The fall of Arizona to the Dems will be very sweet.

Texas should soon be in range, but still hard to fathom it ever being Dem..

Of course, Texas was Democrat within fairly recent memory under Ann Richards, and not that long before it was LBJ territory.

Not quite.

Richards was indeed a dem, but the state has not voted for a dem president since 1976 and that was very close. Nixon won handily in 1972 and the 1960 election w/ LBJ was decided by about 40,000 votes.

Arizona should fall before Texas, its base of western rednecks is relatively smaller. As well, besides the influx and higher birthrates of Hispanics you also have expat white urban Californians.

Should have added that even the '68 election w/ LBJ's running mate Humphrey only went his way by less than 40,000 votes with Ubercracker Wallace getting over 500,000 votes - 19%. Texas also went w/ Republican Ike in '52 and '56.

OK, in 1948 Truman destroyed his opposition in Texas.

So, in conclusion, aside from 1964, w/ a Texas Dem. sitting president, it hasn't really been since 1948 that a Democrat clearly beat a Republican in the state of Texas.

The more right-wing you are, the longer you live.

Surely getting more conservative as you age isn't that baffling. I'm pushing 40 and am already starting to yell at people who drive too fast.

Nope, that's not what happens. Poorer people are further to the left and die younger.

Cal Alamein wrote:


Most of the Texas Dems in '48 and '64 would have been farther-right-than-the-GOP Dixiecrats wouldn't they?

In his alternate history on JFK's assassination Stephen King reckons that if Kennedy had lived, LBJ would have lost the Democratic party to Wallace. Who would then have beaten Nixon in '68.

While the Dixiecrats and their platform was similar to 2012-era GOP, they were anything but republicans.

Texas also overwhelmingly went for FDR for all four elections.

1932 - 88% to 11%
1936 - 87% to 12%
1940 - 81% to 19%
1944 - 71% to 16% Texas Regulars, Dixiecrat, anti-new deal dems got 11%.

So Texas, at one time, were serious fans of an east coast liberal president.

In '48, Truman routed Dewey 66-24, with the Dixiecrats only getting 9%.

The late 40s and 50s was th golden age of liberal Texas politics. Ralph Yarborough was every bit as liberal as his East Coast counterparts, more so if you take into context the courage it took to be the only southern Senator to vote for all of the 50s and 60s Civil Rights Bills.

Cal Alamein wrote:


Well, FDR didn't push the civil rights issue too hard, and redistributing the wealth plays quite well with the poor folk down south. It's only when the coloreds get some rights that people get itchy.

Was there some leftists in agriculture or something?

Flynnie wrote:


Definitely true, but try to imagine Obama attempting to re-institute FDR-esque, new deal-style programs today. That would be Bolshevism!

Cal Alamein wrote:

Sure, but as we know, that's only because it would benefit black and brown people. The South's U-Turn on the gubmint after Civil Rights, just when they had ridden the post-war economic tidal wave long enough to not look at roadkill as an appealing dinner option, recalls the old saying "What did the government do for me when I was on food stamps and welfare?"

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

Not really, but the 30s was about as left as the US ever gets. People still hated them Commies, but there were quite a few poor whites in America who had no qualms about taking a pipe to the head of a company thug or a scab.

Well, before then there were socialist mayors and representatives in some places, and lets not forget Eugene V. Debs' popularity.

And to think that in 2012, as in 1912, a true socialist presidential candidate today would also likely end up in jail, beaten up or both.

No recent article has gotten my attention more than this one.

America didn't used to be run like an old Southern slave plantation, but we're headed that way now. How did that happen?

La Lanterne Rouge wrote:


You want to come to Argentina and see the amount of government propaganda on TV during ad breaks when football matches are on. Hell, or just click one of the links I post on Twitter to watch the match live on TV Pública online from time to time.

Flynnie wrote:


Seriously? I'm British, and only moved away when I was 26, and I don't know anyone who wouldn't consider it deeply odd to take their passport on a night out. You either got into bars with no questions asked, or had a fake drivers licence, or got laughed at, when I was around that age. I've always thought of carrying photo ID as a very rest-of-the-world thing to do*, and of getting ID'd in bars at my age now as an exclusively USA thing to happen (I'm 28 now but frequently get told I look a lot younger, and even then it's never an issue with regards getting served).

*A friend of mine who's half-Colombian once almost got arrested in Bogotá after trying to explain to (armed) police there that he didn't have his ID on him, 'because in my country [he was born and has lived most of his life in London] we consider it a violation of our human rights to be made to carry those things.' Yes, he was drunk at the time, but although I found it hilarious when he told me this, it didn't strike me as in any way a strange opinion to hold.

Agreed - I once missed a plane because I took my London Transport photocard to get a plane to Edinburgh, which they didn't accept as valid photo ID. I could have taken my passport, but I resented the notion of taking a passport to travel internally.