Republicans Haven't won Since Eisenhower

[Pbs1914]

Last edited Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:37 PM - Edit history (1)

A fair or issues related election that is.

1968 Bobby Kennedy, beloved, on his way to get elected. Murdered.
Nixon then halts the Paris peace talks to keep the Vietnam war going in order to run as the person
that will end the war. Wins the nomination, Proceeds to immediately escalate the war. More US soldiers die under Nixon than in the entirety of the war. And after it could have been ended.

1980
Reagan makes a deal to keep the hostages held in Iran until after the election. Jimmy Carter destroyed over the hostage situation right before the election after being up 9 pts. as late as October 26. Carter then loses by 10

1988
Dukakis up over 10 points in the summer over George Bush. Then comes Willie Horton

2000
Gore wins popular vote by 543,895. Voter irregularities in Florida. Republican Supreme court halts the recount giving Presidency to George Bush. Gore convinced not to fight the ruling by running mate Joe Lieberman... who 8 years later campaigns openly against Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama...as an independent

2004
6% voter swing in a period of hours related to the Ohio ballot tally. Voter tally records destroyed.
IT person in charge of electronic voting machines mysteriously dies in a plane crash before testifying.


Which year did they win fairly and/or on the strength of their ideas/vision? Not since the 1950s..

[Blue Meany]

1. Not quite true: Nixon would have won in 1960 except for some

ballot stuffing in Chicago, arranged by JFK's father.

[H2O Man]

6. Just plain ole wrong.

It's funny how lies repeated enough can actually become accepted truthes. Still, no one with an ounce of curiosity should make the error or parroting such weak shit. Instead, one can do the simple math: Chicago is actually a city, located in a state; had Nixon "won" that state's electoral votes -- every single one of them -- JFK would have still won the presidency.

[former9thward]

27. It is funny when Daley machine corruption is ignored or defended on DU.

As a long time resident of Chicago 95% of Daley vote fraud was used against progressives not Republicans. There weren't that many Republicans in the city so Daley used his machine against the pesky progressives. And it worked most of the time. Chicago may be a city but it controlled the vote in IL especially in 1960. Daley held precincts out until he found out what was needed to overcome the down state vote in favor of Nixon.

The other key state in 1960 was Texas. LBJ won his first election to the Senate when a friend of his "found" 202 ballots in South Texas 6 days after the election. All but two were for LBJ and he won by 87. In addition to ballot stuffing inn 1960 to play it safe, LBJ ran for re-election to the Senate at the same time he was running for VP. TX voting machines in 1960 were configured so that when you pulled down the top lever (President and VP), you had to vote the party line all the way, unless you stepped out of the booth and asked a poll-watcher to reset the machine each time you deviated. This was cumbersome at a crowded polling place. So many Texans voted for JFK and LBJ at the top so they could vote for LBJ for Senate without hassle.

With IL and TX Nixon would have won in the electoral college. But since it is our side vote fraud is ok. I get it.

[H2O Man]

29. I think not.

Your response to my post attempts to portray my indicating "since it is on our side vote fraud is ok." There was not a single sentence, or even phrase -- not even a word -- that can be honestly mistaken for my endorsing "vote fraud" in any way.

You follow that with "I get it." Actually, as your incorrect (at very, very, very least) attempt to attribute that nonsense to me, you don't "get it." Rather, you own it: what you try to put on me exists only between your ears.

[former9thward]

30. You attacked the poster by insulting him/her by saying Chicago was a "city not a state".

As if the poster thought otherwise. And then you say that IL did not matter anyway. In fact there was vote fraud in 1960 and it did influence the election.

[H2O Man]

36. Gracious.

Pathetic that you would view that as an "attack." But I suppose that is consistent with the rest of your errors in thinking.

The math does not support the person's claim. I pointed that out. I think it is a good thing to point out when such silly myths are parroted anywhere -- especially on this forum, where it is important to be honest and accurate.

Obviously, you view this as an "attack." Thus, you have an irresistable urge to counter with comments that have little, if anything, to do with what I wrote. And, because deep down you know that you are entirely incapable of refuting the 100% accurate math lesson per Chicago in 1960, you made shit up -- going so far as to purposely and falsely accuse me of being in favor of illegal election activity.

Again: you own that, sport. It has absolutely nothing to do with me. It defines you.

