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.
It's not a fact. The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. The South did not become majority red until 1994. To believe your post, we would have to believe that Southern voters were mad about the CRA, but waited 30 years to act upon their anger by changing from blue to red.
Another problem with your 'fact': CRA '64 was passed with proportionally more GOP support than Democratic support.
A. 30 years of change that culminated in 94. Change of that kind is generational. There was no internet or talk radio back then. The GOP went from a chamber of commerce party to a party driven by fear of the other and religious fundamentalism during that time.
B. Not buying that statistical nonsense. A larger percentage of a much smaller whole is nothing to crow about.
A. 30 years of change that culminated in 94. Change of that kind is generational. There was no internet or talk radio back then. The GOP went from a chamber of commerce party to a party driven by fear of the other and religious fundamentalism during that time.
Actually if you look at the numbers, it was more like 40 years of change. The shift started in the 1950s as Ike got an increased share of Southern votes. Also the transformation of the GOP did not occur until 1980. The transformation of the Democrats started in 1972. Or arguably even earlier, with Eugene McCarthy in 1968. None of the timelines fit your purported 'fact.'
Quote:
B. Not buying that statistical nonsense. A larger percentage of a much smaller whole is nothing to crow about.
It's not statistical nonsense, it's just fact that Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act of 64 in higher proportion than Democrats. And yet the claim is that Southern racists upset about CRA 64 decided to switch to the party that supported it in higher numbers? If you're looking for nonsense, there it is.
George Wallace, 1968 Dixiecrat candidate for president. Lifelong Democrat till his passing in the 90s. Also definitely not a big government liberal, at least compared to Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, etc. Political parties are nothing more than vessels to carry forth ideas, not centers of ideology in and of themselves.
The democrats are so repulsive maggots reject them.
This is why many people who see this forum will choose to stay away - people saying reprehensible things about others, name calling, and declining to actually discuss issues.
White Supremist, KKK, Nazi's - all racist, all violent, all Republicans.
The party of Slavery
The Party of the KKK
The Party of Segregation
The party of aborting black babies
The Party that denied the Freemen to have guns
The Party of Jim Crow
The Party of the New Deal
The Party of Lynchings.
I've been reading Death of a Nation by Dinesh D'Souza, and he says no. He has a lot of compelling info to back it. I leave a lot out here, for brevity's sake.
First of all, integral to the 'Big Switch' is Nixon's 'Southern Strategy' of 1968. This is a much-beloved left wing notion, to the point that it still gets dredged up 50 years later. There are various problems with the 'Southern Strategy' theory, but I'll just cite one. Nixon's actions as president were entirely inconsistent with it. Prior to 1968, 70% of Southern black students attended segregated schools. When Nixon left, the number was down to 8%, specifically thanks to his efforts.
But suppose the 'Southern Strategy' is phantasmagoric. Couldn't there still have been a 'Big Switch.' D'Souza says 'no.' He looks all Dixiecrats and all Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Exactly ONE of this group switched to the GOP--Strom Thurmond. And with him, there is evidence of a genuine conversion on issues of race.
D'Souza cites an academic study, The End of Southern Exceptionalism. Exceptionalism here refers to 'differentness, not 'greatness.' They found that the shift to the GOP really began under Ike (1952-1960). Eisenhower won 5 'peripheral south' states, which had begun to transform into the 'New South,' which was more urban, more industrial, and less racist. The study split the South into 2 camps--the 'Old South' which was rural, agricultural, and had a long tradition of racism. Then there was the 'New South.' What they found was that the shift followed the growth of the New South. Slowly and gradually, the Old South made the same transformation. It was an economic transformation, not a 'Big Switch' based on race politics.
At the same time, the Democratic party was losing appeal in the South by moving further left, to wit George McGovern in 1972. Still, Jimmy Carter swept the South in 1976, and Bill Clinton won a majority there in 1992. The transformation was not really close to complete until 1994. In 2000 George W. Bush swept the South. D'Souza concludes, "The South has now become like the rest of the country. Southerners are Republican for the same reason that other Americans are Republican...race has relatively little to do with it." The "Big Switch," like the "Southern Strategy" is a myth and a canard.
It's not a fact. The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. The South did not become majority red until 1994. To believe your post, we would have to believe that Southern voters were mad about the CRA, but waited 30 years to act upon their anger by changing from blue to red.
Dude, you argue as if everyone in the South is a racist. They all care about just one single issue (race) and they would all behave in unison after CRA was passed.
There was a monumental shift in the South after the Civil Rights Act was passed. A lot of racists moved from the Democratic party to the GOP. That is a fact.
Using the election as a gauge is completely idiotic because southern voters consist of more than just racists, you know! If you want to talk about the racists then look at stats about the racists. SMH.
.
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.
