EXAM 5 NOTES

DEMOCRATIC PARTY SYMBOLS

REPUBLICAN PARTY SYMBOLS
 POLITICAL PARTIES
1. ARE UNIVERSAL
(EVERY OCCUPIED PLANET IN
OUR SOLAR SYSTEM HAS
THEM)
2. WERE OPPOSED BY
FOUNDERS
3. WERE FOUNDED BY
FOUNDERS
SCHOLARLY BIAS IN FAVOR OF
PARTIES>GROUPS
PARTIES REPRESENT BROAD
COALITIONS OF GROUPS
THUS, A GREATER % OF THE
POPULATION IS
REPRESENTED/SERVED
POLITICAL PARTIES IN THE US=3
PARTS
1. PARTY ELECTORATE
(CITIZENS)
2. PARTY IN GOVERNMENT
(PIGS)
3. PARTY ORGANIZATION/PARTY
BUREAUCRACY

THE PARTY IN THE ELECTORATE

CAN BE STUDIED AT THE MICRO
LEVEL (INDIVIDUALS)

OR MACRO LEVEL
(GROUPS/SOCIETY)
Macro level politics, arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh……
 MICRO LEVEL PARTISANSHIP
BEST PREDICTORS OF PARTY ID:
1. INCOME
2. EDUCATION
3. RACE
4. GENDER
5. REGION
6. OCCUPATION

GILLIGAN’S ISLAND SCENARIO

I particularly liked the episode where they almost got off the island!

THE SKIPPER and GILLIGAN

MARY ANN
GINGER
THE PROFESSOR
THE HOWELLS
FOLKS RARELY MARRY ACROSS
PARTY LINES
DEMS DO NOT MARRY GOP
(GRAND OLD
PARTY=REPUBLICANS) AND VISA-
VERSA

SKIPPER & MARY-ANN

 GINGER & THE PROFESSOR OR
GILLIGAN
THIS ASSUMES HETEROSEXUALITY
ACROSS THE BOARD
A HUGE ASSUMPTION SINCE THE
SKIPPER AND GILLIGAN ARE
SAILORS!
THE MORE PARTISAN YOU ARE,
THE MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE YOU
ARE ABOUT
CURRENT EVENTS, POLITICAL
ISSUES, ETC.
Hey! I remember these guys! Didn’t they have that song, where they sung about that
thing?
INDEPENDENTS VOTE LESS OFTEN,
KNOW LESS
ARE MORE LIKELY TO VOTE ON
PERSONALITY, SMILE, ETC.
INDEPENDENTS ARE POLITICALLY
RETARDED!
And ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT
VOTERS IN PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTIONS!!!

MACRO-LEVEL PARTISANSHIP
SUNDQUIST 1961:
EVERY 30 YEARS, STARTING IN
THE 1830S, WE HAVE
A REALIGNMENT
REALIGNMENT=A SUDDEN,
LASTING CHANGE IN
MAJORITY PARTY STATUS: LASTS
ABOUT 30 YRS (?)

EVERY 30 YEARS, A CRITICAL

ISSUE DIVIDES THE MAJORITY
PARTY
FORMER MAJORITY PARTY
SUPPORTERS VOTE FOR THE
 OTHER PARTY AND NEVER GO
HOME
A CRITICAL ELECTION IS A
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
WHERE THE #1 ISSUE IS THE
CRITICAL ISSUE
AND THE RESULT IS A
REALIGNMENT
PROBLEM WITH THE THEORY
WE HAVE NOT HAD A
REALIGNMENT EVERY 30 YEARS
TO EXPLAIN WHY NO
REALIGNMENT OCCURED IN THE
1960S:
A DEALIGNMENT OCCURRED!:
1966=HUGE INCREASE IN THE %
OF AMERICANS WHO IDENTIFIED
THEMSELVES AS INDEPENDENTS
 HOWEVER…THERE IS AN
‘ALTERNATIVE’ HYPOTHESIS…

EVERY 72 YEARS WE HAVE A

“TRIGGERING EVENT”
WHICH CAUSES A POLITICAL
REALIGNMENT
2 TO 3 YEARS LATER
 STARTING IN 1786:
TRIGGERING INCIDENT: DEBT
CRISIS

CRITICAL ISSUE IN 1787-1788:

WHETHER TO ADOPT NEW
CONSTITUTION
CONSTITUTION IS ADOPTED ONCE
ANTI-FEDS ARE APPEASED
(REMEMBER?)
1788-1860: DEMOCRATS & THEIR
anti-federalist ancestors
DOMINATE
CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENCY
(AFTER WASHINGTON LEAVES
OFFICE)

THEN IN 1857: DRED SCOTT

DECISION=TRIGGERING INCIDENT
CRITICAL ISSUE: SLAVERY IN THE
LA TERRITORY
1860: DEMOCRATIC PARTY
NOMINATES 3 CANDIDATES
 LINCOLN WINS WITH 38% OF
POPULAR VOTE

1860-1932: REPUBLICANS
DOMINATE
ONLY 2 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS
FOR 72 YEARS!
 1929: TRIGGERING
INCIDENT=STOCK MARKET CRASH
(CAUSE: DE-REGULATION OF
FINANCIAL
SERVICES/STOCKS/ETC…)
1932 ELECTION: CRITICAL ISSUE:
GREAT DEPRESSION
 FDR WINS, BUT 1932-2004
PERIOD=
UNPRECEDENTED SPLIT PARTY
CONTROL OF US GOVERNMENT

2004 ELECTION=A REALIGNING

ELECTION?
WHICH WAY???
2000 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION VS. 2006 MIDTERM ELECTION
(US HOUSE) ABOVE
2004 VS. 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS (BELOW)
2ND LEG OF POLITICAL PARTIES
ELECTED AND APPOINTED
OFFICIALS

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
 MAJORITY PARTY STATUS
DETERMINES…
1. ALL LEADERSHIP POSITIONS
2. ALL COMMITTEE CHAIRS
3. A MAJORITY OF SEATS ON ALL
COMMITTEES, AND
SUBCOMMITTEES

PROBLEM=HOLDING A MAJORITY
OF SEATS DOES NOT EQUAL
HOLDING A MAJORITY OF VOTES…
CHAFEE=R RI=VOTED WITH DEMS
ABOUT 80%
CONN=J.LIEBERMAN=VOTES WITH
REP=80% (D)
SENATOR PALPATINE
LOYAL FRIEND OF THE JEDI
COUNCIL
(BEFORE PICTURE)
 AFTER PICTURE
20TH CENTURY 3 GROUPS
1. LIBERAL, NON-SOUTHERN
DEMS
(SWEPT INTO OFFICE WITH
FDR)
2. CONSERVATIVE, SOUTHERN
DEMS
 (SWEPT INTO OFFICE WITH
JACKSON)
3. REPUBLICANS
(SWEPT INTO OFFICE WITH
LINCOLN)

1933-1964: NEW DEAL COALITION

(GROUPS 1 AND 2)
1948 DEM CONVENTION: TRUMAN
INSISTED ON PUTTING AN ANTI-
LYNCHING PLATFORM
IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
CAUSING DIXIECRATS TO WALK OUT (PICTURE
ON RIGHT)
AND RUN STROM THURMOND AS THEIR PRO-
LYNCHING CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT IN 1948
(HE LOST, DISAPPOINTING TRENT LOTT AND
HIS MOTHER…)
"I want to say this about my state: when Strom Thurmond ran
for President, we voted for him. We're proud of it.
And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we
wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years,
either."

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

AND THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF
1965
EFFECTIVELY KILLED OFF THE
NEW DEAL COALITION

1964 TO 1974: CIVIL RIGHTS

COALITION
(GROUPS 1 AND 3)
LIBERAL NORTHERN DEMS AND
MOST REPUBLICANS!
JOINED TO PASS THE CRA OF
1964, VRA 1965, CRA 1968,
AND VARIOUS EQUAL RIGHTS
LEGISLATION AS WELL
BUT THE WATERGATE SCANDAL
EFFECTIVELY KILLED OFF THIS
COALITION
 1981-1995=CONSERVATIVE
COALITION (OR REAGAN
COALITION)
(GROUPS 2 AND 3)
NOW CONSERVATIVE
REPUBLICANS AND SOUTHERN
WHITE DEMS
WHITE SOUTHERN DEMS BECOME
EXTINCT OVER TIME
REPLACED BY WHITE
REPUBLICANS
GIVING THE GOP A MAJORITY OF
THE HOUSE AND SENATE FROM
1994 TO 2006
THEN, DISASTER HITS THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY!
 Pick it up here on wed 11/12
THE UK:
A RESPONSIBLE PARTY SYSTEM
 1. PARTIES DIFFER ON ALMOST
EVERY ISSUE
2. PARTIES CAN ENFORCE VOTES
IN THE LEGISLATURE OR
ELSE!
3. PARTIES CAN ENACT THEIR
PLATFORMS AND KEEP THEIR
PROMISES
HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT
ALWAYS A GOOD THING…
LIKE POLL TAX RIOTS OF 1990 IN
LONDON
THE MARGRET THATCHER
EXAMPLE
 BECAUSE THE BRITS HAVE NO
CHECKS AND BALANCES
(AND NO CONSTITUTION)
THERE WAS NO WAY TO STOP THE
POLL TAX FROM PASSING
IN OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT,
THE EXECUTIVE CANNOT DO
SOMETHING LIKE THIS!
Signing statement (United States)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proponents of strong constitutional signing statements: Ronald Reagan, left,

and George H. W. Bush, right.
A signing statement is a written pronouncement issued by the President
of the United States upon the signing of a bill into law.