[burrowowl]

52. Good Responses!

[Hippo_Tron]

33. You're assuming that Nixon didn't pull any dirty tricks to carry California

Given the events of the Nixon presidency, I don't think that's exactly outside of the realm of possibility.

[former9thward]

34. I am not assuming anything.

There may have been dirty tricks by Nixon but in political histories of that election the main vote fraud issues that have been emphasized have been in IL and TX.

[H2O Man]

37. You are silly.

The post I responded to focused on IL. You brought up Texas. And now you attempt to limit another person's mention of CA, by saying the discussion is restricted to what you want.

Ha!

[former9thward]

39. What BS

I did not try and restrict anything. The only people that can do that are administrators. The person I was replying to --interesting you found the need to jump in --- did not give any facts just something might have happened. I have offered facts based on common histories of that election. You have offered nothing in reply just insults. That may work with some not me.

[H2O Man]

40. Well, sport,

I'm not trying to work with you. Or on you.

Note: the person you had replied to had merely commented on your response to my comment to yet another person. Hence, by definition, I did not "jump in" on a conversation. You, on the other hand, surely did. So, once again, you own it.

And, again, I have stuck to facts. Like math in the context of election history.

Have a good day. And, if you have time, please consider continueing this discussion. It's a lot of fun.

[former9thward]

45. Your "facts" are like the vote math that Daley used.

No wonder your numbers add up like you want them to. The 1960 election was Kennedy 303 to Nixon 219. IL and TX had 51 votes. If they were in Nixon's column he would have had 270 and Kennedy 252. That is the true math.

[H2O Man]

47. Really, really weak.

I feel ashamed for you.

The post I responded to was about one state, and one state only. The person repeated a myth that has been discredited many, many times. No less of an expert than myself has done so on this very forum.

My facts and math are, of course (and without any question) 100% accurate.

You've added nonsense and foolishness. And dishonesty, in your (repeated) attempts to apply a falsehood that exists only in your mind to me. It didn't work. I called you on it, and rather than admit your error -- be it purposeful or for some other undefined reason -- you continue to try to twist things.

The truth is that you now have two golden opportunities -- likely the two best opportunities that you will ever have in your entire life (or series of lives, if you subscribe to the notion of reincarnation): first, you now have the opportunity to talk to the one person who knows far, far, far more about JFK, LBJ, and the presidential elections of 1960, '64, '68. and '72 than anyone you ever will meet, read about, see on television, or even hear mentioned; and second, you also have the chance to humble admit the error of your ways, ask for my forgiveness, and have a chance of me feeling sorry for you.

Will you allow your lack of pride and self-respect to force you to blow these opportunities?

[former9thward]

48. You don't know me and you don't know whom I have met.

I will take my experiences over your self proclaimed "expertise" any day.

[H2O Man]

49. Yes,

I do.

[former9thward]

50. Then please tell us.

This should be fun.

[2ndAmForComputers]

18. No, wait, let me guess.

The Clintons got Vince Foster killed and Obama was born in Kenya, right?

[Robb]

44. And death panels!! Don't forget the death panelzz!!!1

[LaydeeBug]

57. bullshit. And there were many more corn husks voting in Southern Illinois. nt

[Coyotl]

58. I assume you have evidence to back up your claim

We Dems are not a faith-based group. We need to stick out hands into the blood to know it is real, not just jive.

[NYC Liberal]

2. Even Eisenhower fearmongered about Dems being "soft on communism",

and sold out to win votes (he was going to criticize McCarthy on the campaign trail but changed his mind and embraced him when he realized he would lose votes, especially in Wisconsin).

[craigmatic]

3. You forgot the Watergate break in in 1972. 1984 was pretty clean of dirty tricks.

[GeorgeGist]

10. Reagan made Stupid acceptable.

etc,

[starroute]

15. I don't believe Watergate affected the election

Nixon won in a landslide in 1972 because he was a successful incumbent, the country was still traumatized by the upheavals of the 60s, Teddy Kennedy was out of the running because of Chappaquiddick, and McGovern was an anti-war outsider with no support from the party establishment.

Given all that, the GOP had no need to cheat -- although they did pull a lot of weird crap in 1972, apparently just for the hell of it. It was only after Reagan started dismantling the middle class that things got weird.

