Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First, this is a good example of the logical fallacy known as "no true Scotsman." You don't like where my evidence points, so you discount my evidence. Logical Fallacies» ‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy
Wouldn't it make sense that segregationist politicians and segregationist voters should have made the same migration together, if there was a migration?
Secondly, your own Wikipedia source shows how overblown talk of the 'Southern Strategy' is. The only real evidence of its existence (in your link) are a couple of quotes from R consultants Lee Atwater and Kevin Phillips (who later became a moonbat liberal).
Lee Atwater was a bare-knuckles politics guy who would do anything to win, but probably not a racist. He was actually a professional musician who recorded with black musicians like Percy Sledge, Isaac Hayes, etc. Neither of these two spoke for the entire GOP. Ken Mehlman, as RNC chair, officially apologized for and renounced the "Southern Strategy" in 2005.
No. It's would be far easier for a voter to change parties than a politician to run in a slot already taken. The migration would have to be much more slower for as politician than a voter pulling the Republican lever in the voting booth.
The politicain moving parties would be far more official. A democratic politician would have to gain contacts and influence in the Republican party before they could run for office as a Republican.
The way a politicians ran for office in the sixties was far more backroom dealings than primary open voting.
No man can be fully free while his neighbor is not. To go forward at all is to go forward together. This means black and white together as one nation, not two. Our laws have caught up with our conscience.
Wouldn't it make sense that segregationist politicians and segregationist voters should have made the same migration together, if there was a migration?
That's the entire premise that Coulter's apologetic idea rests on, and the best argument you have is "wouldn't it make sense"?
katzpaw is right and Coulter is, as per usual, wrong. The Southern Strategy was about garnering votes among disgruntled racists, and we don't have to take anyone's word for it except the Republicans of the time themselves.
Coulter is sometimes very clever when she wants to distort history - not this time. Go read something better.
The Southern Strategy was to court white trailer park rabble to win Nixon votes for the Presidency. It had nothing to do with the Senate. Nixon cared about his own power and advancement, not the party.
That's the entire premise that Coulter's apologetic idea rests on, and the best argument you have is "wouldn't it make sense"?
katzpaw is right and Coulter is, as per usual, wrong. The Southern Strategy was about garnering votes among disgruntled racists, and we don't have to take anyone's word for it except the Republicans of the time themselves.
Coulter is sometimes very clever when she wants to distort history - not this time. Go read something better.
And your best argument appears to be "no it would not make sense" with nothing to back it up. If there was a vast migration among "disgruntled racists" from D to R, there should have been a similar vast migration among segregationist D senators. But there was not. How would you propose to explain that? No "no true Scotsman" fallacies, please.
No. It's would be far easier for a voter to change parties than a politician to run in a slot already taken. The migration would have to be much more slower for as politician than a voter pulling the Republican lever in the voting booth.
The politicain moving parties would be far more official. A democratic politician would have to gain contacts and influence in the Republican party before they could run for office as a Republican.
The way a politicians ran for office in the sixties was far more backroom dealings than primary open voting.
All true.
Moreover, they seem to forget that these Southern Democrats basically stopped supporting the Democratic Party after Lyndon Johnson left office. Most of them were strong Nixon supporters. More than a few even said that they wouldn't vote for Nixon's impeachment if it came up.
If you can find the excerpts from the book "The Final Days," Southern Democrats repeatedly assured Nixon that they wouldn't join the Democrats in Nixon's demise.
If there was a vast migration among "disgruntled racists" from D to R, there should have been a similar vast migration among segregationist D senators. But there was not. How would you propose to explain that?
Excuse me? I am called upon to disprove the flat assertion underlying Coulter's specious reasoning? I don't think so. Your (hers) statement, your burden of proof.
If you only look a one segment of the political body without considering all other political positions and offices, [the move of state legislators, county comissioners and town councilmen...down to the dog catcher] then you only have a one pixel of the complete picture.
Excuse me? I am called upon to disprove the flat assertion underlying Coulter's specious reasoning? I don't think so. Your (hers) statement, your burden of proof.
Huh? Where is the "flat assertion underlying Coulter's specious reasoning" whatever that might mean?
Coulter just states a fact. Of 13 Dem segregationist US Senators, exactly one switched to the R party. There is no burden of proof on anyone. It's a simple fact. I'm just asking for your explanation of that fact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
