The 1960 Race

[Ryan]

There seesm to be a lot of interest in the 1960 race especially as to the question of it being "fixed".

I'm starting this thread for people to vent their opinions on the issue

There was actually a discussion on this topic on in another thread. I've posted all the discussion posts till now over here but its a major mess since there were too many to do one by one. I would be grateful if everyone could post a summary of their views here. Then I will delete the two behemoth posts that follow.

Also after that if everyone could please get around to deleting their posts on this topic from the Senate 2004 discussion thread, it would be much appreciated.
I will myself do so in a day or two,
Thanks,
Ryan.

[Ryan]

Telfeyan  
 
 
DarthKosh
Jr. Member


Posts: 62




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #20 on: November 21, 2003, 05:57:04 pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: rbt48 on November 21, 2003, 08:33:17 am
Nixon pledged to campaign in all 50 states in 1960.  He kept his pledge and went to Alaska during the critical last week of the campaign.  He did carry Alaska, but getting those 3 electoral votes, according to some, cost him close larger states (IL, MO, MN) and with them, the Presidency.
 
 

Voter fraud in Texas and Chicago is what caused Nixon the election.  
 Report to moderator    Logged  
 
 
 
nym90
Newbie


Posts: 41



 
    Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #21 on: November 21, 2003, 08:27:57 pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, there would have had to have been a lot of fraud in Texas...Kennedy won it by 2%, or about 46,000 votes. It seems highly unlikely that margin could have been produced by fraud.
Is there evidence to support the claim that Texas was stolen for Kennedy?  
 Report to moderator    Logged  
 
 
 
rbt48
Newbie


Posts: 15




    Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #22 on: November 21, 2003, 08:49:39 pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the main argument about Texas in 1960 is that LBJ so thoroughly controled Texas (from county court house to the state capitol), that even if he needed 100,000 votes, his friends and followers would have manufactured them.  One must wonder why they came up with 46,258 extra votes:  perhaps just to deflect suspicion.

Illinois in 1960 is much more certain the result of fraud.  The Daley forces weren't even coy about altering results.  They held back results in early Wed morning until they saw how big a margin they needed to overcome from downstate.  Several precincts in Chicago were 100% for Kennedy--no Nixon votes, no minor party candidates, no write-ins.  Similar stories came from St Louis where the Missouri margin for Kennedy was 9,990 votes.  
 Report to moderator    Logged  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R. Bruce Telfeyan  
 
 
Realpolitik
Full Member


Posts: 244




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #23 on: November 21, 2003, 10:23:18 pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daley certainly commited fraud in 1960... however the GOP machine in the rest of the State was doing exactly the same thing.

Call it quits  
 Report to moderator    Logged  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If there are two or more ways to do something and one of them results in a catastrophe, then someone will do it that way"
~Murphy's Law~  
 
 
JNB
Newbie


Posts: 14




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #24 on: November 22, 2003, 02:29:27 am »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Realpolitik, wrong. Downstate IL at the time did and still as a Democratic machine in the St. Claire and Madison county suburbs of St Louis, and further south of there, untill recently, that area was dominated by Democrats(albiet of a more southren stripe). Rock Island was and still is dominated by Democrats as well. So if you have any proof of GOP fraud in 1960, please present it.  
 Report to moderator    Logged  
 
 
 
DarthKosh
Jr. Member


Posts: 62




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #25 on: November 22, 2003, 02:43:13 am »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Realpolitik on November 21, 2003, 10:23:18 pm
Daley certainly commited fraud in 1960... however the GOP machine in the rest of the State was doing exactly the same thing.

Call it quits
 
 

LBJ had the same control in Texas that Daley had in Chicago.  
 Report to moderator    Logged  
 
 
 
Realpolitik
Full Member


Posts: 244




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #26 on: November 22, 2003, 04:09:55 pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Er... have you actually seen a map of the 1960 election in Illinois?
 
 Report to moderator    Logged  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If there are two or more ways to do something and one of them results in a catastrophe, then someone will do it that way"
~Murphy's Law~  
 
 
JNB
Newbie


Posts: 14




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #27 on: November 22, 2003, 04:30:32 pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, the counties with the biggst population in Southren IL, St Clair county and Madison counties, across the river from St Louis, went solidly for JFK.  
 Report to moderator    Logged  
 
 
 
nym90
Newbie


Posts: 41



 
    Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #28 on: November 22, 2003, 08:02:12 pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see how LBJ could have had that much control, having only been a Senator. Had he been Governor, he could have appointed political cronies to high positions, but I just can't see how a Senator could have that much power to manufacture that many votes. Even if only 46,000 were manufactured, that's 1 out of every 50 statewide, and I doubt the fraud could have been spread exactly evenly statewide.
Then, rbt, you use the standard conspiracy theory argument of saying that the evidence that makes the conspiracy less likely (the fact that the vote margin was relatively confortable) is deliberately manufactured by the conspiracy itself as cover. Obviously, once a conspiracy has been established in one's mind, that line of logic can be used to refute any evidence...
It gets to be pretty convoluted when you are saying that not only did Johnson steal the election, but he stole it by a large enough margin so as to deflect suspiscion.
Nixon should have demanded a recount if the election was stolen. The reason he didn't challenge the election in court is because he knew he wouldn't win. He didn't even challenge Illinois, much less Texas.  
 Report to moderator    Logged  
 
 
 
DarthKosh
Jr. Member


Posts: 62




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #29 on: November 22, 2003, 09:32:46 pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: nym90 on November 22, 2003, 08:02:12 pm
I don't see how LBJ could have had that much control, having only been a Senator. Had he been Governor, he could have appointed political cronies to high positions, but I just can't see how a Senator could have that much power to manufacture that many votes. Even if only 46,000 were manufactured, that's 1 out of every 50 statewide, and I doubt the fraud could have been spread exactly evenly statewide.
Then, rbt, you use the standard conspiracy theory argument of saying that the evidence that makes the conspiracy less likely (the fact that the vote margin was relatively confortable) is deliberately manufactured by the conspiracy itself as cover. Obviously, once a conspiracy has been established in one's mind, that line of logic can be used to refute any evidence...
It gets to be pretty convoluted when you are saying that not only did Johnson steal the election, but he stole it by a large enough margin so as to deflect suspiscion.
Nixon should have demanded a recount if the election was stolen. The reason he didn't challenge the election in court is because he knew he wouldn't win. He didn't even challenge Illinois, much less Texas.
 
 

LBJ was the power broker in Texas and he was the only one.  Nixon didn't challege it because he thought it would be bad for the country not because he thought he would loose.  
 
 

[Ryan]

)  
 
Realpolitik
Full Member


Posts: 244




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #30 on: November 22, 2003, 09:53:18 pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darth... you belive Richard Nixon?  
 Report to moderator    Logged  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If there are two or more ways to do something and one of them results in a catastrophe, then someone will do it that way"
~Murphy's Law~  
 
 
DarthKosh
Jr. Member


Posts: 62




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #31 on: November 22, 2003, 11:25:22 pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Realpolitik on November 22, 2003, 09:53:18 pm
Darth... you belive Richard Nixon?
 
 

Over LBJ yes.  
 Report to moderator    Logged  
 
 
 
Realpolitik
Full Member


Posts: 244




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #32 on: Today at 01:32:12am »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've heard of people being partizan but...  
 Report to moderator    Logged  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If there are two or more ways to do something and one of them results in a catastrophe, then someone will do it that way"
~Murphy's Law~  
 
 
DarthKosh
Jr. Member


Posts: 62




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #33 on: Today at 03:38:10am »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Realpolitik on Today at 01:32:12am
I've heard of people being partizan but...
 
 

Back when LBJ was alive he was a king in Texas and if he wanted the race fixed in Texas it would have been.  
 Report to moderator    Logged  
 
 
 
Realpolitik
Full Member


Posts: 244




   Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #34 on: Today at 03:39:23pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...But did he? There is no evidence for it at all.

Nixon rigged an entire election, overthrew a democratically elected government in Chile, is responsible for the Khmer Rouge, bugged the DNC and prolonged the Vietnam War.

Amoungst other things.  
 Report to moderator    Logged  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If there are two or more ways to do something and one of them results in a catastrophe, then someone will do it that way"
~Murphy's Law~  
 
 
~  
 
 
Ryan
Full Member


Posts: 189



 
    Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #36 on: Today at 10:08:03pm »      

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: nym90 on November 22, 2003, 08:02:12 pm
I don't see how LBJ could have had that much control, having only been a Senator. Had he been Governor, he could have appointed political cronies to high positions, but I just can't see how a Senator could have that much power to manufacture that many votes.  
 

Nym, by this I take it that you are the first democrat I have met who agrees that Tom DeLay does not control Texas.  (after all he was not a governor there)

Actually you would be right. Neither he nor LBJ ever has controlled Texas. They did and do have a huge amount of respect and influence predicated upon their national status and ability to deliver for Texas.

However do any of you really believe either a Republican or Democrat candidate in the 1960's had to personally control a state party machinery to get it to fix elections for him???

I do believe there was "fixing" in Texas and Illinois and it had less to do with Kennedy or Johnson's personal power than with the vested interest of state parties to see their man in the White House.




 
 Report to moderator    Logged  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am travelling from November 03 to Febuary 04 so I will only be able to check in every few days and make a couple of posts. I mention this because I may not be able to reply to every reaction or question directed at me- may be a good thing as I think 200 posts in the last month was a bit much  
 
 
Ryan
Full Member


Posts: 189



 
    Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #37 on: Today at 10:14:08pm »      

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Realpolitik on Today at 03:39:23pm
...But did he? There is no evidence for it at all.

Nixon rigged an entire election, overthrew a democratically elected government in Chile, is responsible for the Khmer Rouge, bugged the DNC and prolonged the Vietnam War.

Amoungst other things.
 
 

Well he also perhaps prevented a third world war by thawing relations with Russia and China, was responsible for enacting many vital social reforms including rights for women and minorities etc etc

I'm not denying that his Presidency (my least favorite GOP tenure in the white house) was disgraceful in many respects but it is historically incorrect to demonize Nixon alone. I do believe he really cared about the country but had the same fallacies that many politicians of his age did.





 
 Report to moderator    Logged  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am travelling from November 03 to Febuary 04 so I will only be able to check in every few days and make a couple of posts. I mention this because I may not be able to reply to every reaction or question directed at me- may be a good thing as I think 200 posts in the last month was a bit much  
 
 
Ryan
Full Member


Posts: 189



 
    Re:Senate Elections - 2004
« Reply #38 on: Today at 10:19:37pm »      

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to whether Nixon conceded the election for the good of the country; well it may have been one reason but also he was very unlikely to actually see the results changed and a long recount process could have affected his future political aspirations.

PS He was unlikely to see the results changed not because they were correct but because without the vast media presence and accountability that exists today; the recounts would have been fixed as well  
 
 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The result in Illinois did not affect the outcome anyway...
Nixon needed MO and NJ as well.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

It's pretty clear Kennedy would have won Texas and Illinois anyway.

Kennedy really got shafted in Alabama and Mississippi, however. He carried Alabama, but 6 of the state's 11 electors voted for some segregation guy. Kennedy would have carried Mississippi but a whole bunch of votes went to "Unpledged Electors".

[Michael Z]

I'll only say one thing here. We can be thankful Nixon wasn't President during the Cuba crisis.

[Demrepdan]

He carried Alabama, but 6 of the state's 11 electors voted for some segregation guy.

They voted for Harry Byrd for President, and Strom Thurmond for Vice President.

[Demrepdan]

And I don't think Nixon would have bombed anyone,

Who did Kennedy bomb? I didn't think the Vietnam War started until 1965 when Johnson was President.

[Demrepdan]

Well, yeah. I don't think any President, whether it would have been Nixon, Kennedy, or even Johnson would have handled the Cuban Missle crises in a different way. (i.e. dropping bombs). Many things in history would have stayed the same no matter who was in power at the time. And this is one of those things.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about America's aggressiveness in pursuing terrorists after 9/11? I believe that would have been the same under Gore.

[Nym90]

I agree, but I think that if Gore had gone into Iraq (not sure if he would have or not) he would have conducted the process more diplomatically, and he would've taken a much more realistic view of things rather than painting the world in simple black and white.
I realize it was a while back, but I never got to respond again about the 1960 race. I agree that Tom Delay does not control Texas, nor did LBJ. As for whether there was vote fraud in Texas, I haven't seen any evidence for it yet, all everybody is saying is that there must have been because LBJ had so much power. Well that's a fine theory, but specific allegations of misconduct (who, what, when, where, how) would be nice to see too.
I'm not saying that the election was entirely clean...there certainly may have been fraud in a lot of states, I wouldn't doubt that fraud would've been more prevelant in those days than it is today since party machines had more power and more control and there was less media scrutiny. However, the total amount of fraud probably at least came close to balancing itself out for both sides overall nationally, and unless Kennedy or Nixon personally authorized the fraud, they shouldn't be held directly responsible for it.
And as for Nixon conceding for the good of the country, well, I don't see how it can possibly be good for the country to allow a Presidential election to be stolen. If the allegations of fraud are correct, he should have demanded a recount for the good of the country. Bottom line is he thought he'd lose and look like a fool and wouldn't be able to run again in the future. If Nixon could've won a recount, then it most definitely would've been good for the country to get the election overturned rather than allow it to be stolen.

