Party Loyalty

[wyldwolf]

268. In long.

Harping on Stevenson is like harping on Gennifer Flowers. Well, except for the fact that Gennifer Flowers was marginally more relevant in that she was the first hint of a pattern of conduct.

An interesting turn for you - attacking Bill Clinton AND downplaying Stevenson's popularity in the 1950s. Interesting AND an irrelevant point.

As for the electoral result? Not so much. The ADA, for all the hype, was a better target for Republicans than it ever was some kind of power base for the left. As I recall, LBJ used to refer to Humphrey's friends as "those ADA bomb throwers." They were a lot of flash, but not much fire. It's akin to harping on the Third Way group these days. That group is largely irrelevant, though its alumni and ideas aren't.

And JFK hated Liberals. That still doesn't detract from the power base of the ADA.

Actually, Bobby may have rolled his eyes (that was a bit of license on my part). What he said was something like, "they can yell and scream all they want, they don't have the votes."

Which doesn't detract from the point that a progressive power base tried to usurp the (very likely) Democratic nominee, giving the impression again, as they had before and would again, that they couldn't accept the will of the primary voters.

The whole exercise is NEVER mentioned in analyses of that election.

I read it in every analysis of the 1960 election I read. I mean, just the fact Eugene McCarthy gave a Stevenson nominating speech is enough to save the event being a historical 'curiosity.' Here's an account from someone who was there as a foot soldier for the 'draft Stevenson' movement:

https://progressivehistorians.wordpress.com/2007/10/06/eugene-mccarthys-1960-nomination-speech-for-adlai-stevenson-presages-draft-gore-2008/

A quick Google search turns up many references, including a piece that details how Stevenson planned to go back on his word to not seek the 1960 nomination via a draft movement:

http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/mep/displaydoc.cfm?docid=erpn-adlste
http://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1284&context=honors-theses

For what it's worth, and one always has to wonder with this source, Wikipedia lists eight of the founding members of the ADA. Three of them, off the top of my head, definitely did not break against Kennedy from the left. Galbraith and Schlesinger were on his team and Humphrey was backing Johnson. I'm not sure you can really say the ADA itself broke against Kennedy at the convention when at least 3 founding members were committed to either him or his soon-to-be running mate.

The ADA was a national independent organization certainly not dependent on several top leaders to give them marching orders. Eleanor Roosevelt supported Stevenson's draft and was deeply disappointed when it did not work. Schlesinger's support of Kennedy caused a lot of consternation to Stevenson loyalists. At the time, however, Kennedy was an active candidate while Stevenson refused to run unless he was drafted.

The ADA waited a full month after Kennedy was nominated to endorse him but still refused to endorse Johnson.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1960/08/28/page/6/article/a-d-a-backs-kennedy/index.html

Interestingly enough, the ADA endorse Wallace and Stevenson two times before their respective nominations to their party's ticket.

Thurmond broke from the national party and the sitting president. How he was labeled at the time is irrelevant for our purposes, because, as I recall, his actual party was the States' Rights Party and he was listed as a fusion candidate. Wow, that prior sentence is badly constructed, but I'm feeling a bit lazy. There was no confusion as to which party Strom represented because everybody in the south knew about Humphrey's speech at the convention and the resulting civil rights plank. The people at the time treated it as a break, so I see no reason why we shouldn't.

No one has said we shouldn't treat it as 'a break.' I just told you the ballot tricks Thurmond pulled to give him actual electoral votes.

Thanks for the cite on Dewey. It only reinforces my point that Wallace was irrelevant. Using your evidence, 48 was close because Dewey's voters didn't show up, not because Wallace was worth more, electorally, than a fart in a thunderstorm.

Again, you're misquoting me and perhaps you've lost focus on what this discussion is about. I never said or implied Wallace was at all relevant from an electoral standpoint and in hindsight, only that he broke from the party on the left, something the OP 'overlooked' by starting his analysis in 1960. Of course, during the campaign Dewey looked to be a sure winner and every vote from the left was needed. Wallace siphoned some off and we're lucky Dewey's voters didn't show up at the polls in the numbers expected.

Truman certainly believed there was a danger in Wallace's run and he openly mocked him (and the ADA for that matter) when he belittled them for their lack of political wherewithal and chided them by saying "The greatest achievement was winning without the radicals in the party. I was happy to be elected by a Democratic party that did not depend upon either the left-wing or the southern bloc."

With most of those elections, I wasn't limiting myself to third-party runs anymore than you did. I was observing the years where the effort put in to elect the nominee was far less than winning years, years where there was significant support from right-wing Democrats for the Republican (or sitting out the election), and third-party years.

