OOC: This still doesn’t change how the generation which turned the South Republican was indeed not Thurmond’s generation; it was the generation afterwards, after the Civil Rights movement. If the shift was due to Civil Rights, the switch would have occurred during the 60’s. But as we got OTL, the South didn’t go solidly Republican until the mid to late 90’s, 30 years after the Civil Rights Act. It’s as I mentioned before, because of social conservatism and economics. Perhaps I misspoke when using the term Supply-side, but the solid south will break because of economic reasons. The southern states were very poor and their economy had not recovered to pre-Civil War levels until the 1900s. As an example, of the 3 richest states in America in 1860, 2 were southern (South Carolina and Lousiana). Mississippi was 5th in 1860, and it was also the poorest state in the nation come 1960. Without the Great Depression, the Solid South will crumble much earlier. The Republicans were starting to make gains in the South, again as shown by Herbert Hoover in 1928. While you claim it’s because of Hoover’s campaigning and Smith being Catholic, the fact remains that such a performance in the South for a Republican would be completely unthinkable under any circumstances in the South post-reconstruction. The Great Depression discredited the Republican party and led to the New Deal giving benefits to many of the poor whites of the South, including those whom where formerly the core of Republican supporters, which set back the Solid South’s demise by a couple of decades. Without the Great Depression and the New Deal, the Solid South will crack much earlier due to economic reasons. The south’s switch toward Republican is much more multifaceted and complex then “all of the southern democrats switched over to the Republicans after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Such a statement or viewpoint vastly oversimplifies a complex change which had much more to do with economic reasons and social conservatism than civil rights, as seen in Hoover’s performance in 1928 and the growing popularity of the GOP prior to FDR and the Great Depression, as well as Eisenhower winning several southern states. While you correctly note that they aren’t the Deep South, the fact remains: the South as a whole was starting to shift before Civil Rights.
DBWI: What if John F. Kennedy won the 1960 Presidential Election?
- Thread starter victhemag
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dbwi nixon 1960
OOC:
I remain puzzled at why you keep bringing up Hoover in 1928, when the reason for his performance is crystal clear: the Jim Crow South hated Catholics. If a Protestant had been Democratic nominee in 1928, the map would look like 1924. You are also misrepresenting my position. I acknowledged that the Solid South was splintering around the edges by the 1950s, especially in areas settled by Northerners. That does not change the fact that the pivotal event in changing the South from Democratic domination to Republican domination was the Democrats becoming the Party of Civil Rights - the driving factor behind the voting patterns of the Deep South was (and is) race*. Everything else is window dressing.
*Fun fact: Jimmy Carter actually lost the Southern White vote in 1976. He swept the South via running Ford close among Whites, and then cleaning up among Blacks.
OOC: If it’s impossible for a Democrat Catholic to win the South, then I guess JFK was a Protestant in 1960. If the South’s switch was overwhelmingly race-based, then it would have went Republican in the 60’s and we would have seen much more Democratic senators who opposed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960’s go Republican, not just Thurmond. We would have seen many prominent anti-civil rights southern Democrats (George Wallace for example)go Republican, but that did not happen. As it stood IOTL, the South didn’t go solidly Republican until 30 years after the Civil Rights Act. If it really was overwhelmingly race-based as you say, then why did virtually none of the Democratic senators who opposed the Civil Rights Act go Republican except for Thurmond, and why did the Southern Democrats wait 30 whole years to switch over to the Republican party? I also brought up how the Republican party in general was getting more popular prior to the Great Depression due to economic reasons, they had a significant amount of support in the Mountaineers of the South. Again, the 1928 election does show this-despite the fact that Smith was Catholic-such a performance for Republicans would be absolutely unthinkable post-reconstruction. Without the Great Depression, the Solid South will break decades earlier due to economic reasons, the surge in popularity of the Democratic party in the south during FDR provides evidence of this.
OOC:
Um... I didn't say it was impossible for a Catholic Democrat to win the South. Smith actually won the Deep South in 1928. Kennedy, of course, lost Virginia, Florida, and Tennessee, without Lyndon Johnson he'd have lost Texas, and Alabama and Mississippi had unpledged shenanigans going on.
Um... I didn't say it was impossible for a Catholic Democrat to win the South. Smith actually won the Deep South in 1928. Kennedy, of course, lost Virginia, Florida, and Tennessee, without Lyndon Johnson he'd have lost Texas, and Alabama and Mississippi had unpledged shenanigans going on.
