Mississippi 1964?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

How did Goldwater get 87% in Mississippi in 1964?  Black people had the right to vote by then, so they must have gone overwhelmingly for Goldwater in Mississippi as well.  What happened?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Only 6% of Black adults in Mississippi were registered in 1964. Various methods were used to keep this, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed to change this. The segregationist candidate (or his closest substitute) ALWAYS gets 87% or more of the White vote in Mississippi. It was so under Woodrow Wilson, under FDR, under Thurmond, under Goldwater, under Wallace, and under Romney. Even Al Smith got 82%.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Mississippi also elected Republican Prentiss Walker to Congress.  Had they put up Republican candidates in all 5 districts, they may have won them all.

[Kantakouzenos]

To expand on what some other people have said, African American votes were very intensely suppressed.  Only 6 or 7 % of Mississippi blacks were registered to vote in 1961, and in some heavily black counties there weren't any registered African Americans.  The people in power held a lot of control over who they would let register to vote.  In many urban counties for instance, they would let honored or token blacks like lawyers, doctors, veterans and the like to register, but not anyone else, and certainly not enough to influence the election outcome.  Also, of those who were registered to vote, even fewer would dare turn out to vote.  Of all the Southern States, Mississippi was the worst in this regard.  Most of those votes for Johnson probably came from white's who either weren't put off by his opposition to segregation, or understood that segregation was wrong and wanted to see it ended.

Even with Mississippi being the worst offender in this regard, 87% for Goldwater is still pretty extreme.  It's also important to consider that the way Johnson handled the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party Delegation at the convention did him no favors.  For those who don't know, two delegations from Mississippi showed up at the 1964 convention, the Democratic Party of Mississippi's delegation, who was selected by an all white primary, and the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party delegation, comprised of black and white activists seeking to claim that that the Mississippi Democratic Party was illegitimate.  Johnson was upset by the MFDP's presence, but he tried to be diplomatic by letting them have a few seats.  The Mississippi Democratic Party delegation walked out unhappy, and the MFDP felt like they got the short end of the stick.  This probably had an affect on Mississippi being much more Republican than Alabama where Johnson wasn't even allowed on the ballot.

[RINO Tom]

Mississippi also elected Republican Prentiss Walker to Congress.  Had they put up Republican candidates in all 5 districts, they may have won them all.

That is complete and baseless speculation.  There is zero evidence that White Southerners felt an urgent need to throw their Democratic politicians out of office (politicians that voted against the CRA, while most Republicans in Congress voted for it, so even with a Goldwater nomination, that whole theory just never held up) after 1964.  The Civil Rights Act opened up politics in the South, there's no question about that; however, it didn't even kind of usher in an era of Republican dominance.  Not even close.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Mississippi also elected Republican Prentiss Walker to Congress.  Had they put up Republican candidates in all 5 districts, they may have won them all.

That is complete and baseless speculation.  There is zero evidence that White Southerners felt an urgent need to throw their Democratic politicians out of office (politicians that voted against the CRA, while most Republicans in Congress voted for it, so even with a Goldwater nomination, that whole theory just never held up) after 1964.  The Civil Rights Act opened up politics in the South, there's no question about that; however, it didn't even kind of usher in an era of Republican dominance.  Not even close.

-Deep South Goldwater voters did feel an urgent, but temporary need to throw their Dem politicians out of office. Look at Alabama's House delegation in 1964. However, the Deep South took two more generations to fully throw off the Democratic yoke.

[RINO Tom]

Mississippi also elected Republican Prentiss Walker to Congress.  Had they put up Republican candidates in all 5 districts, they may have won them all.

That is complete and baseless speculation.  There is zero evidence that White Southerners felt an urgent need to throw their Democratic politicians out of office (politicians that voted against the CRA, while most Republicans in Congress voted for it, so even with a Goldwater nomination, that whole theory just never held up) after 1964.  The Civil Rights Act opened up politics in the South, there's no question about that; however, it didn't even kind of usher in an era of Republican dominance.  Not even close.

