Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 23, 2020, 07:05:37 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: Torie, Senator ON Progressive)
  Nixon led George Wallace in the South by 9 points in a hypothetical 1972 poll
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Nixon led George Wallace in the South by 9 points in a hypothetical 1972 poll  (Read 1981 times)
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,693


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 09, 2019, 12:33:32 pm »

https://theharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Harris-Interactive-Poll-Research-WALLACE-TRAILS-NIXON-BY-LARGEST-MARGIN-1972-05.pdf


Nixon led Wallace in a two way race 50-41 in the South and only trailed Wallace 45-46 in the Deep South .
Logged
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,200
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 09, 2019, 12:54:19 pm »

I imagine you would have actually gotten a pretty similar county split to Reagan/Carter in 1980, as uncomfortable as that is for the "Dixiecrats were the first to switch to the GOP" narrative.
Logged
Some of My Best Friends Are Gay
Enlightened_Centrist 420
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,718


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2019, 12:58:34 pm »

Based on that, I would guess this would have been the map if that poll had been accurate and Wallace was the nominee:





Nixon hits 60% in every non-Southern state save for Michigan, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Wallace only wins two states - Mississippi (by a margin of something like 56-44) and his home state of Alabama (by a margin of something like 65-35). Nixon wins Louisiana with a plurality but obtains a majority of the vote in every other Southern state. New England and the West Coast swing massively towards Nixon as compared to the actual 1972 results, while the South swings massively towards Wallace. I wasn't sure about DC but since this is a two-way match-up without a major third party, I assumed it would vote for Nixon as Nixon definitely would have won the black vote vs. Wallace if there was no left-wing third party. overall Nixon wins the Electoral College 522 to 16 and the Popular Vote by a margin of something like 64-36.
Logged
Some of My Best Friends Are Gay
Enlightened_Centrist 420
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,718


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2019, 01:00:12 pm »

I imagine you would have actually gotten a pretty similar county split to Reagan/Carter in 1980, as uncomfortable as that is for the "Dixiecrats were the first to switch to the GOP" narrative.

There would have been some major differences as compared to 1980. Nixon would have done way better with black voters than Reagan and much worse with Deep South whites, even compared to Carter's very decent showing with that group. Nixon also would have done a lot better than Reagan in New England.
Logged
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,200
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2019, 01:02:24 pm »

I imagine you would have actually gotten a pretty similar county split to Reagan/Carter in 1980, as uncomfortable as that is for the "Dixiecrats were the first to switch to the GOP" narrative.

There would have been some major differences as compared to 1980. Nixon would have done way better with black voters than Reagan and much worse with Deep South whites, even compared to Carter's very decent showing with that group. Nixon also would have done a lot better than Reagan in New England.

My point is that Reagan did not win the Southern states that he won in 1980 by winning the areas that had supported Wallace in 1968.  He won those states by thin margins due to suburban strength, and he lost most of the counties that the eloquent users of Atlas would now classify as filled with "racist hicks" - voters that went to Carter, per county results.
Logged
RoboWop
AMB1996
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,739
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2019, 01:53:02 pm »

Wallace '72 is still the nomination that would've done most to change present American politics.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,693


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 09, 2019, 01:58:48 pm »

I imagine you would have actually gotten a pretty similar county split to Reagan/Carter in 1980, as uncomfortable as that is for the "Dixiecrats were the first to switch to the GOP" narrative.

Except GA would be more like MS 1980 and AL and MS would be like GA 1980
Logged
darklordoftech
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,851
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 09, 2019, 02:39:42 pm »

I imagine you would have actually gotten a pretty similar county split to Reagan/Carter in 1980, as uncomfortable as that is for the "Dixiecrats were the first to switch to the GOP" narrative.

There would have been some major differences as compared to 1980. Nixon would have done way better with black voters than Reagan and much worse with Deep South whites, even compared to Carter's very decent showing with that group. Nixon also would have done a lot better than Reagan in New England.

My point is that Reagan did not win the Southern states that he won in 1980 by winning the areas that had supported Wallace in 1968.  He won those states by thin margins due to suburban strength, and he lost most of the counties that the eloquent users of Atlas would now classify as filled with "racist hicks" - voters that went to Carter, per county results.
I wouldn't be so quick to assume that "the eloquent users of Atlas" wouldn't see Nixon counties as also being "filled with racist hicks".
Logged
TDAS04
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,632
Nepal


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 09, 2019, 03:38:52 pm »

Maybe black voters would have delivered a handful of Southern states to Nixon.

I imagine you would have actually gotten a pretty similar county split to Reagan/Carter in 1980, as uncomfortable as that is for the "Dixiecrats were the first to switch to the GOP" narrative.

There would have been some major differences as compared to 1980. Nixon would have done way better with black voters than Reagan and much worse with Deep South whites, even compared to Carter's very decent showing with that group. Nixon also would have done a lot better than Reagan in New England.

My point is that Reagan did not win the Southern states that he won in 1980 by winning the areas that had supported Wallace in 1968.  He won those states by thin margins due to suburban strength, and he lost most of the counties that the eloquent users of Atlas would now classify as filled with "racist hicks" - voters that went to Carter, per county results.

Well, Nixon only got 14% in Alabama and Mississippi in 1968.  As Reagan just barely carried these states over Carter, he needed plenty of Wallace voters to do that, and he got them.  Though yes, rural Southerners largely stayed with Carter; perhaps it was suburban Wallace voters in these states who would back Reagan in 1980 (and many of them had even voted for Ford four years earlier).
Logged
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,200
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 09, 2019, 03:40:27 pm »

Maybe black voters would have delivered a handful of Southern states to Nixon.

I imagine you would have actually gotten a pretty similar county split to Reagan/Carter in 1980, as uncomfortable as that is for the "Dixiecrats were the first to switch to the GOP" narrative.

There would have been some major differences as compared to 1980. Nixon would have done way better with black voters than Reagan and much worse with Deep South whites, even compared to Carter's very decent showing with that group. Nixon also would have done a lot better than Reagan in New England.

My point is that Reagan did not win the Southern states that he won in 1980 by winning the areas that had supported Wallace in 1968.  He won those states by thin margins due to suburban strength, and he lost most of the counties that the eloquent users of Atlas would now classify as filled with "racist hicks" - voters that went to Carter, per county results.

Well, Nixon only got 14% in Alabama and Mississippi in 1968.  As Reagan just barely carried these states over Carter, he needed plenty of Wallace voters to do that, and he got them.  Though yes, rural Southerners largely stayed with Carter; perhaps it was suburban Wallace voters in these states who would back Reagan in 1980 (and many of them had even voted for Ford four years earlier).

Yeah, it was more of a comment on this forum's recent obsession with "racist hicks," as if people in rural areas are inherently more racist than those in metro areas ... I'm sure everyone on this site, if it had existed during the 1976 election, would be phrasing Reagan as the more racist of the two.
Logged
Does the title even matter?
tara gilesbie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,748
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 09, 2019, 04:54:58 pm »

Suburban southerners are racist hicks.

But even if they weren't, a basic look at the 1980 map shows the counties that Carter won are either black or within the TVA. So, actually, Reagan did very well with Wallace voters.
Logged
morgankingsley
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,648
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2019, 11:16:05 pm »

I think in a realistic what if on Wallace getting the nomination, he would have gotten Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia, Lousiana, and South Carolina. I think he would have done much better than McGovern electorally, but worse elsewhere. Ironically, I think electorally, he was the democrats best bet in 1972, but in the popular vote, he might have been the worst. So depending on which end you are looking at, he would have represented two ends of the spectrum
Logged
Some of My Best Friends Are Gay
Enlightened_Centrist 420
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,718


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 10, 2019, 02:41:11 pm »

I think in a realistic what if on Wallace getting the nomination, he would have gotten Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia, Lousiana, and South Carolina. I think he would have done much better than McGovern electorally, but worse elsewhere. Ironically, I think electorally, he was the democrats best bet in 1972, but in the popular vote, he might have been the worst. So depending on which end you are looking at, he would have represented two ends of the spectrum

It's possible Wallace could have swept the Deep South, but if the poll OP linked was anywhere close to being accurate, he most likely would have won Mississippi and Alabama and absolutely nothing else.
Logged
Wazza
Wazza1901
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,590
Australia


Political Matrix
E: 2.19, S: 1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2019, 10:08:01 am »

Suburban southerners are racist hicks.

But even if they weren't, a basic look at the 1980 map shows the counties that Carter won are either black or within the TVA. So, actually, Reagan did very well with Wallace voters.

Living in the suburbs and being a hick is contradictory as the term "hick" refers people who live in rural areas. Also, TVA Democrats WERE Wallace voters for the most part...  did you even look at the 1968 map? You also conveniently forgot to mention Arkansas, SW Louisiana, SE Texas, Northern Florida, Georgia, and chunks of Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia that can't necessarily be explained away by the black vote. Its pretty obvious that most of the rural Wallace vote was going to Carter in 1980, especially factoring in 12 years of generational turnover.
Logged
Does the title even matter?
tara gilesbie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,748
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2019, 06:15:29 pm »
« Edited: May 12, 2019, 08:38:14 pm by My Immortal »

Living in the suburbs and being a hick is contradictory as the term "hick" refers people who live in rural areas.

Trust me, there is a cultural "hick" element in those suburbs you will not find in any other part of the country. Certainly the southern suburbs are racist either way.

Quote
Also, TVA Democrats WERE Wallace voters for the most part

Well yeah. I never said otherwise.

Quote
You also conveniently forgot to mention Arkansas

Well Reagan lost Pulaski County so that kind of ruins the narrative.

Quote
SW Louisiana

Linguistic/cultural differences. But keep in mind Wallace won nearly every county in LA in 1968 and most of them went to Reagan.

Quote
SE Texas


Several of of these counties voted for Humphrey in 1968.

Quote
Northern Florida

Spillover from GA. Thin margins as well. Note that the central Florida Wallace counties voted for Reagan easy.

Quote
Georgia

Native son effect.

Quote

and chunks of Alabama, Mississippi

I'm seeing an obvious TVA/black effect in those states. Most of the Wallace vote clearly went to Reagan.

Quote
South Carolina

Well, Wallace didn't do well in SC in the first place. I will concede that the state had a different pattern from others, probably because there wasn't much Wallace support in the first place.

Quote
North Carolina

I'm mostly just seeing geographic variances among Wallace voters.

Quote
and Virginia

Where majority of the Wallace counties voted for Reagan.

Quote
that can't necessarily be explained away by the black vote. Its pretty obvious that most of the rural Wallace vote was going to Carter in 1980, especially factoring in 12 years of generational turnover.

No, it's pretty clear a majority of the Wallace vote went to Reagan. By a landslide? No, but it was clearly the trend.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,693


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 11, 2019, 06:19:27 pm »

I imagine you would have actually gotten a pretty similar county split to Reagan/Carter in 1980, as uncomfortable as that is for the "Dixiecrats were the first to switch to the GOP" narrative.

Nixon probably does better in the rural south than Reagan did and worse in the Suburbs . Reagan strength in the Suburbs was more than really any candidate in the post war era but he struggled in rural and working class areas (except in the west) compared to Nixon
Logged
RoboWop
AMB1996
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,739
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 11, 2019, 06:51:04 pm »

Suburban southerners are racist hicks.

But even if they weren't, a basic look at the 1980 map shows the counties that Carter won are either black or within the TVA. So, actually, Reagan did very well with Wallace voters.

