# The Election of 1960

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-of-1960/792444>\
**Category:** Politics & Elections\
**Created:** [July 30, 2017, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-of-1960/792444 "2017-07-30T15:55:04Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\
**Post date:** [September 22, 2017, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-of-1960/792444/21 "2017-09-22T10:45:35Z")

</div>

> [@Lorne\_Armstrong](#):
>
> I don’t recall claims of voter fraud in 2012, 2008, 1996, or 1992.

[I do](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/10/29/the-voter-fraud-myth), at least for 2008 and 2012.

The horribly-named and more horribly-intentioned “True the Vote” was founded in 2009 in response to Republican allegations of voter fraud in the 2008 election. Of course, what it really is is a right-wing machine dedicated to disenfranchising and discouraging likely Democratic voters.

We can thank Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation for a lot of this:

> [@](#):
>
> Mainstream election experts say that Spakovsky has had an improbably large impact. Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine, and the author of a recent book, “The Voting Wars,” says, “Before 2000, there were some rumblings about Democratic voter fraud, but it really wasn’t part of the main discourse. But thanks to von Spakovsky and the flame-fanning of a few others, the myth that Democratic voter fraud is common, and that it helps Democrats win elections, has become part of the Republican orthodoxy.” In December, Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, wrote, “Election fraud is a real and persistent threat to our electoral system.” He accused Democrats of “standing up for potential fraud—presumably because ending it would disenfranchise at least two of its core constituencies: the deceased and double-voters.” Hasen believes that Democrats, for their part, have made exaggerated claims about the number of voters who may be disenfranchised by Republican election-security measures. But he regards the conservative alarmists as more successful. “Their job is really done,” Hasen says. “It’s common now to assert that there is a need for voter I.D.s, even without any evidence.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\
**Post date:** [September 22, 2017, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-of-1960/792444/22 "2017-09-22T13:09:52Z")

</div>

> [@kunilou](#):
>
> Kennedy understood television. Nixon didn’t. 1960 happened to be the first time that mattered.

Nixon understood television quite well - he saved his political career in 1952 when he was about to be dropped from the Eisenhower ticket with a hugely successful television speech [Checkers speech - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkers_speech#Preparation_and_setting) . I’m more inclined to credit Kennedy’s victory to Eisenhower’s lackluster support of Nixon, rather than the effect of one debate.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-of-1960/792444.md?page=1)