Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I saw a biog of Wallace a little while back.. his similarities to trump were evident. Opportunism being the main one.That was never true. The Voting Rights Act of 1964 (which among other things mandated bilingual ballots) was supported much more by the Republicans than it was the Democrats. With every single Democrat run Southern State voting against it. In the senate 16 Democrat Seantors voted against it compared to only 2 Republicans.
Wallace was a lifelong Democrat. And ran for President as one multiple times (originally under the American Independent Party in 1968 and won no states). In 1972 he tried again as a Democrat and won in Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina, Texas, Maryland, and Michigan. And all of those but Maryland came under the coverage of and had monitored and supervised elections under the Voting Rights Act, which as part of his campaign he swore to overthrow as President. In 1976 he only won Alabama, Mississippi, and North Carolina.
And yes, President Trump was indeed a Democrat and a big player in the New York Democratic circles. He was a huge supporter of President Clinton as well as Senator Clinton. Simply looking at his circle of friends in New York and you saw the likes of Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the other prominent Democrats. The Clintons were both guests of honor at his wedding in 2005. as was Katie Couric, Star Jones, Barbara Walters, and others in the New York Democratic elite. None of which would look out of place at a wedding for a prominent Democrat, but all would look very out of place of say a wedding for a member of the Bush family.
And yes, for the most part anybody can run in just about any party they want. But when there is the primary system, that is where it gets interesting. The Democrats use a "Superdelegate" type system, which can and has actually seen the person who got much less votes win the nomination. This gives around 15% of the ultimate votes in a primary to the leadership of the party and in general they are really the ones that determines who actually gets to run in the election (rarely do primaries see somebody win by more than 10%). That is why Bernie Sanders twice had to bow out, because even though he was winning the popular vote, the Superdelegates were almost universally voting against him so he lost state after state that he won the popular vote in.
This is why if you look at the last century, the two political outsiders who rose to become President (Eisenhauer and Trump) were both Republicans. No Superdelegate system that ensures that only the "Approved Politicians" win the nomination. The only other was Teddy Roosevelt, who was picked to replace a deceased Vice President in President McKinley's reelection. He left in 1909 after he finished McKinley's term and one that he won on his own in 1904. But he also was very much a populist and followed the Washington Precedent of only serving two terms (his cousin was the only one to break that).
That was something that Trump was aware of, and as a political outsider he knew he never had a chance in that party of getting the nomination. However, as the Republicans do not have that kind of system the nomination is secured by popular vote and nothing else. Why do you think that even so much of the Republican Party was against him? They saw him as a "Democrat Carpetbagger" that was simply gaming the process hiding behind a cloak of populism.
Me? I am a moderate that does not hold to either party politically. But one thing I have never trusted are "Populists". They will say and do anything simply because they think that is what their voters will like, and not what is the best for the country (or even actually do when in office). George Wallace was a populist, as was Donald Trump, Ross Perot, Ron Paul, Jessie Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, Juan Peron, Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Rodrigo Duterte, Justin Trudeau, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Vladimir Putin, and the more recent incarnation of Daniel Ortega (he was unquestionably a hard leftist his first term but became a moderate populist later).
I saw a biog of Wallace a little while back.. his similarities to trump were evident. Opportunism being the main one.
The superdelegate is anti democratic in many ways, but then it does keep people like trump out. Its a shame Bernie got stitched up. he is a good man.
Its a shame that you ony get a binary choice. Its pretty much the same here. PR is needed so that every vote counts.
George Wallace was a populist you will see a lot of him in both Bernie Sanders and Trump's speeches.
You dont understand PR.That is something all Populists have in common.
OK, so you say it is undemocratic, but support it when it does something you like and are against it when it does something you do not like?
Hypocritical much?
Either it is undemocratic and should go, or it lets you control who can actually be in the party to only approved individuals;. You can't have both.
What, you want to vote for multiple people? Have multiple runoffs? Then you might as well be California.
You dont understand PR.
The superdelegate is anti democratic in many ways, but then it does keep people like trump out.
Propotional Representation.English, please.
PR, what is that? Puerto Rico? Pappa Roach? Public Relations? Punk Rock? Packet Radio?
A fascinating film about a little known massacre. It illustrates the difficulty faced by black folks faced with white violence.
People were killed because they wanted to vote.Their survivora were purged and their land stolen.
The current mayor is desended from the mob leaders. The story is not told in local history.
I wonder why ?
Propotional Representation.
PR has nothing to do with superdelegates. Why are you conflating the two?Obviously not, as you seem to think ignoring the will of the people is alright in cases you approve of, and not if you do not approve of it.