There is an ongoing controversy concerning

the (UNPRECEDENTED) extensive use of
signing statements (OVER 1K) by President
George W. Bush to modify the meaning of
laws. In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association
described the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly
enacted laws as

"contrary to the rule of law and our

constitutional system of separation of
powers".
OK. SO, THE CONSTITUTION HAD A
GOOD RUN…
 THE THIRD LEG OF AMERICAN
POLITICAL PARTIES

WE WILL BEGIN BY COVERING THE

PARTY ORGANIZATION
THE RISE AND FALL OF POLITICAL
PARTY MACHINES
THE INVENTION OF PRIMARY
ELECTIONS
HOW THEY DIFFER FROM WHAT
CAME BEFORE (CAUCUS
ELECTIONS).

THE PARTY ORGANIZATION

THE WEAKEST LINK IN THE CHAIN
TODAY
1870S TO 1920S: THE RISE AND
FALL OF POLITICAL PARTY
MACHINES
 RAPID INDUSTRIALIZATION AND
URBANIZATION AND IMMIGRATION
HELPED POLITICAL PARTIES TO
HOLD ONTO POWER FOR
A VERY LONG TIME IN LARGE
NORTHEASTERN CITIES AND A
FEW STATES
THEY (THE PARTIES) CONTROLLED
THE ELECTION PROCESS
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO:
1. SECRET BALLOT
2. VOTER REGISTRATION LAWS
3. CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENTS
TO VOTE
 4. PROHIBITION ON WHO THE
GOVERNMENT CAN HIRE/FIRE
(OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
SPOILS SYSTEM)

THE BEGINNING OF THE END: 1900

SERIES OF “MUCKRAKING
NEWSPAPER STORIES”
THE POPULIST AND PROGRESSIVE
MOVEMENT
(WHICH WAS A BACKLASH
AGAINST THE POLITICS OF THE
INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION)
 AND IMMORTALIZED IN THE
NOVEL AND MOVIE THE WIZARD
OF OZ
THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD WAS
THE GOLD STANDARD
THE WIZARD WAS PRESIDENT
MCKINLEY
THE SCARECROW WAS THE
INTELLIGENZIA
THE TIN MAN WAS INDUSTRY
THE COWARDLY LION WAS THE
MILITARY
DOROTHY WAS THE PUBLIC
HER MAGIC SLIPPERS WERE
SILVER IN THE BOOK (THE SILVER
STD)…
AGRICULTURAL DISCONTENT & the THE POPULIST MOVEMENT

The Populist movement began in the late 19th century, and its roots lay in the
discontent of farmers. As settlers moved from eastern farms and their lush, green
settings, where neighbors were within hailing distance of each other, out onto the
Great Plains, they had to make substantial changes. They had to learn new kinds of
farming, as annual rainfall was much lower than in the East. The soil was often
hard and unyielding, and they had to learn what was known as “dry farming.” And
because they needed to grow crops such as wheat and corn in large quantities, the
size of farms was larger than the East and the distances between farms substantial.

Farming life on the Great Plains was thus a lonely existence. Women in particular,
sometimes isolated from all but their family for weeks at a time, often suffered from
depression brought on by the lack of human contact. It was said on the Great
Plains, where the wind blows freely and often unceasingly, that women were often
driven mad by the wind. (In the musical “Paint Your Wagon,” about homesteading
 in the West, is a song “They Call the Wind Mariah.” One line goes, “Mariah makes
the mountains sound like folks was up there dyin’.”)

To combat their isolation farmers began to organize into social groups. They would
come into the towns on Saturday night and enjoy hot meals, music, dancing and
conversation. That conversation often turned to sharing their troubles, such as
being beholden to railroads for transporting their goods and renting out the silos
and storage places where their grain was loaded before it was shipped. Farmers
are chronically in debt—they must invest in supplies machinery and labor before
their crops come in and are sold, and thus often have to borrow money to stay in
operation—and thus farmers at that time were often economically hampered by the
interest rates they had to pay on loans. Many were deeply indebted to mortgage
companies.

To make their troubles worse, as farmers got better and better at their jobs, with
more efficient farming methods and equipment, they drastically increased the supply
of agricultural goods they were producing, including grains, livestock, and other
commodities. Furthermore, with increased, faster transportation both on land and
on sea, they began to face competition from other parts of the world, as Argentinean
beef farmers, for example, competed with American beef producers. The increased
supply of farm products drove prices ever lower, to the point where farmers found
themselves trapped between rising costs and falling prices.

An additional hardship came from the fact that the tightness of currency tended to
cause prices to remain stable or even decline. (It is a myth is that inflation hurts
everybody; people who have fixed debt find that inflation, which brings rising prices,
helps them pay off their loans faster.) The actual amount of money in circulation
per capita was decreasing during this period. Conservative money interests wanted
to retain the gold standard and limit the supply of silver currency, while soft-money
advocates wanted not only more silver coins but even greenbacks—paper money
with no specie backing—to be circulated.

All these factors, along with discriminatory railroad rates, unfavorable marketing
arrangements, and high protective tariffs, which raised the price of manufactured
goods that farmers needed, were the constant subject of conversations among
farmers. Their discontent led to the creation of the Granger movement, the “Patrons
of Husbandry,” a secret organization designed to promote the interests of farmers.
Having begun as a social movement to counter the lonely, hard life of the farmer and
his family, the grangers soon turned to political action. Part of their activities were
of the self-help variety, including such things as the sharing of information on
farming through education, cooperative ventures to purchase silos and machinery,
and to bring pressure on groups they saw as their oppressors, namely railroads and
banks. But they sought political solutions as well.

The Grangers were aided by others who faced many of the same problems, such as
small businessmen and merchants. They began to sponsor legislation and got laws
passed at the local and state level in the 1870s and 80s. Eventually, around 1890
these somewhat diverse groups congealed into a national political party, the
People's Party or Populists. Recognizing that they needed help from the federal
government, which had the constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce,
they entered big-time politics.

The populists were not outright socialists, but many of their goals resembled those
of the European socialist parties which were flourishing at the same time. The
Populists goals included more equitable distribution of wealth, and a humanistic
social system. The Populists had what was referred to as a “millennial outlook"—a
utopian view of the future—and they were often strongly religious people. Populist
reformers wanted to be “governed by good men.”

Many conservative interests saw the Populists as a threat to the basic economic
system of the United States, but the free market economy had always worked
against the farmer. If the free market functions on the laws of supply and demand,
and supply vastly outstrips demand, the results are likely to be disastrous for the
suppliers; in fact, that condition has been the lot of American farmers for much of
our modern history. (In 1922 the price of a loaf of bread compared with other
commodities was the lowest it had been in 500 years.)

SOURCE:
HTTP://WWW.SAGEHISTORY.NET/G
ILDEDAGE/POPULISTS.HTM
THE POPULIST MOVEMENT CAME
DURING THE “PROGRESSIVE ERA”
Progressive Era
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the United States, the Progressive Era was a period of reform which
lasted from the 1890s to the 1920s.[1]
Progressives strongly opposed waste and corruption, seeking change in
regard to worker's rights and protection of the ordinary citizen in general.
Initially the movement was successful at local level, and then it progressed to
state and gradually national.[2] The reformers (and their opponents) were
predominantly members of the middle class. Most were well educated white
Protestants who lived in the cities. Catholics, Jews and African Americans
had their own versions of the Progressive Movement, led by the likes of
George Cardinal Mundelein and Booker T. Washington. The
Progressives pushed for social justice, general equality
and public safety, but there were contradictions within
the movement, especially regarding race.[1]
 Almost all major politicians declared their adherence to some
progressive measures. In politics the most prominent national
figures were the Republican politicians Theodore Roosevelt and
Robert LaFollette, Sr. and Democratic politicians William
Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson.[3]
[Reform

Significant changes achieved at the national levels included

Prohibition with the Eighteenth Amendment and women's
suffrage through to the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution as well as the income tax with the Sixteenth
Amendment and direct election of Senators with the
Seventeenth Amendment.

Muckrakers were journalists who exposed waste, corruption,

and scandal in the highly influential new medium of national
magazines, such as McClure's. Progressives shared a common
belief in the ability of science, technology and disinterested
expertise to identify all problems and come up with the one best
solution. [4]
Progressives moved to enable the citizenry to rule more directly
and circumvent political bosses; California, Wisconsin, and
Oregon took the lead.[5] California governor Hiram Johnson
established the initiative, referendum, and recall, viewing them
as good influences for citizen participation against the historic
influence of large corporations on state assembly.[6] About 16
states began using primary elections. Many cities set up
municipal reference bureaus to study the budgets and
administrative structures of local governments. In Illinois,
Governor Frank Lowden undertook a major reorganization of
state government.[7] In Wisconsin, the stronghold of Robert
LaFollette, the Wisconsin Idea, inspired by Jack Mihoff, used the
state university as the source of ideas and expertise.[8]
 IN SUM PROGRESSIVE/POPULIST
REFORMS INCLUDE, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO:
THE 16TH, 17TH, 18TH AND

19TH AMENDMENTS

NON-PARTISAN ELECTIONS
CIVIL SERVICE REFORM LAWS
PROTECTING GOVERNMENT
WORKERS
(REPLACEMENT OF THE SPOILS
SYSTEM WITH THE MERIT SYSTEM)
THE SECRET BALLOT
VOTER REGISTRATION LAWS
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
ELECTIONS
AND ULTIMATELY…
PRIMARY
ELECTIO
NS!
IN A PRIMARY ELECTION, CITIZENS
DIRECTLY VOTE ON WHO EACH
PARTY SHOULD NOMINATE FOR
STATE AND FEDERAL OFFICE IN
 EACH PARTY’S PRIMARY
ELECTION…

IN TEXAS: IF YOUR PARTY GOT AT

LEAST 20% OF THE POPULAR
VOTE FOR GOVERNOR IN THE LAST
ELECTION, YOU MUST NOMINATE
YOUR PARTY’S CANDIDATES IN
THE STATE PRIMARY ELECTION,
HELD IN MARCH OF EVEN
NUMBERED YEARS

WHAT THIS CHANGED:

PRIOR TO PRIMARIES, THE PARTY
ORGANIZATION PICKED THE
PARTY NOMINEE FOR OFFICE
AFTER PRIMARIES, THE PARTY IN
THE ELECTORATE PICKED THE
PARTY NOMINEE…
MANY TIMES THE WINNER OF THE
PRIMARY ELECTION WAS NOT THE
PERSON THE PARTY LEADERS
WOULD HAVE CHOSEN…
IN TEXAS YOU MUST RECEIVE A
MAJORITY OF THE PRIMARY VOTE
TO BE THE PARTY’S NOMINEE,
OTHERWISE THERE IS A RUNOFF

THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

PROCESS
FROM THE BEGINNING TO 1832:
CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS WOULD
CHOSE EACH PARTY’S RESPECTIVE
PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE
STARTING IN 1832: ANDREW
JACKSON CHANGES THE PROCESS

THE DEMOCRATS USE A NATIONAL

PARTY CONVENTION
 MADE UP OF DELEGATES FROM
THE STATES
THESE DELEGATES WERE CHOSEN
AT STATE CONVENTIONS
MOST DELEGATES WERE
UNCOMMITTED, BUT WERE IN
REALITY
A TOOL OF STATE PARTY
LEADERS!

