• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

You contradicted my statements but offered no data to back up your'e assertions.

That's pretty week.

Explain specifically how I was wrong.

Your statements are irrelevant since you did not address what I said. You made a straw man which is illogical and weak.
 
Your statements are irrelevant since
you did not address what I said. You made a straw man which is illogical and weak.

You so " courtesy " called me a right wing hack and more than implied I kniw nothing about History.

I love history. Since I was a kid I've read incessantly about everything from the Revolutionary war to WW2.

So again, what exactly was innacurate about my post " historically"
?
 
Jim Crow Democrats are now Jim Crow Republicans.

Historically not so, actually. As George Wallace's poll numbers declined in the waning days of the 1968 Presidential election, his votes went to Hubert Humphrey, not Richard Nixon. That's one reason why that election was so close.:mrgreen:
 
Historically not so, actually. As George Wallace's poll numbers declined in the waning days of the 1968 Presidential election, his votes went to Hubert Humphrey, not Richard Nixon. That's one reason why that election was so close.:mrgreen:
In 68 Wallace won the deep South:


Wallace won all of Goldwater's states (except South Carolina), as well as Arkansas and one of North Carolina's electoral votes. Nixon picked up Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida, while Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey's only southern state was Texas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968

PS..301 to 191 is not that close.
 
Last edited:
In 68 Wallace won the deep South:


Wallace won all of Goldwater's states (except South Carolina), as well as Arkansas and one of North Carolina's electoral votes. Nixon picked up Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida, while Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey's only southern state was Texas.

United States presidential election, 1968 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PS..301 to 191 is not that close.

As is often the case, the popular vote was closer than the electoral tally, and Humphrey came very close in several states that ultimately didn't go his way. As Wallace's poll numbers fell in the last weeks, Humphrey's rose by an equivalent amount.:cool:
 
As is often the case, the popular vote was closer than the electoral tally, and Humphrey came very close in several states that ultimately didn't go his way. As Wallace's poll numbers fell in the last weeks, Humphrey's rose by an equivalent amount.:cool:
I'm sorry, which of Wallace's "votes" went to Humphrey?
 
As Wallace's voters left him, they voted for Humphrey instead. They did not go to Nixon.
Yes Jack Ryan, you already went in that circle, I am asking you to document this claim in some objective manner.


"From October 13-20, Wallace's support fell from 20% to 15% nationally. In the North, the former Wallace vote split evenly between Humphrey and Nixon. In the border South, Wallace defectors were choosing Nixon over Humphrey by three to one."

Carter, Dan T. (1995, 2000). The Politics of Rage: George Wallace, the Origins of the New Conservatism, and the Transformation of American Politics. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 352, 362-364.
 
The electoral vote was closer: 301 for Nixon, 191 for Humphrey and 46 for Wallace. Had HHH got 115,000 of Nixon's votes in California (only about 1.5 percent of the state total vote) and 45,000 more in Ohio (only about 1.2 percent), he would have won the election.

Wallace was a Democrat, but almost all his voters would have gone to Nixon in a two-candidate race. A post-election study broke the Wallace vote down as 80-20 for Nixon. So that close three-man race would have been a comfortable Nixon popular victory of about 54-46 percent in a two-man race.

President Humphrey would definitely have had a problem on his hands. By the end of his first 100 days in office, he would probably be just about where Bill Clinton is today. Clinton is stuck at 45 percent approval rating -- a figure that is very close to the percentage of the popular vote he got last fall (Clinton 43, George Bush 38, Perot 19).

With Wallace and the Republicans sniping at him, HHH might even have been lower.

Now, President Nixon had no such problem. Wallace personally was unhappy with him, but he could not keep his bloc intact. A Gallup Poll trial heat pitting Nixon, Wallace and the most popular Democrat in the spring of 1969 came out Nixon 52 percent, Wallace 10, Sen. Edward Kennedy 33. Wallace had lost about a fourth of his vote to Nixon, who made a blatant pitch for conservative Southerners.

Is doing worse in the polls at this stag... - Baltimore Sun
 
Yes Jack Ryan, you already went in that circle, I am asking you to document this claim in some objective manner.


"From October 13-20, Wallace's support fell from 20% to 15% nationally. In the North, the former Wallace vote split evenly between Humphrey and Nixon. In the border South, Wallace defectors were choosing Nixon over Humphrey by three to one."

Carter, Dan T. (1995, 2000). The Politics of Rage: George Wallace, the Origins of the New Conservatism, and the Transformation of American Politics. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 352, 362-364.

It's only Wikipedia on the Presidential campaign, but it's accurate.

"Polls that showed Wallace winning almost one-half of union members in the summer of 1968 showed a sharp decline in his union support as the campaign progressed. As election day approached and Wallace's support in the North and Midwest began to wane, Humphrey finally began to climb in the polls. . . .