-Deep South Goldwater voters did feel an urgent, but temporary need to throw their Dem politicians out of office. Look at Alabama's House delegation in 1964. However, the Deep South took two more generations to fully throw off the Democratic yoke.

How can you TOTALLY discount that during those several decades, literally all of the White Southerners who grew up hating Republicans for being the Party of Lincoln or fought vigorously against civil rights or lived through the Great Depression DIED OFF.  You keep talking about White Southerners are the same in every decade; different people make up "The White South."  It's just quite literally a fact that GOP strength in the South started in suburban areas and took the longest to grow in rural areas.  ONE Southern Democrat who voted against the CRA became a Republican, dude.  There was no mass exodus, period.

Like, I wouldn't be a big enough hack to claim causation, but there is a direct correlation with segregationists' stranglehold on Southern politics loosening and increased Republican gains.  Again, the New South's GOP had its own flaws, including appealing to racism, but it's just blatantly false that the GOP sort of "became" the substitute for former Dixiecrats; they just didn't.  They introduced a new brand of Southern conservatism that caught favor with the KIDS and GRANDKIDS of "the old Southern Democrats."

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Mississippi also elected Republican Prentiss Walker to Congress.  Had they put up Republican candidates in all 5 districts, they may have won them all.

That is complete and baseless speculation.  There is zero evidence that White Southerners felt an urgent need to throw their Democratic politicians out of office (politicians that voted against the CRA, while most Republicans in Congress voted for it, so even with a Goldwater nomination, that whole theory just never held up) after 1964.  The Civil Rights Act opened up politics in the South, there's no question about that; however, it didn't even kind of usher in an era of Republican dominance.  Not even close.

-Deep South Goldwater voters did feel an urgent, but temporary need to throw their Dem politicians out of office. Look at Alabama's House delegation in 1964. However, the Deep South took two more generations to fully throw off the Democratic yoke.

How can you TOTALLY discount that during those several decades, literally all of the White Southerners who grew up hating Republicans for being the Party of Lincoln or fought vigorously against civil rights or lived through the Great Depression DIED OFF.  You keep talking about White Southerners are the same in every decade; different people make up "The White South."  It's just quite literally a fact that GOP strength in the South started in suburban areas and took the longest to grow in rural areas.  ONE Southern Democrat who voted against the CRA became a Republican, dude.  There was no mass exodus, period.

-Mississippi did not become more Republican than DC was Democratic in 1972 on the presidential level because all those Stevenson voters in 1956 died off.

Eisenhower did well in 1952 in the most vehemently segregationist rural areas. There was very much a mass exodus of voters in the Deep South from the Dems on the presidential level in 1964. The Democratic Party changed a lot more than Deep South FDR voters did from 1944 to 1968.

[TDAS04]

Of course Southerers didn't get rid of their Democratic politicians immediately after civil rights.  Local Democrats were firmly in control, and many anti-civil rights Southerners still trusted their local leaders, and the attachment to the Democratic Party wasn't going to die overnight.  The GOP didn't take control of any Southern legislures until the 1990s.

However, it would be a mistake to discount the longstanding effects civil rights had on Deep South voting at the presidential level, and the disrust many in the South obtained for the national Democratic Party.  After Goldwater, the GOP presidential candidate carried the Deep South in each election except for 1968 and 1976.  Even in 1976, Ford defeated Carter among Southern whites (granted, it was mostly the wealthier suburban whites, but still, look at Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana.  There were plenty of Wallace-Ford voters).

As for the segregationist Democrats dying off, maybe they mostly remained lifelong Democrats, but I'm not sure if many 80-year-old whites in the most rural parts of Mississippi and Alabama vote Democratic now.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Mississippi also elected Republican Prentiss Walker to Congress.  Had they put up Republican candidates in all 5 districts, they may have won them all.

That is complete and baseless speculation.  There is zero evidence that White Southerners felt an urgent need to throw their Democratic politicians out of office (politicians that voted against the CRA, while most Republicans in Congress voted for it, so even with a Goldwater nomination, that whole theory just never held up) after 1964.  The Civil Rights Act opened up politics in the South, there's no question about that; however, it didn't even kind of usher in an era of Republican dominance.  Not even close.

-Deep South Goldwater voters did feel an urgent, but temporary need to throw their Dem politicians out of office. Look at Alabama's House delegation in 1964. However, the Deep South took two more generations to fully throw off the Democratic yoke.

How can you TOTALLY discount that during those several decades, literally all of the White Southerners who grew up hating Republicans for being the Party of Lincoln or fought vigorously against civil rights or lived through the Great Depression DIED OFF.  You keep talking about White Southerners are the same in every decade; different people make up "The White South."  It's just quite literally a fact that GOP strength in the South started in suburban areas and took the longest to grow in rural areas.  ONE Southern Democrat who voted against the CRA became a Republican, dude.  There was no mass exodus, period.

Like, I wouldn't be a big enough hack to claim causation, but there is a direct correlation with segregationists' stranglehold on Southern politics loosening and increased Republican gains.  Again, the New South's GOP had its own flaws, including appealing to racism, but it's just blatantly false that the GOP sort of "became" the substitute for former Dixiecrats; they just didn't.  They introduced a new brand of Southern conservatism that caught favor with the KIDS and GRANDKIDS of "the old Southern Democrats."

-How did segregationists' stranglehold on southern politics loosen in the 1950s, when Eisenhower made yuge gains in the Deep South?

You really seem to be stuck in the 1990s.

[RINO Tom]

Mississippi also elected Republican Prentiss Walker to Congress.  Had they put up Republican candidates in all 5 districts, they may have won them all.

That is complete and baseless speculation.  There is zero evidence that White Southerners felt an urgent need to throw their Democratic politicians out of office (politicians that voted against the CRA, while most Republicans in Congress voted for it, so even with a Goldwater nomination, that whole theory just never held up) after 1964.  The Civil Rights Act opened up politics in the South, there's no question about that; however, it didn't even kind of usher in an era of Republican dominance.  Not even close.

-Deep South Goldwater voters did feel an urgent, but temporary need to throw their Dem politicians out of office. Look at Alabama's House delegation in 1964. However, the Deep South took two more generations to fully throw off the Democratic yoke.

How can you TOTALLY discount that during those several decades, literally all of the White Southerners who grew up hating Republicans for being the Party of Lincoln or fought vigorously against civil rights or lived through the Great Depression DIED OFF.  You keep talking about White Southerners are the same in every decade; different people make up "The White South."  It's just quite literally a fact that GOP strength in the South started in suburban areas and took the longest to grow in rural areas.  ONE Southern Democrat who voted against the CRA became a Republican, dude.  There was no mass exodus, period.

Like, I wouldn't be a big enough hack to claim causation, but there is a direct correlation with segregationists' stranglehold on Southern politics loosening and increased Republican gains.  Again, the New South's GOP had its own flaws, including appealing to racism, but it's just blatantly false that the GOP sort of "became" the substitute for former Dixiecrats; they just didn't.  They introduced a new brand of Southern conservatism that caught favor with the KIDS and GRANDKIDS of "the old Southern Democrats."

-How did segregationists' stranglehold on southern politics loosen in the 1950s, when Eisenhower made yuge gains in the Deep South?

You really seem to be stuck in the 1990s.

The politics of the 1990s aren't worlds apart from today's, despite your wet dream of a populist GOP vs. an elitist Democratic Party, which will never happen, sorry.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Mississippi also elected Republican Prentiss Walker to Congress.  Had they put up Republican candidates in all 5 districts, they may have won them all.

That is complete and baseless speculation.  There is zero evidence that White Southerners felt an urgent need to throw their Democratic politicians out of office (politicians that voted against the CRA, while most Republicans in Congress voted for it, so even with a Goldwater nomination, that whole theory just never held up) after 1964.  The Civil Rights Act opened up politics in the South, there's no question about that; however, it didn't even kind of usher in an era of Republican dominance.  Not even close.

-Deep South Goldwater voters did feel an urgent, but temporary need to throw their Dem politicians out of office. Look at Alabama's House delegation in 1964. However, the Deep South took two more generations to fully throw off the Democratic yoke.

How can you TOTALLY discount that during those several decades, literally all of the White Southerners who grew up hating Republicans for being the Party of Lincoln or fought vigorously against civil rights or lived through the Great Depression DIED OFF.  You keep talking about White Southerners are the same in every decade; different people make up "The White South."  It's just quite literally a fact that GOP strength in the South started in suburban areas and took the longest to grow in rural areas.  ONE Southern Democrat who voted against the CRA became a Republican, dude.  There was no mass exodus, period.

Like, I wouldn't be a big enough hack to claim causation, but there is a direct correlation with segregationists' stranglehold on Southern politics loosening and increased Republican gains.  Again, the New South's GOP had its own flaws, including appealing to racism, but it's just blatantly false that the GOP sort of "became" the substitute for former Dixiecrats; they just didn't.  They introduced a new brand of Southern conservatism that caught favor with the KIDS and GRANDKIDS of "the old Southern Democrats."

-How did segregationists' stranglehold on southern politics loosen in the 1950s, when Eisenhower made yuge gains in the Deep South?

You really seem to be stuck in the 1990s.

The politics of the 1990s aren't worlds apart from today's, despite your wet dream of a populist GOP vs. an elitist Democratic Party, which will never happen, sorry.

Bold prediction: Justin Amash will NOT win East Grand Rapids in 2018.

Politics since the 1990s have been a logical culmination of trends during the 1990s. The Democratic Party is much more concentrated in cities like Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Nashville, Houston, Dallas, Miami, Denver, and Atlanta. The GOP is much more rural.

[RINO Tom]

Mississippi also elected Republican Prentiss Walker to Congress.  Had they put up Republican candidates in all 5 districts, they may have won them all.

That is complete and baseless speculation.  There is zero evidence that White Southerners felt an urgent need to throw their Democratic politicians out of office (politicians that voted against the CRA, while most Republicans in Congress voted for it, so even with a Goldwater nomination, that whole theory just never held up) after 1964.  The Civil Rights Act opened up politics in the South, there's no question about that; however, it didn't even kind of usher in an era of Republican dominance.  Not even close.

-Deep South Goldwater voters did feel an urgent, but temporary need to throw their Dem politicians out of office. Look at Alabama's House delegation in 1964. However, the Deep South took two more generations to fully throw off the Democratic yoke.

How can you TOTALLY discount that during those several decades, literally all of the White Southerners who grew up hating Republicans for being the Party of Lincoln or fought vigorously against civil rights or lived through the Great Depression DIED OFF.  You keep talking about White Southerners are the same in every decade; different people make up "The White South."  It's just quite literally a fact that GOP strength in the South started in suburban areas and took the longest to grow in rural areas.  ONE Southern Democrat who voted against the CRA became a Republican, dude.  There was no mass exodus, period.

Like, I wouldn't be a big enough hack to claim causation, but there is a direct correlation with segregationists' stranglehold on Southern politics loosening and increased Republican gains.  Again, the New South's GOP had its own flaws, including appealing to racism, but it's just blatantly false that the GOP sort of "became" the substitute for former Dixiecrats; they just didn't.  They introduced a new brand of Southern conservatism that caught favor with the KIDS and GRANDKIDS of "the old Southern Democrats."

-How did segregationists' stranglehold on southern politics loosen in the 1950s, when Eisenhower made yuge gains in the Deep South?

You really seem to be stuck in the 1990s.

The politics of the 1990s aren't worlds apart from today's, despite your wet dream of a populist GOP vs. an elitist Democratic Party, which will never happen, sorry.

Bold prediction: Justin Amash will NOT win East Grand Rapids in 2018.

Politics since the 1990s have been a logical culmination of trends during the 1990s. The Democratic Party is much more concentrated in cities like Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Nashville, Houston, Dallas, Miami, Denver, and Atlanta. The GOP is much more rural.

There are more Republicans in non-rural areas than rural areas, and the party will literally forever have a very strong wing committed to business interests.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Mississippi also elected Republican Prentiss Walker to Congress.  Had they put up Republican candidates in all 5 districts, they may have won them all.

That is complete and baseless speculation.  There is zero evidence that White Southerners felt an urgent need to throw their Democratic politicians out of office (politicians that voted against the CRA, while most Republicans in Congress voted for it, so even with a Goldwater nomination, that whole theory just never held up) after 1964.  The Civil Rights Act opened up politics in the South, there's no question about that; however, it didn't even kind of usher in an era of Republican dominance.  Not even close.

The 1964 gains in the Deep South would have been greater than they were if (A) Republicans had contested every Southern district and (B) provided funding for such candidates.

In 1964, the GOP elected a Congressman in MS.  Two (2) of its incumbent Democratic Reps, John Bell Williams and William Colmer, openly endorsed Goldwater. 

Alabama elected three (3) Republican Congressmen (out of , and they, too, would have swept the other Democrats out of office had they put up candidates and funded them.  Georgia elected its first Republican Congressman since Reconstruction in 1964 (Bo Callaway).  In SC, not just Strom Thurmond, but Rep. Albert Watson endorsed Goldwater and switched parties (although Watson's party switch didn't come until after the new Congress was sat.  In LA, David Treen won 49% against Hale Boggs.

The GOP didn't really try to field candidates in many Southern states because the GOP was not a functional party.  There were many Southerners who voted Republican for President by 1964, but almost all of them voted in the Democratic Primary for state and local offices, and their Democratic Congressmen had seniority which made them powerful.  But the results in MS and AL showed that in the Deep South, voters were angry enough with the national Democratic Party that they would have thrown out the baby with the bath water. 

I very much believe that if the 1964 election were close, and where the GOP didn't get blown out outside the South, there may have been enough momentum for House Republicans and Southern Conservatives to join together to form a new majority.  Perhaps the Southerners would have been folded into the GOP; the time was right for it.  It didn't happen because of the HUGE majority of seats the Democrats won nationwide. 

[Intell]

The republican gains on the south, were because of civil rights, and more-than-average racists, in the deep south, that lived either in the upper class suburbs, or middle class towns with high african american population.

Once civil rights became a solid part of the democratic platform, these voters showed their true colours, and voted for a party of business and wealth, while holding onto racism as a political point. The republicans in the south, were by far more conservative than the democrats, and also more racist.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Mississippi also elected Republican Prentiss Walker to Congress.  Had they put up Republican candidates in all 5 districts, they may have won them all.

That is complete and baseless speculation.  There is zero evidence that White Southerners felt an urgent need to throw their Democratic politicians out of office (politicians that voted against the CRA, while most Republicans in Congress voted for it, so even with a Goldwater nomination, that whole theory just never held up) after 1964.  The Civil Rights Act opened up politics in the South, there's no question about that; however, it didn't even kind of usher in an era of Republican dominance.  Not even close.

-Deep South Goldwater voters did feel an urgent, but temporary need to throw their Dem politicians out of office. Look at Alabama's House delegation in 1964. However, the Deep South took two more generations to fully throw off the Democratic yoke.