That's odd direction you've suddenly lurched to. Your original claim was "the repeated breaks of the right against the party." Now you're saying the party's ineptitude allowed conservatives to win the nomination based on party rules and procedures - as if they shouldn't have been allowed to.

1920 - Half-assed effort on the part of the national party. Cox won approximately the same amount of popular votes as Wilson 4 years earlier, but managed to lose by about 7 million votes.

Cox also got close to 150 electoral votes less than Wilson. Elections, as you and I both know, are not won by popular vote. It matters more WHERE you win than how much you win.

He took only the south, excepting Tennessee. Given the dramatically higher vote total for this election compared to just 4 years prior, it's a pretty strong indication that the right was voting for Harding.

This in no way points to a break of the right against the party. The south has long been a bastion of conservatives even in the early 20th century. By 1908, the south achieved widespread disenfranchisement by law as Southern state legislatures passed new constitutions, constitutional amendments, and laws that made voter registration and voting more difficult. This turn of events achieved the intended result of disenfranchising most of the black citizens, as well as many poor whites in the South. The Republican Party was nearly eliminated in the region for decades, until the late 20th century.

Woodrow Wilson won as a result of this black (Republican) disenfranchisement. Cox winning the south is pretty clear indication the right of the Democratic party broke for HIM, not Harding.

1924 & 1928 - I was specifically referring to the bigotry against Al Smith. Now, it's kind of funny that Smith, a future critic of FDR from the right, would suffer from this, but there was a campaign waged against him, within the party itself, in areas where anti-Catholicism was strong. Given this, it would be odd that he managed to carry the entire south and Oklahoma if you don't consider the tacit agreement between the southern elites and their Catholic allies in the north to deliver electoral votes in exchange for not asking questions about what would be called civil rights.

Who was Al Smith in 1924? Ah yes, a candidate in the primaries who lost within the rules and procedures of the Democratic party. There was no break against the party by the right.

1928? You just stated he carried the conservative bastion of the south - the right wing of the party voted for him.

1936 - I shouldn't have included this. Oops.

mm. k

1940 & 1944 - The reference is to the declining victory margins of FDR. He hit his highwater mark in 1936, which is why it was dumb of me to mention to 1936, but was down to 53.4% in 1944. He was clearly being abandoned by some of the electorate, partly due to the third and fourth term issue. While it's possible it could have been defections from the left, as the elder La Follette and Wheeler of Montana had planned in 1936, it's far more likely that it was defections from the right. The federal government took over the economy in WW2. The first, limited civil rights rules were put into place and there was strict rationing. In a fight with Hitler, I find it far more likely that the right would whine over the necessary actions to beat him than the left.

But FDR still won convincingly and there's no evidence it was because of some rightward shift of the Democratic party.

1948 - We've covered it.

We did.

1952 - Price Daniel of Texas comes to mind. He was the engineer of the split in the Texas Democratic party. His faction actually endorsed Ike. Johnson and Rayburn would cobble together what was left after the split, but they couldn't deliver the state for Adlai, mostly due to Adlai's own positions on state ownership of offshore oil and gas.

A sad event to be sure. Did we lose in 1952 because we didn't carry Texas? If Texas had gone "D" - it would have given us a 113 electoral vote total vs. Ike's 418. One half of a state's party endorsed Ike, a guy many on DU consider a progressive, anyway.

1956 - Same deal.

If you say so.

1960 - Rabid anti-Catholicism throughout the country made more than a few elections close that wouldn't have been otherwise. In fact, the south nearly broke against Kennedy because he was seen as a socialist (as well as taking orders from Rome). It was the Adolphus Hotel incident and the remaining strength of southern party bosses that delivered the necessary votes for Kennedy-Johnson.

But in the end, Kennedy won most of the South.

1964 - The solid South broke over civil rights. I don't know of a better example of the right turning against the Democratic nominee except for 1948.

Goldwater carried 5 southern states.

1968 - Widespread support for George Wallace around the country.

Wallace wasn't a Democrat in 1968.

John Connally, Democratic governor of Texas, was accused of covertly helping Nixon in Texas.

Yeah, a biographer claimed that even though Connally endorsed Humphrey and almost become his running mate. Nothing but conspiratorial hearsay.

The support would have been covert because he publicly endorsed Humphrey, likely in part because Humphrey was Johnson's man (Connally had been a Johnson man since the 30s). The accusations are probably correct, given Connally's endorsement of Nixon in the next election and his service in Nixon's cabinet. I could mention the convention and Mayor Daley, but that might turn out to be a wash for our arguments if one considers also the anti-Democratic left present in the Chicago streets.

