. Johnson was one of them. I think the other two were Warren Harding in 1920 and Richard Nixon in 1972.

As Goldwater aged, I found myself liking him. However, it doesn't detract from the awful record he established. Here are some examples:

1. As stated, he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

2. He wanted to ruin social security by making it "voluntary". (It would collapse quickly if that happened)

3. He offered to sell the whole TVA for a $1.

4. He opposed an income tax.

5. He suggested using nuclear weapons on Vietnam which would likely have precipitated a third world war.

6. He voted against virtually every Great Society program there was ranging from student loans, to food stamps, to Head Start.

7. He opposed the Voting Rights Act later in 1965 after he lost the presidency.

There is a saying that "by their fruits ye shall know them". The only states that Goldwater won in 1964 were in the Deep South and his home state of Arizona. The Deep South voted for him solely because of his opposition to civil rights legislation.

You can argue over whether all of Goldwater's ideas were wrong or not. What you have to accept is the idea that these are not mainstream views. These are extremely right wing views that were out of step with most of the country.

That is why LBJ got over 60% of the vote in the election. And, no that is not "ridiculous".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2019, 11:47 PM
 
468 posts, read 689,996 times
Reputation: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Freud believed that if you were accusing someone of something, you were probably doing it yourself. She says my statement that Johnson crushed Goldwater in the 1964 election is "ridiculous". I'd encourage anyone who is interested to look at this poster's history and judge for themselves who makes "ridiculous posts".

Only a couple of Presidents ever got 60% plus of the popular vote. Johnson was one of them. I think the other two were Warren Harding in 1920 and Richard Nixon in 1972.

As Goldwater aged, I found myself liking him. However, it doesn't detract from the awful record he established. Here are some examples:

1. As stated, he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

2. He wanted to ruin social security by making it "voluntary". (It would collapse quickly if that happened)

3. He offered to sell the whole TVA for a $1.

4. He opposed an income tax.

5. He suggested using nuclear weapons on Vietnam which would likely have precipitated a third world war.

6. He voted against virtually every Great Society program there was ranging from student loans, to food stamps, to Head Start.

7. He opposed the Voting Rights Act later in 1965 after he lost the presidency.

There is a saying that "by their fruits ye shall know them". The only states that Goldwater won in 1964 were in the Deep South and his home state of Arizona. The Deep South voted for him solely because of his opposition to civil rights legislation.

You can argue over whether all of Goldwater's ideas were wrong or not. What you have to accept is the idea that these are not mainstream views. These are extremely right wing views that were out of step with most of the country.

That is why LBJ got over 60% of the vote in the election. And, no that is not "ridiculous".
If its fine with you may I ask your age.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2019, 12:31 PM
 
9,900 posts, read 3,359,784 times
Reputation: 4735
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
He'd have easily been reelected. The economy was good and he was well liked by the public. Vietnam was going on, but was just a blip on the horizon in 1963. JFK was a decent president, but he had the good fortune to be regarded as a better president than he actually was. When Johnson ran against Goldwater in 1964, he didn't beat him, he crushed him. The vote tally was something on the order of 61% to 38%. In 1964, the democrats were almost destined to win the presidency.



there is no guarantee of that......JFK barely won in 1960 and LBJ's landslide victory in 1964 doesn't say much because LBJ won in 1964 while the country was in mourning of JFK's assassination and LBJ used JFK's name to win in 1964.



A country rallies under a President under a crisis and famous wars and many felt JFK assassination was a crisis and didn't want to reject his legacy while in mourning just 1 year later by rejecting his VP.



It happened to W Bush in 2002 in his first midterms. After 9/11 the country united behind Bush and in his first midterm elections, he gained 2 Senate Seats and 8 House seats when a party in the WH always loses seats in the first midterm. That was 9/11 and LBJ won by a landslide because of JFK's death and the country was still mourning him......if JFK doesn't get killed in 1963, there is no guarantee he wins by a landslide in 1964.



if he would have won it would be by a little more than in 1960 but not a landslide.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2019, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Vermont
10,177 posts, read 10,877,611 times
Reputation: 13764
Responding to Post # 15, and for the benefit of the original poster, who is not from the United States, I will just point out that the popular conspiracy theories, although strongly held by some, have never been shown by credible evidence to be correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2019, 04:26 PM
 
8,728 posts, read 6,439,510 times
Reputation: 11244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
there is no guarantee of that......JFK barely won in 1960 and LBJ's landslide victory in 1964 doesn't say much because LBJ won in 1964 while the country was in mourning of JFK's assassination and LBJ used JFK's name to win in 1964.