UP THROUGH 1968 MOST OF THE

NATIONAL CONVENTION
DELEGATES WERE CHOSEN IN THE
MANNER DESCRIBED ABOVE…
BUT THIS STARTED TO CHANGE IN
1912…
DIRECT PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES
THIS IS HOW DIRECT PRIMARIES
WORK FOR PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTIONS
DELEGATES ARE CHOSEN IN THE
FOLLOWING MANNER:
IF CANDIDATE A RECEIVES 40% OF
THE VOTE IN THE PRIMARY, HE
GETS 40% OF THE DELEGATES
WHO WILL BE COMMITTED TO
VOTE FOR HIM AT THE NATIONAL
CONVENTION
IF CANDIDATE B GETS 30% OF THE
VOTE, HE GETS 30% OF THE
DELEGATES
IF CANDIDATE C GETS 10% GUESS
HOW MANY HE GETS
 VOTE %=DELEGATE %
IN 1912 ABOUT 12 STATES HOLD
DIRECT PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY
ELECTIONS
The first Presidential primary was held in Florida, which in 1904 created a “preference”
primary that did not bind its state's convention delegates. In 1905 Governor Robert M. La
Follette of Wisconsin won passage of the first state law creating a delegate—selection
primary in time for the 1908 conventions. That same year Oregon adopted a “first ballot”
primary that bound the state delegation to vote for the winner of the primary on the first
convention ballot. North Dakota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and New Jersey followed suit.

By 1912 a dozen states had established primaries, including California, Illinois,

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, and South Dakota, but many were “preference”
primaries, in which voters could not only choose delegates but also express a preference
for their party's nomination. Sometimes this could lead to confusing results. In
Massachusetts, for instance, the state's voters selected a slate of Theodore Roosevelt
supporters to go to the convention but expressed their “preference” for William Howard
Taft.
Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-presidential-primary

THE 1912 ELECTION

IN 1912 THE INCUMBENT
PRESIDENT IS WH
TAFT=REPUBLICAN
 TAFT WAS OUR HEAVIEST
PRESIDENT (SO FAR)
TAFT WAS SO HEAVY, WHEN HE
SAT AROUND THE WHITE HOUSE
HE SAT AROUND THE WHITE
HOUSE!
TAFT WAS SO HEAVY, HIS BELLY
BUTTON HAD AN ECHO…
WHEN HE WAS BORN, HE GAVE
THE HOSPITAL STRETCH MARKS!!!
HE’S SO HEAVY, HE DIDN’T HAVE
AN ASSHOLE, HE HAD A
SINGULARITY!
MORE FAT JOKES:
http://www.carlmerritt.com/jokes/fatjokes.htm

TAFT WAS PICKED BY TEDDY

ROOSEVELT TO SUCCEED HIM…
 THE 1912 REPUBLICAN PARTY
ELECTORATE WANTED TR
PROBLEM: MOST STATES STILL
HELD CAUCUS MEETINGS IN 1912
THE STATE PARTY LEADERS
BACKED TAFT
MOST OF THE DELEGATES TO THE
1912 REPUBLICAN CONVENTION
WERE CHOSEN THRU CAUCUSES…
TR DIDN’T HAVE ENOUGH
DELEGATES TO BECOME THE
REPUBLICAN NOMINEE
TR ANNOUNCES A 3RD PARTY
CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT
TR FINISHES IN 2ND PLACE IN THE
FALL
TAFT FINISHED IN 3RD
AND THE DEMOCRAT W. WILSON
WINS WITH ONLY 40% OF THE POP
VOTE
 UNTIL 1972
PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES WERE A
CURIOSITY
TRUMAN’S POOR SHOWING IN THE
1952 NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY
MIGHT HAVE CONVINCED HIM TO
GET OUT OF TOWN (DOUBTFUL)
JFK RAN WELL IN 1960 PRIMARIES
TO CONVERT DEMOCRATIC
OFFICIALS TO HIS CAMPAIGN

YOU DID NOT HAVE TO ENTER AND

RUN IN DIRECT PRESIDENTIAL
PRIMARIES TO BE NOMINATED
QUITE FREQUENTLY, NATIONAL
CONVENTIONS WERE SPLIT
EVERY ROLL CALL OF THE STATES
= 1 BALLOT
MOST CONVENTIONS DID NOT
NOMINATE A CANDIDATE UNTIL A
2ND, 3RD, 4TH BALLOT AT LEAST!
THE 1924 DEMOCRATIC
CONVENTION NOMINATED JOHN
W. DAVIS ON THE 103RD BALLOT!
 BUT, THE NATIONAL PARTY
CONVENTION WAS THE “DECISION
CENTER” UNTIL 1972
IN 1972 FOR THE FIRST TIME,
MOST OF THE NATIONAL
CONVENTION DELEGATES FOR THE
DEMS (AND EVENTUALLY, THE
REPUBLICANS AS WELL) WOULD
BE CHOSEN THROUGH DIRECT
PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES.
WHY?
THE 1968 PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION: CHAOS
THEORY…
 THERE WERE ONLY 13 DIRECT
(PLUS 4 “PREFERENCE)
PRIMARIES IN THE 1968 ELECTION
THE VAST MAJORITY OF
DELEGATES FOR BOTH PARTIES
WOULD BE CHOSEN BY OR
THROUGH
CAUCUSES (LAST TIME FOR THE
DEMS)…

1968 ANALYSIS BEGINNING WITH

THE REPUBLICANS:
 THE THRILLA IN VANILLA…

GOP: 1ST=NIXON BUT GEORGE

ROMNEY (GOV. MICH) IS A CLOSE
2ND
THEN HE MADE AN UNFORTUNATE COMMENT
ON WHY HE SUPPORTED THE VIETNAM WAR IN
1965 BUT
WAS BEGINNING TO OPPOSE IT IN 1967. HE
SAID IN AN INTERVIEW THAT HE HAD BEEN
“BRAINWASHED” BY
THE GENERALS AND THE DIPLOMATS THERE
WHO DID A “VERY THOROUGH JOB”
 Gallup Poll Results for George Romney (1967-68)

1967-68
Month of Pre- George Distance behind leader
election Year Romney % in % points (Nixon)
January 28 -11
February 31 -10
March 30 -9
April 28 -15
June 25 -14
August 24 -11
"BRAINWASHING" COMMENT (AIRED 9/4/67)
September 14 -26
October 13 -29
November 14 -28
January 68 12 -30
February 68 7 -44
Late February
7 -42
68
George Romney exits race (2/28/68)
Source: WWW.CENTERFORPOLITICS.ORG/CRYSTALBALL/ARTICLE.PHP?

ID=FRC2007092001AN

SO, AS IT TURNS OUT, NIXON’S

THE ONE…
NIXON’S NOMINATION MARKED A
REMARKABLE COMEBACK
BUT, HE DID NOT GET THE
NOMINATION UNCONTESTED
1968 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATES
Senator Frank Carlson of Senator Clifford Senator Hiram Fong of Mayor John Lindsay of
Kansas Case of New Jersey Hawaii New York City

former Vice President Governor Ronald Governor James A. Governor Nelson

Richard Nixon of Reagan of California Rhodes of Ohio Rockefeller of New York
California

