Why Did the Democratic South Become Republican? (suspect, independent, 18 year old)

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by TheGrandViking

Here is a good article on the subject from the washington post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.b85d864108b5

a key point in the article.


The researchers also considered whether those Southerners who opposed a black president did so not because of racial prejudice, but because of their support for states' rights. Gallup asked respondents if they would consider voting for a black presidential candidate in their party. Because the Democratic Party was more racially diverse in the North, Southern Democrats might have assumed that a black Democratic nominee would be a Northerner, endangering the South's control over its own affairs.

But Gallup also asked respondents whether they would be willing to vote for a hypothetical Catholic, Jewish or female presidential candidate -- all of whom would likely have come from a Northern state -- and white Southern Democrats who opposed candidates in these categories were not any more likely to leave the party. Race, rather than states' rights or other political issues, seems to have caused the demise of the Southern white Democrat.


There are some interesting opinions in this thread that are more wish fulfillment and fantasy.

yeah, well the saddest fact of racism is people thinking they can't be contributing to the problem because they're not white-male.

[Bureaucat]

Originally Posted by Spartacus713

That is a documented lie. Also, Republcans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by a higher percentage than the Democrats did. This is also well documented and not disputable when using the actual facts.

A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because there were virtually no southern Republicans at that time. Sometime around that time, after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, Strom Thurmond switched from Democrat to what he called the “Goldwater Republican Party”. Very few of the Southern Democrats formally switched parties at that time because they wanted to protect their seniority and their precious Congressional chairmanships, but the message was clearly sent to Southern racial conservatives in 1964 when the Dixiecrat presidential candidate of 1948 became a Republican and subsequently fought successfully to keep South Carolina in the R column for Nixon in 1968.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by TheGrandViking

Here is a good article on the subject from the washington post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.b85d864108b5

a key point in the article.


The researchers also considered whether those Southerners who opposed a black president did so not because of racial prejudice, but because of their support for states' rights. Gallup asked respondents if they would consider voting for a black presidential candidate in their party. Because the Democratic Party was more racially diverse in the North, Southern Democrats might have assumed that a black Democratic nominee would be a Northerner, endangering the South's control over its own affairs.

But Gallup also asked respondents whether they would be willing to vote for a hypothetical Catholic, Jewish or female presidential candidate -- all of whom would likely have come from a Northern state -- and white Southern Democrats who opposed candidates in these categories were not any more likely to leave the party. Race, rather than states' rights or other political issues, seems to have caused the demise of the Southern white Democrat.


There are some interesting opinions in this thread that are more wish fulfillment and fantasy.

LOL you're the kind of person who would've claimed that white conservative voters would've never elected a black Republican to the US Senate in Tim Scott of South Carolina? Or elected an Indian American Governor in Bobby Jindal of Louisiana? Or Latino US Senators in Florida and Texas in Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz? Or elected other black and Latino statewide officials such as the former lieutenant governor of Florida Jennifer Carroll or various state supreme court and court of criminal appeals justices in Texas who were black and Latino. Two things these people had in common: they were/are all Republicans and were elected despite substantial Democrat/minority opposition to their candidacies. The left can keep fantasizing about why X or Y candidate won't do well among Southern voters, but they shouldn't ignore the reality on the ground, backed up by multiple facts shared in this thread.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by Retroit

I first heard about the so-called “southern strategy” here on city-data. It amazes me that liberals create these lies and then so ardently believe in them.

I believe you just called Lee Atwater (Google it, mmkay?) a liberal. That is quite the - is "achievement" the word?

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Anyone with party loyalty is the cow with the free milk imo. Regardless, it's the independents that pick the winners, the far left and right just spam idiocy.

Independents make up about 10% of the electorate. That number spikes in some states to around 30, but that is about it.

[SunGrins]

Good ol’ Boys were trying to maintain control and the GOP gave them that opportunity once the Democrats became supportive of civil and voting rights. The game in the south was to restrict voting rights and keep some semblance of segregation regardless of political party. That continued for a long time supported by the GOP. Things change slowly but maybe we see some changes happening in the south.

I had a friend from a prominent family in one of the panhandle Florida counties who tried to register as a Democrat but the county clerk refused saying he would disenfranchise himself as a Democrat. He persisted and the clerk went ahead and did it but the general practice was not to register Democrats.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by McGowdog

.



The Big Switch is a Big Lie.

There was an entire thread on this. but anyways................ People like you start defining "the switch" based on when people took office, completely ignoring the fact that people switched parties before running for higher office.


Thad Cochran switched in 1967, 5 years before he ran for congress, a full 12 years before he became a US senator from Mississippi, and will retire this fall.

Elizabeth Dole( served till 2009) Switched in 1975, almost 25 years before becoming a senator

Trent Lott(served till 2007) Switched in 1973, a year before running for congress


John Hoeven(current Senator SD)

Cindy Hyde-Smith( Current MS senator)

Nathan Deal(current GA gov)

Sonny Purdue( direct previous governor)


Long story short, you are making a bad argument

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_..._United_States



If you want to claim the party switch happened for different reasons, go right ahead, but dont say it didnt happen.


Also, Racism seems to be different depending on where you live.

Here in the South, racism may not be something you notice passing by, but give yourself 15 minutes entrenched in an area and you will see it. Not everyone is racist, but some of the "good" defend it or do nothing about it. That goes for black and white people.

[It'sAutomatic]

Democrats embraced Civil Rights for black people, and Republicans, seeing opportunity in the disillusionment of millions of white people in the South, embraced them.

[janelle144]

Originally Posted by cuebald

Because the Southern Democrats became republicans in 1964 in response to Civil Rights legislation by LBJ. Strom Thurmond led the exodus.

I guess you didn't listen to the video. Thurmond was the ONLY Dem to become republican. The others stayed Dems.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by janelle144

I guess you didn't listen to the video. Thurmond was the ONLY Dem to become republican. The others stayed Dems.

My post proves that a lie

Half of the Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi delegations used to be Democrats.