Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 15, 2019, 09:11:30 pm
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, Gass3268, x)
  why didn't democrats take advantage of people's voting habits?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: why didn't democrats take advantage of people's voting habits?  (Read 780 times)
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,783
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 25, 2011, 02:20:04 pm »
« edited: May 25, 2011, 02:22:42 pm by Henry the Horse »

It seems that as late as 35-40 years ago, you had districts that were very conservative but would vote for a rattlesnake for congress just as long as it had a D attached to its name

These areas I'm talking about are areas like the Florida Panhandle or southern and eastern oklahoma (the old 2nd and 3rd districts). What the democrats should have done is to recruit democrats similar to Jim McDermott to run in these seats if they were open seats and to campaign as a conservative in the primary. Once they got to Washington, they could have an ultraliberal voting record and because political websites weren't around back then, they could have gotten away with it and because the constituents were knee jerk democrats, they would keep electing ultraliberal democrats in conservative areas.

For the most part, the democrats weren't smart enough to realize this. Although they did successfully do this in Texas in the 1950s. Texas was/is a conservative state, but they always elected democratic senators. The liberal underground recruited Ralph Yarborough who was just as liberal as George McGovern. He campaigned as a devout baptist (which he was) and once he got to Washington, he was free to vote as he wanted, as Texas always voted for democratic senators then.
Logged
Liberté
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 708
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 25, 2011, 03:55:37 pm »

That is - theoretically - the idea behind the Blue Dogs. But it's a structurally unsound strategy, as there are institutional pressures to keep Democrats from conservative districts voting conservative and Republicans from liberal districts voting... conservative.
Logged
Nichlemn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,925


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2011, 01:38:31 am »

Yes, and Ralph Yarborough got defeated in the primary in 1970 by Lloyd Bentsen. There weren't political websites, but there was still television and traditional mail, and it's hard to campaign as a conservative in the primary if your opponent can point to your very real voting record.
Logged
Swedish Austerity Cheese
JOHN91043353
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,338
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 26, 2011, 02:33:30 am »

Because it would be immoral?
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,770
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2011, 10:47:08 am »


Uh, seriously? This is politics. When has that ever prevented something in politics before?
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,843


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2011, 05:26:10 pm »

Perhaps because even before Al Gore invented the Internet, voters weren't stupid or living in a bubble.  They might get fooled by a Conservative-in-Name-Only once, but once the CINO's record became clear, he'd be primaried by an actual Conservative Democrat and lose the primary?  They did have things like newspapers, TV and letters to the editor in those days, you know?
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,783
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 26, 2011, 06:09:53 pm »

The republicans did this in Illinois. There was a district based in Lake County that was heavily republican but was mostly moderate to liberal Chuck Percy type republicans. Yet they would vote for ted bundy if it had an R next to its name. In 1969, they voted in archconservative Phil Crane. It took the voters 35 years to realize that a nutcase was representing them.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,843


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 26, 2011, 06:34:19 pm »

The republicans did this in Illinois. There was a district based in Lake County that was heavily republican but was mostly moderate to liberal Chuck Percy type republicans. Yet they would vote for ted bundy if it had an R next to its name. In 1969, they voted in archconservative Phil Crane. It took the voters 35 years to realize that a nutcase was representing them.

First of all, Phil Crane might have been conservative, but he was no "nutcase".  I am sick and tired of you so-called "progressives" labeling those with whom you disagree as "nutcases", while idolizing far-lefties like Alan Grayson and Pete Stark.   Either all on the ideological extremes are "nutcases" or none are.  Second, Illinois suburbanites were far more conservative in the 1970s and 1980s than they are today.  And when the district started to trend more liberal in the 1990s, Crane DID face primaries from moderates - and won those races.  So it's not like his constituents didn't have a choice.  Third, you know who Phil Crane succeeded as Congressman?  Donald Rumsfeld.  That should tell you everything you need to know about Crane's district in 1969.
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,783
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 26, 2011, 06:38:02 pm »

The republicans did this in Illinois. There was a district based in Lake County that was heavily republican but was mostly moderate to liberal Chuck Percy type republicans. Yet they would vote for ted bundy if it had an R next to its name. In 1969, they voted in archconservative Phil Crane. It took the voters 35 years to realize that a nutcase was representing them.

First of all, Phil Crane might have been conservative, but he was no "nutcase".  I am sick and tired of you so-called "progressives" labeling those with whom you disagree as "nutcases", while idolizing far-lefties like Alan Grayson and Pete Stark.   Either all on the ideological extremes are "nutcases" or none are.  Second, Illinois suburbanites were far more conservative in the 1970s and 1980s than they are today.  And when the district started to trend more liberal in the 1990s, Crane DID face primaries from moderates - and won those races.  So it's not like his constituents didn't have a choice.  Third, you know who Phil Crane succeeded as Congressman?  Donald Rumsfeld.  That should tell you everything you need to know about Crane's district in 1969.

I never idolized Stark or Grayson, both of which are nutcases. Second, Crane is the right wing equivalent of Stark. Both were disliked by the party establishment which is why both were given a "F--- You" by their colleagues in Ways and Means
Logged
Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,818
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 26, 2011, 07:10:30 pm »

The republicans did this in Illinois. There was a district based in Lake County that was heavily republican but was mostly moderate to liberal Chuck Percy type republicans. Yet they would vote for ted bundy if it had an R next to its name. In 1969, they voted in archconservative Phil Crane. It took the voters 35 years to realize that a nutcase was representing them.

You do realize "that district" has been three different Congressional Districts over the years?  First it was the 13th, then it became the 12th, and then it became the 8th.  Phil Crane didn't survive because the people in the district would vote in Hitler with an R, he survived because his district KEPT CHANGING.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC