Nixon and 1960 \ Kerry Parallel

[nadinbrzezinski]

Note I was asked to go a tad furhter into the parallels as I see them... and not only answered in the thread but this is a short history reminder.

Nixon knew somethign was wrong with the vote so he chose to keep investigating and well under the radar... (and apeared like a gentleman to the people and helped to elect him years later)

Now what Nixon found was that there was some serious fraud ongoing, in particular in Chicago (yes the machine was fully at work), but the particular one that raised many people's eyes was the findng that they found LBJs district voted for the Kennedy ticket at a 100% and all of them Democrat.

many alarm bells rang out, but... Nixon could not come out and put the country through the hell it would have implied, not because he was a gentleman... but because he had his dirty fingers in the votes in California....

Reality is that electoral fraud has been a reality of American politics from word go, but until 1960 nobody thought anybody stole an election... and this one is still under wrapts, and not as clear as oh 2000.

Now what is so different about THIS election? I mean when you compare it to any other election?

THere are no paper trails for about one third of the votes casted... this was not the case wiht the Chicago Machine or Tammery Hall...

This makes proving ANY fraud way harder.

They are going through it carefully and best case scneario they will prove it and you know Bush will NOT be sworn in on January 20th... at least this is what some of us hope and if the hanky panky is proven at the presidential level, we may move to the Senate and the House.

Worst case scenario, nothing will happen (nothing happened in 1960 but there were way too many differences back then to what is going on right now)

I hold my hopes that this will lead to a reform of the electoral system and a return to paper trails... and that will be a hell of a service for this under the radar investigating. Even if we are still stuck with Bush. For many very complex reasons I beleive that the true extent of this fraud will not emerge in time to stop the swearing in, and trust me that is NOT a warm fuzzy.

This is why it is now up to us, we are those leaders that will deamnd movement from our so called leaders.... they will get behind us, trust me, that is another historical paralel, except for the Revolution, they always get behind political movements.

[ArkDem]

1. I'm not familiar with Tammery Hall. Could you expound on it.

[shraby]

2. That's Tammany Hall.

A political machine almost unrivaled in its corruption. Google it and read up.

[ArkDem]

18. I'm very familiar with Tammany Hall.

[H2O Man]

19. Respectfully, there is more to it

than corruption, although any political machine is likely to have a bit of that taint to it. Tammany Hall began in New York City in the late 18th century to help feed and house the poor. It was named after a Delaware chief, Tamawend, and took some of it's structure and goals from the Indian peoples of the area.

The classic book "The Irish in America" has a fascinating chapter on this grass-roots organization that would help the Irish immigrants to mobilize and become a political and social force within a generation or two. As the book notes, all political machines have a bit of "often brazen politicking, arm-twisting, and civic activities," but that because it was a particularly Irish machine, it became viewed in two very different ways. "To some, they were a legitimate means to political ends; to others, they represent all that is corrupt in politics. In truth, they were both."

I'm not saying we should admire the corruption. But we could certainly use the Irish model of grass-roots politics in our efforts to meet legitimate political ends.

[Eric J in MN]

3. All the US Congressmen and US Senators who prevented

verified-voter-paper-ballot legislation in the last session are still there.

Our only hope is to work with the legislatures and Secretary-of-State offices in each of the 50 states. California and Ohio already have vvpb requirements for 2006.

Find out what is happening in your state. Talk to your local Secretary of State office and your state reps.

[H2O Man]

4. just out of curiousity ......

please look closely: if Nixon had contested Illinois, and had won it, what difference would it have made?

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Well for starters JFK woudl not have gotten killed

but civil rights woudl have been put back for oh I guess a generation.

This is one of those great WHAT IFs that lead to many good alternate history plots

;-)

[H2O Man]

8. Why would you say that?

What was the tally of the electoral votes? How many did that state carry?

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. It was close if memory serves

the problem is that I would have to dig my notes, but OH was the key then as well... ironic I know... if Nixon had taken OH I believe he woudl have become president

Many rumors abound that the only reaosn he did not was, he carried CA and CA there was lots of hanky panky as well so hte Kenedy people would have asked for a recount et al in CA.

This time it looks like only one side did the rigging, back then both did...

But iirc Nixon came this close to winning in the EC... and if Nixon became president you think Civil Rights would have gone forth? I mean he was a bloody liberal compared to the modern connies, but still

[H2O Man]

12. you might want to check

who won the state of Ohio in 1960's presidential election.

Nixon didn't contest Illinois because even with it, he lost the election. The popular vote was much closer than the electoral vote.

Footnote: When JFK and Nixon met shortly after the election, Kennedy broke the ice by making a joke about Ohio.

[ZombieNixon]

14. Nixon won Ohio (25 EVs) by a slim margin

Nixon would have to win all of 1960s "Big Three," Illinois, Ohio and Texas to win. The vote was close enough in all three states that slight shifts in IL and TX would have made the difference.

The final EC tally was:
Kennedy-303, Nixon-219 with 15 electors in states Kennedy won casting their votes for Harry Byrd.

If Nixon had won IL (27 EVs) and TX (24 EVs) and the Byrd electors voted the same way, it would have been Kennedy-252, Nixon-270, Byrd-15 and no President Kennedy.

[H2O Man]

15. There was a chance he could

have contested Illinois. There was no chance in Texas. Hence, when the republicans speak of "what if he took Illinois?" the answer is simple: JFK still won.

[autorank]

9. No Goldwater to start with, a different form of Republican extremism.

And imagine the impact on the civil rights movement, welfare policy, and Viet Nam.

[H2O Man]

13. You might want to check

who would have won the election, even if Nixon carried Illinois. One of the republican myths is that it would have changed the election. It may have changed the poular vote, but the electoral count still puts JFK in office. Hence, issues like civil rights and Goldwater are not changed.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. Here a link to an in depth article on the 1960 Nixon strategy

http://slate.msn.com/id/91350/

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Thanks, better than my just glosing over it

it is just that folks have to think of all possibilities

[bleever]

11. Whew! That's quite a read. Should be mandatory reading here.

:thumbsup:

[Sara Beverley]

16. The only parallel that I see is that Nixon turned out to be a huge mistake

and so will Bush...I mean he already is. The country let a decent men like McGovern, Humphrey, and Kerry go in favor of the likes of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. yes, but taht was nto the point of hte post

the point was to remind people that someimes you cannot do things in the open and with the media following... there are times that you need to FLY UNDER the RADAR...

And this is the only paralell between then and now, the under the radar

[mattclearing]

20. Aha.

Thanks for clearing this up for me. I think surrogates will have to continue with this, like us, Keith O and Jesse Jackson, until there is a smoking gun in the form of an informed whistleblower with hard evidence of enough of a scandal to change the outcome. That would be worth contesting over. Anything less will likely not get Kerry to come forward.