In October, Humphrey—who was rising sharply in the polls due to the collapse of the Wallace vote—began to distance himself publicly from the Johnson administration on the Vietnam War, calling for a bombing halt. :cool:
 
It's only Wikipedia on the Presidential campaign, but it's accurate.

"Polls that showed Wallace winning almost one-half of union members in the summer of 1968 showed a sharp decline in his union support as the campaign progressed. As election day approached and Wallace's support in the North and Midwest began to wane, Humphrey finally began to climb in the polls. . . .

In October, Humphrey—who was rising sharply in the polls due to the collapse of the Wallace vote—began to distance himself publicly from the Johnson administration on the Vietnam War, calling for a bombing halt. :cool:
Yes dear, I think I covered the rise in the north/midwest with "In the North, the former Wallace vote split evenly between Humphrey and Nixon."...but the overriding point is that Nixon gained far more of former Wallace supporters since nearly all were conservative. Various authors show an 80-20 split for Nixon. Now if you want to claim a win by saying that in ABSOLUTE terms Nixon gained some of Wallace's votes....well go ahead and take your hollow victory, I know how much you need them.

Pfft.
 
Yes dear, I think I covered the rise in the north/midwest with "In the North, the former Wallace vote split evenly between Humphrey and Nixon."...but the overriding point is that Nixon gained far more of former Wallace supporters since nearly all were conservative. Various authors show an 80-20 split for Nixon. Now if you want to claim a win by saying that in ABSOLUTE terms Nixon gained some of Wallace's votes....well go ahead and take your hollow victory, I know how much you need them.

Pfft.

I accept your concession.
 
Historically not so, actually. As George Wallace's poll numbers declined in the waning days of the 1968 Presidential election, his votes went to Hubert Humphrey, not Richard Nixon. That's one reason why that election was so close.:mrgreen:
No Jack, you are still wrong, around 80% of Wallace's votes went to Nixon.
 
No Jack, you are still wrong, around 80% of Wallace's votes went to Nixon.

Per Gallup, from October to November 1968 Wallace dropped from 20% to 15% while Humphrey rose from 29% to 42%. Meanwhile, Nixon declined from 44% to 43%. Looks like those Wallace voters moved to Humphrey.:mrgreen:
 
I find your statements to be filled with misinformation, dishonesty and false narratives

It's CONCERNING that so many people have so willingly bought into the false narratives of the Democrat Party


That somehow having to show an ID is some how comparable to a poll tax, or that it stops minorities from going to the polls.

It's just another Democrat Construct, a lie .

Are you trying to tell me that the southern states that are moving to limit Early Morning Voting are not doing so to lessen the Minority vote? Even when it is a statistical fact that Minorities tend to vote overwhelming in the morning than any other time? And you have the nerve to say I am buying into false narratives. I think you need to look in the mirror.
 
Are you trying to tell me that the
southern states that are moving to limit Early Morning Voting are not doing so to lessen the Minority vote? Even when it is a statistical fact that Minorities tend to vote overwhelming in the morning than any other time? And you have the nerve to say I am buying into false narratives. I think you need to look in the mirror.

I'm telling you bought hook line and sinker into another Democrat false narrative.

No, the Republicans are not trying to keep folks from voting, thats retarded.

We just want to make sure the electoral process is maintained to the highest of standards.
 
Are you trying to tell me that the southern states that are moving to limit Early Morning Voting are not doing so to lessen the Minority vote? Even when it is a statistical fact that Minorities tend to vote overwhelming in the morning than any other time? And you have the nerve to say I am buying into false narratives. I think you need to look in the mirror.

"Early Morning Voting"??? I must assume this post is meant to be humorous. Well done!:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
I'm telling you bought hook line and sinker into another Democrat false narrative.

No, the Republicans are not trying to keep folks from voting, thats retarded.

We just want to make sure the electoral process is maintained to the highest of standards.

I seriously hope your joking. If not, then you definably have a Fox and Friends addiction. Are you seriously trying to tell me that are southern states implementing rigid identification requirements, bans on early voting, cutbacks in the number of urban precincts, and having groups that descend on minority districts to comb the registration rolls for spelling errors are not trying to suppress the minority vote? Stop trying to defend actions such as these, it makes you look like a puppet.
 
Please read more closely. The post referred to "early morning voting." That's a red herring.:cool:

My bad, I meant early voting. No matter though, my one misplaced word does not change my overall argument. Do you have any legitimate counterargument other than that?
 
My bad, I meant early voting. No matter though, my one misplaced word does not change my overall argument. Do you have any legitimate counterargument other than that?

No. I don't oppose early voting so long as it's within reason.:cool:
 
Was it within reason for the several Republican states to decrease early voting, causing 8-hour lines, some until 1:00 A.M. The VRA decision was aimed at Democratic precincts. What about eliminating voting on the Sundays before the election? This DOMA decision came after the VRA decision, IMO, to lessen the impact of the VRA decision.
No. I don't oppose early voting so long as it's within reason.:cool:
 
Back
Top Bottom