Governor Winthrop
Rockefeller of Arkansas

Governor George former Governor Harold Governor John Volpe of

Romney of Michigan Stassen of Minnesota Massachusetts

General William
Westmoreland of South
Carolina
 THEIR NAMES WERE PLACED IN
NOMINATION, NOT ALL ACTIVELY
CAMPAIGNED FOR THIS HONOR
The Republican primaries 1968
The front-runner for the Republican nomination was
former Vice President Richard M. Nixon, and to a
great extent the story of the Republican primary
campaign and nomination is the story of one Nixon
opponent after another entering the race and then
dropping out.
Nixon's first challenger was Michigan Governor
George W. Romney. A Gallup poll in mid-1967 showed
Nixon with 39%, followed by Romney with 25%.
However, in a slip of the tongue, Romney told a news
reporter that he had been "brainwashed" by the
military and the diplomatic corps into supporting the
Vietnam War; the remark led to weeks of ridicule in
the national news media. As the year 1968 opened,
Romney was opposed to further American
intervention in Vietnam and had decided to run as the
Republican version of Eugene McCarthy (New York
Times 2/18/1968). Romney's support faded slowly,
and he withdrew from the race on February 28, 1968.
(New York Times 2/29/1968).
Nixon won a resounding victory in the important New
Hampshire primary on March 12, winning 78% of the
vote. Antiwar Republicans wrote in the name of New
York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, the leader of the
GOP's liberal wing, who received 11% of the vote and
became Nixon's new challenger. Nixon led Rockefeller
in the polls throughout the primary campaign.
 Rockefeller defeated Nixon in the Massachusetts
primary on April 30 but otherwise fared poorly in the
state primaries and conventions.
By early spring, California Governor Ronald Reagan,
the leader of the GOP's conservative wing, had
become Nixon's chief rival. In the Nebraska primary
on May 14, Nixon won with 70% of the vote to 21% for
Reagan and 5% for Rockefeller. While this was a wide
margin for Nixon, Reagan remained Nixon's leading
challenger. Nixon won the next primary of
importance, Oregon, on May 15 with 65% of the vote
and won all the following primaries except for
California (June 4), where only Reagan appeared on
the ballot. Reagan's margin in California gave him a
plurality of the nationwide primary vote, but when
the Republican National Convention assembled, Nixon
had 656 delegates according to a UPI poll (with 667
needed for the nomination).
At the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami
Beach, Florida, Reagan and Rockefeller planned to
unite their forces in a stop-Nixon movement, but the
strategy fell apart when neither man agreed to
support the other for the nomination. Nixon won the
nomination on the first ballot. Nixon then chose
Maryland Governor Spiro Agnew to be his Vice-
Presidential candidate, despite complaints from
within the GOP that Agnew was an unknown quantity,
and that a better-known and more popular candidate,
such as Romney, should have been the Vice-
Presidential nominee. It was also reported that
Nixon's first choice for running mate was his longtime
friend and ally, Robert Finch, who was Lt. Governor of
California since 1967 and later his HEW Secretary, but
Finch declined the offer.
 The Republican Convention Talley
(before (after
Vice
President switche switche
President
s) s)
Richard Spiro T. 111
692 1238
M. Nixon Agnew 9
Nelson
George
Rockefell 277 93 186
Romney
er
Ronald John V.
182 2 10
Reagan Lindsay
Ohio Massachuse
Governor tts Senator
55 — 1
James A. Edward
Rhodes Brooke
Michigan
Governor James A.
50 — 1
George Rhodes
Romney
New
Jersey
Senator 22 — Not Voting 16
Clifford
Case
Kansas
Senator
20 —
Frank
Carlson
Arkansas
Governor
Winthrop 18 — -
Rockefell
er
Hawaii
Senator
14 - -
Hiram
Fong
Harold
2 —
Stassen
New York
City
Mayor 1 — -
John V.
Lindsay
As of 2007, this was the last time two siblings (Nelson and Winthrop
Rockefeller) ran against each other in a Presidential primary.

IT LOOKED LIKE 1968 WOULD BE

CLOSE…
PRINCETON, N. J., Feb. 24--Richard M. Nixon
has drawn even with President Johnson in the
latest test of election strength, according to
the Gallup Poll
THE DEMOCRATS: THERE WILL
BE BLOOD…

DEMOCRATIC FRONTRUNNER GOING

INTO 1968: PRESIDENT LYNDON
JOHNSON
BUT HE HAD A PROBLEM, HE WAS AT
BEST THE 2ND MOST POPULAR
PERSON IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

WHO WAS 1ST?

 RFK AT THE 1964 DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION

RFK RESIGNS AS ATTORNEY GENERAL

TO RUN FOR US SENATOR FROM NY
IN EARLY 1964
HE WINS IN 1964 BY A MARGIN OF
VICTORY SMALLER THAN LBJ’S
POPULAR VOTE MARGIN IN NY
 AND ONLY AFTER EXTENSIVE
CAMPAIGNING BY LBJ ON RFK’S
BEHALF
MEANING: RFK OWED HIS SEAT TO
LBJ’S LANDSLIDE…
RFK WANTED TO BE THE VP
CANDIDATE IN 1964 BUT LBJ SHUT
HIM OUT…
 THERE WAS A LONG
HISTORY OF ANIMOSITY
BETWEEN THE 2 OF THEM
Fear and Loathing in the
White House
Why couldn't L.B.J. and Bobby Kennedy just
get along?
By DAVID M. OSHINSKY
n 1961, at a late-night supper in the White
House living quarters, Vice
President Lyndon B. Johnson MUTUAL
CONTEMPT
accosted Attorney General Lyndon
Robert F. Kennedy in front of Johnson,
embarrassed friends and Robert
Kennedy, and
officials. ''Bobby, you do not like the Feud That
me,'' Johnson declared. ''Your Defined a
brother likes me. Your sister-in- Decade.
By Jeff Shesol.
law likes me. Your daddy likes Illustrated.
me. But you don't like me. Now, 591 pp. New
why? Why don't you like me?'' York:
W. W. Norton
Kennedy did not respond to & Company.
Johnson that evening, but his $32.50.
feelings were clear. As Jeff
Shesol notes in ''Mutual Contempt,'' a
penetrating and richly detailed account of the
''feud'' that shaped the 60's, Kennedy despised
Johnson with a ferocity that startled many
observers, while Johnson harbored fears of
Kennedy that bordered on paranoia.
 Shesol, the creator of a syndicated political
comic strip, is a gifted writer. His book,
thoroughly researched, based on dozens of
manuscript collections and interviews, adds
fresh insight to a familiar story. Though
Kennedy and Johnson came from different
regions, social classes and generations, they
shared the common trait of their New Deal
Democratic Party -- identification with the
underdog. What seriously divided them, apart
from personal chemistry, was the struggle to
lead that party in an era of domestic turmoil
and political change.
The feud began in 1960, when Robert Kennedy
directed his brother John's successful
campaign for the Democratic Presidential
nomination. The main competitor, Johnson, the
Senate majority leader, raised not only the
''Catholic issue'' but also the health problems
of John F. Kennedy, who spent much of the 50's
recovering from delicate spinal surgery and
who had Addison's disease, an adrenal
malfunction that required daily doses of
cortisone. As the convention neared, Johnson
described his now-robust opponent as a ''little
scrawny fellow with rickets'' and other
unnamed maladies. The Kennedy camp
whispered about the lingering effects of
Johnson's 1955 heart attack.
Neither candidate took serious offense at
these charges. John Kennedy and Johnson had
built a solid working relationship in Congress.
Both men accepted the transparent, if
sometimes venomous, nature of political
campaigns. But Robert Kennedy was different.
As a Senate committee aide in the 50's, he had
confronted adversaries like Roy Cohn and
Jimmy Hoffa with a moral fervor bordering on
zealotry. Unlike his older brother, he
considered the campaign slurs and
insinuations to be personal attacks on his
family and his church. ''Jack Kennedy is the
first Irish Brahmin,'' a friend explained. ''Bobby
is the last Irish Puritan.''
The Robert Kennedy-Lyndon Johnson feud took
on a life of its own. With little thought (and for
reasons that still are unclear), John Kennedy
chose Johnson to be his running mate. When
news of this selection enraged key Northern
liberals, Robert Kennedy was dispatched to
Johnson's hotel suite to persuade him to
withdraw. He failed in his task, but did earn
Johnson's enmity as a ''grandstanding little
runt.''
Things quickly got worse. Johnson rankled the
Kennedys by claiming credit for winning
margins in Texas and other Southern states
that provided the razor-thin Democratic victory
in 1960. The Kennedys humbled Johnson, in
turn, by denying him a meaningful role in the
new Administration. When Johnson drafted a
rather audacious executive order giving the
Vice President ''general supervision'' of
numerous Federal agencies, President
Kennedy filed it away. He did treat Johnson
respectfully, but the White House inner circle,
led by Robert Kennedy, ignored Johnson in
public and belittled him mercilessly behind
 closed doors. A visitor to Robert Kennedy's
Virginia estate recalled a gathering at which
friends gave Kennedy a Johnson voodoo doll.
''The merriment,'' he wrote, ''was
overwhelming.''
In his evenhanded way, Shesol describes
Johnson's Vice Presidency as a period of
mental torture, fueled by Robert Kennedy's
derision and Johnson's inflated expectations of
the job. Denied a serious role in Washington,
Johnson tried to regain his vitality by globe-
trotting at a breakneck pace. Life, he said
later, was a blur of ''chauffeurs, men saluting,
people clapping. . . . I detested every minute of
it.'' While remaining loyal to President
Kennedy, he found their private meetings
uncomfortable -- and increasingly rare. ''Every
time I came into John Kennedy's presence,'' he
said, ''I felt like a goddamn raven hovering
over his shoulder.''
The President's assassination turned derision
into rage. Though neutral observers were
impressed by Johnson's compassion in these
painful days, Robert Kennedy thought
otherwise. It would have been difficult, under
the best circumstances, to forget that his
brother was murdered in Texas on a political
visit Johnson had encouraged. Even worse,
from Robert Kennedy's perspective, were
rumors Johnson had behaved boorishly on the
plane ride back from Dallas. In his anguish,
Kennedy seethed at every move the new
President made. It was ''quite clear,'' a Cabinet
member recollected, that Kennedy ''could
 hardly countenance Lyndon Johnson sitting in
his brother's seat.''
Once in office, Shesol notes, Johnson moved
quickly to restore public confidence through a
smooth transition of power. To provide
stability in the executive branch, he persuaded
many Kennedy appointees to remain at their
jobs. He also made certain that Robert
Kennedy, who resigned as Attorney General in
September 1964, would not be his running
mate that year. ''I'll quit it first!'' Johnson said.
''I don't want it that much!'' Seeking a political
niche apart from White House control, Kennedy
ran successfully for a Senate seat from New
York. It was in Congress, Shesol writes, that he
came into his own. His brother's death seemed
to sensitize him to the suffering of others. He
spent long hours investigating hunger in the
Mississippi Delta, joblessness in the Northern
ghettos and squalid conditions in the migrant
camps of central California. Though he and
Johnson agreed on most domestic issues, the
Senator's public presence and personal
magnetism easily overshadowed the President
at the peak of his political success. As Shesol
puts it, Johnson's Great Society ''kindled no
passion, just respect; there was no emerging
Johnson legend, just a Johnson record.''
Measured against the Kennedy magic, he came
up short again.
It was the Vietnam War that turned this private
feud into a public brawl. While Shesol is on
shaky ground in describing Kennedy's
supposed ambivalence about the Vietnam
 buildup in the early 60's, he does provide a
careful critique of his evolving antiwar stance
later. As his feelings intensified, Kennedy
became a savior to disillusioned Democrats, a
politician who expressed the anger and
idealism of the New Politics by linking the
Vietnam debacle to the racial and generational
struggles tearing the nation apart. Shesol is
correct, I believe, in claiming that Kennedy's
animus shifted from Johnson's personality to
his policies after 1964, while Johnson's
loathing of the Senator remained a deeply
personal matter.
Shortly after Kennedy announced his
candidacy for President in 1968, Johnson
withdrew from the race. While convinced he
could win re-election, the President no longer
relished the prize. The White House had
become his prison, surrounded by
demonstrators chanting Kennedy's name. ''I'm
tired of feeling rejected by the American
people,'' he said, ''tired of all these personal
attacks on me.'' Johnson blamed Kennedy for
spreading ''lies'' about him, in league with
''those bomb-throwing . . . fuzzy-headed
Georgetown liberals.'' In June 1968, Robert
Kennedy was shot by a deranged Arab
nationalist in Los Angeles. As the Senator lay
dying, Johnson went on national television to
express his ''shock'' and ''dismay.'' That
evening, Johnson repeatedly phoned the Secret
Service to ask if Kennedy had died. He paced
the floor for hours, phone in hand, muttering:
''I've got to know. Is he dead? Is he dead yet?''
 This, sadly, was not the end of it. Though
Johnson promised Kennedy's family to do
''anything I can do to help,'' he delayed their
lone request -- to finance a permanent grave
site for the Senator at Arlington National
Cemetery, next to his brother John's. In 1969, a
new President took the appropriate steps. As
he signed the final authorization, Richard
Nixon, who knew a thing or two about political
grudges, must have smiled.

THE STORY IS THAT RFK

MEETS WITH LBJ IN 1967
AND THREATENS TO
CHALLENGE LBJ FOR THE
DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION
IN 1968, SPLITTING THE
PARTY IN 2 AND THROWING
THE ELECTION TO NIXON…
LBJ CALLS HIS BLUFF, AND
RFK ANNOUNCES HE WILL
NOT RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN
1968
SO, RFK IS OUT, EUGENE
MCCARTHY IS IN! (NOV 30TH
1968 JUST SO YOU KNOW)
THE WORLD RESPONDS: GENE
WHO?
CHRISTMAS 1967: LBJ
PRESSURES WESTMORLAND
TO ANNOUNCE
THE WAR IS OVER IN
VIETNAM
 SENATOR ROBERT F. KENNEDY
(RFK)
INSISTS HE WILL NOT CHALLENGE
LBJ IN 1968 (1/30/68)
1/31/68: TET OFFENSIVE BEGINS
IN VIETNAM
70K COMMUNIST GUERELLAS
(INSURGENTS) ATTACK US &
SOUTH VIETNAMESE EVERYWHERE
BUT, WASN’T THE WAR OVER?

2/1/68 THIS PICTURE IS TAKEN

 2/2/68
NIXON

ANNOUNCES HIS CANDIDACY FOR

PRESIDENT
 (THIS WILL NOT BE MY FINAL
PRESS CONFERENCE)
2/6/68 “LOOK” MAGAZINE
ARTICLE ASKS MCCARTHY “WHAT
ABOUT BOB”?
2/27/68:
CRONKITE
CRITICIZES
VIETNAM WAR
2/28/68: WESTMORLAND ASKS
FOR 206,000 MORE TROOPS
BE SENT TO VIETNAM (THEY
WON’T BE…)

3/2/68 RFK
MEETS AT
HICKORY
HILL (HOME) TO CONTEMPLATE
ENTERING 1968 ELECTION

3/9/68: BEATLES WIN GRAMMY

ALBUM OF THE YEAR FOR THIS
ALBUM
3/10/68: RFK FLIES OUT TO
CALIFORNIA TO SHOW
SUPPORT FOR FARM WORKERS
STRIKE

3/12/68
NEW

HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY RESULTS

1968 - Lyndon Johnson* (49.6%) Eugene
McCarthy (41.4%) Richard M. Nixon (4.6%)
1968 - RICHARD M. NIXON* (77.6%) NELSON
ROCKEFELLER (10.8%) EUGENE MCCARTHY (5.3%)
LYNDON JOHNSON (1.7%)
GEORGE ROMNEY (1.7%)
A POST-ELECTION SURVEY WOULD
FIND 3 OUT OF 5 MCCARTHY
VOTERS THOUGHT MCCARTHY
WOULD
KICK ASS IN VIETNAM…
(EXPLAINED IN CLASS)

3/16/68 RFK ANNOUNCES HE’S IN

(MY LAI MASSACRE OCCURS 500
VILLAGERS MURDERED BY US
TROOPS)

MARCH 26 -- RICHARD M. NIXON

HAS A SLIM 41-TO-39 PER CENT
LEAD OVER PRESIDENT JOHNSON
IN THE LATEST GALLUP POLL
"TRIAL HEAT," CONDUCTED
FOLLOWING THE NEW HAMPSHIRE
PRIMARY. FAR BEHIND MR. NIXON
AND MR. JOHNSON, BUT GAINING
STRENGTH, IS FORMER GOV.
GEORGE C. WALLACE OF
ALABAMA, WITH 14 PER CENT OF
THE VOTE.

3/31/68 LBJ ANNOUNCES HE’S OUT

4/2/68: MCCARTHY WINS THE

WISCONSIN PRIMARY

4/4/68 MLK IS OUT

 4/19/68 VICE-PRESIDENT
HUMPHREY IS IN
BUT IT IS TOO LATE FOR HIS NAME
TO BE ON ANY PRIMARY BALLOTS
 HE RUNS AS THE PRO-WAR
CANDIDATE FOR THE DEMS
PICKS UP MOST OF LBJ’S SUPPORT
NOTE: WITH LBJ OUT, THE
DELEGATES COULD VOTE FOR
ANYONE THEY WANTED TO…
HUMPHREY TRAVELS AROUND THE
COUNTRY TO SHORE UP PARTY
ORG SUPPORT
IN THE MEANTIME…

PRINCETON, N. J., April 20 -- Richard M.

Nixon leads each of the three top
Democratic Presidential hopefuls --
Senator Robert F. Kennedy, Vice
President Humphrey and Senator Eugene
J. McCarthy -- in a nationwide survey just
completed by the Gallup Poll. Mr. Nixon
holds a 9-point lead over Mr. Humphrey in
this Gallup survey of election strength

MCCARTHY WINS A COUPLE

PRIMARY STATES
KENNEDY WINS A FEW PRIMARY
STATES
 SOME “FAVORITE SON”
CANDIDATES WIN A COUPLE OF
STATES…
PRINCETON, N. J., May 11 -Both Richard M.
Nixon and Governor Rockefeller lead the top
three Democratic Presidential candidates --
Vice President Humphrey, Senator Robert F.
Kennedy and Senator Eugene J. McCarthy -- in
the latest Gallup Poll.

EUGENE MCCARTHY
  ILLINOIS (AFTER CAL)
 MASSACHUSETTS
 NEW JERSEY
 OREGON
 PENNSYLVANIA
 WISCONSIN
ROBERT KENNEDY
 CALIFORNIA
 INDIANA
 NEBRASKA
 SOUTH DAKOTA
LYNDON B. JOHNSON
 NEW HAMPSHIRE
STEPHEN M. YOUNG
 OHIO
GEORGE SMATHERS
 FLORIDA
TOTAL POPULAR VOTE[3]:
 EUGENE MCCARTHY - 2,914,933 (38.73%)
 ROBERT KENNEDY - 2,305,148 (30.63%)
 STEPHEN M. YOUNG - 549,140 (7.30%)
 LYNDON B. JOHNSON - 383,590 (5.10%)
 THOMAS C. LYNCH - 380,286 (5.05%)
 ROGER D. BRANIGIN - 238,700 (3.17%)
 GEORGE SMATHERS - 236,242 (3.14%)
 HUBERT HUMPHREY - 166,463 (2.21%)
 UNPLEDGED - 161,143 (2.14%)
 SCOTT KELLY - 128,899 (1.71%)
 GEORGE WALLACE - 34,489 (0.46%)
 RICHARD NIXON (WRITE-IN) - 13,610 (0.18%)
 RONALD REAGAN (WRITE-IN) - 5,309 (0.07%)
 TED KENNEDY - 4,052 (0.05%)
 PAUL C. FISHER - 506 (0.01%)
 JOHN G. CROMMELIN - 186 (0.00%)

THE 1968 OREGON PRIMARY

 RFK LOSES TO MCCARTHY
RFK COMMENT, “NOT ENOUGH
GHETTOS” IN OREGON…

BIG PRIMARY: CALIFORNIA, A

“WINNER TAKE ALL” PRIMARY
RFK WINS
AND IS LOOKING GOOD IN
ILLINOIS, FOR A WHILE…
CUT TO VIDEOS…

6/5/1968
AT THE MOMENT OF RFK'S DEATH,
THE DELEGATE TOTALS WERE:
 HUBERT HUMPHREY 561
  ROBERT KENNEDY 393
 EUGENE MCCARTHY 258
1968 PRIMARIES

PRINCETON, N.J., July 10 -- Richard M. Nixon

trails Vice President Humphrey by five
percentage points in the latest trial heats run
by the Gallup Poll, but Governor Rockefeller is
even with Mr. Humphrey (Headline): Politics:
Gallup Poll Finds Humphrey Tops Nixon and
Runs Even With Rockefeller; EX-VICE
PRESIDENT LAGGING, 35 TO 40% But
Survey Shows Wallace Gains Against
Governor

1968 DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION A

RIOT! LITERALLY
KENNEDY DELEGATES SUPPORT
HUMPHREY, NOT MCCARTHY
The Final Ballot 1968 Democratic Convention

Presidential tally Vice Presidential tally:

Hubert Humphrey 1759.25 Edmund S. Muskie 1942.5

Eugene McCarthy 601 Not Voting 604.25

 George S. McGovern 146.5 Julian Bond 48.5

Channing Phillips 67.5 David Hoeh 4

Daniel K. Moore 17.5 Edward M. Kennedy 3.5

Edward M. Kennedy 12.75 Eugene McCarthy 3.0

Paul E. "Bear" Bryant 1.5 Others 16.25

James H. Gray 0.5

George Wallace 0.5

AFTER THE CONVENTION,

HUMPHREY IS BEHIND NIXON
PRINCETON, Sept. 14 -- As the Presidential campaign
intensifies, Richard M. Nixon holds a 43-to-31 lead
over Vice President Humphrey, with George C.
Wallace receiving 19 per cent of the popular vote,
according to the Gallup Poll. (Headline): Republican
Runs Ahead in Gallup Poll, 43-31, a Slight Decline;
GALLUP POLL GIVES NIXON 43-31 LEAD

PRINCETON, N.J., Oct. 21 -- The latest Gallup Poll

shows Vice President Humphrey making some
progress in closing the gap on Richard M. Nixon, but
Mr. Nixon holds a 43-to-31 per cent lead nationally
over Mr. Humphrey.

NIXON WINS BY 1.1%

Richard Milhous Party:
REPUBLICAN
NIXON Home State:
Spiro Theodore Agnew PR: NY; VP:
MD
Electoral
Votes: 301
Pop. Vote:
31,710,470

(43.4%)

Hubert Horatio Party:

DEMOCRATIC
HUMPHREY Home State:
Edmund Sixtus PR: MN; VP:
Muskie ME
Electoral
Votes: 191
Pop. Vote:
30,898,055

(42.3%)
George Corley Party:
AMERICAN
WALLACE INDEPENDENT
Curtis Emerson Home State:
LeMay PR: AL; VP:
OH
Electoral
Votes: 46
Pop. Vote:
9,446,167

(12.9%)
Party:
Other SEVERAL
Candidates Electoral
Peace and Freedom, Votes: 0
Socialist Labor, Pop. Vote:
Socialist Workers , 965,512 (1.3%)
etc.
Total electoral votes - 538 (from 50 states and D.C.)
Majority needed to win - 270
Total popular vote - 73,020,204
 Close states
1. Missouri, 1.1%
2. Texas, 1.2%
3. Washington, 2.1%
4. New Jersey, 2.1%
5. Ohio, 2.3%
6. Alaska, 2.7%
7. Illinois, 2.9%
8. California, 3.1%
9. Pennsylvania, 3.6%
10. Wisconsin, 3.6%
11. Tennessee, 3.8%
12. Connecticut, 5.2%
13. New York, 5.4%
 14. South Carolina, 5.7%
15. Oregon, 6.0%
16. Kentucky, 6.1%
17. Michigan, 6.7%
18. Arkansas, 7.6%
19. Nevada, 8.1%
20. Colorado, 8.1%
21. North Carolina, 8.2%
22. West Virginia, 8.8%
23. Montana, 9.0%
24. New Hampshire, 9.2%
25. Florida, 9.6%
26. Vermont, 9.8%

National voter demographics

NBC sample precincts 1968 election

% Humphrey % Nixon % Wallace

High income urban 29 63 5

Middle income urban 43 44 13

Low income urban 69 19 12

Rural (all income) 33 46 21

African-American neighborhoods 94 5 1

Italian neighborhoods 51 39 10
 Slavic neighborhoods 65 24 11

Jewish neighborhoods 81 17 2

Unionized neighborhoods 61 29 10

Source: Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report. “Group Analysis of the

1968 Presidential Vote” XXVI, No. 48 (November 1968), p. 3218.
[edit] Voter demographics in the South

NBC sample precincts 1968 election: South only

% Humphrey % Nixon % Wallace

Middle income urban neighborhoods 28 40 32

Low income urban neighborhoods 57 18 25

Rural (all income) 29 30 41

African-American neighborhoods 95 3 2

Hispanic neighborhoods 92 7 1

Source: Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report. “Group Analysis of the

1968 Presidential Vote”, XXVI, No. 48 (November 1968), p. 3218.
IN 1971 THE MCGOVERN-FRAZIER
COMMISSION IS FORMED
AND THEY LOOK AT THE 1968
ELECTION AND DECIDE: NOT
ENOUGH PRIMARIES
THEY COULD JUST HAVE EASILY
CONCLUDED THE OPPOSITE…
SO, IN 1972, FOR THE 1ST TIME
EVER, AND THEN FOREVER SINCE
AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY OF
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL
CONVENTION DELEGATES
WILL BE CHOSEN THROUGH
DIRECT PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES
WHAT NOBODY SEEMED TO
UNDERSTAND UP TO THIS TIME
(BECAUSE PRIMARIES HAD NEVER
BEEN IMPORTANT)
IS THAT PRIMARY VOTERS ARE
“DIFFERENT” THAN GENERAL
ELECTION VOTERS
 VOTING TURNOUT IN PRIMARY
ELECTIONS IS TYPICALLY LOW
FOR DEMS, THE MOST LIBERAL
DEMS ARE THE MOST LIKELY TO
VOTE
FOR REPUBLICANS, THE
CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS ARE
THE MOST LIKELY TO VOTE
THIS MEANS THAT WE SOON HAVE
EACH PARTY SIMULTANEOUSLY
NOMINATING FOLKS
WHO ARE REALLY ACCEPTABLE TO
THE PARTY, BUT LESS
ACCEPTABLE TO THE GENERAL
ELECTION VOTER
PIE CHOICE IN 1972=MCGOVERN
PARTY ORGANIZATION CHOICE:
HUMPHREY
MCGOVERN WINS THE
DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION BUT IS
SEEN BY MANY DEMOCRATIC
ORGANIZATION FOLKS AS
UNDESIRABLE AND UNELECTABLE.
THEY CAMPAIGN FOR NIXON
AGAINST MCGOVERN.
MCGOVERN LOSES 49 STATES TO
NIXON
IN 1976, CONSERVATIVE BORN-
AGAIN CHRISTIANS ALMOST
NOMINATE
RONALD REAGAN OVER
PRESIDENT GERALD FORD FOR
THE REPUBLICANS
 PIE CHOICE = REAGAN
PARTY ORGANIZATION CHOICE =
FORD
FORD WINS THE NOMINATION BUT
LOSES TO CARTER AS BORN AGAIN
FOLKS VOTE FOR CARTER
IN 1980, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
ORGANIZATION THOUGHT THEY
HAD JUST
NOMINATED THEIR OWN VERSION
OF MCGOVERN WHEN REAGAN,
THE CHOICE OF
CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN
PARTY PRIMARY VOTERS WINS
OVER
THE CHOICE OF THE REPUBLICAN
PARTY ESTABLISHMENT, GEORGE
HW BUSH
 THERE WAS A STOP REAGAN
MOVEMENT THAT FAILED
YOU’D NEVER KNOW IT TODAY…
WHEN THAT FAILED, THE
REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT
TRIED TO GET REAGAN
TO PICK FORD AS HIS RUNNING
MATE
 DURING THE CONVENTION, THE
POSSIBILITY OF CHOOSING
FORMER PRESIDENT GERALD
FORD AS THE VICE-PRESIDENTIAL
NOMINEE WAS GIVEN AT LEAST
SOME CONSIDERATION. FORD
ASKED FOR CERTAIN POWERS AND
PREROGATIVES THAT HAS BEEN
DESCRIBED AS MAKING FORD A
CO-PRESIDENT. THIS INCLUDED
THE RETURN OF HENRY KISSINGER
AS SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE
APPOINTMENT OF ALAN
GREENSPAN AS SECRETARY OF
THE TREASURY. THE TWO SIDES
COULD NOT AGREE AND
ULTIMATELY, GEORGE BUSH WAS
CHOSEN LESS THAN 24 HOURS
BEFORE THE TICKET WAS
ANNOUNCED. (WIKIPEDIA)

CO-PRESIDENT: SOUND FAMILIAR?

 THE DEMS COULD NOT BELIEVE
THEY HAD LOST THE PRESIDENCY
TO A PUNCHLINE
(LAUGHIN, NEWS OF THE FUTURE,
1968)
SO, THEY COME UP WITH PLANS
TO ENSURE THIS WOULD NEVER
HAPPEN AGAIN!