Then let's just call '68 a draw, then.

1972 - The worst ass-whooping in American history. We'll put aside Connally campaigning and fundraising for Nixon. The margin of the vote alone is a strong indication that the right deserted McGovern. The size of Nixon's victory is pretty clear evidence.

It was the worst ass-whooping in American history because McGovern was a weak candidate. An argument could be made that the left broke from the party by nominating him. Though there is probably no evidence either way, I'd say Connolly had little to do Nixon winning. Nixon won because of a good economy and his handling of the war. He also appealed to Southern whites (but you know this.) However, he had a 23.2% margin of victory in the popular vote, the fourth largest margin in presidential election history. I doubt it was only Democratic right wingers that swung that election.

1980 - Boll Weevils, Reagan Democrats, etc. I find it unlikely, though always possible, that Ted's run had any influence on them except to confirm that they were to right to support Saint Ron.

Like I said earlier, Kennedy's actions gave the impression of a weak and un-unified party.

1984 - Again, I'm relying on the margin of victory. Huge wins for the right come close to prima facie evidence of right-wing desertion.

Again, unless the right wing in the party severely outnumbered liberals, the numbers don't add up that only Democratic right wingers defected to Reagan.

1988 - 4 more years of Reagan? Really? More grist for my mill.

Again, unless the right wing in the party severely outnumbered liberals, the numbers don't add up that only Democratic right wingers defected to Bush. Of course, his margin wasn't as big as Reagan's so SOMEONE came back to the D tent.

1992 - Perot. Nuff said.

Ross Perot siphoned votes from both parties. A detailed analysis of voting demographics revealed that Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates. Economically, however, the majority of Perot voters (57%) were middle class, earning between $15,000 and $49,000 annually, with the bulk of the remainder drawing from the upper middle class (29% earning more than $50,000 annually). Exit polls also showed that Ross Perot drew 38% of his vote from Bush, and 38% of his vote from Clinton, while the rest of his voters would have stayed home had he not been on the ballot.

1996 - A bit of Perot, but the real point I wanted to make was Clinton's two wins were both with less than 50% of the popular vote. It's a safe bet to assume damn few liberals or further left were voting for Dole or Perot, so that begs us to ask, who was?

See above: A detailed analysis of voting demographics revealed that Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives.

2000 - Those 200k Democratic GWB voters in Florida come to mind.

Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called "Florida and New Hampshire" simply "the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket," when Cook was writing about "The Next Nader Effect," in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, "Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president [Gore] a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes [nearly 200 times the size of Bush's Florida 'win']. In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 [three times the size of Bush's 'win' in that state]." If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush.

2004 - The worst president in American history, except for maybe James Buchanan, is re-elected? How many Democrats voted for Bush because they were scared of the boogeyman? Given the margin, it had to be more than a few.

Bush got 11% of the Democratic vote in 2004. By ideology, he got 13% of the liberal vote. It was independents that carried that election for Bush, not conservative Democrats.

2008 - I was thinking of Joe Lieberman and more than a few racists who wouldn't vote for the big, bad black man. This one is kind of funny in a very sad way, because so many of them are so insistent that he's a socialist when it's clear that he's at least right of center. It's like a replay of Al Smith except that Smith wasn't lucky enough to follow maybe the worst president in American history.

But the right wing of the Democratic party didn't break for McCain. Joe Lieberman did. According to exit polling, Obama got 9% of the Republican vote. More than enough to make up for maybe a dozen or so Lieberman may have carried off with him.

2012 - Similar, but not the same. Without getting into it, the administration's policies have provoked a lot of discussion (how's that for a neutral phrase!). There's been no notable third party challenge from the left. That's not to disparage the Greens, it's just an observation that 470k votes in a presidential election is a rounding error. With no third party challenge and a declining vote total, it does seem quite likely that it was the right that defected to Rmoney. I wouldn't be surprised if a liberal or two voted for Rmoney, if for no better reason than to be contrarian, but it seems likely that it was a lot more than a right-winger or two that broke from Obama for Romney.

Sure, the vote totals decline by approx. 2.5 million. Romney got about 1 milllion more votes than McCain. If we were to assume that the 1 million extra votes came from Democrats, that leaves about 1.5 million unaccounted for. Of course, we should also take into account that in 2008, Republican turnout dropped 1.3% over 2004 and rose again slightly in 2012.

If we take the numbers at face value, 1.5 million or so simply didn't vote. And the Republicans recovered some of their voters who didn't vote for McCain in 2008.

most of those years can be viewed as the right wing of the party deserting to the GOP when you look at the vote totals.

Actually, as I've demonstrated above, that just isn't the case.