[Demrepdan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about America's aggressiveness in pursuing terrorists after 9/11? I believe that would have been the same under Gore.

That's one of the things I was refering to . Everyone keeps ranting and raving about how WONDERFUL of a job President Bush did during 9/11. Gore would have done the SAME thing, or anyone who was President would. And you can't convince me otherwise. Any President would have acted  like that in a time of crises.

[Ryan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about America's aggressiveness in pursuing terrorists after 9/11? I believe that would have been the same under Gore.

That's one of the things I was refering to . Everyone keeps ranting and raving about how WONDERFUL of a job President Bush did during 9/11. Gore would have done the SAME thing, or anyone who was President would. And you can't convince me otherwise. Any President would have acted  like that in a time of crises.

I agree upto a point. Certain things would have been the same but a lot wouldn't. Let me run this by you............... If Bush was President the first time the WTC got hit in 1993, do you see him lobbing a few missiles into Afghanistan and leaving it at that?? Not quite huh??

That was the Clinton response and Al Gore supported it.

Now how would that same Al Gore have been different in 2001?? What else COULD and I repeat COULD have happened??
Most people take our intervention in Afghanistan for granted. That was because Bush was certain about going after Al Quaida from the word go. No one could doubt his sincerity of purpose. Al Gore in true Clintonian tradition would have tried for a far greater international consensus and take a lot longer to exhaust "diplomatic" alternatives. This would have been taken by Al Quaida as a sign of weakness and so on...........

I realise that this is conjecture (as is the opposing viewpoint) and I'm not going to go into a long drawn out discussion of it with anyone.

I just think that one cannot assume that another leader would have followed the exact same strategies because they made "common sense" at the time. Tell me, cant you identify any other events where a reasonably competent leader, due to any number of factors, took actions that in hindsight seem to be VERY misguided???

I would think of LBJ in Vietnam and you would think no doubt of a republican president, but point is no one can be sure what Al Gore or anyone else would have done after 9/11. I myself firmly believe Gore would have managed to do something disastrous and I am happy he wasn't in the White House at the time. I believe that Bush's actions at the time were right on the money and I am very pleased with my vote for him in 2000.

[Nym90]

Well, Gore definitely would have gone after Afghanistan. Afghanistan was harboring Bin Laden and thus clearly they were responsible for the attacks. I don't see how there can be much doubt that we would've still gone to war with Afghanistan. However, I think that we would have focused more on finishing the job there and getting Bin Laden rather than going after Iraq. Gore wouldn't have tried to use 9/11 as an excuse to go after Iraq, he would have focused primarily on going after the actual perpetrators of 9/11.
Again, it's just my opinion, and your opinion of what would have done is very different. Maybe someone should ask him sometime in a TV interview so that we can find out. :-)
Personally I think that the US would be much more respected in the world and that greater attempts at international diplomacy, working through the UN, would be a sign of strength, not of weakness. The international goodwill that the US had in the world in the wake of 9/11 would have been maintained and the bipartisan spirit in the nation in support of the war effort would not have been exploited for political purposes. I would have much rather had Gore's leadership (or even better, Clinton's) in the wake of 9/11.
I don't think you can use Clinton's response in the 1993 bombing to try to predict what Gore would have done. I don't think that Bush 41 would have acted much if any differently at that time. We are talking about 10 deaths versus 3000 here, completely different circumstances. The response, thus, would have probably been 300 times more forceful. I don't remember anyone (Republicans including) clamoring for us to go to war with anyone after the 1993 WTC bombing. At the time it was treated as a mostly isolated incident, and only in hindsight now do we see the connection.

[Ryan]

AND once again we have all (meself included ) managed to shift onto a completely different topic from the one indicated

LOL the reason this is so funny (for any newcomer) is that I created this link becuase the discussion on the 1960 race itself started in the wrong thread

Anyways this time I will not be creating a new thread. I'll just put this phenomenon on to the fact that we are so intellectually dynamic and leave it at that

[Gustaf]

President Kennedy did the best job in office and as we know Nixon didnt because he resigned.

Not until his 2nd term mind you.

They didnt find out untill his second term but his VP before Pres. Ford had resigned well before Nixon resigned.

Yes, but that had nothing to do with Watergate, Spiro Agnew retired b/c of a sex scandal or something like that (I don't remember exactly).

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

President Kennedy did the best job in office and as we know Nixon didnt because he resigned.

Not until his 2nd term mind you.

They didnt find out untill his second term but his VP before Pres. Ford had resigned well before Nixon resigned.

Yes, but that had nothing to do with Watergate, Spiro Agnew retired b/c of a sex scandal or something like that (I don't remember exactly).

Agnew got nailed for Tax Evasion.

[jravnsbo]

Agnew's problems stemmed from when he was in Maryland politics, not sex.

[Gustaf]

Agnew's problems stemmed from when he was in Maryland politics, not sex.

Ok, then I got it mixed up with someone else. I only read about it once. Still, there was no connection with Watergate.

[Nym90]

He got nailed for tax evasion, since he took bribes as Governor of Maryland and didn't report them (obviously). Tax evasion is much easier to prove than bribery.
That's what they eventually got Al Capone on too, tax evasion. It's a lot easier to prove that someone has income that they aren't reporting than it is to prove where and how they obtained the illegal income.

[dazzleman]

An interesting question is what would have happened if Nixon rather than Kennedy had won the 1960 election.

There were such tumultuous issues that came to the surface in the 1960s, and it's interesting to imagine how they would have been handled by a Republican rather than a Democratic administration.

Civil rights is one major issue.  Nixon was in favor of civil rights advances in 1960, and the Republicans didn't have the burden of needing white southern votes, something that initially made Kennedy hesitant to push too hard on civil rights.  It's interesting to think how the political alignment might be different today if it had fallen to a Republican president to deal with the civil rights situation in the 1960s.

The other big issue is Vietnam.  Nixon probably would have been far more reluctant than the Democrats to intervene in Vietnam in the first place, and if he did, might have used our power more effectively.

This was such a pivotal election at such a tumultuous time, when even slightly different leadership might have produced some very different results.

[Gustaf]

An interesting question is what would have happened if Nixon rather than Kennedy had won the 1960 election.

There were such tumultuous issues that came to the surface in the 1960s, and it's interesting to imagine how they would have been handled by a Republican rather than a Democratic administration.

Civil rights is one major issue.  Nixon was in favor of civil rights advances in 1960, and the Republicans didn't have the burden of needing white southern votes, something that initially made Kennedy hesitant to push too hard on civil rights.  It's interesting to think how the political alignment might be different today if it had fallen to a Republican president to deal with the civil rights situation in the 1960s.

The other big issue is Vietnam.  Nixon probably would have been far more reluctant than the Democrats to intervene in Vietnam in the first place, and if he did, might have used our power more effectively.

This was such a pivotal election at such a tumultuous time, when even slightly different leadership might have produced some very different results.

The civil rights thing is very interesting. Maybe the soild south would have remained in place and the black voters would have been overwhelmingly Republican.

[zorkpolitics]

The 1960 race was pivotal for race relations.  Up until then the Republicans had been the party of civil rights and Democrats the party of obstruction.  In 1957, and then again in 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower made bold civil rights proposals to increase black voting rights and protections. Since Congress was solidly in the hands of the Democrats, they cut the heart out of his bills before passing weak, watered-down versions of his proposals.  To further focus national attention upon the plight of blacks, Eisenhower started a civil rights commission and was the first President to appoint a black to an executive position in the White House.
So one would have expected Nixon  to benefit from the Republican efforts with blacks. Kennedy deftly kept most of the South in the Democratic coalition, by his selection of a Southern, LBJ, which was a message to Southerners that he wasn’t really serious about Civil Rights.  At the same time he called to offer support when MLK was arrested, but Nixon didn't.   As a result Kennedy was seen as a supporter of civil rights to northern blacks and in the end received the bulk of the black vote.

[jravnsbo]

zork--As you know I'm a serious poster and I have not been watching these atlas elections much, but now I said I'd help thema nd out recruiting members to come and vote when necessary.  Check it out and support Supersoulty if you would,  Thanks.

[Gustaf]

zork--As you know I'm a serious poster and I have not been watching these atlas elections much, but now I said I'd help thema nd out recruiting members to come and vote when necessary.  Check it out and support Supersoulty if you would,  Thanks.

Littering the threads, JR, littering the threads....