PLAN A:
SUPERDELEGAT
ES
TED KENNEDY FOUGHT CARTER
FOR THE DEMOCRATIC
NOMINATION IN 1980.
BY THE TIME THE 1980
DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION WAS
HELD, IT WAS OBVIOUS
CARTER COULD NOT GET RE-
ELECTED (TO EVERYONE EXCEPT
JIMMY AND ROSALYN)
KENNEDY TRIED TO GET
CONVENTION RULE 11(H)
CHANGED FOR DELEGATES
ORIGINALLY
PLEDGED TO VOTE FOR CARTER
WOULD VOTE FOR KENNEDY
INSTEAD.
 SENATOR KENNEDY

THE RULE WAS CHANGED FOR THE

1984 ELECTION BY THE HUNT
COMMISSION
AND BECOMES THE GENESIS OF
THE “SUPERDELEGATE”
PHENOMENON

Congressmen, stung by the lack of impact

they had been able to have on the 1980
process, and fearing that 1984 would be a
repeat, banded together to ask that 2/3 of
the Democratic Members of the House be
elected by the House Caucus as
uncommitted voting delegates to the
1984 Convention. Led by Congressman
Gillis Long, Chairman of the House
Democratic Caucus, Members asserted
that they had a special role to play in the
nomination process and in the platform
process.
SOURCE:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18072/history_of_superd
elegates_in_the_democratic_party.html

THE BASIC PURPOSE OF

SUPERDELEGATES WAS TO ADD A
CHECK ON THE WILL OF
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS
THE FEAR WAS, IF THE DEMS ARE
ABOUT TO NOMINATE ANOTHER
MCGOVERN, THESE
PROFESSIONAL, ELECTED
DEMOCRATIC OFFICE-HOLDERS
(AND OTHERS) CAN PERHAPS
CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE
NOMINATION
BY VOTING TOGETHER AS A BLOCK
FOR THE MOST ELECTABLE
CANDIDATE.
(NOTE: MOST OF THE 2008
SUPERDELEGATES ENDORSED
OBAMA)

SO, 1984 COMES AND GOES, AND

THIS IS WHAT THE ELECTION MAP
LOOKED LIKE IN NOVEMBER
 ANOTHER 49 STATE DISASTER

PLAN B: THE
DLC IS FORMED
The Democratic Leadership Council is a non-
profit 501(c)(4) corporation [1] that argues
that the United States Democratic Party should
shift away from traditionally populist positions.
The DLC hails President Clinton as proof of the
viability of third way politicians and as a DLC
success story while progressives assert that
Bill Clinton won campaigning as a populist only
to abandon those positions after getting
elected. Critics contend that the DLC is a
powerful, corporate-financed mouthpiece
within the Democratic party - or "The
Republican Wing of the Democratic Party"[2].
The DLC's affiliated think tank is the
Progressive Policy Institute. Democrats who
adhere to the DLC's philosophy often call
themselves New Democrats. Others use this
label too though and belong to other
organizations and have differing agendas
contesting to define that term and control the
party's future.
The DLC's current chairman is former
Representative Harold Ford, Jr. of Tennessee,
and its vice chair is Senator Thomas R. Carper
of Delaware. Its CEO is Al From and its
president is Bruce Reed

THE DLC IS AN INTEREST GROUP

THAT PERFORMS THE SAME
FUNCTION
THE PARTY ORGANIZATION
PERFORMED BEFORE 1972!
THEY DECIDE TO BACK GORE FOR
THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION IN
1988
GORE FINISHES IN 3RD PLACE IN A
3 WAY RACE
THE CHOICE OF THE DEMOCRATIC
PIE BECOMES THE NOMINEE IN
1988
IN ALL FAIRNESS, DUKAKIS WAS
AHEAD UNTIL THE WILLIE HORTON
AD APPEARED…

PLAN C
HOLD AUDITIONS AT PAMELA
HARRIMAN’S ESTATE IN VIRGINIA
THEN BACK WHOEVER PROMISES
TO DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO
WIN
THE DEMOCRATS WIN THE NEXT 3
GENERAL ELECTIONS (POPULAR
VOTE ONLY)
1992, 1996, 2000

BUT IN EVERY VICTORY, ARE

SEWN THE SEEDS OF DEFEAT…
IN 2000 R. NADER RIDES A WAVE
OF LIBERAL BACKLASH AGAINST
DLC WITHIN DEMOCRATIC PARTY
BY VOTING FOR NADER, LIBERALS
ELECTED BUSH!
 2006: MORE CONSERVATIVE DEMS
+ ANTI-WAR VOTE BRINGS REGIME
CHANGE TO DC
FOR THE REPUBLICANS: THE
CHRISTIAN COALITION IS THE
REPUBLICAN VERSION OF THE DLC
EXCEPT, THE DLC MAKES DEMS
SEEM MORE REASONABLE, THE CC
MAKES REPUBLICANS SEEM LESS
SO…
2008 ELECTION
DEMOCRATS CARRY STATES THEY
HAVEN’T CARRIED SINCE 1964

Election Results 2008

Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Skip Navigation to Main Content

•
Overall

1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004

the
 Sex

1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004

he
Men Democrat 36 50 36 37 41 41 43 42 44
e
Republican 62 48 55 62 57 38 44 53 55
Independen - - 7 - - 21 10 3 -
t
Wome Democrat 37 50 45 44 49 45 54 54 51
n Republican 61 48 47 56 50 37 38 43 48
Independen - - 7 - - 17 7 2 -
t

Race & Ethnicity

1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004

White Democrat 31 47 36 35 40 39 43 42 41
ate
Republican 67 52 56 64 59 40 46 54 58
Independen - - 7 - - 20 9 3 -
t
Black Democrat 82 83 85 90 86 83 84 90 88
Republican 18 16 11 9 12 10 12 8 11
Independen - - 3 - - 7 4 1 -
t
Hispanic Democrat 63 - 56 62 69 61 72 62 53
Republican 35 - 35 37 30 25 21 35 44
Independen - - 8 - - 14 6 2 -
t
Asian Democrat - - - - - 31 43 54 56
Republican - - - - - 55 48 41 44
Independen - - - - - 15 8 4 -
t

Age
 197 197 198 198 198 199 199 200 200 2
2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4
18- Democrat 46 51 44 40 47 43 53 48 54 6
he 29 Republican 52 47 43 59 52 34 34 46 45 3
torat years Independe - - 11 - - 22 10 5 - -
old nt
30- Democrat 33 49 36 42 45 41 48 48 46 5
44 Republican 64 49 55 57 54 38 41 49 53 4
years Independe - - 8 - - 21 9 2 - -
old nt
45- Democrat 33 47 39 40 42 41 48 48 48 4
59 Republican 64 52 55 60 57 40 41 49 51 4
years Independe - - 5 - - 19 9 2 - -
old nt
60 Democrat 31 47 41 39 49 50 48 51 46 4
and Republican 68 52 54 60 50 38 44 47 54 5
older Independe - - 4 - - 12 7 2 - -
nt

Political Ideology

197 197 198 198 198 199 199 200 200

2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4
Liberals Democrat - 71 60 70 81 68 78 80 85
Republican - 26 25 28 18 14 11 13 13
at Independe - - 11 - - 18 7 6 -
nt
Moderates Democrat - 51 42 47 50 47 57 52 54
Republican - 48 49 53 49 31 33 44 45
Independe - - 8 - - 21 9 2 -
nt
Conservativ Democrat - 29 23 17 19 18 20 17 15
es Republican - 70 73 82 80 64 71 81 84
Independe - - 4 - - 18 8 1 -
nt

Geography
 197 197 198 198 198 199 199 200 200
2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4
Northea Democrat 39 51 42 47 49 47 55 56 55
e st Republican 59 47 47 53 50 35 34 39 43
orat Independe - - 9 - - 18 9 3 -
nt
Midwest Democrat 39 48 41 41 47 42 48 48 48
Republican 59 50 51 58 52 37 41 49 51
Independe - - 7 - - 21 10 2 -
nt
South Democrat 29 54 44 36 41 41 46 43 42
Republican 70 45 52 64 58 43 46 55 58
Independe - - 3 - - 16 7 1 -
nt
West Democrat 40 46 34 38 46 43 48 48 50
Republican 57 51 53 61 52 34 40 46 49
Independe - - 10 - - 23 8 4 -
nt

Education

ers in 2008 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 200
Not a Democrat - - 51 50 56 54 59 59 50
high Republican - - 46 50 43 28 28 39 49
school Independen - - 2 - - 18 11 1 -
graduate t
High Democrat - - 43 39 49 43 51 48 47
school Republican - - 51 60 50 36 35 49 52
graduate Independen - - 4 - - 21 13 1 -
t
Some Democrat - - 35 38 42 41 48 45 46
college Republican - - 55 61 57 37 40 51 54
educatio Independen - - 8 - - 21 10 3 -
n t
College Democrat - - - - 37 39 44 45 46
graduate Republican - - - - 62 41 46 51 52
Independen - - - - - 20 8 3 -
 t
Post Democrat - - - - 48 50 52 52 55
graduate Republican - - - - 50 36 40 44 44
educatio Independen - - - - - 14 5 3 -
n t

Religion

197 197 198 198 198 199 199 200 200

2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4
White Democrat 22 41 31 27 33 33 36 34 32
Protestants Republican 76 58 63 72 66 47 53 63 67
ate Independent - - 6 - - 21 10 2 -
White Democrat 42 52 40 42 43 42 48 45 43
Catholics Republican 57 46 51 57 56 37 41 52 56
Independent - - 7 - - 22 10 2 -
Jewish Democrat 64 64 45 67 64 80 78 79 74
Republican 34 34 39 31 35 11 16 19 25
Independent - - 15 - - 9 3 1 -
Born-again Democrat - - 40 30 24 31 - - 34
or Republican - - 56 69 74 56 - - 65
evangelical Independent - - 3 - - 14 - - -
Christians
Attend Democrat - - - - - 36 - 39 38
religious Republican - - - - - 48 - 59 60
services at Independent - - - - - 15 - 2 -
least once
a week

