Data challenge for the Wisconsin primary

Though the outcome of Wisconsin’s primaries look pretty predictable, there is still an interesting data story to watch. It would be fascinating to see an overlay of Trump’s strongest counties/precincts with the areas where George Wallace experienced his greatest success in the ’64 Democratic Primary. Here’s the problem: I haven’t been able to find the data from ’64.

Anyone know of a source somewhere? All my usual goto’s have failed.

Here’s a nice backgrounder on Wallace’s surprise success in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Maryland in the ’64 race.

Postscript: Here’s a breakdown of the counties where Wallace scored his biggest margins of support in the ’64 Democratic Primary.

Waukesha 45
Ozaukee 42
Marquette 41
Vilas 41
Waushara 41
Green Lake 40
Winnebago 40
Forest 38
Milwaukee 38
Shawano 38
Walworth 38
Washington 38
Waupaca 38

Ones to watch tonight include “crucial” Waukesha County, along with the notorious Washington, Ozaukee and Milwaukee. Big thanks to everyone who pitched in to look for data and MassDem who found the golden nugget.

***And a second postscript – Ted Cruz is blowing out Trump in the counties around Milwaukee where Wallace scored some of his biggest wins. No real correlation to speak of here.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Posted in Uncategorized
66 comments on “Data challenge for the Wisconsin primary
  1. MassDem says:

    Bad interview. What does it mean when you can’t speak in a coherent way about your signature campaign issue…

    • 1mime says:

      *Detail* is hard and we are finally getting to the point in the campaign where candidates will be pressed hard and glib responses challenged. To be fair to Bernie, Hillary Clinton hasn’t been interviewed by this same media, and she will face some hard questions as she should. But this has been a lingering concern by many over how he was going to achieve his lofty platform.
      What’s interesting in the analysis of tonight’s WI election is that there seems to be more optimism for a Cruz win over Clinton – if she’s the nominee. The Republican base is well informed on the importance of the 2016 election, and they will turn out. It remains to be seen what would happen with Sanders’ supporters if Hillary is the nominee.

      • MassDem says:

        Not worried about Hillary answering tough questions; she knows her stuff. Not the most winning personality to be sure, but she is informed.

        Was surprised by just how little Bernie Sanders seems to know about anything.

      • 1mime says:

        Cruz would kill him in a debate.

      • johngalt says:

        The optimism about Cruz is entirely misplaced. If Cruz is the nominee, it will be because the convention went to multiple ballots to nominate him over Trump, even though Trump will almost certainly have more delegates going in. This will alienate some of Trump’s people who will not turn out for “Lying Ted.” You don’t need much of this to swing the race in close states. Further, Cruz has done particularly poorly in the states he has to win (OH, FL, VA), suggesting his brand of conservatism (unsurprisingly) doesn’t sell well in those places. True, he did win Wisconsin after the entire GOP got behind him and Trump had a miserable week. Finally, when you’re still hearing from insider figures like Lindsay Graham than Cruz is the poison to Trump’s shot to the head, but they might find an antidote to the poison (and this was after he endorsed Cruz), you have to wonder how strongly the rest of the GOP wants Ted in office. In fact, I’d say that a fair number of moderate establishment Republicans might want Ted to lose big, because that might put paid to this ever-farther drift rightward that has the GOP in this situation in the first place.

    • MassDem says:

      If Clinton is the nominee, Sanders supporters will turn out to vote for him in the general election if he runs as an independent. Beyond that, I don’t know. Young voters are not the most likely to come out based on the demographic profiles of verified voters.

      • 1mime says:

        I totally agree. And, Sanders is in this thing to win and his supporters are as well. It’s hardball from here on. Man this is a tough race – for all the candidates. Imagine the stamina of Sanders at 75+! You have to give it to him, he has never faltered but interviews could be difficult if one is tired or focused on the next event. He has a hell of a campaign team too! It takes a lot of work to set up these appearances, book the halls, make all the arrangements.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        There’s no way Bernie would run as an Independent.

        I don’t even think he wanted to be president. He might still not.

      • johngalt says:

        Sanders is not going to run as an independent. The acrimony on the Dem side is nothing like what it is on the right. Some of Sanders’ younger and more idealistic voters won’t bother in November, but most of them will get on board with HRC.

    • moslerfan says:

      A couple of thoughts on banks and trade.