- I have addressed your points earlier. The reason the Southern Democratic voters didn't immediately switch to the Republicans down-ticket is because Southern Democratic politicians were hostile to Civil Rights (unlike the national party, which was pro-Civil Rights). National/state difference.
- If 1928 was about trends, rather than the fact that Smith was a Catholic, how do you explain 1924?
OOC: he could get the nomination, but I really doubt he would win 1968. I think he could make a comeback like Nixon did, but he isn’t winning after 16 years straight of Republican presidents. At the same time, for a more conservative Republican, Barry Goldwater is some still on the table.
OOC: I wonder if the OP envisaged the Democrats *ever* regaining the Presidency after 1952.
OOC: Let’s please end this soon and get back in character
. I’m not saying that Smith being Catholic in 1928 didn’t affect the election results at all; I’m just saying, that performance of Republicans would be completely unthinkable in the South immediately following Reconstruction. Even if what you claim is true (Southern democrats don’t switch because the politicans didn’t switch) it begs the question of why didn’t the Southern democratic politicans switch en masse to the Republican party in masse, rather than just Thurmond as in OTL. You also consistently don’t address how the Republican party was gaining support among the mountaineers of the South in the late 1920’s and this support completely stopped in the 1930’s due to FDR’s New Deal, which caused a resurgence of popularity in the Democratic Party in the South. I am aware of the differences between the Southern Democrats and the Democratic party in general, Northern Democrats tended to support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while Southern Democrats didn’t. But if the Republican party was the anti-civil rights party throughout this period, Southern Democratic politicans would have gone to the Republican party in droves, but as it was IOTL only one lone senator left to the Republicans. I also find it hard to believe that a Democrat could win so many states in the South in 1992 had all of the Southern Democrats still hated the political party due to Civil Rights.OOC: When did I ever say the Democratic Party stops existing? If the Democratic Party could survive after the Civil War and the Republican Party can survive after FDR and Truman, the Democrats will of course survive a Nixon presidency in 1960. But as we got it IOTL 1968-1992 was completely Republican with the exception of Jimmy Carter's presidency. I'd predict the Democrats to make a comeback in the 80's or 90's ITTL. The two-party system is firmly entrenched in American politics and won't go away without a really insane POD.
OOC: How does Nixon passing civil rights lead to Obama becoming a republican? Wouldn't you need to change everything about HIM. As an individual, the way he was raised influenced him, his family, etc. There are African Americans who are republicans IOTL even though most of them vote democrat, so there would still also be African Americans who are democrats in this world. I mean, he lived in Indonesia, smoked weed as a young adult, etc. He would have to be an entirely different person for him to be a republican instead of a democrat.
OOC: I don't think Park was anywhere near as brutal as Diem. Park didn't kill as many people. Ngo Dinh Nhu was the one who was pretty much the architect of all the troubles in the Diem regime (come to think of it, his relatives screwed things up pretty badly).
OOC: Perhaps I shouldn’t have spoken for Park, but I’m certain of Rhee: he killed around 30-40,000 suspected communists in South Korea. Those numbers dwarf Diem’s staistics completely.
Hmm.. being cheated out an election victory could easily make one open to a little cheating themselves.. and with a loss that dirty & a few years to stew on it, a guy could end up a pretty spiteful.. and with a few chips on his shoulder.
But I'm not convinced Nixon could fall into such an "us vs them" siege mentality in domestic politics. Didn't he work with factions of the Democrats to get civil rights & healthcare bills through?
Let’s get back on track with a different topic.
How about the 1976 Presidential election? Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA) defied all odds and defeated Vice President Robert F. Kennedy. Talk about an upset, huh?
How about the 1976 Presidential election? Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA) defied all odds and defeated Vice President Robert F. Kennedy. Talk about an upset, huh?
Yep. Quite astonishing. The Kennedys could never quite come back from that defeat, although they still play an important role in Massachusetts state politics to this day.
Civil rights would have been slower under JFK. Nixon didn't slap down the Dixiecrats out of principle - he did it because he took their resistance to federal authority as a personal insult.
Electing a Catholic in 1960 would border on ASB though.
Electing a Catholic in 1960 would border on ASB though.
I think we might not have had the opening to Albania. Kennedy was strongly committed to anti communism but didnt have Nixon’s long term thinking. Hocha desired a place for national communism. An Yugoslavia Albania alliance proved vital in defusing tension.
Vice President lodge had a lot of street credit.
Vice President lodge had a lot of street credit.