If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RealClearPolitics)   The South didn't switch political parties because they're racist, they switched because they all became rich. It's all here in the data if you ignore Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi   (realclearpolitics.com) divider line 132
    More: Unlikely, Mississippi, souths, Alabama, Southern Democrats, GOP, Adlai Stevenson, false consciousness, Champaign Central High School  
•       •       •

1704 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Apr 2013 at 11:25 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



132 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-30 11:27:41 AM
The South switched parties because the GOP is a sponge for all the layers of garbage the Democratic party sheds every time they make signifigant progress on an issue.
 
2013-04-30 11:30:08 AM
If you say so..
 
2013-04-30 11:30:58 AM
It's well-known that Reagan's "States' Rights" speech was given in a town rife with a history of yuppies and nouveau-riche social-climbers.
 
2013-04-30 11:31:39 AM
"The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats. " Nixon's political strategist Kevin Philips
 
2013-04-30 11:31:50 AM
But the big breakthrough, to the extent that there was one, came in 1952. Dwight Eisenhower won 48 percent of the vote there, compared to Adlai Stevenson's 52 percent. He carried most of the "peripheral South" -- Virginia, Tennessee, Texas and Florida -- and made inroads in the "Deep South," almost carrying South Carolina and losing North Carolina and Louisiana by single digits.

The map tells of a different picture:
 upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-04-30 11:32:03 AM

CPennypacker: The South switched parties because the GOP is a sponge for all the layers of garbage the Democratic party sheds every time they make signifigant progress on an issue.


I dunno if you intended this to be a troll, but I think it's been true over the last 30 years of my life. Accidental troll wisdom?
 
2013-04-30 11:34:03 AM
Claiming that the shift started earlier doesn't help, given that Humphrey's DNC speech was in 1948.

That said, yes, thinking it was a simple abrupt transition after the 1964 Civil Rights Act is delusional.
 
2013-04-30 11:34:10 AM

Mrtraveler01: But the big breakthrough, to the extent that there was one, came in 1952. Dwight Eisenhower won 48 percent of the vote there, compared to Adlai Stevenson's 52 percent. He carried most of the "peripheral South" -- Virginia, Tennessee, Texas and Florida -- and made inroads in the "Deep South," almost carrying South Carolina and losing North Carolina and Louisiana by single digits.

The map tells of a different picture:
 [upload.wikimedia.org image 500x317]


Who was the yellow? Wallace?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-30 11:34:53 AM
The GOP is really desperate to live the southern strategy down.

You start out in 1954 by saying, "ni**er, ni**er, ni**er." By 1968 you can't say "ni**er" - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "ni**er, ni**er."

Lee Atwater, 1981
 
2013-04-30 11:36:21 AM

deadsanta: CPennypacker: The South switched parties because the GOP is a sponge for all the layers of garbage the Democratic party sheds every time they make signifigant progress on an issue.

I dunno if you intended this to be a troll, but I think it's been true over the last 30 years of my life. Accidental troll wisdom?


Not a troll, absolutely true.
 
2013-04-30 11:36:56 AM
losing North Carolina and Louisiana by single digits.

This is an odd statement.  9% is not close.
 
2013-04-30 11:37:11 AM
The revisionism is strong with this one...
 
2013-04-30 11:38:04 AM

theorellior: It's well-known that Reagan's "States' Rights" speech was given in a town rife with a history of yuppies and nouveau-riche social-climbers.


PS: This year's Fair starts the 26th of July. It is highly recommended to check it out at least once in your life.

/was a ticket-taker there for a couple of years.
//had a couple from Australia come `cause they saw it on the internet and decided to check it out.
///also the same year that a couple of State fans come through the line with the expressed purpose of "hoping to run into Eli Manning and whooping his ass."
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-30 11:38:59 AM

Rapmaster2000: losing North Carolina and Louisiana by single digits.

This is an odd statement.  9% is not close.


But you can make it sound close by saying "single digit".
 
2013-04-30 11:39:06 AM

Rapmaster2000: losing North Carolina and Louisiana by single digits.

This is an odd statement.  9% is not close.


But it is a single-digit margin of victory. The statement is technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.
 
2013-04-30 11:39:15 AM
Once you unskew facts, they look better!
 
2013-04-30 11:40:59 AM

Lost Thought 00: Mrtraveler01: But the big breakthrough, to the extent that there was one, came in 1952. Dwight Eisenhower won 48 percent of the vote there, compared to Adlai Stevenson's 52 percent. He carried most of the "peripheral South" -- Virginia, Tennessee, Texas and Florida -- and made inroads in the "Deep South," almost carrying South Carolina and losing North Carolina and Louisiana by single digits.

The map tells of a different picture:
 [upload.wikimedia.org image 500x317]

Who was the yellow? Wallace?


Unpledged votes.
 
