The Chicago Cubs broke a 108-year dry spell on Wednesday night when they won the World Series for the first time since 1908, beating the Cleveland Indians in a 10-inning thriller 8-7. It was an epic end to a long drought. When the Cubs last won the World Series, a Hershey’s chocolate bar cost two cents (51 cents when adjusting for inflation), Franz Ferdinand was alive and presumably well, women in the U.S. were barred from voting, and Wilbur Wright brought the first manned aircraft to France.

Today, a Hershey’s chocolate bar is more than $1.50, World War I is a century old, the U.S. might elect its first female president, and over 100,000 aircrafts fly through the skies every day. What else was happening the last time the Cubbies won it all, and how are things different in the law and policy world 108 years later?

For one, just a few weeks after the Cubs beat the Detroit Tigers on October 14, William Howard Taft was elected the 27th president of the U.S. on November 3. The New York Times lede the following morning read: “William H. Taft will be the twenty-seventh President of the United States, having swept the country by a vote which will give him 314 ballots in the Electoral College against Mr. Bryan’s 169, or only 22 less than Mr. Roosevelt had in 1904. His majority will be 145.” Also on the front page that day was a crudely drawn map showing how the U.S. voted. The paper cost one cent.

Seventeen presidents later, the U.S. will be voting for its 45th commander in chief next Tuesday. While Taft beat his opponent, Democrat William Jennings Bryan in a landslide, the 2016 election is primed to be a much tighter race. Thursday’s front-page consists of a glossy photo of the Cubs whooping in victory, the FBI’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s emails, and the brutal murder of two police officers in Iowa. The paper costs $2.50.

Away from politics and the baseball diamond, another momentous occasion took place in 1908: Henry Ford’s first Model T was completed, sparking an automobile (and supply line) revolution, making them more accessible, and lifting cars from an elite luxury to a mainstream necessity. Before the Model T, there were less than 200,000 cars on America’s roads. Between 1908 and 1927, nearly 15 million cars crept along the country’s throughways and city streets. As of 2014, there were over 250 million cars in America.

And then there is this: not only were there no black (or Latino) baseball players in the MLB in 1908 (including the World Series champion Cubs), Jackie Robinson, the first black player to play in the modern configuration of the MLB, had not even been born. In contrast, according to a census taken by the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, 8.3 percent of the league is black (62 players), and 28.5 percent is Latino (214 players). The demographic shifts in the MLB largely mirror the shifts in America’s population as a whole.

In 1910, the nearest census to 1908, there were over 92 million people living in America, with African-Americans making up less than ten percent of the population (or a bit less than eight million). As of 2010, the latest census, there were more than 300 million people in America. More than 12 percent (or over 37.5 million) registered as “Non-Hispanic Black,” and 16.3 percent (or nearly 50.5 million) registered as “Hispanic or Latino.”

So what will the world look like in 2124, when, if history is any indication, the Cubs are slated to win their next World Series? Will our cars hover above the pavement? Will the White House have a gilded “Trump” sign plastered to its Northern facade? It’s impossible to forecast that far in advance. Then again, there’s always the chance the Cubs repeat in 2017. Stay tuned.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What was America Like the Last Time the Cubs Won the World Series? appeared first on Law Street.

When Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, he affected the future of the Republican party immensely, even though he ultimately lost the race. Although many argue that Goldwater’s loss began the revitalization of the conservative movement, it also marked the start of black Americans’ growing negative perception of the GOP. It’s a pattern that Donald Trump is poised to repeat with Latino voters this year, potentially establishing a negative trend.

Goldwater’s staunch opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957–the bill striking down Jim Crow voting laws designed to deny voting rights to Black Americans–contributed to his high unfavorability ratings among black voters. According to Goldwater, his vote was purely a matter of resisting federal encroachment on states’ rights–but the specter of racism followed his campaign, leading to abysmal support from black voters.

Barry Goldwater courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Members of the Ku Klux Klan publicly endorsed Goldwater, and although he denounced their support, his opponent Lyndon B. Johnson made political hay out of the connection, which Goldwater wasn’t successfully able to escape. The whole situation sounds eerily similar to another GOP nominee not being able to detach himself from KKK support.

Goldwater’s race politics are the subject of discussion even today–in many ways, he was remarkably socially liberal for his party. By 1989, he stated that the Republican party had been overtaken by ‘kooks,’ and in the 1990s, Goldwater approved of several progressive measures, such as gays serving in the military and marijuana legalization. Martin Luther King Jr. put it very well: “While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulates a philosophy which gives aid and comfort to the racists.”

Although Goldwater isn’t the sole cause of this divide, he certainly coincided with its beginning. Nonwhite voters in 1960 only carried a 22 point deficit in Republican votes–the same divide present with female voters, although in the opposite direction. During this period, white and nonwhite voters disagreed, but not overwhelmingly so. That all changed in the next election–and the divide that followed is still present today.

In the election of 1964, nonwhite voters opposed Goldwater 94 to 6, marking the steepest voting difference among a minority group in U.S. history–until Barack Obama received 95 percent of the black vote in 2008. This is an example of a stark difference between Latino and black voters–ever since the 1964 election, black voters have supported Democratic candidates by an average of 78 points, while Latino voters’ support was only 45 points on average, with splits as close as 9 points in some years.

Check out the graphs below to see the voting patterns by group. The graphs use data on racial and ethnic voting groups from Gallup and the Roper Center, to show actual voting percentages by each group. Click here to read more about the data.

After Barry Goldwater, Black voters went blue overwhelmingly for decades.

Latino voters preferred Democratic candidates in every election but often by slim margins.

This year, Donald Trump’s attitudes, positions, and comments regarding Latino Americans and immigration may be a ‘Goldwater moment’ for the minority voter bases. In almost every measurable way, Trump rates worse among minority voters than Goldwater. Whereas Goldwater served as a blockade for civil rights, he didn’t openly express racist or xenophobic opinions. Trump has no policy precedent to refer to but has ample opinions–many of which are categorically racist.

A candidate as blatantly offensive as Donald Trump sours the party’s relationship with Latino voters, directly contradicting the GOP’s efforts to connect with those voters. While we’ll have to wait until November for voting results, current favorability ratings paint a difficult picture for Trump. A June Washington Post/ABC survey found that 89 percent of Latinos saw Trump unfavorably. That number was 94 percent for black voters, which is staggeringly high, but the same divide was present between Barack Obama and both of his Republican challengers. These numbers don’t exactly correlate to votes, but they help create an estimate.

Here’s one last graph to show exactly what Trump’s effect could be on Latino voters. Note that this graph is speculative and the added election year assumes that Latino Americans will vote according to their current favorability perceptions of Trump as a candidate. The graph below illustrates how a new divide could emerge:

Trump’s record-high unfavorable rating among Latino voters could signal the largest party split since the 1970s.

Donald Trump’s numbers among Latinos are the worst his party has had in over 45 years–and that’s only half of the bad news for the GOP. Not currying favor with Latinos may not have cost Reagan or the Bushes the presidency, but it may very well cost Trump–Latinos are the largest ethnic or racial minority in the United States, making up 17 percent of the general population. Coupled with black Americans at 12 percent, these minorities are no longer so ‘minor,’ and can’t be ignored by candidates hoping to win a popular vote. While Trump might still be able to improve his standing with Latino voters, it will be an uphill battle. Trump may not be as well spoken, intellectual, or experienced as Barry Goldwater, but he may prove to be just as divisive.

Notes:

Graphs created using polling data from Gallup (1952 – 1972) and The Roper Center (1976 – 2012).

1. The term “Latino” in this analysis refers to voters self-identifying as Latino or Hispanic in polls. The term “black” refers to voters self-identifying as African American or black in polls.
2. Group voting data from 1952 to 1972 only distinguishes between white and nonwhite voters. While these two groups voted similarly–but to different degrees in later elections–there is not precise data on how they may have differed before 1972. 
3. The third graph is speculative and is meant to show that Latinos’ current attitudes toward Trump are more negative than the group has ever demonstrated against a Republican candidate based on past election results.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Trump This Generation’s Goldwater? appeared first on Law Street.