Look: I am eager to learn stuff I don't know--which requires actively courting and posting smart disagreement.

But as you will understand, I don't like to post things that mischaracterize and are aimed to mislead.

-- Brad Delong

Copyright Notice

Everything that appears on this blog is the copyrighted property of somebody. Often, but not always, that somebody is me. For things that are not mine, I either have obtained permission, or claim fair use. Feel free to quote me, but attribute, please. My photos and poetry are dear to my heart, and may not be used without permission. Ditto, my other intellectual property, such as charts and graphs. I'm probably willing to share. Let's talk. Violators will be damned for all eternity to the circle of hell populated by Rosanne Barr, Mrs Miller [look her up], and trombonists who are unable play in tune. You cannot possibly imagine the agony. If you have a question, email me: jazzbumpa@gmail.com. I'll answer when I feel like it. Cheers!

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

A Historical Look at Electoral Maps

When I was a kid, "The Solid South" used to mean that the southern states from Texas through The Carolinas could be counted on to support the Democratic presidential candidate.  This had been true since 1880, and was a manifestation of southern resentment against Republican northern profiteers, known as carpet baggers, who had gotten fat on the post war reconstruction.

This all changed in the 1960's, after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law.   He said at the time that the Democrats had lost the south for a generation. What a failure of imagination!  Here we are, more than 50 years later, and the South is still lost, and probably will remain so for a few more decades.

Heres' s a link to historical electoral maps.

In 1964, the effect was immediate.  For the first time in history, the Republicans took LA, MS, AL, GA and SC, while suffering an epic national loss of of 486 to 52 electoral votes.  As an aside, it's also notable that in the first half of this century, the Democratic party was a welcome home to southern racists.  After 1964, they ran to the Rethugs, who welcomed them with open arms, as evidenced by the Nixon-Reagan southern strategy.

The south revealed its other characteristic factor in the '64 election - voting for its native son.  The Dems carried Texas in '64, and again in '68, when LBJ decided not to run again, and Humphrey stepped up to get stomped by the vile Richard Nixon.  Despite the even worse George Wallace draining off 5 southern states and their 46 electoral votes, Nixon beat Humphrey by 110.

The only anomaly occurred in 1976, when Democrat Jimmy Carter of Georgia swept the south and beat Michigan's Jerry Ford by 57 EV.  The south gave the presidency to its native son. Except for the first two elections of the 2000's that were stolen by GWB, that was the closest EV margin since 1884.

In '92 and '96 Clinton won his home state of AR, along with a couple other southern states each time, beating his rivals by sizable EV margins.

Florida has gone blue in the last two elections, but the rest of the south remained solidly behind McCain and Romney.

What will happen now?  The black guy has been replaced by a woman who has been vilified by the right wing for 25 years.  More recently, the Rethug controlled congress has wasted huge quantities of both time and money chasing bogus scandals to further discredit her.

HRC is very unlikely to win any southern state beside FLA, which has a large contingent of displaced northerners.

It's up to the rest of the country to keep the dumb con man, who has deep and serious emotional problems, and might actually be insane, out of the White House.

What a god damned night mare.


7 comments:

Anonymous said...

The problem is with the DNC. If HRC loses, it will be due to the fact that they failed to field a suitable candidate.

The fact that is is even a close race against a buffoon like Trump indicates they picked a candidate that many view as unacceptable.

BadTux said...

Anon, you posit that it is a close race. I though it would be a close race in 2008. A white war hero against a black man who had never served? As we all know, it turned out McCain chose a disastrous VP: Bible Spice was so clearly incompetent and unprepared to be President that it went to the black man in a landslide.

Thing is, Trump is Bible Spice with a vengeance at the head of the ticket. While Hillary is the most prepared candidate we've had in the past 40 years, having served in both the legislative and executive branches of the Federal government. You have to go back to Gerald Ford to find a candidate better qualified for the Presidency, and Gerald Ford couldn't win because he pardoned Richard Nixon, a sin for which he acknowledged he would surely go to hell upon his death. I am unaware that Hillary Clinton has pardoned a Richard Nixon like figure. The closest would be if she pardoned George W. Bush for lying the nation into an unnecessary war in Iraq, but there's no danger of that happening.

Right now the only hope the Republicans have is if they've managed to disenfranchise sufficient Democratic voters to steal the election. Even that's looking a bit like a forlorn hope at the moment.They had a number of good candidates who had been governors or legislators and they chose the reality show host instead. So it goes.

Jazzbumpa said...

The right wing noise machine has been dumping hate on HRC for 25 years. More recently, the Rethugs in congress have wasted enormous amount of time and money chasing down make believe scandals and coming up empty every time. If she were really horrible, we'd have something definite and real to point to. But we don't.

Trump is certainly the least qualified candidate in my life time - possibly ever. And the most morally bankrupt since Nixon - though the competition for that dishonor is pretty steep.

I don't know who the good candidates are that you mention, Tux. Some of them might have more appeal to the masses than Trump does. And, certainly, any relevant prior experience trumps Trump's abysmal ignorance on all policy matters, both foreign and domestic.

But I cannot think of a single Republican who I consider to have even the minimum qualification based on intelligence, knowledge, character and attitude.

Bill and Barak are without a doubt the smartest presidents since WW II, and possible longer. I'm not a fan of HRC, but she is right there with them.

My expectation is that either Trump ekes out the narrowest win possible, by one swing state and 1% of the popular vote, or HRC takes it by 15% and 200 EV or more.

We hover once again on the brink of disaster. Nate Silver gives Trump a 32% chance of winning, and that terrifies me.

WASF
JzB

Ted Kennedy said...

Glad to hear that 4 dead in Bengazi were just bogus.

BadTux said...

Yeah, what about that, Ted? Given that it was a CIA operation gone wrong, and Hillary has never been in charge of the CIA?

Jazzbumpa said...

Sorry, Ted, but that is simply flat ass stupid.

There were 13 attacks on U. S. embassies during W's regime with 66 associated deaths.

Number of congressional hearings ------ ZERO!

So why don't you just STFU.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/12/john-garamendi/prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/

JzB

Janice Adcock said...

My mom is not alive to see HRC in this election. A lifelong Dem, Mom said HRC would just be torn apart in an election. Mom had, also, noted the end of the middle class about 2 decades ago. My grandaddy, her dad, campaigned for the likes of Mr. Sam Rayburn. Really enjoyed this article. Nice change from what I find in my personal email from my 'friends'.