Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
Nixon famously had a "southern strategy."
Nixon famously had a "southern strategy."
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
- Status
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
Subsequently, Dirksen gave the primary speech nominating Goldwater at the Republican convention. Of Goldwater, Dirksen said: "In an age of self congratulated do gooders, he is a good doer."
AuH2O's success in the south wasn't particularly surprising. He had voted against the '64 Civil Rights Act. Senate minority leader Ev Dirksen of Illnois responded to a personal plea from LBJ to get the bill passed by rounding up enough Republicans to overcome Democratic resistance.
Subsequently, Dirksen gave the primary speech nominating Goldwater at the Republican convention. Of Goldwater, Dirksen said: "In an age of self congratulated do gooders, he is a good doer."
Last edited:
Hammer
We'll be back.
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
Sure, but running any strategy against McGovern would have produced certain victory. And before 1968 and in 1976, the Dems took a good chunk of the South as well. Nixon didn't carry the most of what you and I would probably consider the "old south" in 1968, either.
http://www.270towin.com/
Now, the old Democratic Solid South stranglehold might have been cracking beforehand, but Reagan basically nuked it and then ran it over with a monster truck.
Sure, but running any strategy against McGovern would have produced certain victory. And before 1968 and in 1976, the Dems took a good chunk of the South as well. Nixon didn't carry the most of what you and I would probably consider the "old south" in 1968, either.
http://www.270towin.com/
Now, the old Democratic Solid South stranglehold might have been cracking beforehand, but Reagan basically nuked it and then ran it over with a monster truck.
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
When George Meany of the AFofL/CIO refused to endorse McGovern, the handwriting, as they say, was on the wall. "I back Tom Eagleton 1000 per cent."
When George Meany of the AFofL/CIO refused to endorse McGovern, the handwriting, as they say, was on the wall. "I back Tom Eagleton 1000 per cent."
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
As to '76, yes Carter did fool some southerners, but only the one time.
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
Nah, in my case just ineptitude. Don't forget, in '68 Wallace carried the south. Quoting the governor: "I'm not going to be out n-worded." In a two way race, IMHO, Nixon kills Humphrey in the south.
I was working in Houston when Bill Clement became the first Republican governor of Texas since reconstruction. Democrats held overwhelming majorities in both houses of the state legislature. That has now turned around completely and most likely irrevocably.
Are we having fun with the quote feature tonight?
And Carter fooled a lot of people just one time.
Nah, in my case just ineptitude. Don't forget, in '68 Wallace carried the south. Quoting the governor: "I'm not going to be out n-worded." In a two way race, IMHO, Nixon kills Humphrey in the south.
I was working in Houston when Bill Clement became the first Republican governor of Texas since reconstruction. Democrats held overwhelming majorities in both houses of the state legislature. That has now turned around completely and most likely irrevocably.
Last edited:
Hammer
We'll be back.
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
Now that it looks like the entire European economy is about to hit the ****ter after reading about Germany's lack of growth in the previous quarter, along with the interest rate news here last week, I don't have high hopes for the economy.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Obama won another term. The Republicans do not have a candidate without major issues, that can come directly at the President and have an honest discussion of the issues. The Republicans might be running their version of John Kerry in 2012. If they had a candidate like a Reagan, they'd be 20 points ahead after their convention, and it would be lights-out. Hell, with a Bush 41-type, they're probably up 15 points. But I don't see someone in what's left of the field that can capture the mainstream.
In boxing terms, this President is ready to go, but the challenger barely has a jab, let alone an uppercut or a big right hook. I don't like anything I see here.
Maybe I'm not paying enough attention, but I'm not hearing anyone say too much about their plans to get people working in decent jobs. This election shouldn't be about taxation, or maybe even spending. Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. And jobs. And did I mention jobs? With unemployment over 9%, it's not going to matter who or what we tax, or how much we spend. Finding a way to get the unemployment rate down under 8% is going to go a long way towards taking care of a lot of issues. I don't see Obama with any credible plan, but I'm not seeing anything on the other side that excites me yet, either.