Suburbanites are by definition not hicks.
Logged
Some of My Best Friends Are Gay
Enlightened_Centrist 420
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,718


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2019, 07:02:18 pm »

I imagine you would have actually gotten a pretty similar county split to Reagan/Carter in 1980, as uncomfortable as that is for the "Dixiecrats were the first to switch to the GOP" narrative.

Nixon probably does better in the rural south than Reagan did and worse in the Suburbs . Reagan strength in the Suburbs was more than really any candidate in the post war era but he struggled in rural and working class areas (except in the west) compared to Nixon

So you're basically admitting the Southern Suburbs were racist then.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,693


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 11, 2019, 10:05:37 pm »

I imagine you would have actually gotten a pretty similar county split to Reagan/Carter in 1980, as uncomfortable as that is for the "Dixiecrats were the first to switch to the GOP" narrative.

Nixon probably does better in the rural south than Reagan did and worse in the Suburbs . Reagan strength in the Suburbs was more than really any candidate in the post war era but he struggled in rural and working class areas (except in the west) compared to Nixon

So you're basically admitting the Southern Suburbs were racist then.

Nixon was more racist comparatively than Reagan
Logged
darklordoftech
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,851
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 12, 2019, 03:02:28 pm »

There's a big difference between saying, "Racist hicks tended to support Reagan" and "Reagan's supporters tended to be racist hicks."
Logged
Some of My Best Friends Are Gay
Enlightened_Centrist 420
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,718


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 12, 2019, 03:04:49 pm »

I imagine you would have actually gotten a pretty similar county split to Reagan/Carter in 1980, as uncomfortable as that is for the "Dixiecrats were the first to switch to the GOP" narrative.

Nixon probably does better in the rural south than Reagan did and worse in the Suburbs . Reagan strength in the Suburbs was more than really any candidate in the post war era but he struggled in rural and working class areas (except in the west) compared to Nixon

So you're basically admitting the Southern Suburbs were racist then.

Nixon was more racist comparatively than Reagan

That's true, but I don't see why Wallace would do very well in the suburbs, except for in Alabama due to home state advantage, and even then he would do worse in suburbs in AL than he would in rural areas.
Logged
National Progressive
General Mung Beans
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,298
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 12, 2019, 08:04:13 pm »

I think in a realistic what if on Wallace getting the nomination, he would have gotten Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia, Lousiana, and South Carolina. I think he would have done much better than McGovern electorally, but worse elsewhere. Ironically, I think electorally, he was the democrats best bet in 1972, but in the popular vote, he might have been the worst. So depending on which end you are looking at, he would have represented two ends of the spectrum

I'm pretty sure someone like Humphrey or Muskie could have produced a map similar (if somewhat worse) than 1968.
Logged
Andy Beshear’s Campaign Manager
KYWildman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,083
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.97, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 13, 2019, 11:56:07 pm »
« Edited: May 14, 2019, 12:01:23 am by KYWildman »

I imagine you would have actually gotten a pretty similar county split to Reagan/Carter in 1980, as uncomfortable as that is for the "Dixiecrats were the first to switch to the GOP" narrative.

Facts are "narratives" now? I mean it's an objective fact that Dixiecrats were the first to switch to the GOP, in direct response to the Civil Rights Act. Johnson wasn't even allowed on the ballot in Alabama and was labeled "National Democrat" in Mississippi, where he was wiped out by "Mississippi Republican" Goldwater, who himself was wiped out in every single other region of the country, even the slightly less racist upper South. To emphasize, states that had never voted Republican for a century, only ever leaving the Democratic Party to vote for other racist Dixiecrats in 1948 and 1960 (also in response to pro-Civil Rights moves by the Democratic candidate), suddenly voted in massive numbers for a Republican who just so happened to be anti-Civil Rights Act over a southern Democrat who just so happened to have just signed the Civil Rights Act. But I'm sure that had nothing to do with it! It was just a total coincidence that these states fled en masse to a party they had never in their lives even considered voting for before...

And no, Dixie once again voting for a Dixiecrat would mean nothing. Of course they would vote for the most racist candidate regardless of party at that time. But it's a moot point because Wallace couldn't have won the nomination anyway, so he only could have run third party like 1968. The Deep South voting for him then didn't mean they weren't already well on their way towards fully embracing the GOP any more than them doing it again in 1972 would. It would only have delayed the inevitable. Once it was clear the Democrats were done harboring racists but the GOP would welcome them with open arms, they were gone.
Logged
Andy Beshear’s Campaign Manager
KYWildman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,083
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.97, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 14, 2019, 12:15:26 am »
« Edited: May 14, 2019, 12:38:38 am by KYWildman »

I imagine you would have actually gotten a pretty similar county split to Reagan/Carter in 1980, as uncomfortable as that is for the "Dixiecrats were the first to switch to the GOP" narrative.

There would have been some major differences as compared to 1980. Nixon would have done way better with black voters than Reagan and much worse with Deep South whites, even compared to Carter's very decent showing with that group. Nixon also would have done a lot better than Reagan in New England.

My point is that Reagan did not win the Southern states that he won in 1980 by winning the areas that had supported Wallace in 1968.  He won those states by thin margins due to suburban strength, and he lost most of the counties that the eloquent users of Atlas would now classify as filled with "racist hicks" - voters that went to Carter, per county results.

Suburban Nixon voters in these states were probably just as racist, and Carter's win in the South in 1976 and narrow loss in 1980 was just an exception that proved the rule. It doesn't somehow mean that the nation wasn't well on its way to an urban/rural re-alignment driven largely by race. It just means that, in two elections where race wasn't a big issue, the last vestiges of the Democratic Party in these states were just strong enough to favor good 'ol boy Jimmy Carter (himself far from racist) over Northern moderate Gerald Ford and Hollywood actor Ronald Reagan. But that was cultural, not racial. And it would change by the next election and never let up. So I really don't get your point at all.

"The narrative" is not somehow refuted by Jimmy Carter's performance in rural Southern counties in 1976/1980, nor would it have been refuted by Wallace winning those same counties in 1972. All that you have pointed out is more evidence of the slow but steady party re-alignment that was well underway by this point. Suburban voters in Mississippi hypothetically preferring the slightly less racist Republican Richard Nixon while rural voters hypothetically preferred the more explicitly racist Dixiecrat George Wallace would not somehow mean the realignment wasn't happening or that race had nothing to do with it. Party re-alignments are typically slow processes that take decades to fully take shape, and this one started as far back as 1944 at least, when FDR started bleeding some support to Dixiecrat electors.

Also, for the record, Goldwater (who Reagan supported) won every single county in Mississippi, and he did best among rural counties. And even if it were true that those rural counties were the last to flip solidly Republican, all that would mean is that generations of heavily entrenched Democratic support were hard to shake off completely. It doesn't at all refute the overall "narrative" of the South as a whole flocking to the GOP at the precise moment the Democratic Party abandoned the racism of the Dixiecrats while the GOP dogwhistled to them. It doesn't at all mean that was somehow a coincidence.
Logged
WeAreDoomed
outofbox6
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,696
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 14, 2019, 05:21:29 pm »

KYWildman, you really need to perform more research. The South was trending away from Democrats well before 1964. More well off voters were now able to vote Republican, mainly because of economic and racial reasons. (see the growing suburbs of the East Southern Coast) Now many of these voters went back to the Democrats in 1964, and deep southern Dixiecrats vice versa, but in 1968 they went back to Republicans, as they could afford to. The Dixiecrats, being more fiscally populist, went to George Wallace, as they could not afford to vote Republican. Many outer southerners such as those in WV still voted Democratic as there were less racial tensions in those areas plus because of their economic status.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 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