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 Yesterday, 10:37 AM
 
10,564 posts, read 4,167,945 times
Reputation: 14829

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 Yesterday, 09:56 PM
 
Location: Upstate NY
30,800 posts, read 9,209,031 times
Reputation: 29298
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 Today, 06:14 AM
 
Location: Under Moon & Star
1,657 posts, read 586,273 times
Reputation: 9194
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 Today, 06:58 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NYUSA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way.
6,780 posts, read 1,964,948 times
Reputation: 1656
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 Today, 09:47 PM
 
8,369 posts, read 8,638,866 times
Reputation: 26140
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
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.

© 2005-2018, 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