General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHijacking the electoral college: The plot to deny JFK the presidency 60 years ago
This zealotry and belief in their own Divine Right to run things has been around for a long time. Republicans simply collected them into a single party, bringing it to a critical mass. It's not "Trumpism". It's just that with him the last of the "responsible" varnish has been stripped off.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/12/13/electoral-college-jfk-trump/
(paywall warning)
By Ronald G. Shafer
Dec. 13, 2020 at 7:00 a.m. EST
After Democrat John F. Kennedy barely beat Republican Richard M. Nixon in the 1960 election, a coalition of opponents plotted to deny him the presidency in the electoral college. Most were White, conservative electors from the south who opposed the young Massachusetts senators liberal policies, especially his support for civil rights for Black Americans. If these electors had succeeded, segregationist Democratic Sen. Harry Byrd of Virginia would have been elected president. His vice president would have been Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona. Both men had nothing to do with the idea.
***
Immediately after the 1960 election, electors from Alabama and Mississippi agreed not to cast their votes for Kennedy, who had won both states. All of Mississippis eight electors and six of Alabamas 11 electors were unpledged. The electors lobbied their counterparts in the electoral college to follow their lead. Organizers of the movement came up with a three-point Plan To Give the South a Partial Vote in the Affairs of the Nation.
***
The goal was to have electors elect the president within the electoral college, said Lea Harris, a Democratic lawyer in Alabama. If that failed, as a last resort the electors would seek to switch enough votes to keep Kennedy from getting the 269 electoral votes needed for election and throw the race into the House of Representatives.
***
The rebel southern electors wrote Republican electors urging them to switch their votes from Nixon. Republican Henry Irwin of Oklahoma, a pledged Nixon elector opposed to what he called Kennedys socialist-labor views, was receptive. It soon became apparent to a shrewd observer that a possibility existed to deny the presidency to Kennedy, he said later.
***
After the overwhelming defeat, the Alabama electors complained that Southerners could have controlled the election, but their sycophantic political leaders failed them miserably.
That was back when conservative southerners (Democrats at the time) would still ignore "crackpot plans."
DeminPennswoods
(17,504 posts)by news hosts and pundits/guests/commentators, but this just shows nothing is really "unprecedented" in American history.
CrispyQ
(40,969 posts)They've been showing us who they are for a long time. Will we believe what we see, now?
Thanks for posting.
demigoddess
(6,675 posts)and then immediately after they won the election they would switch to the republican party right before being sworn into the Congress. Can't remember exact names or states but it happened several times.
niyad
(132,429 posts)our population is roughly 331 million, with 438 representatives. The math seems a little off.
zentrum
(9,870 posts)PoindexterOglethorpe
(28,493 posts)who all should have been Democratic party stalwarts, agreed NOT to vote for the man they were pledged to vote for? That's pathetic. I hope those specific individuals were then drummed out of the Democratic Party.
jalan48
(14,914 posts)Some things never change and we are still running from the label 60 years later.
JHB
(38,211 posts)What we do need to do is confront this directly and smack them around for the liars and extremists they are.
jalan48
(14,914 posts)Democrats confronting Republicans as you suggest.
My Pet Orangutan
(12,598 posts)and high profile allies being members of the DSA.
jalan48
(14,914 posts)JHB
(38,211 posts)...who had all those years as the mayor of Burlington for the people of his state to get to know the guy, not the label, but that's not true out in the rest of the US. Nothing he's proposed, nor by AOC and the Squad, is socialism.
My Pet Orangutan
(12,598 posts)Exactly. They are self-described 'Democratic Socialists' - - but what they are proposing is bog-standard Social Democracy.
JHB
(38,211 posts)..."Blow it out your ass, you guys call everything you don't like "socialism'" (maybe more cleanly worded, but with that sort of force).
This is not something that can be shied away from. Avoiding it just lets them push their warped version further.
jalan48
(14,914 posts)uponit7771
(93,532 posts)JHB
(38,211 posts)A small elite who runs things (and arranges things so money pours into their pockets), a slightly larger middle class who services them and oversees the third group, which is a huge underclass of peasants who should know their place.
And they've never met a dictator they didn't like as long as the guy called himself "anticommunist."
My Pet Orangutan
(12,598 posts)The was insufficient hard evidence of fraud but ....
murielm99
(32,988 posts)were won by Kennedy by only one or two votes. I used to have a poster showing this.
It was meant to demonstrate that every vote is important.
As I have heard it, there was a lot of cheating by Democrats in the northern part of the state. It was offset by cheating done by Republicans downstate. Kennedy won. Good.
JHB
(38,211 posts)...and nobody pushes back on them.
My Pet Orangutan
(12,598 posts)That was not going to happen.
Nixon Didnt Fight on in 1960 Because Texas Law Didnt Allow Him to
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/164266
On Illinois
Of the two, Illinois was much closer, with Kennedy ahead of Nixon by only 8,858 votes. Historians concur that some amount of fraud occurred in Cook County on behalf of Kennedy, but how much? There never was a full recount of the 1960 presidential vote in Illinois, but a partial recount of a down-ballot race in the same election showed that the Republican candidate had been undercounted in preliminary returns by 8,875a number that at least suggests that Nixon might be been uncounted by similar amount.
JHB
(38,211 posts)It's insane how tightly they cling to it. Even if Illinois flipped to Nixon, Kennedy would still have been president.
But... insanely nursing grudges and grinding axes is pretty much what they do.
My Pet Orangutan
(12,598 posts)1960 gave us a president whose skepticism, and cynicism towards the unanimous advice of the Joint Cheifs saved the U.S. from WWWIII.
1960 - Texas was not close - 50.5 - 48.5 Kennedy. Nixon lost in TX again in 1968..
The count is regarded as questionable because of the domination of Democratic officials carrying out the count. The counter is the very same argument - LBJ so dominated TX politics that JFK was always going to win Texas with Johnson on the ticket.
roamer65
(37,953 posts)JHB
(38,211 posts)...probably because the most likely outcome would be statewide investigations that would point to similar dodgyness in their own strongholds in those states.
Insufficient hard evidence hasn't stopped conservatives from waving Chicago '60 as a bloody flag to rally fanatical opposition to any and all Democrats.
Caliman73
(11,767 posts)As you said, conservatives have ALWAYS believed they have a divine right to be in charge. What they didn't have until the 80's and 90's was a whole media ecosystem that 1. directly brainwashed the members of the Republican party. 2. By sheer volume (as in noise) infiltrate the mainstream media to promote right wing ideas there.
Remember that Republicans also worked on a coup attempt against FDR in the 1930's.
This is not a new thing for conservatives. It will not be the last attempt, even if they fail.