How can you TOTALLY discount that during those several decades, literally all of the White Southerners who grew up hating Republicans for being the Party of Lincoln or fought vigorously against civil rights or lived through the Great Depression DIED OFF.  You keep talking about White Southerners are the same in every decade; different people make up "The White South."  It's just quite literally a fact that GOP strength in the South started in suburban areas and took the longest to grow in rural areas.  ONE Southern Democrat who voted against the CRA became a Republican, dude.  There was no mass exodus, period.

Like, I wouldn't be a big enough hack to claim causation, but there is a direct correlation with segregationists' stranglehold on Southern politics loosening and increased Republican gains.  Again, the New South's GOP had its own flaws, including appealing to racism, but it's just blatantly false that the GOP sort of "became" the substitute for former Dixiecrats; they just didn't.  They introduced a new brand of Southern conservatism that caught favor with the KIDS and GRANDKIDS of "the old Southern Democrats."

-How did segregationists' stranglehold on southern politics loosen in the 1950s, when Eisenhower made yuge gains in the Deep South?

You really seem to be stuck in the 1990s.

The politics of the 1990s aren't worlds apart from today's, despite your wet dream of a populist GOP vs. an elitist Democratic Party, which will never happen, sorry.

Bold prediction: Justin Amash will NOT win East Grand Rapids in 2018.

Politics since the 1990s have been a logical culmination of trends during the 1990s. The Democratic Party is much more concentrated in cities like Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Nashville, Houston, Dallas, Miami, Denver, and Atlanta. The GOP is much more rural.

There are more Republicans in non-rural areas than rural areas, and the party will literally forever have a very strong wing committed to business interests.

-Somebody oughta make a cartogram of the Republican vote, and compare that with a cartogram of the Democratic one.

Donald Trump is so committed to business interests, he even hired the CEO of ExxonMobil to be his Secretary of State!

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

The Southern Republican Party has changed significantly over the years.  It's "mountain Republicans" (mainly in East Tennessee and Western NC) were somewhat moderate.  Rep. John Paul Hammerschmidt (R-AR) was a moderate Arkansas Republican, as was Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller.  Gov. Linwood Holton (R-VA) was a moderate, pro-integration Republican who is Tim Kaine's father-in-law.  Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) was a pretty moderate Republican, as was TX Rep. Alan Steelman.  Former FL Sen. Paula Hawkins (R) was a moderate Republican, pro-consumer Republican in the Senate.  There have been a number of moderate Republican officeholders from the South over the years. 

This is certainly not the case today.  From 1994 on, the GOP in every Southern state has worked to become uniformily conservative.  There are no moderate Republicans in FL anymore.  There is less difference between Mountain Republicans and the rest of the Southern Republicans in their voting records than ever before.  And the result is that the white electorate has now become overwhelmingly Republican at all levels.  Politics in the South from 1968 to 2010 was a contest to see if the Democrats could form a coalition between blacks and working class whites to win at least its local and state elections.  The result of this politics was blacks having more leverage in Southern politics than in any other region in the country. 

That leverage is gone now.  Blacks in the South are reapportioned into safe districts where they can elect other blacks to represent them, but they will always be in the minority.  Indeed, the Democratic Party in the South is being looked upon as the "black party" with few viable white officeholders at any meaningful level. 

Is this about racism that never really died?  Some of it, yes.  Most of it, however, comes from the radically different experiences that blacks and whites in the South have that go to the heart of the current differences between the national parties.  Michael Barone talked about this in a previous issue of The Almanac of American Politics.  Whites in the Southern states have seen their standards of living raised, in their eyes, because of the workings of unfettered capitalism, of industries coming to the South and providing good paying jobs that afforded folks real prosperity.  Blacks in the South have experienced such prosperity as well, but blacks view this as the result of an activist, and even an intrusive, Federal Government.  This is where the real differences are today, because most Southern whites have accepted integration as a fait accompli and are not actively seeking to turn back the racial clock. 

[mianfei]

To expand on what some other people have said, African American votes were very intensely suppressed.  Only 6 or 7 % of Mississippi blacks were registered to vote in 1961, and in some heavily black counties there weren't any registered African Americans.  The people in power held a lot of control over who they would let register to vote.  In many urban counties for instance, they would let honored or token blacks like lawyers, doctors, veterans and the like to register, but not anyone else, and certainly not enough to influence the election outcome.  Also, of those who were registered to vote, even fewer would dare turn out to vote.  Of all the Southern States, Mississippi was the worst in this regard.  Most of those votes for Johnson probably came from white's who either weren't put off by his opposition to segregation, or understood that segregation was wrong and wanted to see it ended.

Actually, as Kevin Phillips shows on page 264 of The Emerging Republican Majority, most of the 52,618 votes for Johnson came from poor hills whites who were racially as conservative as the Goldwater voters, but who could not accept the thought of privatization of Social Security or of the Tennessee Valley Authority. The same was true of the 19,384 votes for Truman in 1948. In the northeastern bloc of Tishomingo, Prentiss, Alcorn and Itawamba Counties – which are over 90 percent white – both Truman and LBJ obtained over 30 percent of the vote.

Almost every one of these residual Democratic voters shifted to Wallace in 1968. If you look at those four counties noted in the previous paragraph, they gave Wallace between 5 and 20 percent more of their votes than they had given Goldwater in 1964 or Thurmond in 1948. If the Voting Rights Act had not been passed to enfranchise blacks, Humphrey in 1968 and McGovern in 1972 would have probably gained no more than 4 or 5 percent of the total Mississippi vote (vis-à-vis 23 percent and 19 percent as it was).

Even with Mississippi being the worst offender in this regard, 87% for Goldwater is still pretty extreme.  It's also important to consider that the way Johnson handled the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party Delegation at the convention did him no favors.  For those who don't know, two delegations from Mississippi showed up at the 1964 convention, the Democratic Party of Mississippi's delegation, who was selected by an all white primary, and the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party delegation, comprised of black and white activists seeking to claim that that the Mississippi Democratic Party was illegitimate.  Johnson was upset by the MFDP's presence, but he tried to be diplomatic by letting them have a few seats.  The Mississippi Democratic Party delegation walked out unhappy, and the MFDP felt like they got the short end of the stick.  This probably had an affect on Mississippi being much more Republican than Alabama where Johnson wasn't even allowed on the ballot.

That’s an interesting thought. It is true though that the issue of TVA privatization was not so important even in Tishomingo, Prentiss, Alcorn or Itawamba as it was in those five North Alabama counties which Goldwater actually lost to an unpledged slate sponsored by George Wallace. Comparing Mississippi with North Louisiana – where fewer blacks were registered than in Alabama but where Johnson was on the ballot due to support from racially moderate French South Louisiana parishes – we see that Goldwater did not obtain over 90 percent in any parish. Thus, it is possible that the mainstays of the white Mississippi Democratic Party in the Black Belt did feel anguished to a greater extent than in North Louisiana. However, figures from the North Louisiana Black Belt parishes of Madison and Tensas suggest this influence could only have cost LBJ a few percent of the vote. He probably could have done no better in Mississippi than 20 percent with black registration what it was.

[darklordoftech]

How did Goldwater get 87% in Mississippi in 1964?  Black people had the right to vote by then, so they must have gone overwhelmingly for Goldwater in Mississippi as well.  What happened?

It was the Voting Right Act of 1965 that enfranchised blacks, not the Civil Rights of 1964. This allowed the Dixiecrats to punish Lyndon.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

The electorate in 1964 MS was overwhelmingly white because the VRA hadn't happened yet, so nearly all blacks were kept from voting, and with this lily-white electorate, Goldwater won big time because the white Democrats wanted to punish LBJ for pushing for civil rights.