Posted on 07/01/2005 9:43:58 AM PDT by 7thson
I usually do not do this but I am requesting some Freeper assistance. Would anyone know how to look up - via the internet - the voting percentages of blacks and whites in American Presidential elections? Or would anyone know off hand a website I could go to that would give this information? I have tried searching but in vain. Maybe I am not using the right keywords.
Why am I interested? Recently, I have looked at electoral college maps from 1868 to 2004. I noticed that after Reconstruction, the Dems controlled the south. However, after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, in 1964 Republicans started making inroads to where they now control the south. Is it because more whites starting voting Republican or because in 1964 and after, Poll taxes and such were shut down and votes by black Americans were finally fully counted?
Find stuff written by Michael Barone and find Larry Sabato's Univ of Virginia website. There are any number of great books written on Southern Politics that describe what you're looking for, Earle and Merle Black have written several.
Actually two black men I know are proud to admit they voted for Bush.
BushDude2000 is right, you can't do any better than Michael Barone and Larry Sabato.
sORRY. Speling iZ nOt my strong sute.
Look at
www.census.gov/population/ documentation/twps0044/twps0044.ppt
and contact the census people who wrote it.
There was a lot that was published. I just didn't save anything.
First, a few things.
The poll tax was not inherently, what was racist about it was that like literacy tests, it was selectively enforced.
If you were a black or a very poor white, they enforced the qualifications, if you didn't fit either of those categories, the registrar would typically fill out a standard voucher form (basically, it was a routine operation, my father saw this when he first registered to vote in the early 50s) and you were registered, no problem
The Democratic Party prior to 1932 was the Conservative party in the region, clearly. Even in New Deal Days, the Southern wing of the party was fairly Conservative, and while it did field New Deal supporters, it also fielded most of the Democratic opposition to New Deal initiatives
The true great break with the National Party came in 1948, and believe it or not, it wasn't because of Trumans civil rights plank. The real reason was, that was the year they revoked the rule that required a 2/3's majority to select a nominee, which had basically been how the South had protected it's position in the party. It was a power struggle that lay at the root of the revolt, and thats why Truman was left off the ballot in Alabama. Not for his racial views, but as retaliation for his role in repealing the 2/3's requirement. In fact, in 1948 in Alabama, the candidate listed as Democrat was Thurmond. As such, his vote was identical to the votes recieved by Roosevelt in previous years.
In the 50s, you had the phonomenon of Eisenhower Democrats, primarily an urban movement (to which my parents belonged) that layed the groundwork of what would later be the Goldwater movement and the eventual rise of the Republican Party.
The South however remained a One-Party bastion until Jimmy Carter came along. Jimmy Carter's presidency was a disaster, and while he still carried rural areas in 1980, he lost all those urban and suburban areas, and thats what turned all those states to Reagan. However, at this time, Dixiecrats still controlled key chairmanships in the Senate and House, and most of your Dem leadership was still heavily Southern dominated. However, in the mid to late 1980s, all those Dixiecrats began retiring, and their clout required with them, meaning the new senior members of the Senate were people like Kennedy and other liberal stalwarts. It's at this point that Congressional Democrats began making a sharp leftward turn, and that led to a voter discontent in the South, and it also began to give Republicans electoral successes in trying to potray the local Democrats as part and parcel with National Democrats.
What really did the South in though, was Bill Clinton. Carter was in a bad place at a bad time, however, Carter fought Ted Kennedy, and while his attempts were miserable, he at least tried to feign the role of a hawk. What did it in was Clinton, because with Clinton, you had someone who was a liberal, someone who made alliances with business (to the consternation of populistic Democrats) and someone who well, got caught up in scandal after scandal. In many circles, Clinton was regarded as a quisling to his region, and that's what triggered the situation we have today. The groundwork was layed over a long period, but what made it happen was the presidency of Clinton.
For Echo - I am not just looking for the last election. I am looking for the past 20 something elections.
Good info. How do you explain Nixon sweeping the south in 1972?
I know of one on this forum, but it seems many for afraid to admit it for fear of having their "blackness" called into question. :D
There's quite a few on FR.
Once segregation was struck down, there was no reason for southerners to vote Democrat (the segregationist party) anymore.
Who was Nixon's opponent again?
Most Southern state parties wouldn't even talk to McGovern, thats why in every Southern state, the McGovern committees would be headed by 20 year olds. Nixon won every (if not every, very close to it) county that George Wallace had carried in 1968.
Nixon actually carried Cook County in 1972. There was no grassroots Democratic support for McGovern, he was the hippie candidate. I think Nixon won a majority of union voters that year too.
I'm sure their are, but I only know of one because it's in his name FR call name "trueblackman" he's the man. :D
It's gonna be exit poll data, so take it with a salt lick.
Man, I feel I was b-slapped! 8-)
Nixon ran against McGovern in 72. Massachusetts voted for McGovern. McGovern lost his home state. It was an electoral landslide in Nixon's behalf.
Except if you hear people talk today, no one voted for Nixon.
He had many problems, none of which should be sugar coated.
He came into office on the heels of domestic violence and thus presented himself as a law and order candidate. Ironic, isn't it? But not many sources talk about the violent demonstrations in the streets.
By '72 he started emerging as a politician who "understood" foreign affairs.
Later he pulled the China card-- leveraging the hostilities between the two to make life annoying for the Soviet Union. I am not a Nixon fan, but this was really brilliant move to confront the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
He promoted liberal policies (which the NYT would no doubt call "middle of the road"). Soon, predictably the economy started to tank. Through Nixon, we had gas shortages and lots of inflation and thanks to Nixon -- wage and price controls.
During that era, pundits were confused. They wondered how in the world you could have inflation and high unemployment? They thought it was one or the other. They made up a new word - stagflation. That's the beauty of economics. You can have all the economists lie down in a line, head to toe, head to toe and never reach a conclusion.
Nixon had a difficult relationship with the public. He did not know how to make himself more appealing. This was a problem for him as every person can be his own worst enemy, so when he messed up, the liberal media pounced on it. But in fairness, he was paranoid after Eisenhower almost ditched him as VP (he saved his skin by making the Checkers speech)
So with all this in mind, I am absolutely delighted to see that HRC is following the Nixon handbook.
Both of them are really nice guys and will give you answers.
Though I do hate Sabatos politics. Barone is a conservative though, but either way they can both help you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.