U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-09-2019, 01:13 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
10,254 posts, read 6,782,390 times
Reputation: 6517

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luciano700 View Post
You're talking to someone who's in their last year of High school buddy

And for your information I technically have taken 5 US history classes, even if my memory is blurred a bit I still have some decent memory

If the party switch was real, how do you explain most riots happening in liberal cities at that time? I'll wait

And wth is a sonny boy? Lol

Now let me alone and enjoy my sleep


But please keep the Kool Aid
Looks like you didn't remember the lessons in your US History classes.

Go look up the Southern Strategy, for one.

Riots in the 1960s and party realignment aren't necessarily correlated or connected directly.

And yes, sonny boy, you have a lot to learn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-09-2019, 01:26 PM
 
70 posts, read 23,625 times
Reputation: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
How many times do you think LBJ used the N word each day?




LMAO No they didn't. Only one, Strom Thurmond switched parties. The democrats held the same 20 or so spots the dixiecrats held for the next 20+ years.
Trent was in the House and wasn't a dixiecrat. He switched parties in 1972 and didn't become a Senator until 1989. Helms didn't get to Congress until 1973.

The southern congress didn't become republican until the early 1990s. The less racist the south became, the more republican it became.

George Wallace, the segregationist would have won the 1972 democratic nomination for president if he hadn't been shot 2/3 of the way through. Humphrey won the popular vote with 25.5%, McGovern the actual nominee had 25.3% and Wallace a close 3rd with 23.5%. He never campaigned the last 1/3 of the way and that includes California.

Your party of the klan kept electing Sen Byrd who recruited his own klan chapter.

As the civil rights movement gained momentum in the 1950s and ’60s, the federal government passed a number of civil rights bills, four of which were named the Civil Rights Act.

Of the four acts passed between 1957 and 1968, Republicans in both chambers of Congress voted in favor at a higher rate than Democrats in all but one case. Republicans often had fewer total votes in support than Democrats due to the substantial majorities Democrats held in both the House and Senate.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/12/...democrats-did/

Own your racist parties heritage.
Blacks stopped supporting the republican party when Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. FACT
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2019, 05:29 PM
 
Location: Clyde Hill, WA
4,075 posts, read 725,202 times
Reputation: 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
...
I have no idea why we debate the idea of party switchers, you can google them and see who has switched parties. there are like 12 current Republicans senators who were once Democrats, a couple of governors too. Mind you, this switch happened 20/30 years ago, so many have long since retired, so go back one governing generation and the numbers are even higher.
The question is still why the switch occurred. It is still often falsely claimed that was a question of race politics, as with posters in this thread who know better. "20/30 years ago would have been 1990-2000, decades after the 1964 Civil Rights Act that is often cited as impetus for the switch.

A good book on this is The End of Southern Exceptionalism, written by a pair of academics after a debate at Oxford U. on the causes of the switch of the South from D to R. One of them realized that the question could be pretty definitively answered with survey data.

They conclude that the switch was more a function of economics than of race politics. It started in the 1950s under Ike. It was not complete until 1994, when the South became majority red. The first areas to switch were the 'New South' such as AZ, that were transforming from rural to more industrialized. The last areas to transform were the 'deep south' such as MS. It was all about economics, not race.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2019, 09:30 PM
 
Location: New Orleans, La. USA
5,971 posts, read 2,879,670 times
Reputation: 2217
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGoodTheBadTheUgly View Post
Trump is terrible at being a racist. What kind of racist lifts an entire generation of minorities out of subservience and out of food stamps. Trump is giving racists a bad name.

The unemployment rate for African-Americans fell to the lowest level ever recorded in August, dropping from 6 percent to 5.5 percent.


https://www.breitbart.com/economy/20...smallest-ever/
Black unemployment rate by year,

2009- 16.1
2010- 15.5
2011- 15.4
2012- 14.0
2013- 11.9
2014- 10.6
2015- 8.5
2016- 7.9
2017- 6.7
2018- 6.6
2019- 5.5

Did Donald Trump lower the black unemployment rate, or did Trump inherit a black unemployment rate that has been steadily falling for 10 years?

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006


Under Obama the black unemployment rate fell from 16.1% to 6.7% (a decrease of 9.4%)
Under Trump the black unemployment rate fell from 6.7% to 5.5% (a decrease of 1.2%)

Who deserves more credit and praise for lowering the black unemployment rate, Obama or Trump?

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2019, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,699 posts, read 11,743,630 times
Reputation: 4394
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
The question is still why the switch occurred.
Its both. The person I was responding to point blank denied the switch, there are entire threads where people do it and it makes no sense.

I remember in 2016, Martin O Malley made a comment about being the only life long Dem on the stage and he was right.

Clinton, Chaffee, and Webb had all been Republicans at one point, and that Sanders was an Indy. This lead to some leftist magazine also talking about the right and the fact that Trump, Perry, and Carson had atleast defined themselves as not republicans at some point.


Quote:
It is still often falsely claimed that was a question of race politics, as with posters in this thread who know better. "20/30 years ago would have been 1990-2000, decades after the 1964 Civil Rights Act that is often cited as impetus for the switch.

A good book on this is The End of Southern Exceptionalism, written by a pair of academics after a debate at Oxford U. on the causes of the switch of the South from D to R. One of them realized that the question could be pretty definitively answered with survey data.

They conclude that the switch was more a function of economics than of race politics. It started in the 1950s under Ike. It was not complete until 1994, when the South became majority red. The first areas to switch were the 'New South' such as AZ, that were transforming from rural to more industrialized. The last areas to transform were the 'deep south' such as MS. It was all about economics, not race.
Its not false at all, we cant make this an either or debate. by which I mean " either 100% of those who became republicans did so because of race, or not 1 single person did"

If you make an absolutist argument either way, you are lying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2019, 10:07 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,699 posts, read 11,743,630 times
Reputation: 4394
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverkris View Post
Looks like you didn't remember the lessons in your US History classes.

Go look up the Southern Strategy, for one.

Riots in the 1960s and party realignment aren't necessarily correlated or connected directly.

And yes, sonny boy, you have a lot to learn.
The Southern strategy isnt taught in high school, at least it wasnt to me. I honestly dont remember Nixon being mentioned other than Watergate in and of itself.(although, im 10 years removed from high school at this point)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2019, 10:16 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
10,254 posts, read 6,782,390 times
Reputation: 6517
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
The Southern strategy isnt taught in high school, at least it wasnt to me. I honestly dont remember Nixon being mentioned other than Watergate in and of itself.(although, im 10 years removed from high school at this point)
Exactly. Which means that this teenager probably didn't learn it and has demonstrated his lack of knowledge in that area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2019, 10:29 PM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
15,620 posts, read 13,559,530 times
Reputation: 4746
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
The question is still why the switch occurred. It is still often falsely claimed that was a question of race politics, as with posters in this thread who know better. "20/30 years ago would have been 1990-2000, decades after the 1964 Civil Rights Act that is often cited as impetus for the switch.

A good book on this is The End of Southern Exceptionalism, written by a pair of academics after a debate at Oxford U. on the causes of the switch of the South from D to R. One of them realized that the question could be pretty definitively answered with survey data.

They conclude that the switch was more a function of economics than of race politics. It started in the 1950s under Ike. It was not complete until 1994, when the South became majority red. The first areas to switch were the 'New South' such as AZ, that were transforming from rural to more industrialized. The last areas to transform were the 'deep south' such as MS. It was all about economics, not race.
The switch didn't do much good. The deep south is still poor today. To me, the main reason people switched from Democrat to Republican was because Democrats stood for welfare and more of it. Hard working producers don't like moochers. Reagan helped make welfare and Democrats unpopular with his famous welfare Cadillac story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2019, 11:17 PM
 
Location: Round Rock, TX
2,782 posts, read 848,945 times
Reputation: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie View Post
The switch didn't do much good. The deep south is still poor today. To me, the main reason people switched from Democrat to Republican was because Democrats stood for welfare and more of it. Hard working producers don't like moochers. Reagan helped make welfare and Democrats unpopular with his famous welfare Cadillac story.
Also even if I have a lack of knowledge, wouldn't a real switch have required a treaty???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:04 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
8,361 posts, read 2,875,058 times
Reputation: 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie View Post
The switch didn't do much good. The deep south is still poor today. To me, the main reason people switched from Democrat to Republican was because Democrats stood for welfare and more of it. Hard working producers don't like moochers. Reagan helped make welfare and Democrats unpopular with his famous welfare Cadillac story.



The whole "Southern Switch" narrative is a joke.

It's just a convenient fairy tale for Democrats who decided that the soft bigotry of low expectations and political correctness were a better long term strategy than overt racism.

Democrat's beliefs and motivations never changed.....

Just their means of achieving them.

Last edited by FatBob96; Yesterday at 04:22 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top