Was the South Hacked/Stolen in 1964?

[ElectionsGuy]

I'm not sure we've discussed this before, but I'm going to say yes. Mississippi, Alabama, and Northern Louisiana look very, very right wing, and then you go into Arkansas, Texas and Tennessee and you're all the sudden into LBJ counties.

Mississippi:


Louisiana:


(Looks like the Catholic/Protestant divide)

Arkansas:


Tennessee:


Seems very sketchy to me.

[DINGO Joe]

Well Ark and Tenn didn't have the minority populations that the Deep South had, so they didn't feel as threatened, but local leadership made a difference and there certainly were political bosses in control in many areas and in many places people were more vile or allowed to be more vile--intimidation, violence and murder were all prevalent.  Mississippi, Alabama, N. Louisiana were generally rotten places.

As far as actually rigging the voting boxes, that was probably fairly isolated. 

As for Louisiana, local Catholic bishops had already had come out in favor of giving minorities the right to vote and they had enough sway that it actually happened, especially in SW Louisiana, even before the CRA.

On a brief aside, the Governor's race in Louisiana in 1896 was blatantly stolen by the "Bourbon" Democrats vs the populists.  The Bourbons racked up huge margins in old plantation parishes by getting virtually 100% of the vote and 100% turnout of black voters.  It was actually view as "reform" to take the vote away from African-Americans.  The Bourbons ultimately got their comeuppance in the form of Huey Long.  I always felt that how the various southern states dealt with the populist uprising in 1896 had a long term impact in how they later developed.

[old timey villain]

It was hacked/stolen in the sense that black people were still being denied the right to vote in most places. Really, the South didn't have free elections ever until after the passage of the VRA in 1965. I mean, I can assume that LBJ would have won Georgia easily had black people been able to vote there combined with his strong white support in the Northern part of the state. The most heavily black counties in south Georgia were also Goldwater's best counties, so it's pretty obvious.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It was hacked/stolen in the sense that black people were still being denied the right to vote in most places. Really, the South didn't have free elections ever until after the passage of the VRA in 1965. I mean, I can assume that LBJ would have won Georgia easily had black people been able to vote there combined with his strong white support in the Northern part of the state. The most heavily black counties in south Georgia were also Goldwater's best counties, so it's pretty obvious.

Obviously minority voting denial was likely part of that difference, but I think even if not a single Mississippi black voted and every single Arkansas and Tennessee black voted, that still wouldn't explain the difference at the border between them.

[old timey villain]

Ok, I see what you mean. Well, I think a lot of it had to do with loyalty to one's state. Alabama and Mississippi both had very strongly segregationist governors while states like Tennessee did not to the same extent so that might have a lot to do with it.  If your governor is being vilified as a racist monster you might show him support by voting for his preferred candidate. I don't know just a theory.

Also, the northern counties in Alabama voted for unpledged electors. I assume those were LBJ votes but he wasn't on the ballot in AL that year. Some TN counties on the southern border with MS voted for Goldwater so it wasn't a clear statewide divide. And the divide between LA and TX is likely a favorite son effect. Not sure about AR and LA though.

[DINGO Joe]

Ok, I see what you mean. Well, I think a lot of it had to do with loyalty to one's state. Alabama and Mississippi both had very strongly segregationist governors while states like Tennessee did not to the same extent so that might have a lot to do with it.  If your governor is being vilified as a racist monster you might show him support by voting for his preferred candidate. I don't know just a theory.

Of course, there were actual racist monsters on the local level who would do anything to maintain the status quo and in some places their crimes were ignored and encouraged by the powers that be.  Those places tend to correlate with the Goldwater vote in the states discussed.

[memphis]

It was hacked/stolen in the sense that black people were still being denied the right to vote in most places. Really, the South didn't have free elections ever until after the passage of the VRA in 1965. I mean, I can assume that LBJ would have won Georgia easily had black people been able to vote there combined with his strong white support in the Northern part of the state. The most heavily black counties in south Georgia were also Goldwater's best counties, so it's pretty obvious.

Obviously minority voting denial was likely part of that difference, but I think even if not a single Mississippi black voted and every single Arkansas and Tennessee black voted, that still wouldn't explain the difference at the border between them.

Blacks could vote quite easily in TN before the Voting Rights Act, though there are not many of them in rural Middle TN. Those are all white voters who got electricity and the elimination of endemic malaria thanks to Roosevelt and the TVA. A shame nobody remembers now. The local machine here in Memphis (to be fair, it was already dead by 1965, but I digress) long encouraged blacks to vote and, indeed, relied on their votes. They were not above sending out a truck full of watermelons (seriously) to the black neighborhoods on election day, courtesy of Boss Crump. Here's the preclearance map. Notice TN and AR are not shaded.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No, the racists is the South just didn't want to elect someone who was anti-racism.

[DS0816]

If one wants to momentarily entertain a historical north-vs.-south discussion…I'm pleased that, historically, more presidential elections—since our current two-party Republican-vs.-Democratic system—won with their base states in the north and not the south. It's good. More than good.

[old timey villain]

If one wants to momentarily entertain a historical north-vs.-south discussion…I'm pleased that, historically, more presidential elections—since our current two-party Republican-vs.-Democratic system—won with their base states in the north and not the south. It's good. More than good.

Was 2004 the first election where a Republican won without any state in the Northeast?

That's significant because in that case 2004 was probably the height of the south's political power. Republicans had been winning the south for a long time before '04 but they also targeted more moderate northern states as well with different issues and policy positions. Bush '04 was the first campaign that just went balls to the wall southern conservative (almost totally geared to the south) and was successful. I guess that's why Republicans can't win elections anymore- they're still sticking to their 2004 strategy but that era has long passed.