Family Income

197 197 198 198 198 199 199 200 200

2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4
Under Democrat - - 49 - - 58 59 57 63
e $15,000 Republican - - 43 - - 23 28 37 36
orat Independe - - 7 - - 19 11 4 -
nt
 $15,000 Democrat - - - - - 45 53 54 57
- Republican - - - - - 35 36 41 42
$29,999 Independe - - - - - 20 9 3 -
nt
$30,000 Democrat - - - - - 41 48 49 50
- Republican - - - - - 38 40 48 49
$49,999 Independe - - - - - 21 10 2 -
nt
$50,000 Democrat - - - - - 40 47 46 43
- Republican - - - - - 41 45 51 56
$74,999 Independe - - - - - 18 7 2 -
nt
$75,000 Democrat - - - - - - 44 45 45
- Republican - - - - - - 48 52 55
$99,999 Independe - - - - - - 7 2 -
nt
$200,00 Democrat - - - - - - - - 35
0 and Republican - - - - - - - - 63
over Independe - - - - - - - - -
nt
$100,00 Democrat - - - - 32 - 38 43 41
0 and Republican - - - - 65 - 54 54 58
over Independe - - - - - - 6 2 -
nt

Family's Financial Situation

197 197 198 198 198 199 199 200 200 2

2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4
Bette Democrat - 30 - - - 24 66 61 19 3
he r Republican - 70 - - - 61 26 36 80 6
torat today Independe - - - - - 14 6 2 - -
nt
Same Democrat - 51 - - - 41 46 35 50 4
today Republican - 49 - - - 42 45 60 49 5
Independe - - - - - 17 8 3 - -
nt
 Wors Democrat - 77 - - - 60 27 33 79 7
e Republican - 23 - - - 14 57 63 20 2
today Independe - - - - - 25 13 4 - -
nt
ner R D R R R D D D/R R D

Size of Place

197 197 198 198 198 199 199 200 200

2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4
Population Democrat 56 - - 63 62 58 68 71 60
over Republican 43 - - 35 37 28 25 26 39
ate 500,000 Independent - - - - - 13 6 3 -
Population Democrat 40 - - 46 52 50 50 57 49
50,000 to Republican 58 - - 53 47 33 39 40 49
500,000 Independent - - - - - 16 8 2 -
Suburbs Democrat 33 - 35 38 42 41 47 47 47
Republican 65 - 55 61 57 39 42 49 52
Independent - - 9 - - 21 8 3 -
Population Democrat 40 - - - 38 39 48 38 48
10,000 to Republican 57 - - - 61 42 41 59 50
50,000 Independent - - - - - 20 9 2 -
Rural Democrat 30 - 39 - 44 39 44 37 39
areas Republican 68 - 55 - 55 40 46 59 59
Independent - - 5 - - 20 10 2 -

First Time Voters

197 197 198 198 198 199 199 200 200 2

2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4
First Democrat - - - 38 47 46 54 52 53 6
he time Republican - - - 61 51 32 34 43 45 3
torat voter
s Independe - - - - - 22 11 4 - -
nt
 Previous Presidential Vote

197 197 198 198 198 199 199 200 200

2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4
For the Democrat 78 73 63 82 92 83 85 82 90
Democratic Republican 21 26 29 18 7 5 9 15 10
ate candidate Independent - - 6 - - 12 4 2 -
For the Democrat 9 18 11 11 19 21 13 7 9
Republican Republican 90 79 83 88 80 59 82 91 90
candidate Independent - - 6 - - 20 4 1 -

Race and Age

197 197 198 198 198 199 199 200 200 2

2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4
Whites, Democrat 41 48 38 31 39 38 45 39 44 5
e 18-29 Republican 57 50 48 68 60 38 41 55 55 4
orate years Independent - - 12 - - 24 11 5 - -
old
Whites, Democrat 26 45 31 36 39 36 41 41 37 4
30-44 Republican 71 53 59 63 60 41 47 56 62 5
years Independent - - 8 - - 23 10 2 - -
old
Whites, Democrat 29 44 34 34 36 37 43 42 42 4
45-59 Republican 69 55 59 65 63 42 46 54 57 5
years Independent - - 5 - - 21 9 2 - -
old
Whites, Democrat 26 45 39 37 45 47 45 46 42 4
60 and Republican 72 54 56 63 54 40 47 52 58 5
older Independent - - 4 - - 13 7 2 - -

Sex and Race

197 197 198 198 198 199 199 200 200 2

2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4
White Democrat 31 47 32 32 36 37 38 36 37 4
e men Republican 66 51 59 67 63 40 49 60 62 5
orate Independent - - 7 - - 22 11 3 - -
White Democrat 31 46 39 38 43 41 48 48 44 4
women Republican 68 52 52 62 56 41 43 49 55 5
Independent - - 8 - - 19 8 2 - -
Black Democrat 77 80 82 85 81 78 78 85 86 9
men Republican 23 19 14 12 15 13 15 12 13 5
Independent - - 3 - - 9 5 1 - -
Black Democrat 86 86 88 93 90 87 89 94 90 9
women Republican 14 14 9 7 9 8 8 6 10 3
Independent - - 3 - - 5 2 - - -

Race and Region

197 197 198 198 198 199 199 200 200

2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4
Whites in Democrat 34 49 38 42 45 44 51 52 50
the Republican 65 50 52 57 54 36 37 44 49
rate Northeast Independent - - 10 - - 19 10 4 -
Whites in Democrat 32 46 37 35 42 40 45 44 43
the Republican 65 52 55 64 57 39 43 53 56
Midwest Independent - - 7 - - 22 10 2 -
Whites in Democrat 23 47 35 28 32 34 36 31 29
the South Republican 76 52 61 71 67 49 56 66 70
Independent - - 3 - - 18 8 1 -
Whites in Democrat 36 44 32 33 41 39 43 43 45
the West Republican 60 54 55 66 58 37 44 51 54
Independent - - 10 - - 24 9 4 -

POLITICAL PARTIES IN TEXAS:

 HISTORIC DOMINANCE OF
DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO 1980S
CONSERVATIVE, WHITE,
CONFEDERATE DEMOCRATS
DOMINATE PARTY
REAGAN’S 1980 REPUBLICAN
PLATFORM RESEMBLES DIXIECRAT
PLATFORM OF 1948
HE EVEN ANNOUNCES HIS
CANDIDACY IN PHILADELPHIA,
MISS8ISSIPPI
REAGAN’S VICTORY MAKES
REPUBLICAN PARTY’S PLATFORM
PERFECTLY CONSISTENT WITH
TRADITIONAL SOUTHERN
CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS
 MANY TEXAS AND SOUTHERN
DEMS LEAVE THE PARTY, BECOME
REPUBICANS
OTHER DEMS LEAVE OFFICE, ARE
REPLACED BY REPUBLICANS
BY 1995; SOUTHERN WHITE
STATEWIDE OFFICEHOLDERS IN
TEXAS ARE EXTINCT
PARTY SHIFT IN TEXAS DOES NOT
MEAN AN IDEOLOGICAL SHIFT
THOUGH…

TIME PERMITTING: HOW THE

REAGAN AND BUSH FOLKS DON’T
GET ALONG…
AND WHY…
Know the types of primaries
 Direct
Preference (indirect)
Open
Closed
CLOSED PRIMARY STATES (LIKE
PA) REALLY HELP CAMPAIGNS TO
TARGET
SPECIFIC VOTERS BY HOME OR BY
PHONE (OR EVEN EMAIL)
AND MAKES IT EASIER TO “GET
OUT THE VOTE” ON OR BEFORE
ELECTION DAY

TEXAS IS AN OPEN PRIMARY

STATE
 YOU DON’T REGISTER AS A
DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN OR
INDEPENDENT
MAKES IT HARDER FOR PARTIES
TO TARGET SUPPORTERS AND GET
OUT THE VOTE
ON THE OTHER HAND,
TEXAS DOES HAVE EARLY VOTING,
PA DOES NOT…

MY 2008 PA 10TH DISTRICT

CAMPAIGN PHOTOS

THE “WAR” ROOM

YES, THEY LET ME IN!
 THE LADY IN BLUE IS THE
CANDIDATE’S CHIEF OF STAFF
SHE’D GET CALLS FROM STATE
ELECTION HQ WITH VOTING
RESULTS
THE GUY IN THE RED TIE WAS THE
CAMPAIGN LAWYER
 (HE MADE US ALL LEAVE WHEN
THERE WERE PROBLEMS WITH THE
ELECTION RETURNS FROM NORTH
UMBRIDGE)
CANDIDATE IS IN BLUE TIE
THE GUY IN RED SHORTS AND
LONG COAT AT THE END OF THE
TABLE IS “SILENT BOB” (NOT
REALLY)
HIS TASK WAS TO ENTER THE
NUMBERS INTO A SPREADSHEET
AND READ OUT THE
PERCENTAGES…!!!

THE WATCH PARTY IN THE HOTEL

BELOW
 BEER AND WINE WERE BOTH
FREE!
ISN’T DEMOCRACY GRAND?

I TOOK A PICTURE OF THE TV AS

THE REPORTER WAS LIVE FROM
 THE PARTY, POTENTIALLY
CAUSING A RIP IN THE TIME-
SPACE CONTINUM…

THE OPPONENT CONCEDES THE

ELECTION AT 9:15 EST (75 MIN
AFTER POLLS CLOSE)
THE PRESS AWAITS THE WINNING
CANDIDATE’S APPEARANCE
THE CANDIDATE APPEARS
INTERRUPTING TV COVERAGE OF
THE “REAL” ELECTION
 THE CANDIDATE BEING
INTERVIEWED LIVE ON WYOU
(MY FLASH FROM THIS SHOT WAS
ON WYOU!)
AFTER THIS, THINGS GOT A LITTLE
BLURRY…
AND TO THINK IT ALL STARTED
HERE!
OTHER PHOTOS CONFISCATED BY
SOME GUYS IN SWEATSUITS WITH
GOLD CHAINS…