Fantasy Football draft. Must go.
Now that it looks like the entire European economy is about to hit the ****ter after reading about Germany's lack of growth in the previous quarter, along with the interest rate news here last week, I don't have high hopes for the economy.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Obama won another term. The Republicans do not have a candidate without major issues, that can come directly at the President and have an honest discussion of the issues. The Republicans might be running their version of John Kerry in 2012. If they had a candidate like a Reagan, they'd be 20 points ahead after their convention, and it would be lights-out. Hell, with a Bush 41-type, they're probably up 15 points. But I don't see someone in what's left of the field that can capture the mainstream.
In boxing terms, this President is ready to go, but the challenger barely has a jab, let alone an uppercut or a big right hook. I don't like anything I see here.
Maybe I'm not paying enough attention, but I'm not hearing anyone say too much about their plans to get people working in decent jobs. This election shouldn't be about taxation, or maybe even spending. Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. And jobs. And did I mention jobs? With unemployment over 9%, it's not going to matter who or what we tax, or how much we spend. Finding a way to get the unemployment rate down under 8% is going to go a long way towards taking care of a lot of issues. I don't see Obama with any credible plan, but I'm not seeing anything on the other side that excites me yet, either.
Fantasy Football draft. Must go.
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
Betting on the incumbent is always the safe thing to do. The American people don't like "changing horses in mid stream," and we've proven it over and over again. Even with Jimmy Carter's dreadful record, that race was "too close to call" until it broke decisively for Reagan. Obama will have a billion dollars (more or less) to fund his campaign as well as the love and support of the main stream media (don't bother disagreeing). What must keep the little Obamabots up at night is the prospect of an opposing candidate in the Dem primaries. That usually spells disaster. This time around, Obama won't be running as "hope and change," he'll be running as the lesser of two evils. "I may be a horrible disaster as a president but that guy's worse." It'll be down and dirty, take that to the bank. And the usual whiners about "negative campaigning" will be strangely silent.
His two core constituencies (African Americans and the young) will probably stay with him. There's no chance he'll get anything less than 95% among AA's. The question, as always, is turnout. Same thing with younger voters, who have a track record of not participaing. They had their shot at an historic electon in '08. And "reelecting" the first AA president isn't quite the same, is it? Besides, some of them may be having problems getting or holding on to jobs.
Any number of states he carried in '08 show him in trouble now. Even though things can change between now and then, he has to be very concerned about the erosion in those states. Carrying them gave him the basis to talk about "new majorities" and all the other nonsense. Remember, McCain was ahead before the financial markets collapsed. "The One" was in a very tight race. Barring something unforeseen, I think this one will be very close. Like '04. Maybe that Diebold guy in Ohio can steal the buckeye state again.
Betting on the incumbent is always the safe thing to do. The American people don't like "changing horses in mid stream," and we've proven it over and over again. Even with Jimmy Carter's dreadful record, that race was "too close to call" until it broke decisively for Reagan. Obama will have a billion dollars (more or less) to fund his campaign as well as the love and support of the main stream media (don't bother disagreeing). What must keep the little Obamabots up at night is the prospect of an opposing candidate in the Dem primaries. That usually spells disaster. This time around, Obama won't be running as "hope and change," he'll be running as the lesser of two evils. "I may be a horrible disaster as a president but that guy's worse." It'll be down and dirty, take that to the bank. And the usual whiners about "negative campaigning" will be strangely silent.
His two core constituencies (African Americans and the young) will probably stay with him. There's no chance he'll get anything less than 95% among AA's. The question, as always, is turnout. Same thing with younger voters, who have a track record of not participaing. They had their shot at an historic electon in '08. And "reelecting" the first AA president isn't quite the same, is it? Besides, some of them may be having problems getting or holding on to jobs.