[Liberalrocks]

I have read and forgive me if this is not properly conveyed: Goldwater took positions that were very anti government at the time which included a stance against the Tennessee Valley Authority in addition to farm related government programs that likely alienated voters. This helped to further hurt Goldwater in states that were perhaps winnable such as the northern south and the plain states. He lost Nebraska for instance by only a 5 point spread. Goldwater took positions that were tea party before there was a tea party however as he aged he became socially liberal embracing gay and abortion rights and becoming dismayed at the religious rights strangle hold on elements in the GOP.

[minionofmidas]

Anyways, Goldwater won these deep southern states because he had the support of their Democratic machines, or of very large factions within them, and not on his own strength. So in that sense you are correct - without slightly funny goings-on Goldwater would have won only Arizona.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

LBJ was quite popular in the Upper South, which, as already pointed out, should not be mindlessly compared to the Dixie.

As of Texas, it's rather obvious. LBJ was an uncrowned political King there. In 1960 he was the only one, as a VP nominee, who could deliver the state for Kennedy. In 1968 he was still popular enough to bring his home state for Humphrey. In 1964 he was on the top of the ticket, so what's so suprising?

Anyways, Goldwater won these deep southern states because he had the support of their Democratic machines, or of very large factions within them, and not on his own strength. So in that sense you are correct - without slightly funny goings-on Goldwater would have won only Arizona.

Ironically, he only managed to carry his home state by a 0.99% margin, which made it the closest state nationwide. I must say I've always wondered, why he did so poorly there?

[minionofmidas]

The Democratic candidate ran about ten points behind his New Mexico and Nevada results in Arizona in 1964, vs about 5 in 60, 68 and 72 and about 3 in 56. So a five point home state bonus, if you will. Given Arizona's small state nature more would seem possible... but it's not as if many Arizonans have been living in the state since forever. (Goldwater himself was actually born there.)

[Mr.Phips]

Mississippi for sure.  Any Democrat is guaranteed 40% of the vote there due to the black vote.  Even 31% in Alabama is very low for any Democrat.  They are usually guaranteed at least 37%-38% due to the black vote. 

Its the Mississppi result that is suspect to me. There is no way every single black could be kept from voting and that not even the few liberal whites there voted.

[ElectionsGuy]

http://geoelections.free.fr/USA/elec_comtes/1964.htm

Here's a nationwide map of all counties again if anyone really wants to see the full picture.

[RedSLC]

Mississippi for sure.  Any Democrat is guaranteed 40% of the vote there due to the black vote.  Even 31% in Alabama is very low for any Democrat.  They are usually guaranteed at least 37%-38% due to the black vote. 

Its the Mississppi result that is suspect to me. There is no way every single black could be kept from voting and that not even the few liberal whites there voted.

Northern Louisiana, too. The contrast between the north and the south is actually kind of stunning.

I also find it interesting that Goldwater's worst regions in Mississippi and Alabama were the northeast counties and the more rural northern counties (plus Macon County, which contains Tuskeegee), respectively. Incredible to think that these are now some of the most republican parts of the state.

[ElectionsGuy]

Mississippi for sure.  Any Democrat is guaranteed 40% of the vote there due to the black vote.  Even 31% in Alabama is very low for any Democrat.  They are usually guaranteed at least 37%-38% due to the black vote. 

Its the Mississppi result that is suspect to me. There is no way every single black could be kept from voting and that not even the few liberal whites there voted.

Northern Louisiana, too. The contrast between the north and the south is actually kind of stunning.

I also find it interesting that Goldwater's worst regions in Mississippi and Alabama were the northeast counties and the more rural northern counties (plus Macon County, which contains Tuskeegee), respectively. Incredible to think that these are now some of the most republican parts of the state.

The things is, those are by far the whitest regions of both states (that's why those regions are very republican now). But still, then and now, they are/were not nearly as republican as the whites in the more southern regions of both states. Those were the mountain Tennessee-like whites that aren't/weren't as racist or controversial. If there were counties as white as those in the southern areas of both states, they would probably vote 80-90% republican instead of the 70-80% republican now. And back then, there was a huge difference between whites of those regions.

[minionofmidas]

There is no way every single black could be kept from voting.

Um... you don't seem to know jack about Mississippi or South Carolina (or, though not by 1964, Alabama or Georgia.) There were no Black voters there. There were some in some (though by no means most) parts of Louisiana or Texas or North Carolina, however.

[DS0816]

If one wants to momentarily entertain a historical north-vs.-south discussion…I'm pleased that, historically, more presidential elections—since our current two-party Republican-vs.-Democratic system—won with their base states in the north and not the south. It's good. More than good.

Was 2004 the first election where a Republican won without any state in the Northeast?

That's significant because in that case 2004 was probably the height of the south's political power. Republicans had been winning the south for a long time before '04 but they also targeted more moderate northern states as well with different issues and policy positions. Bush '04 was the first campaign that just went balls to the wall southern conservative (almost totally geared to the south) and was successful. I guess that's why Republicans can't win elections anymore- they're still sticking to their 2004 strategy but that era has long passed.

Yes.

In 2004, the one state carried in the previous election which didn't carry for [re-]electing George W. Bush the 43rd president of the United States was New Hampshire.

2004 George W. Bush became the first Republican elected without carriage of the state of New Hampshire. Prior to him, including with 2000, all prevailing Republicans carried New Hampshire. The map has since realigned, and New Hampshire is a base state for the Democrats. When the Democratic Party wins the White House…New Hampshire carries.