2013-04-30 11:43:39 AM
Whether you're a racist asshole or a selfish asshole, you're still an asshole.
 
2013-04-30 11:47:04 AM
Those who want to check this can look at actual data here:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
 
2013-04-30 11:48:07 AM
His whole argument is that when an area gets wealthier they vote Republican. He even wrote a book about it.

All one has to do is look at Silicon Valley, Colorado, and the entire Northeast to see how farking stupid an assumption that simplistic is.
 
2013-04-30 11:49:00 AM

Zasteva: Those who want to check this can look at actual data here:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/


Awesome website.

Thanks for sharing.
 
2013-04-30 11:52:56 AM
This is progress. Most times, you can't even get these clowns to admit that there ever was a change.

/See: any thread about which party harbors racists.
//You're guaranteed to see someone denying the existence of Dixiecrats
 
2013-04-30 11:53:07 AM
You could just as well make the claim that the South started turning away from Democrats when Truman desegregated the military.
 
2013-04-30 11:54:30 AM
In ALL discussions of the South, you should ignore Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. They have always been, and will probably always be backwards and poor.
 
2013-04-30 11:56:05 AM
If you want to know how the democratic party lost the redneck vote, you can read through this.  It give a pretty good synopsis for the corn belt and southern folks.  Here out in the intermountain west, it is more about the enviros and the gun grabbers.
 
2013-04-30 11:58:06 AM

BojanglesPaladin: In ALL discussions of the South, you should ignore Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. They have always been, and will probably always be backwards and poor.


Atlanta is the only thing keeping Georgia from being like Alabama and Mississippi.
 
2013-04-30 12:00:56 PM

Mrtraveler01: His whole argument is that when an area gets wealthier they vote Republican. He even wrote a book about it.

All one has to do is look at Silicon Valley, Colorado, and the entire Northeast to see how farking stupid an assumption that simplistic is.


You clearly haven't harmonized the statistical quirks.
 
2013-04-30 12:04:14 PM

HeadLever: If you want to know how the democratic party lost the redneck vote, you can read through this.  It give a pretty good synopsis for the corn belt and southern folks.  Here out in the intermountain west, it is more about the enviros and the gun grabbers.


I couldn't finish because it kept characterizing Democrats and liberals as "The latte tribe". Right after it got down criticizing Democrats for being condescending to lower/middle class people.

I think he spent more time coming up with names to insult liberals than actually providing an intelligent analysis.

I got to say, I was pretty disappointed in reading this.
 
2013-04-30 12:05:50 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: This is progress. Most times, you can't even get these clowns to admit that there ever was a change.


Not only that but one only has to look at the actual votes for the Civil Rights Act to see that it wasn't as partisan vote. It was overwhelmingly a vote divided by the mason dixie. The south is racist no matter what party they vote for.
 
2013-04-30 12:07:35 PM

Mrtraveler01: HeadLever: If you want to know how the democratic party lost the redneck vote, you can read through this.  It give a pretty good synopsis for the corn belt and southern folks.  Here out in the intermountain west, it is more about the enviros and the gun grabbers.

I couldn't finish because it kept characterizing Democrats and liberals as "The latte tribe". Right after it got down criticizing Democrats for being condescending to lower/middle class people.

I think he spent more time coming up with names to insult liberals than actually providing an intelligent analysis.

I got to say, I was pretty disappointed in reading this.


I got to say, I was pretty disappointed in reading this.

Understatement of the week.
 
2013-04-30 12:08:23 PM
You can throw Arkansas in there as well if you remove the Wal-Mart HQ from the equation.
 
2013-04-30 12:08:30 PM

CPennypacker: The South switched parties because the GOP is a sponge for all the layers of garbage the Democratic party sheds every time they make signifigant progress on an issue.


i.i.com.com
THIS!
 
2013-04-30 12:11:46 PM

HeadLever: If you want to know how the democratic party lost the redneck vote, you can read through this.  It give a pretty good synopsis for the corn belt and southern folks.  Here out in the intermountain west, it is more about the enviros and the gun grabbers.


Summary:  they think they're better than you!

/because you think they're better than you
 
2013-04-30 12:12:30 PM

Mrtraveler01: HeadLever: If you want to know how the democratic party lost the redneck vote, you can read through this.  It give a pretty good synopsis for the corn belt and southern folks.  Here out in the intermountain west, it is more about the enviros and the gun grabbers.

I couldn't finish because it kept characterizing Democrats and liberals as "The latte tribe". Right after it got down criticizing Democrats for being condescending to lower/middle class people.

I think he spent more time coming up with names to insult liberals than actually providing an intelligent analysis.

I got to say, I was pretty disappointed in reading this.


But the author is so cool......


Scott Locklin works on quantitative finance problems in Berkeley, California, but has lately been considering emigrating to America
 
2013-04-30 12:13:48 PM
Summary of article:

cherry-picker-hire.com

and

www.spaboutique.ca

Yes it didn't magically happen over night but that doesn't change the fact that the "southern strategy" was the major reason.  Yes there were other reasons too. Nothing is just black and white.
 
2013-04-30 12:15:37 PM

BojanglesPaladin: In ALL discussions of the South, you should ignore Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. They have always been, and will probably always be backwards and poor.


How dare you leave Louisiana out of the equation!
 
2013-04-30 12:16:36 PM
All dem uppity blacks (n teh gheyz) are ruining 'merika.
 
2013-04-30 12:17:51 PM

Mrtraveler01: HeadLever: If you want to know how the democratic party lost the redneck vote, you can read through this.  It give a pretty good synopsis for the corn belt and southern folks.  Here out in the intermountain west, it is more about the enviros and the gun grabbers.

I couldn't finish because it kept characterizing Democrats and liberals as "The latte tribe". Right after it got down criticizing Democrats for being condescending to lower/middle class people.

I think he spent more time coming up with names to insult liberals than actually providing an intelligent analysis.

I got to say, I was pretty disappointed in reading this.


It's what many people do, mostly right wingers, where they focus on a few aspects and then overemphasis these aspect. I guess a hasty generalization,  where he looks at just a few areas and then generalizes it for the entire south and over emphasis the effect.
 
2013-04-30 12:19:13 PM

Karac: You could just as well make the claim that the South started turning away from Democrats when Truman desegregated the military.


In Texas, it didn't really reach a tipping point until the late 80s, early 90s. I think it's less about "rich" as much as it is shifting demographics, and a simultaneous move on the part of the GOP to court social conservatives, religious conservatives, and fiscal conservatives at the same time that the DNC was courting liberals, progressives, gays, minorities, and other special interests. The GOPs was trying to lock in the majority, and the DNC was willing to cede that to some extent on the premise that a coalition of minority interests would counter-balance that.

PBS Frontline Interview with Mark Dowd:

Chief campaign strategist, Bush-Cheney 2004
... Take me back, in Texas politics, when Texas was Democratic and now is Republican. What happened?
"A few things came to bear: one, sort of the natural growth of Texas in the late '70s and early '80s, because of the influx [of] people from other states who had a tendency to be Republican, have a little bit of money, more conservative. That in-migration changed the dynamics. It's when the suburbs around the major cities started to grow tremendously...
But the other thing that happened, which is a national phenomenon, I think, too, is that there was beginning to be the loss of conservative Democrats around the country, especially in the South and in the West. And so you no longer had white candidates that were fairly conservative that ran in Democratic primaries that won. It became harder and harder and harder for conservative Democratic candidates to win Democratic primaries. And when more liberal candidates won, it became harder for them to win general elections. ...
And I think that began, or really started to be seen, in the late '70s and early '80s. And then, as incumbent Democratic officeholders no longer sought re-election or got beat, Texas sort of in that process of 15 to 20 years, by the end of that, became basically a Republican state. Can a Democrat win in this state? They can, but it's extremely difficult, and you basically have to be a pretty dominant presence, like [Lt. Gov. Bob] Bullock was. Bullock won a fairly big margin in 1994, but he basically didn't really have an opponent. Lloyd Bentsen could win because he was a conservative Democrat that never had primary opposition. But other statewide officials now, it's very difficult for them to win. Even moderates now in this state, moderate Democrats, it's very hard for them to win."

So It's too simplistic to say "Republicans just grabbed all the racists." At the same time that the GOP was becoming more conducive to hardline social and religious conservatives, and dog-whistling about attacking "welfare queens" and "entitlement abuse", alienating more moderate social voters, the DNC was openly embracing homosexual agenda items, supporting "anti-religious" things like prayer in school, advocating for affirmitive action quotas, supporting abortion, and alienating more moderate social voters.

In the last 20 years or so, the Republicans have become more right-wing, and less hospitable to moderates, and the Democrats have become more left-leaning, and less hospitable to moderates. And they have both done so very deliberately through careful staking of ground on "wedge issues". And they have been succesful in driving a wedge between the American voters and creating a binary political spectrum that effectively only has two colors.

(So vote Bojangles)

The interesting thing to me is that while we have a name for the Republican 'strategy', I don't know of a name for the 'strategy' of the Democrats to build a coalition of the various minority groups.
 
2013-04-30 12:19:28 PM
Republicans were never for slavery.  Republicans freed the slaves.  In fact, there never even was slavery.  It's a made-up thing by libby libs to try to make Republicans look bad.

Besides, those Africans never had it so good, three hots and a cot.
 
2013-04-30 12:19:46 PM

Witty_Retort: "The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats. " Nixon's political strategist Kevin Philips


Who, oddly enough, went on to write a really good book about inequality of wealth distribution -  The Politics of Rich and Poor: Wealth and the American Electorate in the Reagan Aftermath.
 