Any number of states he carried in '08 show him in trouble now. Even though things can change between now and then, he has to be very concerned about the erosion in those states. Carrying them gave him the basis to talk about "new majorities" and all the other nonsense. Remember, McCain was ahead before the financial markets collapsed. "The One" was in a very tight race. Barring something unforeseen, I think this one will be very close. Like '04. Maybe that Diebold guy in Ohio can steal the buckeye state again.
Last edited:
duper
Well-known member
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
If I am misreading this, then nevermind.
This comment seems to indicate that you think only one party whines about negative campaigning. Surely, that isn't really true. Surely we all recognize that conservatives whine just as much as liberals do about the "unfair" tactics of the other side.
If I am misreading this, then nevermind.
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
I am being tendentious. David Brinkley used to tell the story of a guy running for something in the south years ago. And his opponant kept pointing out that his wife was a "well known thespian." I have seen no studies on this, but my impression is most of the whining about "negative campaigning" comes disproportionately from the left. It's of the "aren't we better than this?" variety. As opposed to where the actual negative campaigning comes from. So my view is that actual negative campaigning is an equal opportunity phenomenon, whining about it is not. As I say, just the way it seems to me.
Many times during this campaign you can count on some talking head somewhere whining about the Willie Horton spot that so badly damaged Dukakis. And the first President Bush will be roundly criticized for it (this is an article of faith on the left). However, there will rarely be a mention of the fact that it was Al Gore who brought Horton up first during the Democratic primaries.
I am being tendentious. David Brinkley used to tell the story of a guy running for something in the south years ago. And his opponant kept pointing out that his wife was a "well known thespian." I have seen no studies on this, but my impression is most of the whining about "negative campaigning" comes disproportionately from the left. It's of the "aren't we better than this?" variety. As opposed to where the actual negative campaigning comes from. So my view is that actual negative campaigning is an equal opportunity phenomenon, whining about it is not. As I say, just the way it seems to me.
Many times during this campaign you can count on some talking head somewhere whining about the Willie Horton spot that so badly damaged Dukakis. And the first President Bush will be roundly criticized for it (this is an article of faith on the left). However, there will rarely be a mention of the fact that it was Al Gore who brought Horton up first during the Democratic primaries.
Last edited:
brookyone
Deport Right Wing Nuts
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
I guess you're not listening to Michele Bachmann then. It may not apply to other GOP candidates, as I haven't listened to many of them extensively myself. But when it comes negative campaigning tactics of her own, then simultaneously whining about being negatively attacked by the DFL...she is the friggin' world champion.
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
I'll take your word for it. I'm not listening to her. And there is no instrument available to the general public that can measure my lack of interest in what the DFL says. Besides, one candidate, in one cycle, doesn't prove or disprove my point.
I'll take your word for it. I'm not listening to her. And there is no instrument available to the general public that can measure my lack of interest in what the DFL says. Besides, one candidate, in one cycle, doesn't prove or disprove my point.
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
I think in the past the shadow orgs took care of the negative campaigning. There was always talk of 'swiftboating' and probably the same from the right as well.
The difference is that this campaign could include negative campaign from the candidates themselves. Whatever you call it...both Bachmann and now Perry have used 'tough' talk.
Pio, honest question...what negative campaigning have you seen from Obama himself?
I think in the past the shadow orgs took care of the negative campaigning. There was always talk of 'swiftboating' and probably the same from the right as well.
The difference is that this campaign could include negative campaign from the candidates themselves. Whatever you call it...both Bachmann and now Perry have used 'tough' talk.
Pio, honest question...what negative campaigning have you seen from Obama himself?
brookyone
Deport Right Wing Nuts
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
I'm familiar enough with Bachmann to know she's proof there is at least one exception to your point. Personally I don't believe for a minute she's the sole exception. There has yet to be invented an instrument that can measure my disregard for the GOP verbal dung. Different candidates, different cycles have proven exceptions to your point as well. I have doubts those general circumstances are significantly changed for the current campaign. I'm glad you're not listening to Bachmann. That's truly wasting one's time in any search for a viable candidate for the Presidency regardless of any political philosophy affiliation.
- Status