[craigmatic]

17. True the break in wasn't neccessary for Nixon to win but it was still a dirty trick.

[starroute]

20. Nixon was pulling all sorts of bizarre crap at once

There's been some nostalgia for Nixon around here lately, because compared to the current crop of Republicans he looks good. But we should never forget that he was doing his best to undermine democracy -- in concert with the more dubious elements of the CIA, the Mafia, and his merry gang of Cuban exiles.

I've been sorting through some of my old notes on what was going on in the Nixon White House with regard to drug policy. The story is complex, but the short version is that Nixon wanted to use the drug agencies as a means of domestic surveillance and covert operations, one that would be completely under the control of the White House and without even the degree of external oversight imposed on the CIA.

The chief motivators behind the plan were E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy -- both of whom got snared in Watergate, which strongly suggests that the break-in was part of that pattern of covert operations and not specifically an election dirty trick.

The culmination of all of this was to have been the creation in 1973 of the Drug Enforcement Agency -- which was huge, largely unaccountable, and combined former CIA and military intelligence people with old-line drug enforcement agents. And if it hadn't been for Watergate, they might have gotten away with it.

[craigmatic]

23. I'd argue that they did get away with it just not the way they had hoped.

As much as the drug war could've been used for surveillance it was used for another conservative purpose namely to go after minorities strip them of their voting rights and their rights to own guns while empowering the prison industurial complex. The effect was to create a permanent class of people who are stuck in a revolving door of poverty and prison. Most can't even use welfare to at least try to make an honest start of it. People have been suggesting for decades that the government is in the the durg business and playing both sides against the people and the more I think about it the more I believe that it's true. The CIA cut deals with drug lords in Southeast Asia in exchange for help fighting communism and our drug problem has actually gotten worse since they created the DEA. Come to think of it what better way of surveillance is there then having people locked up for years then putting them on parole?

[starroute]

28. You're absolutely right about that

The one mercy is that the DEA didn't become a private army under the sole control of the White House -- the results of which could have been almost inconceivable.

But at some point the decision was made that instead of using welfare and a decent minimum wage to discouraging the poor from rioting and burning down the inner cities, they would use drug laws and the prison-industrial complex instead.

Decisions have consequences, however, and that decision has distorted our society in very harmful ways -- ranging from the hollowing-out of many traditionally working-class cities to the breakdown of family structures among the working poor.

[RobertEarl]

4. That's right: all 'won' by tricks; not fairly

And anyone who just tries to wash away what the pubs have done is a gawd damn troll.

[scheming daemons]

5. Carter lost by 9, not 2. and Gore won by 500k, not 1 million

The other side is loose with the facts, we shouldn't be.

[Pbs1914]

9. A 18 point swing to Reagan in less than 10 days...

"Since Gallup began presidential polling in 1936, only one candidate has overcome a deficit that large, and this late, to win the White House: Ronald Reagan, who trailed President Jimmy Carter 47 percent to 39 percent in a survey completed on Oct. 26, 1980"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13caucus.html?_r=1

~Though Gore came in second in the electoral vote, he received 543,895 more popular votes than Bush~

not 1 million. Thanks.

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

14. But, when the votes were counted in Florida, Gore won there too

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

So he would have won the electoral vote, if the supreme court had allowed the vote count to continue. And all the republicans rioting, who broke every law brought against the Chicago 8, but no charges made...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. If You Believe Gallup. Other Pollsters Were Showing A Much Different Race

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/08/09/what-really-happened-in-the-1980-presidential-campaign/


It's because of Gallup's dubious polling during that race that we get regaled with Reagan's brilliant come from behind win when no such come from behind win ever existed.

[Jennicut]

38. Exactly. Reagan was ahead in the poll averages.

It is pretty much BS and Republican lore that Reagan had an unbelievable come from behind victory.

[littlewolf]

56. oh my you mean people LIE to pollsters ... nt

[WI_DEM]

7. I guess that means Nixon didn't win in '72 and Reagan in '84?

[Pbs1914]

8. I was going with the premise

that had Nixon not won in the first place nor Reagan, then there wouldn't have been a 72 and 84... Taking away that premise, I will grant you that.

[MiniMe]

11. Hostages were in Iran in 1980, not in Lebanon

[Pbs1914]

12. Alright

Well I'm going to change that too. As a new poster, I will make sure I take the time to go over my specifics before posting a semi-rant. Thank you for holding me to a high standard, and it is appreciated

[jberryhill]

13. Tomatoes are actually a fruit, Merle Haggard is not dead and we have pubic hair for a reason

Save those facts for future reference.

And welcome to DU

[hootinholler]

21. And it's ok to breastfeed your pitbull while smoking at Olive Garden. n/t

[theKed]

22. On the other hand

Paul McCartney is dead, the 2004 tsunami was created by a nuclear weapon, and the 1985 NBA draft lottery was fixed for Patrick Ewing to go to the Knicks.

You know, for the record. If you're into the stuff.

[Tumbulu]

16. So depressing!

Now I am feeling scared about this upcoming election, even though it seems impossible that Romney could win. Clearly he can just grab it, as these other monsters did.

[HughBeaumont]

24. Name the last Republican to win a presidency without the name "Bush" or "Nixon" on the ticket.

. . . . . and no, the answer is not "Bill Clinton" . . . .

[Freddie]

26. Hoover, 1928.

Damn! Never thought about that. That means Romney's doomed!

[Nye Bevan]

35. He needs to dump Ryan for Cynthia Nixon.

He might need to moderate his anti-gay positions, however.

[Bucky]

55. Ha!

Republicans only ease up on the homophobia when they have gay family members. Kind of like how they didn't support AIDS research until they started finding out they had family members who were HIV+. Or how they didn't give a flying fuck about anti-semitism until the Fundies started going koo-koo for Israel in the 1970s. Or how they didn't support Title IX until they had daughters wanting to do sports.

The best thing that can happen for American progress is for personal tragedies to occur to the families of Republican lawmakers.

[Pbs1914]

25. Eiesenhower, lol

good one


Edit:

Nixon was VP under Eisenhower. So that would be Hoover in the 1930's WOW.

[cali]

31. oh what bullshit. I hate people just making shit up to fit

their own narrative.

[Nye Bevan]

32. Am I the only DUer who believes that the only illegitimate election was 2000?

And HW Bush beat Dukakis fair and square. Attacking Dukakis for Willie Horton was just as legitimate as attacking Romney for Bain Capital.

[Chiyo-chichi]

41. That's arguable.

I wouldn't say '88 was an "illegitimate election," but comparing Dukakis and Willie Horton to Romney & Bain is waaay off.

Dukakis argued that Horton was an aberration & that there were similar programs across the country.

What is more, the Massachusetts furlough program was begun under a Republican governor and was a result of a decision by the Mass. Supreme Court.

Romney founded Bain Capital. Hardly comparable.

If you are just saying that both were/are campaign tactics, and not on the level of election fraud, I agree with that.

[Nye Bevan]

42. All legitimate points and Dukakis should have come out swinging with them immediately.

I remember he eventually responded but it was too little, too late.

[Chiyo-chichi]

43. That's exactly right.

Even he realizes it now.

http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/michael-dukakis-2012-6/

[Bucky]

54. There was questionable stuff going on in 2004. Voter suppression had started by then.

But that said, I more or less agree. Crying "cheater" every time you lose an election is not a self-flattering argument. If they cheat that much that often, then we look like first class chumps for being unable to fight against it.

That said, Obama will probably end up with hundred of thousands of fewer votes this year because of Republican suppression efforts. It won't decide the election this time around, but we should begin to vehemently fight against this anti-democratic (small d) effort while we still can.

[coalition_unwilling]

46. The historian in me feels compelled to object to your depiction of 1968. Nixon

DID NOT 'halt' the Paris Peace talks, nor could he have since he was not inaugurated until 1969. What Nixon did do, through intermediaries and back channel contacts like Henry Kissinger and Claire Chennault, was to convince Thieu (the leader of the puppet state in the South) to hold out for better terms in a Nixon presidency.

You are also wrong about U.S. casualties before and after Nixon:

http://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html

See the section entitled "DCAS Vietnam Conflict Extract File record counts by INCIDENT OR DEATH DATE (Year) (as of April 29, 2008 )" for a breakdown of casualties by year. 1968 was by far the worst and Nixon was not inaugurated until 1969.

[burrowowl]

51. True, very true

[Bucky]

53. Not sure you got a serious case about 1988 or 2004

I don't argue that there weren't irregularities in 2004 or dog-whistle ugliness in 1988. But the fear-mongering the Republicans employed was more or less fair game under how you win elections in American democracy. A free country is a marketplace of ideas. Rather than complaining that the Republicans consistently out-market us, we should simply up our game in countering their ugly fear-tactics.