A country rallies under a President under a crisis and famous wars and many felt JFK assassination was a crisis and didn't want to reject his legacy while in mourning just 1 year later by rejecting his VP.



It happened to W Bush in 2002 in his first midterms. After 9/11 the country united behind Bush and in his first midterm elections, he gained 2 Senate Seats and 8 House seats when a party in the WH always loses seats in the first midterm. That was 9/11 and LBJ won by a landslide because of JFK's death and the country was still mourning him......if JFK doesn't get killed in 1963, there is no guarantee he wins by a landslide in 1964.



if he would have won it would be by a little more than in 1960 but not a landslide.

I keep forgetting that the vote in '60 was close so far as popular vote, but really wasn't all that close electorally.

We could argue the whole Illinois and Texas thing.. But.. Ignoring the fact that popular vote means nothing.. Popular vote was a little over 100k votes.

I think you're right, but.. I think the electoral vote stays about the same. 310-220 or so. The popular vote spreads out. It's not going to be the ~23 points that Johnson won by.. But, it'll be far more than the 100k votes. Split the difference and say a 10 point spread. Something like 55 to 45%. So, electorally.. Yeah, little change. Popular vote, I think there's a significant change.






The real question to me is what happens in the '68 election if RFK isn't assassinated.

You've still got Wallace, who is taking votes from historically (at the time) democratic areas. He'd still be taking those votes, and possibly more, because RFK was Attorney General upholding most of the civil rights laws. Of course, most of those southern states went for Goldwater.. So.. Did Wallace cost Nixon votes or Humphrey votes? Alabama hasn't voted Democrat since 1960.. But the south was still in that 'flux' time.

Prior to 1960, they hadn't voted Republican since 1865.

So.. I think RFK doesn't get those southern votes.. But, would some sympathy and nostalgia for JFK get him a few southern votes? Would it get him some Ohio/Illinois votes? Remember, the 1968 election was pretty tight so far as the popular vote, though pretty wide electorally.

Just looking at the states that Wallace carried.. Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, Humphrey had more votes than Nixon.. While Arkansas and Georgia were opposite.

I can't really see a way RFK wins the election, unless they "convinced" Wallace to drop out. Then the question becomes.. What do the southern states do? And.. Looking at it, the Democrats were pretty deflated. They weren't overly excited about Humphrey. Of course.. Humphrey was leading the nomination process, but.. Kennedy had come in late and was gaining ground. So, the question has to be, would he have won the nomination? I think yes. Would he have won the presidency? I'd say no.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2019, 09:22 PM
 
9,900 posts, read 3,359,784 times
Reputation: 4735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labonte18 View Post
I keep forgetting that the vote in '60 was close so far as popular vote, but really wasn't all that close electorally.

We could argue the whole Illinois and Texas thing.. But.. Ignoring the fact that popular vote means nothing.. Popular vote was a little over 100k votes..

JFK won Texas by 2%
JFK won Illinois by 0.1% (less than 10,00 votes)
JFK won New Jersey by 0.8% (22,000 votes)

just those 3 states alone is 67 EV and would have given Nixon the Presidency with 286 EV......I'm not talking just national popular vote that JFK won by 108,157 votes...Kennedy won those 3 states above by just 77,206 votes.


you also had New Mexico which JFK barely won by just 0.7% that's 4 EV
JFK barely won Missouri by 0.5% that's 13 EV
JFK also barely won Minnesota by 1.4% that's 11 EV
JFK barely won Hawaii by 0.06% that's 3 EV


Pennsylvania was close....JFK won by 2.3% that's 32 EV.

if JFK didn't get killed in 1963 and the nation wasn't in mourning, he would had a tough re-election. He could have won but not by a landslide. Maybe he would have expanded his base a little but not a 44 state landslide like LBJ did in 1964.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top