It is either one or the other, it is right or wrong to use superdelegates to game the system in the favor of those in power. There is really no middle ground there.
FDR was a racist. LBJ was a racist. Trump was a populist. All the B.S. about Wallace is just ignorant media based propaganda to camouflage the truth.George Wallace was a populist you will see a lot of him in both Bernie Sanders and Trump's speeches.
A fascinating film about a little known massacre. It illustrates the difficulty faced by black folks faced with white violence.
People were killed because they wanted to vote.Their survivora were purged and their land stolen.
The current mayor is desended from the mob leaders. The story is not told in local history.
I wonder why ?
Right now I live a short distance from Rosewood. Stories about it and Ocoee varied in the past but we locals discussed them in private and in history class.Google Rosewood Massacre.
There were dozens if not hundreds of such murderous massacres here in The South.
But it's never taught because precious fucking snowflake.
Actually, they did not. Damned few Democrats "switched" to become Republicans.
If one looks at the demographics, it was the younger generations that were Republicans. And a great many simply because it was the only way of getting the corrupt and racist Democrats out of office. What you had at that time was the older pre-depression population starting to die off, and by 1972 the voting age had lowered from 21 to 18. So the "Baby Boomers" were finally able to vote, and most did not have the same racist views of their parents and grandparents.
The video above from 1967 is a perfect example. People in their 30s and 40s speaking out in support of George Wallace. But the younger generation was not the same and could not fight that kind of entrenchment inside the party. That was how all of the South was in that era, the Democratic "Good Old Boy" network was so deep that it could only be broken up from outside the party. Kind of the reverse of say California today. The Democrats will never change unless people have had enough and start voting in the other party and forcing them to change.
But almost nobody "switched", that has always been a lie. George Wallace, Robert Byrd, Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, and others.
However, there were a few that switched parties, often multiple times. Two that spring to mind are Lester Maddox and George Wallace Jr. That was because they were essentially kicked out of the Democratic Party, and moved over to the Republican Party (or in the case of Maddox it was the reverse as that was his first time and the Republicans had no candidate). And ironically, in both of those instances the Republicans mostly campaigned for the Democrats in the election as they did not want them in office either.
Old George Jr. is kind of a sad joke in Alabama now. The Democrats will not let him into their party, as the way it is set up they get to pick who runs in it and who does not. The Republicans accept anybody as it has an open party system. But whenever he does try to run, the Democrats will support his opponent in the primary, and if it comes to an election the Republicans will support the Democrat. Just so long as it keeps Junior out of office. We used to joke that if he ever ran for dog catcher, the dogs would vote for the other party just to keep him out even if the opponent supported fixing all dogs and 24 hour killing in the kennels. I think the last time he was actually on a ballot was over a decade ago, where he lost as State Treasurer to a guy named Young Boozer. And he lost by over 30%, as even most of the state Republicans supported Boozer over their own candidate.
And David Duke was the same way. originally a Democrat until he changed to Republican so he could run in a special election for State Representative. After only a single term he tried to run for Senate, where like George Jr. most of the Republicans supported the Democrat and he was trounced. He has changed parties many times since then, and runs for almost any office in any party he thinks he has a chance in. But has run many times since and always lost. The last time he was highly active he supported his old bodyguard and friend in the effort to be a Congressman. Once again both sides campaigned against him and he got less than 7% of the vote.
Very few changed, and those that did were normally quickly ostracized by the Republicans also. But to many like that it remains popular as a party to go to because without the super delegate type systems of the Democrats to control who gets to run, anybody can declare themselves to be a Republican and run for office. Such as the lifelong Democrat real estate guy from a few years ago.
Wallace won 46 electoral votes and nearly the entire South as the racist candidate in 1968.He ran under the AIP once, and when he won no states he returned to the Democrats for his final two runs. Then he did at least win several states.
Would you consider those blacks and people of color who today advocate segregation from others as racist?Wallace won 46 electoral votes and nearly the entire South as the racist candidate in 1968.
Thus informing the GOP decision to pursue the Southern strategy.
A fascinating film about a little known massacre. It illustrates the difficulty faced by black folks faced with white violence.
People were killed because they wanted to vote.Their survivora were purged and their land stolen.
The current mayor is desended from the mob leaders. The story is not told in local history.
I wonder why ?
Lib race baiters on this forum deserved that even if the blacks killed in 1920 didntOcee has a relatively low crime rate today because of their 1920 urban renewal program.
