Talk Elections

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => U.S. Presidential Election Results => Topic started by: OSR stands with Israel on May 29, 2018, 06:43:00 PM



Title: Why did Goldwater do better in Illinois than he did Nationally
Post by: OSR stands with Israel on May 29, 2018, 06:43:00 PM
He did better in Illinois than he did Nationally :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Illinois,_1964


He even did better in Illinois than he did in Ohio


Title: Re: Why did Goldwater do better in Illinois than he did Nationally
Post by: Calthrina950 on May 30, 2018, 02:11:22 PM
He did better in Illinois than he did Nationally :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Illinois,_1964


He even did better in Illinois than he did in Ohio

Goldwater did very well in the Chicago suburbs, which were very much a Republican bastion at the time. This is what kept Johnson under 60%. Moreover, Cook County was not as heavily Democratic then as it is now-Johnson got in the sixties there, whereas Hillary Clinton, for example, broke 70% in 2016.


Title: Re: Why did Goldwater do better in Illinois than he did Nationally
Post by: RINO Tom on May 30, 2018, 03:00:03 PM
He did better in Illinois than he did Nationally :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Illinois,_1964


He even did better in Illinois than he did in Ohio

Goldwater did very well in the Chicago suburbs, which were very much a Republican bastion at the time. This is what kept Johnson under 60%. Moreover, Cook County was not as heavily Democratic then as it is now-Johnson got in the sixties there, whereas Hillary Clinton, for example, broke 70% in 2016.

Pretty much this, plus 1) Cook County wasn't quite as urban then (the Cook suburbs seemed to have voted a lot more like the Collar Counties do now, and the Collar Counties voted a lot more like McHenry County now) and therefore less Democratic, and 2) Southern Illinois' ancestrally Democratic lean was more akin to that of Kentucky than that of Mississippi and therefore much, much more likely to stick with LBJ.