      First, the trade deals we have seen have been very good for corporations. Not surprising because they were basically written by corporations. They have been very bad for working people. What needs to change is that trade deals need to be made that take working people into consideration too. If the trade deals are really that good that the country as a whole benefits, maybe the corporations should cough up to support those on whom the burdens are falling. But if that were the case, I think we’d see a lot less enthusiasm for trade pacts.

      As for banks, there’s a lot that can be done to reduce risk. You can raise capital requirements to reduce dangerous leverage. You can regulate underwriting standards and force banks to hold assets (loans) on their books instead of selling them, as is standard practice now. You can restrict banks from making loans based on collateral value, and restrict them to maling loans that can be repaid out of the borrower’s income stream. You can make it clear that any banks that want to operate outside those parameters (and there will be some) will not be bailed out by the taxpayers. Some of this can be done unilaterally by regulators, some would require action by Congress. But in the last bailout (2009) it was really executive decisions by the administration that made the banks well. At a minimum, the bailout should have been contingent on responsible officials being replaced.

    • moslerfan says:

      The first thing that needs to happen is that people need to be talking about these issues, and naming names of those responsible. If the media won’t do it then the President needs to start.

    • n1cholas says:

      The son of a bitch here, if you want to discuss objective reality, is that Sanders was asked LEGAL questions. Sanders is not an attorney, and he doesn’t try to play one on TV.

      These questions would have been better had they been given to a Sanders shadow Attorney General.

      Are there statutes here in this small little country of around 300,000,000 people that could be used to go after intentional fraud committed by the criminals on Wall St. Yes.

      Is Sanders, who as President would only appoint an attorney, rather than be an attorney in Federal Court somewhere, going to know USC Code statues for every single offense that could have been committed? Of course not.

      Sanders doesn’t need to know the USC statute numbers which could be used to prosecute criminals on Wall St. His duty, as POTUS, isn’t to go to court and prosecute criminals. It’s to appoint the people to his cabinet who are competent and knowledgeable in those statutes.

      POTUS lays out a vision.

      HIS/HER Cabinet then does what is necessary to bring the vision to reality.

      But, hey, screw it. Sanders is a leftie lunatic! He, like, can’t answer which USC statute numbers should be used to prosecute criminals on Wall St. Sarah Palin can’t name a newspaper or magazine of record that she reads.


      • goplifer says:

        There’s a good reason that almost all of our elected leaders are lawyers. Law is what government does. Want your state to build a bridge? Somebody has to pass a law. The man has been in government for thirty years and hasn’t passed any laws. Hmmm…

      • n1cholas says:

        I actually have a law degree. I couldn’t name the USC statutes. The reason that so many of our elected leaders are lawyers is because lawyers know how to read the instruction manual to society, not because they know all the rules offhand.

        Also, Representatives and Senators do a lot more than pass individual laws. You should take a look at the government instructional manual sometime. It’s very complicated, but Reps and Senators don’t just sit in their offices thinking up new and exciting laws to impose on us rabble.

      • MassDem says:

        I admit that I am decidedly not a fan of Bernie Sanders, so yeah, I’m biased. But I was surprised at how much this interview confirmed my suspicions of him.

        The problem is not whether Sanders can name the actual statutes under which he would prosecute “Wall Street criminals”. There are far worse problems than that.

        One problem is that he goes around in his stump speeches making blanket statements like “The reality is that fraud is the business model on Wall Street.”, but he is unable to state an actual example of fraud nor can he give a response as to what he would do about it. I read a lot of material that came out after the 2008 crisis, including “The Two Trillion Dollar Meltdown” by Charles Morris, “Griftopia” by Matt Tabibi, and “Financial Shock” by Mark Zandi. From what I remember, Wall Street’s contribution to the meltdown, while abhorrent and infuriating, was by and large LEGAL. Sanders should be able to say what problems with the financial industry were addressed by Dodd-Frank, and what still needs to be done to prevent another crisis.

        I will confess that I did not know much about the MetLife case myself, but fortunately, I’m not running for president. This is not any old case, however, as it possibly may bring down Dodd-Frank according to the NYT. Sanders should be aware of this issue and should be able to speak to it.

        As for breaking up banks that are too big to fail, he is unable to give any kind of coherent answer for his “plan”. How would you break up an entity like JPMorgan or Bank of America? On what authority would you do so? What are the benefits? What are possible negative consequences, and how would you mitigate them? From his answers, it looks like he really hasn’t thought any of this through, although this is his the platform he is running on.

        If he wants to be president, it isn’t enough to spout crowd-pleasing slogans. Any common Republican can do that. He needs to demonstrate that he is well-informed on the issues, and have some kind of plan as to how he would proceed to address them.

        Rant over.

      • n1cholas says:

        Right, but that’s the thing. Sanders doesn’t need to know how every policy is going to be enacted 9 months – 12 months – 24 months – out.

        Sanders, to use a phrase that the BothSidesDoIt™ lunatic-enablers like to trot out, is supposed to LEAD.

        Leaders don’t need to have a 3,000 page memo of every thing they are personally going to do, and the hour upon which they will act. Especially the POTUS.

        POTUS puts forward a vision, and then upon election, appoints (assuming he doesn’t have a seditious opposing party blocking his or her appointments) the people to his or her cabinet, who will hire people into their departments, etc, down the line.

        What is absolutely hilarious is that Strongman Trump just says stupid, outlandish BS like he’s going to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it, whereas Sanders is honest by saying he doesn’t have every exact fact and figure right there to explain in details that no one is interested in right now, about how he is going to pass reasonable laws.

        Well, I find it hilarious, as a political observer.

        It’s breathtakingly refreshing for a whole lot of people out in the rest of the country.

      • Creigh says:

        “Law is what government does.” Law is a relatively small part of politics, politics being, in the words of a Constitutional Law professor named Obama, the way we decide what our society will be like. Examples of successful politicians who were not lawyers abound.

      • n1cholas says:

        Exactly this.

        Law is what government does. But more importantly, the law changes over time.

        Just knowing an existing statute off the top of your head means little-to-nothing if the USSC or Congress itself nullifies that law.

        Not to mention, that to actually break up banks and put Wall St. Criminals in prison (you can call them whatever you want, but I just like to describe them for what they actually do), you can write new laws. Sure, those laws may not apply to previous wrongdoing, but they can go a long way in preventing future wrongdoing.

        The US economy didn’t collapse, as it could have. Why not write some new laws to make it a little bit harder for the good, decent people stealing money through their Wall St. jobs, to, you know, crash the f-ing economy again.

      • 1mime says:

        Here’s a perfect example: The US Treasury Division announced new regs to help curb tax inversions. Regardless of anyone’s feelings on this, admittedly, this is draining tax revenue from the US while the company benefits from infrastructure (such as it is), etc. Rather than deal with the problem by developing concensus on major tax reform, no action has been taken. Thus, the Obama administration has stepped in to stem the tide. This is a pretty good analysis of what has happened. The important thing to note is that in a vacuum, “someone” or something will take charge.

      • moslerfan says:

        “Wall Street’s contribution to the meltdown, while abhorrent and infuriating, was by and large LEGAL”

        True, because Wall Street is writing the banking laws, and fraud is very hard to prove in court. The attitude that we neither can nor should do anything about this is unacceptable.

      • n1cholas says:


        Wall St. and Friends have been writing the banking laws – well, rescinding the old banking laws – for decades.

        That it was legal doesn’t mean a whole lot. Allow me to write a law saying it’s OK to commit fraud against elderly people, and voila, my pyramid scheme specifically targeting the elderly isn’t criminal…it’s just good, old-fashioned capitalism!


      • MassDem says:

        moslerfan, please don’t misunderstand me. I do not in any way condone the worst practices of Wall Street, and yes, what happened in 2008 should never be repeated. However, complaining about Wall Street practices and actually doing something to curb them are not the same thing. I personally don’t buy that Sanders actually has any viable way to carry out what he says he wants to do, or even that he understands the issues beyond the knee jerk stance of Wall St=BAD

      • n1cholas says:

        Sanders doesn’t need to have a viable way to handle it.

        Sanders, as POTUS, needs to be able to appoint people to head the Justice Department, who will have viable ways to prevent future fraud that can crash the US and by extension World economy.

        That was basically my first point. Sanders isn’t an attorney, and he doesn’t need to be. As POTUS, he just needs to be able to identify a competent attorney who knows how to hire people into the Justice Department.

        Sarah Palin’s “gotcha” moment was being what sources of words that she read.

        Sanders’ “gotcha” moment” was being asked something that most attorneys wouldn’t be able to answer without consulting Lexis Nexis, Westlaw, or at least Google.

        The BothSidesDoIt™ media has enabled the Republican party to nominate, elect, and give soap boxes, to f-ing lunatics.

      • 1mime says:

        “If he wants to be president, it isn’t enough to spout crowd-pleasing slogans.” The problem is, this has been working incredibly well with him with the crowd who is enthusiastically in his corner. Sanders hasn’t really had to respond in a detailed manner yet. The closer it gets to the G.E., the more substantive he will have to be. It’s not enough to lay out a general plan, even one as likable as Sanders’, and not be prepared to defend it. If Cruz is the GOP nominee, you bet he will not only be able to support his own plans, but he will have studied Sanders (or Clinton’s) and know them as well as his own. This is what debate teaches one, and Cruz will do the work.

        I don’t agree with those who think Sanders isn’t in this race to win. He is, and Clinton better be ready to fight to the finish. My fear is that she will be so worn down trying to secure the nomination, that she will not have adequate time to prepare for the actual Repub heads up.

        A very wise, experienced Republican politician told me during the Romney/Obama campaign that the campaign process for the nomination from his party had badly damaged Romney for the general campaign against the Democratic nominee (Obama). I think there’s truth to that and I believe it is happening to Clinton. Her frustration is clearly showing at this second run for the WH in which she approaches the convention with declining rather than rising numbers.
        Just sayin’.

      • n1cholas says:

        Clinton is fine. Go back and watch her during the last Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! show trial.

        The Republican party is heading for a crack-up. Whether it ends up sitting out for a few election cycles, or actual splitting occurs is beyond anyone’s actual knowledge at the moment.

        Again, Sanders does not need to be able to cite specific USC statutes. He doesn’t need to be able to lay out a 100 day plan that states how he is going to deliver a unicorn, rainbow, and pot of gold to every family in America.

        He needs to make clear what he is about (higher taxes on the richest people in the solar system, fair trade instead of free trade, Imperial downgrading, and improved infrastructure and education (education is infrastructure, no?) for every American who wants it). Sanders also needs to make clear the difference between himself, and Clinton.

        So far, Sanders is doing an excellent job. I still don’t see him getting the nomination, but what he is doing is laying groundwork for actual libruul libruuls to write some rules and get some actual progressive policy initiatives built into the party.

        Just like Occupy didn’t fail, neither will Sanders. Any time someone tells you that Occupy failed, ask them if they’ve ever heard of the phrase “the 1%”.

        Knowledge comes before action.

      • 1mime says:

        Just curious, n1cholas – what role do you see for Sanders if Hillary is the nominee? If she becomes POTUS? I think he has earned the right to have a very high appointive position in government if he wants it, which he may not at his age. Or he may wish to implement some of the ideas that he feels are critically important. The man has boundless energy, is an incredibly clear thinker and speaker, and obviously is motivational. Sec of Labor? VA? Chair of the Senate Finance Committee?

        As for members of Congress doing lots more than drafting laws, that work is mostly done by staff (and lobbyists ). I’d personally like to see more women elected to Congress as I think they are more disposed to hammering our concensus. Frankly, I’d like to see some of the old members of Congress retire, too, but that won’t happen either, so……..I mean, Grassley is 82!!! Doesn’t the man have a bucket list? Could we make one up for him?

      • n1cholas says:

        I don’t know if Sanders gets appointed to anything, and I’m not sure Sanders would be interested in being appointed to anything. I see Sanders run as earning the right to set some parameters within the Democratic party.

        I assume that once it becomes mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination, that he’ll endorse Clinton and campaign for her.

        When I look at the Republican party, I see a party that can win on the state level, with the coalitions used to win the White House all-but-completely fractured. Perhaps permanently.

        When I look at the Democratic party, I see a party that can win at the state level, and a party that can win the White House, although there are two relatively distinct candidates who have two relatively distinct ideas of where to lead the country, if elected.

        While it is possible that Trump or Cruz or Ryan can still win in 2016, I just don’t think it’s very likely. Which means, to some extent, I’m more worried about the House in 2020, and who the next starters for WH contention will be.

        I would also like to see more women elected to Congress. I think it should be at least 50% women. It’s not that women are inherently smarter or better, but I think estrogen is a much more conducive hormone than testosterone, when it comes to governing. If that makes me a sexist or something, so be it. I am a white male, for what it’s worth.

      • 1mime says:

        A “smart” white male (-:

        There has been more dialogue and cooperation among female members of Congress across the aisle than their male counterparts have achieved. There aren’t many females in Congress who get caught up in the “power” thing…there are exceptions, of course, (Republican Marsha Blackburn of TN and Barbara Boxer of CA come to mind), but mostly women are more low-key and seem to get things done. Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand is someone I find interesting to watch. The Democratic establishment needs to develop a better system for identifying and grooming potential talent for elected office. Start them local (there is a LOT that can be learned there), move them up into state positions and then to Congress. As much as I am loathe to admit it, Republicans have done a far better job than Dems in this area.

      • n1cholas says:

        Absolutely. One of the biggest problems that the Democratic party has is getting out the vote in anything but a Presidential election year.

        Republicans are absolutely amazing at running a candidate for office and getting them elected.

        Personally, I think that the Democratic party should run a candidate in every election, even when it’s highly unlikely that the candidate will win more than 30% of the vote. If there isn’t a presence, then there isn’t even a remote possibility that some event may thrust someone into office.

        Of course, it could backfire and put a lunatic into office, as I think GOPLifer has covered in previous blog posts, in re: 1994.

      • 1mime says:

        The Boston Globe put their finger on Hillary’s problem – noting that the really hard part hasn’t yet begun for her.

      • Creigh says:

        Anything Sanders brings up in the primary will help Clinton because then it will be old news when the Republicans bring it up in the general.

      • 1mime says:

        Respectfully, Creigh, it’s what Sanders “isn’t” bringing up that is Hillary’s problem. Read the Boston Globe link.

      • MassDem says:

        Good ol Eric Fehrnstrom, right-hand man of Mitt Romney and originator of the famous “Etch-a-sketch” comment. Still dislikes Hillary Clinton I see; that hasn’t changed. Every few months he comes out with another op-ed like this. Last month it was “Turnout, terror and tactics favor Trump against Clinton”, also in the Globe.

  2. Rob Ambrose says:

    This story hasn’t gotten much play in America, but I think it’s going to be very influential. Its pretty scandalous, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see Sanders hammer it the rest of the campaign, as it basically prices his entire message: the game is rigged and the 1% play by different rules then you or me.

    What truly amazes me is, how greedy ARE these scumbags? I mean, they spend billions on political action to sway an entire political party (Republicans) whose #1 prioirty is lower taxes on themselves again and again and pay for it by cutting education spending , infrastructure spending, healthcare spending etc. This is evil enough in its own right . but at the same time, theyre ALSO running a global money laundering scheme that costs governments (and thus, the infrastructure gov’t pays for) hundreds of billions.

    So at the same time they’re relentlessly telling us their taxes are too high (even thougg, historically, they’re far too low) and on the other, they’re laundering money hand over fist.

    Everyone was shocked that Romney only had an effective tax rate of something like 15%. The rest of the 1% probably laughed at him for paying even that much.

    Laws and rules only apply to the serfs and peasants, I guess.

    • 1mime says:

      My recollection of Romney’s tax returns is that he never did provide current ones. He claimed they were tied up and the ones he did provide were for two or three years before the campaign. So, we don’t know “what” Romney’s “real” tax rate was but the way he dodged this, following his infamous 47% comment, I have to question if he paid much of anything. That always bothered me that he was evasive about sharing these returns – like he had something that he might have found difficult to explain.

  3. johngalt says:

    A piece on 538 about the “electability” of Sanders and Cruz. They have some scale ranking the congressional voting records of candidates ranging from -1 (perfectly liberal) to +1 (perfectly conservative). Sanders is indeed more liberal than anyone who’s ever been elected president, with a score of -0.52 (a bit more moderate than the Hindenburg that was George McGovern). But Cruz, my goodness, is practically off the chart. He gets a 0.94. By comparison, the next most conservative candidate was Goldwater at 0.66. Cruz is way, WAY to the right of Barry Goldwater. The mind reels.

    Notably, Clinton comes in slightly more liberal than Obama.

    • Re: Cruz 0.94 – if he gets the nomination do you think he will try to pivot to the center or will he test the hypothesis that only a true 0.94-scale Republican can whip up the enthusiasm to get the vote out?

      The disastrous outcome for Republicans is a 2016 flop with Trump, followed by 2020 with Cruz proving that there aren’t millions of disappointed true conservative voters that stayed at home in 2008 and 2012 when the Republican party ran establishment candidates. Hillary will get two easy wins and then maybe the crazy section of the Democratic party will get out of control and the Republicans adults will get control of the party and we’ll all be voting for the sane Republican in 2024.

      • n1cholas says:

        “We’ll all be voting for the sane Republican in 2024.”

        You can now, although she’s running as a Democrat.

      • 1mime says:

        Themono, Please describe what you believe is the “crazy” section of the Democratic Party.

      • johngalt says:

        Since 2008 the hard conservative wing of the GOP has been explaining away losses by the (relatively) moderate McCain and Romney by arguing that they were insufficiently conservative to motivate some significant group of people to actually vote. This is an idiotic argument that 538 dismantled some time ago, but Cruz is a true believer from this wing of the party. The most Cruz would do to pivot to the center is to pick a more establishment VP but he’s not going to move toward the center himself. Since he is as conservative as it gets, perhaps his thumping loss will finally dispel the insufficiently conservative myth.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        “Hillary will get two easy wins and then maybe the crazy section of the Democratic party will get out of control ”

        I doubt it. Its not like becoming crazy is inevitable for a political party. This doesn’t just happen, it was orchestrated.

        There’s just nothing to suggest that the crazy wing of the party is gaining any broad reach whatsoever.

        I’m not seeing any rejection of scientific consensus anywhere near the liberal mainstream. People who believe in empiricism and employ critical thought tend to overwhelmingly congregate in the (current) democratic party. That kind of stuff acts as a natural barrier to lunatics becoming mainstream in a parrt.

        There’s a reason why 6% of scientists identity as Republican vs 55% Democrats.

      • ‘she’s running as a Democrat’… Most right on comment I’ve seen all week, n1cholas!!

      • johngalt says:

        Of course most anti-vaxxers and anti-GMO people are on the left side of the spectrum, so there is plenty of crazy there too.

      • 1mime says:

        As nutty as these people are, they pale in comparison to this mindset:

    • 1mime says:

      Chew on this little nugget for a while and see how you like it:

      “The National Border Patrol Council, which says it represents 16,500 border agents, endorsed Donald Trump. It says it has never endorsed a presidential candidate in a primary before, but these are dire times.”

      The people hired to patrol the border are supporting a candidate who is rabidly anti-immigrant. Kinda tells you something about the mindset of these agents, doesn’t it?

  4. goplifer says:

    Thanks guys. Great work. Might try to put this into a spreadsheet on the plane today.

    • MassDem says:

      Dear Dr. Lifer,

      One good turn deserves another. I was wondering if you could help me with this Berning sensation I’ve been experiencing lately. It started off as a pain in the neck, but has now turned into a fearsome headache. My friends tell me not to worry, as it will likely be gone by the summer, but is there anything I can do in the meantime?

      Thank you,
      A Dem

  5. MassDem says:

    I’ve been asking myself this same question–where are the Americans in the Panama Papers? Turns out you don’t need to go abroad to hide your money; Delaware will do nicely.

  6. MassDem says:

    Here are some results by county, Wallace vs Reynolds in the Dem primary, in the PDF at this link:

  7. Griffin says:

    Have you tried Dan T. Carter’s The politics of Rage, pages 198-225? If the data set’s available it’s probably there.

    • Griffin says:

      Don’t buy it if you don’t want to I can check it out at the library tommorow and post the info here if it’s available. That way you don’t waste money if it’s not in there.

      • Griffin says:

        In Wisconsin he won 266,000 votes in the primary where 780,000 ballots were cast in the Democratic Primary. Most of his support came from Southern Milwaukee but that’s all I can find.

        Oh and according to Carter Suburbanites were as likely to vote for him as blue collar types were. Carter pages 206 to 208

      • 1mime says:

        Griffin, I hope you do as well on your calculus exam as you do on your political research project!

      • Griffin says:

        One more thing it was an open primary so alot Republicans who supported McCarthy voted for him to spite the liberal governor who was denouncing Wallace.

      • Griffin says:

        Thank you Mime, though considering I couldn’t find the actual data I actually hope it goes better than my political research haha.

  8. Sterling Minor says:

    Wallace ran in 1968.

    Sterling A. Minor
    Sterling Minor Law PLLC
    Business Transactions
    Real Estate Transactions
    Download vCard
    1200 Binz St Ste 650
    Houston TX 77004-6927
    713.401.2901 (office)
    713.884.5779 (mobile)
    AV Preeminent Rated – Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings

    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message may be privileged or may be delivered in a settlement negotiation. In either case it is confidential.

    • Griffin says:

      He also ran in 1964 in the Democratic Primary. But yeah I thought he had more support in 1968 but it was on a third party ticket.

      Can’t find the data anywhere. Called the Wisconsin Historical Society but I had to leave a message. Hopefully they know where to find it but I doubt it. Hold on I’ll try a few more things because I want to procrasinate on my Calculus studyin… I mean because I’m a deeply concerned citizen who is interested in history and politics.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 454 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: