After reading more of your posts than their substance merited, I’ve often wondered if you really were a sanctimonious jerk, or if you just don’t “get it’?
Do you need me to explain it to you? Roy Rogers repeated the old canard that Nixon could have challenged the 1960 election, but didn’t, out of his noble patriotism. And that’s simply false. If calling people on tired old myths is “sanctimony,” I plead guilty.
You can’t “‘splain” something you don’t understand, and that doesn’t begin to cover it. But please, don’t let anyone here stop you (from behaving like an #######).
Roy says that Nixon could have won the 1960 election by challenging the Illinois vote.
Here are the electoral totals:
Kennedy: 303
Nixon: 219
Illinois had 27 electoral votes.
Now maybe you went to one of those liberal public schools where they don’t believe in math, they just teach you how to validate each other’s feelings. So let me help you: 303 minus 27 is still more than 219 plus 27.
Vlad:
You seem to be well informed. Does your source tell us what the result would have been had LBJ not been able to see that the Texas corpses were counted as many times as the Illinois ones?
You must ACTUALLY challenge the vote in Illinois. Discussing that you are not challenging the vote is NOT a challenge. Liberalism is more than a mental disease. It is also not understanding a fact. There was no challenge to the vote in Illinois.
gbu, you obviously do not understand the liberal mind. To them, talk trumps action every time.
Does your source tell us what the result would have been had LBJ not been able to see that the Texas corpses were counted as many times as the Illinois ones?
Well, that’s not what Rocket Roy said - he said if Nixon had challenged Illinois, he would have been president and that’s demonstrably false.
Texas is a different story. Do you really think a southern state was going to vote Republican in 1960? Eisenhower took Texas twice, yes, but Eisenhower was a national hero and not really a partisan figure - both parties wanted him to run in 1952. Texas voted for Humphrey over Nixon in 1968. Hard for me to believe Nixon could have won there in 1960.
Texas is a different story. Do you really think a southern state was going to vote Republican in 1960? Eisenhower took Texas twice, yes, but Eisenhower was a national hero and not really a partisan figure - both parties wanted him to run in 1952. Texas voted for Humphrey over Nixon in 1968. Hard for me to believe Nixon could have won there in 1960.
The fact is that suspicious votes (mainly by the deceased) were made in large numbers for JFK in Texas, Illinois and West Virginia, courtesy of LBJ, Mayor Richard Daley and the Mafia respectively.
It was a lot closer than Bush v. Gore.
Nixon could have challenged it, but he chose not to and didn’t want do something horrible to harm his country like Al Gore did, holding this country hostage for 6 weeks and making us look like a bunch of chumps to the rest of the world.
(Notice that 9/11 was less than 10 months after this debacle.)
Does your source tell us what the result would have been had LBJ not been able to see that the Texas corpses were counted as many times as the Illinois ones?
Well, that’s not what Rocket Roy said - he said if Nixon had challenged Illinois, he would have been president and that’s demonstrably false.
Texas is a different story. Do you really think a southern state was going to vote Republican in 1960? Eisenhower took Texas twice, yes, but Eisenhower was a national hero and not really a partisan figure - both parties wanted him to run in 1952. Texas voted for Humphrey over Nixon in 1968. Hard for me to believe Nixon could have won there in 1960.
Eisenhower took Texas in 1952 and 1956 with Nixon on the ticket, and Nixon only came up short by 2% of the vote in 1960. Saying he had no shot is off the mark.
First, there is no doubt that the election of 1960 was tarnished, and no doubt that Kennedy’s victory margin in Illinois was of a dubious nature. Kennedy won Illinois by 8,858 votes even though Nixon carried 92 of the state’s 101 counties and looked like he’d won the election on the morning of November 9. Mayor Richard Daley held back the results of Chicago’s vote until late on the morning of November 9 - after the other counties had been counted – and then he delivered 450,000 more votes to Kennedy than to Nixon. Since the city only had a population of 3.55 million, and since 90% of the other counties had voted for Nixon, that vote total is beyond fabulous – it’s not credible.
You are correct, without Illinois, the results of the election were Kennedy 276, Nixon 246. However, the entire south was in play on the night of November 8, and Texas turned in a vote total that rivaled Illinois for credulity. And Texas won the election for Kennedy.
Texas was run by a rather formidable machine, and Joe Kennedy knew the kid needed Texas to win in 1960. Texas had voted for Eisenhower twice, the deep south was going Dixiecrat, and without Johnson, Texas was in play. History tells us that Johnson delivered the state with extraordinary vote totals in counties along the Mexican border.
I can question where the votes came from all day long, but that’s a futile game. However, a quick look at the Texas numbers and how they compare with the southern demographic, tells us that the Texas vote was discordant. It stands out for it was not…
Less than 1% of Texans voted for Dixiecrats, while right next door, Louisiana cast 169, 572 votes – 21% of its total - for the Dixiecrats, and next door to them, Mississippi cast 116,248 votes - 39% of its total for Dixiecrats. Arkansas and Alabama also cast significant votes for Dixiecrats. So the southern states right next door to Texas defected from the Democrats in droves, but Texas didn’t? The same Texans who had defected and voted for Eisenhower in ’52 and ‘56, not only declined to vote for Ike’s running mate in 1960, they declined to vote Dixiecrat like their southern neighbors?
You might reply that Texans always do things a little differently. Sure, they’re different, but not that different… As a comparison, take a look at 1968, when another viable third party candidate came along. George Wallace polled a hefty 19% of Texas voters in that election, and those numbers were in line with the rest of the south. It strains credulity to claim that less 1% of Texans voted for the third party Dixiecrat candidate in 1960 when their neighbors voted for him in great numbers, then in 1968, they reversed course, joined the demographic and 19% of them voted Dixiecrat.
As an FYI, in 1960, if only 3% of them had voted Dixiecrat instead of the less than 1% that was claimed – not the 19% who voted Dixiecrat in 1968, but just 3%, Nixon carries Texas and Nixon carries the election.
If that had happened, maybe Jack and Bobby and Teddy would be sailing off Nantucket right now.
Kennedy won Illinois by 8,858 votes even though Nixon carried 92 of the state’s 101 counties and looked like he’d won the election on the morning of November 9. Mayor Richard Daley held back the results of Chicago’s vote until late on the morning of November 9 - after the other counties had been counted – and then he delivered 450,000 more votes to Kennedy than to Nixon. Since the city only had a population of 3.55 million, and since 90% of the other counties had voted for Nixon, that vote total is beyond fabulous – it’s not credible.
Well, the number of counties is totally meaningless. We’re counting votes, not acres. And why is it “fabulous” that Kennedy would carry Chicago by, what is that, 15 points? As I said earlier, Nixon publicly said he wasn’t challenging the vote, but in fact the Chicago vote was challenged, repeatedly, and the elections board - controlled by Republicans - rejected the challenge. The whole Illinois story is a canard.
Less than 1% of Texans voted for Dixiecrats, while right next door, Louisiana cast 169, 572 votes – 21% of its total - for the Dixiecrats, and next door to them, Mississippi cast 116,248 votes - 39% of its total for Dixiecrats. Arkansas and Alabama also cast significant votes for Dixiecrats. So the southern states right next door to Texas defected from the Democrats in droves, but Texas didn’t?
I don’t know where you’re getting those numbers - I can’t find them, and I can’t find any reference to a “Dixiecrat” running in 1960. According to this site -
A slate of “unpledged” Electoral College candidates polled 39.0% of the vote in Mississippi, carrying the state. Mississipp’s [sic] eight Electoral College votes were cast for Harry F Byrd of Virginia, who also received six Electoral College votes from Alabama and one from Oklahoma.
Kennedy won Illinois by 8,858 votes even though Nixon carried 92 of the state’s 101 counties and looked like he’d won the election on the morning of November 9. Mayor Richard Daley held back the results of Chicago’s vote until late on the morning of November 9 - after the other counties had been counted – and then he delivered 450,000 more votes to Kennedy than to Nixon. Since the city only had a population of 3.55 million, and since 90% of the other counties had voted for Nixon, that vote total is beyond fabulous – it’s not credible.
Well, the number of counties is totally meaningless. We’re counting votes, not acres. And why is it “fabulous” that Kennedy would carry Chicago by, what is that, 15 points? As I said earlier, Nixon publicly said he wasn’t challenging the vote, but in fact the Chicago vote was challenged, repeatedly, and the elections board - controlled by Republicans - rejected the challenge. The whole Illinois story is a canard.
Less than 1% of Texans voted for Dixiecrats, while right next door, Louisiana cast 169, 572 votes – 21% of its total - for the Dixiecrats, and next door to them, Mississippi cast 116,248 votes - 39% of its total for Dixiecrats. Arkansas and Alabama also cast significant votes for Dixiecrats. So the southern states right next door to Texas defected from the Democrats in droves, but Texas didn’t?
I don’t know where you’re getting those numbers - I can’t find them, and I can’t find any reference to a “Dixiecrat” running in 1960. According to this site -
A slate of “unpledged” Electoral College candidates polled 39.0% of the vote in Mississippi, carrying the state. Mississipp’s [sic] eight Electoral College votes were cast for Harry F Byrd of Virginia, who also received six Electoral College votes from Alabama and one from Oklahoma.
My post concerned two things: Illinois and Texas. If you have never heard the term “Dixiecrat,” a term used by Southerners to describe themselves, then please, use the phrase “third-party candidates,” or Southern third-party candidates.” It won’t change the numbers.
The Illinois portion of my post referenced Mayor Daley’s deliverance of 450,000 votes after the polls had closed, in a state where 90% of other precincts voted for Nixon. That’s hardly a canard, it is clear evidence of mendacity. It’s “statistically significant,” meaning, without the intervening hand of “Daley ex machina” it wouldn’t have happened.
The Texas portion concerned a second intervening hand. Third party candidates, called “Dixiecrats” by Southerners, no matter the banner, received significant numbers of votes during that election.
In 1960, third party candidates had a viable slate that included Strom Thurmond, and they polled 21% of the vote in Louisiana and 39% of the vote in Mississippi. Right next door, in Texas, third party candidates polled less than 1% of the vote.
I found that statistically significant, because the Texas vote corresponded with the southern demographic from 1952-1968, but in 1960 it widely varied from the southern demographic.
I contrasted the third party vote in Texas with a similar slate in 1968 to make the point. Texans in the 1968 election cast 19% of their votes for the third party candidate and joined their southern neighbors in doing so. So, asking what happened in Texas in 1960, is a reasonable question.
I think it is statistically significant for Texans to act like their southern neighbors in 1952 and 1956, then act unlike their southern neighbors and cast less than 1% of their vote for a third party candidate in 1960, then return to form and act like their neighbors and cast 19% of their vote for a third party candidate in 1968.
You can do better than complaining about a term penned before you were born or claiming you can’t find the stats on a thoroughly analyzed election. The stats are easy to find, and easy to read and lead to an obvious conclusion: Jack Kennedy should be sailing off of Martha’s Vineyard right now and his son should be running for President.
"Dixiecrat” was a party formed in 1948. I have never heard the term used for any candidate in the 1960 election, but if you want to use it to mean any reactionary Democrat, fine. It’s still no surprise that a ticket with an extremely powerful Texan as vice president carried the state of Texas.
You can do better than complaining about a term penned before you were born
Since we’re in the business of patronizing folks - ask your junior high history teacher which Democrat paid off the Republican board of elections in Chicago which disallowed the challenge to the 1960 vote? The challenge instituted at Richard Nixon’s request. If the Republicans said there was no case, who am I to argue?
Since you didn’t address any of the points I made, I’ll repeat them, sans third-party explanations.
The Illinois portion of my post referenced Mayor Daley’s deliverance of 450,000 votes after the polls had closed, in a state where 90% of other precincts voted for Nixon. That’s hardly a canard, it is clear evidence of mendacity. It’s “statistically significant,” meaning, without the intervening hand of “Daley ex machina” it wouldn’t have happened.
The Texas portion concerned a second intervening hand. Third party candidates, called “Dixiecrats” by Southerners, no matter the banner, received significant numbers of votes during that election.
In 1960, third party candidates had a viable slate that included Strom Thurmond, and they polled 21% of the vote in Louisiana and 39% of the vote in Mississippi. Right next door, in Texas, third party candidates polled less than 1% of the vote.
I found that statistically significant, because the Texas vote corresponded with the southern demographic from 1952-1968, but in 1960 it widely varied from the southern demographic.
I contrasted the third party vote in Texas with a similar slate in 1968 to make the point. Texans in the 1968 election cast 19% of their votes for the third party candidate and joined their southern neighbors in doing so. So, asking what happened in Texas in 1960, is a reasonable question.
I think it is statistically significant for Texans to act like their southern neighbors in 1952 and 1956, then act unlike their southern neighbors and cast less than 1% of their vote for a third party candidate in 1960, then return to form and act like their neighbors and cast 19% of their vote for a third party candidate in 1968.
The Illinois portion of my post referenced Mayor Daley’s deliverance of 450,000 votes after the polls had closed, in a state where 90% of other precincts voted for Nixon. That’s hardly a canard, it is clear evidence of mendacity. It’s “statistically significant,” meaning, without the intervening hand of “Daley ex machina” it wouldn’t have happened.
And since you didn’t respond to my recitation of facts, let me reiterate.
The original post, from Rocket Roy, said that if Nixon had challenged the Illinois vote, he would have been president. That is wrong on three different levels.
1. Based on simple electoral votes, he wouldn’t have won if he had carried Illinois.
2. Nixon DID challenge the Illinois vote, and 10 other states, too. He stood up and said he wasn’t challenging, but you know what? You can’t always believe everything Richard Nixon says.
(For extra credit, which state actually had its results overturned when challenged?)
3. The Republican-controlled elections board rejected the challenge to the Chicago/Illinois vote.
Now, if you want to point out statistical anomalies, we can argue about statistical anomalies, but statistics are slippery things. I prefer basic facts.
This chart shows Harry Byrd and Strom Thurmond running as Democrats, not as a third party.
This one’s even more interesting. Follow the breakdown of the Texas vote, and you’ll see there’s not one single vote for either Byrd or Thurmond. They probably weren’t on the ballot.
Look who won in Mississippi - somebody named “Unpledged.”
Check out Alabama - Byrd and Thurmond got six of eleven electoral votes. Look at their popular vote: zero.
Louisiana’s closer to Texas than those two, anyway, and Kennedy carried Louisiana with 20% of the popular vote going to “unpledged states rights” electors.
I’m having trouble drawing conclusions from these votes.