2013-04-30 12:20:46 PM

JusticeandIndependence: Mrtraveler01: HeadLever: If you want to know how the democratic party lost the redneck vote, you can read through this.  It give a pretty good synopsis for the corn belt and southern folks.  Here out in the intermountain west, it is more about the enviros and the gun grabbers.

I couldn't finish because it kept characterizing Democrats and liberals as "The latte tribe". Right after it got down criticizing Democrats for being condescending to lower/middle class people.

I think he spent more time coming up with names to insult liberals than actually providing an intelligent analysis.

I got to say, I was pretty disappointed in reading this.

But the author is so cool......


Scott Locklin works on quantitative finance problems in Berkeley, California, but has lately been considering emigrating to America


Not a US citizen, not a scholar on US history (or history in general), obviously a US history expert.
 
2013-04-30 12:22:07 PM
Still waiting for a Republican to admit who the Democrat was who filibustered the CRA. They're so fond of pointing out it was a Democrat who set the record for longest solo filibuster, but for some reason they don't like to tell us who that Democrat was.
 
2013-04-30 12:22:13 PM
FTFA: Scott Locklin works on quantitative finance problems in Berkeley, California, but has lately been considering emigrating to America

dgt1.net
 
2013-04-30 12:22:28 PM

BojanglesPaladin: But the other thing that happened, which is a national phenomenon, I think, too, is that there was beginning to be the loss of conservative Democrats around the country, especially in the South and in the West. And so you no longer had white candidates that were fairly conservative that ran in Democratic primaries that won. It became harder and harder and harder for conservative Democratic candidates to win Democratic primaries. And when more liberal candidates won, it became harder for them to win general elections. ...
And I think that began, or really started to be seen, in the late '70s and early '80s. And then, as incumbent Democratic officeholders no longer sought re-election or got beat, Texas sort of in that process of 15 to 20 years, by the end of that, became basically a Republican state. Can a Democrat win in this state? They can, but it's extremely difficult, and you basically have to be a pretty dominant presence, like [Lt. Gov. Bob] Bullock was. Bullock won a fairly big margin in 1994, but he basically didn't really have an opponent. Lloyd Bentsen could win because he was a conservative Democrat that never had primary opposition. But other statewide officials now, it's very difficult for them to win. Even moderates now in this state, moderate Democrats, it's very hard for them to win."


That's the symptom not the cause. Democrats didn't become more liberal because they caught some magical disease.
 
2013-04-30 12:26:19 PM

BojanglesPaladin: The interesting thing to me is that while we have a name for the Republican 'strategy', I don't know of a name for the 'strategy' of the Democrats to build a coalition of the various minority groups.


The "Basic Human Decency" strategy?
 
2013-04-30 12:28:33 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I think it's less about "rich" as much as it is shifting demographics, and a simultaneous move on the part of the GOP to court social conservatives, religious conservatives, and fiscal conservatives at the same time that the DNC was courting liberals, progressives, gays, minorities, and other special interests.


I like how in your world, social conservatives, religious conservatives, and fiscal conservatives aren't "special interests" like those darn liberals, progressives, gays, and minorities are. Quite telling.

Democrats have become more left-leaning, and less hospitable to moderates.

This, of course, is simply nonsense.
 
2013-04-30 12:29:46 PM

Mrtraveler01: But the big breakthrough, to the extent that there was one, came in 1952. Dwight Eisenhower won 48 percent of the vote there, compared to Adlai Stevenson's 52 percent. He carried most of the "peripheral South" -- Virginia, Tennessee, Texas and Florida -- and made inroads in the "Deep South," almost carrying South Carolina and losing North Carolina and Louisiana by single digits.

The map tells of a different picture:
 [upload.wikimedia.org image 500x317]


as if it's surprising an a-political WWII general managed to modestly over perform in the south -- when typical GOP candidates were North East Liberals like Dewy.  I mean seriously.
 
2013-04-30 12:30:56 PM

JusticeandIndependence: Mrtraveler01: HeadLever: If you want to know how the democratic party lost the redneck vote, you can read through this.  It give a pretty good synopsis for the corn belt and southern folks.  Here out in the intermountain west, it is more about the enviros and the gun grabbers.

I couldn't finish because it kept characterizing Democrats and liberals as "The latte tribe". Right after it got down criticizing Democrats for being condescending to lower/middle class people.

I think he spent more time coming up with names to insult liberals than actually providing an intelligent analysis.

I got to say, I was pretty disappointed in reading this.

But the author is so cool......


Scott Locklin works on quantitative finance problems in Berkeley, California, but has lately been considering emigrating to America


If he bases what he knows about Liberals on people in Berkeley, CA. Then he is very misguided. