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.
A 1964 Texan Senate Race seemed to follow "modern" partisan lines:
In 1964, Yarborough again won the primary without a runoff and went on to general election victory with 56.2 percent in LBJ's 1964 Democratic landslide. His Republican Party (GOP) opponent was future president George Herbert Walker Bush, who attacked Yarborough as a left-wing demagogue and for his vote in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yarborough denounced Bush as an extremist to the right of that year's GOP nominee for president Barry M. Goldwater and as a rich easterner and a carpetbagger trying to buy a Senate seat.
Yarborough was the only senator who voted in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and in other domestic issues was considered liberal. Yarborough could be both liberal and more authentically Texan in that election. George HW Bush later voted for a 1968 Civil Rights bill as a representative, so he may have just been pandering by his opposition to civil rights. In his next election in 1970, he lost the Democratic primary to a more moderate Democrat — one of the campagian criticisms against him was that he was an opponent of the Vietnam War. By 1970, the war was relativly unpopular, oppposing the war wouldn't be a losing position in many northern states. Texas was perhaps more hawkish, but in the 60s enough were willing to elect a liberal to the senate. It wouldn't anymore. Some of the change is the region became more conservative.
redguard57, you skipped over the schism in the Democrat Party in the 1920s -- the KKK-endorsing wing of the party versus the urban white-ethnic wing. It took the graft and corruption and free-spending patronage of the New Deal to keep the Democrats unified at the national level; the Democrats effectively learned that they could buy votes with the taxpayer's own money. Every faction of the Democrat Party got their share of the take.
And the civil rights movement in the 1960s? Much of it was idealist and non-partisan, but there were some leaders who were motivated by a claim for a bigger share of the pie. I think we know who they were and are.
You also skipped the leftist takeover of the Democrat Party circa 1968-1972 -- the nomination of McGovern in 1972, the moderate reaction in 1976, and then the gradual consolidation of leftist control in the 1980s and 1990s. The process was completed with the expulsion of Joe Lieberman from the party in 2006.
redguard57, you skipped over the schism in the Democrat Party in the 1920s -- the KKK-endorsing wing of the party versus the urban white-ethnic wing. It took the graft and corruption and free-spending patronage of the New Deal to keep the Democrats unified at the national level; the Democrats effectively learned that they could buy votes with the taxpayer's own money. Every faction of the Democrat Party got their share of the take.
The Klan endorsed Republicans as well as Democrats:
redguard57, you skipped over the schism in the Democrat Party in the 1920s -- the KKK-endorsing wing of the party versus the urban white-ethnic wing. It took the graft and corruption and free-spending patronage of the New Deal to keep the Democrats unified at the national level; the Democrats effectively learned that they could buy votes with the taxpayer's own money. Every faction of the Democrat Party got their share of the take.
Urban machine politics long predated the New Deal.
redguard57, you skipped over the schism in the Democrat Party in the 1920s -- the KKK-endorsing wing of the party versus the urban white-ethnic wing. It took the graft and corruption and free-spending patronage of the New Deal to keep the Democrats unified at the national level; the Democrats effectively learned that they could buy votes with the taxpayer's own money. Every faction of the Democrat Party got their share of the take.
And the civil rights movement in the 1960s? Much of it was idealist and non-partisan, but there were some leaders who were motivated by a claim for a bigger share of the pie. I think we know who they were and are.
You also skipped the leftist takeover of the Democrat Party circa 1968-1972 -- the nomination of McGovern in 1972, the moderate reaction in 1976, and then the gradual consolidation of leftist control in the 1980s and 1990s. The process was completed with the expulsion of Joe Lieberman from the party in 2006.
Pffft...
Clinton was the ultimate triangulator - he won whereas Mondale and Dukakis before him lost because of his DLC/Third Way tack to the center.
And the Lieberman situation had nothing to do with his positions aside from one - his endorsement of the Presidential nominee of the other party in 2004. The same 2006 election cycle that saw Lieberman denied his party's nomination saw that same party nominate Senate candidates well to Lieberman's right - such as Ben Nelson of Nebraska and and Kent Conrad of North Dakota. Subsequent elections would see the Democrats nominate still other Senate candidates - Mark Pryor (twice), Mary Landrieu (again twice), Blanche Lincoln, Max Baucus, Tim Johnson, Evan Bayh, Jim Webb, Joe Manchin - either to Lieberman's right or at best no more liberal than was he.
Lieberman was tossed over for his endorsement of Bush and his constant carrying water for Bush's positions against the positions of his own party, not for his general political positions.
There are better examples - since Lieberman, there have been four United States Senators who were denied renomination by their party:
Lisa Murkowski (R) - 2010
Bob Bennett (R) - 2010
Arlen Specter (D) - 2010
Richard Lugar (R) - 2012
That's three Republicans and one 'Democrat' - and the 'Democrat' was actually a Republican who hastily switched parties because... he knew the Republican Party would never nominate him again.
If you're looking for ideological purity tests, you're looking in the wrong political direction.
True, but the Klan was overwhelmingly Democratic; it was the paramilitary wing of the Democrat Party, like the Provisional IRA was to Sinn Fein in Ireland. The Klan was founded to terrorize Republican "carpetbaggers," blacks, Jews, Catholics, and immigrants (who were overwhelmingly Catholics and Jews, at the time).
Plus, I would point out, that sometimes individuals change party affiliation because they can't gain traction is their original party (see Charlie Crist). And there are some who join dozens of groups, maybe even some that oppose each other, like the KKK and the Knights of Columbus, just to attract votes from each. That may be the motivation for someone to run for office as a Republican, but join the Klan to keep his Democrat opponent from getting 100% of the Klan vote. There are opportunists like this in each party -- some just more blatant than most.
True, but the Klan was overwhelmingly Democratic; it was the paramilitary wing of the Democrat Party, like the Provisional IRA was to Sinn Fein in Ireland. The Klan was founded to terrorize Republican "carpetbaggers," blacks, Jews, Catholics, and immigrants (who were overwhelmingly Catholics and Jews, at the time).
who were overhelming Democrats, or at least mostly so. It makes no sense for the paramilitary wing of a party to attack its base. The Klan was not overwhelming Democratic in the north, you're refering to the south, as is a lot of the posts here are for whatever reason. A Democrat from that time period:
redguard57, you skipped over the schism in the Democrat Party in the 1920s -- the KKK-endorsing wing of the party versus the urban white-ethnic wing. It took the graft and corruption and free-spending patronage of the New Deal to keep the Democrats unified at the national level; the Democrats effectively learned that they could buy votes with the taxpayer's own money. Every faction of the Democrat Party got their share of the take.
And the civil rights movement in the 1960s? Much of it was idealist and non-partisan, but there were some leaders who were motivated by a claim for a bigger share of the pie. I think we know who they were and are.
You also skipped the leftist takeover of the Democrat Party circa 1968-1972 -- the nomination of McGovern in 1972, the moderate reaction in 1976, and then the gradual consolidation of leftist control in the 1980s and 1990s. The process was completed with the expulsion of Joe Lieberman from the party in 2006.
Yeah I know, I had to skip some stuff and much of it is interpretation based on what you choose. Like I said, this subject could be a dissertation
I tried to allude to the "new left" when I mentioned Vietnam and 1960s social conflicts. Jerry Brown winning his original governor race in California was a good representation of what the "new Democrats" were about following the 60s schism - less focus on bread and butter issues, more focus on stuff like the environment, women, identity politics.
Clinton was the ultimate triangulator - he won whereas Mondale and Dukakis before him lost because of his DLC/Third Way tack to the center.
And the Lieberman situation had nothing to do with his positions aside from one - his endorsement of the Presidential nominee of the other party in 2004. The same 2006 election cycle that saw Lieberman denied his party's nomination saw that same party nominate Senate candidates well to Lieberman's right - such as Ben Nelson of Nebraska and and Kent Conrad of North Dakota. Subsequent elections would see the Democrats nominate still other Senate candidates - Mark Pryor (twice), Mary Landrieu (again twice), Blanche Lincoln, Max Baucus, Tim Johnson, Evan Bayh, Jim Webb, Joe Manchin - either to Lieberman's right or at best no more liberal than was he.
Lieberman was tossed over for his endorsement of Bush and his constant carrying water for Bush's positions against the positions of his own party, not for his general political positions.
There are better examples - since Lieberman, there have been four United States Senators who were denied renomination by their party:
Lisa Murkowski (R) - 2010
Bob Bennett (R) - 2010
Arlen Specter (D) - 2010
Richard Lugar (R) - 2012
That's three Republicans and one 'Democrat' - and the 'Democrat' was actually a Republican who hastily switched parties because... he knew the Republican Party would never nominate him again.
If you're looking for ideological purity tests, you're looking in the wrong political direction.
Yes, the Democrats still have a few conservatives, but not many. They've got Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Donelley in the Senate all of which are fairly conservative, particularly Manchin. Claire McCaskill has been known to lean conservative on some issues too, although she's a reliable liberal vote when push comes to shove. Angus King is also kind of quirky liberal/conservative, probably not that far off from what Olympia Snowe was. There are not many blue dog democrats in the house left though, I think 10, when back in the 1990s there were 50. With Mary Landrieu and John Barrow beaten, there are no more conservative Democrats from the South I don't think. What ones are left are from rural areas in northern and western states.
The Republicans however, have no liberals at all that I can think of. Zero. Maybe Mark Kirk from Illinois?? My representative, Greg Walden, is one of the most "liberal" republicans in the House and it's a testament to how conservative they've become to call him a liberal. I think he sided with Obama on one or two minor-moderate issues at worst (I believe he was against the 2013 shut-down). He can also be moderate on the environment now and then but everyone in Oregon is hardcore liberal on the environment so he's conservative by our standards.
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.
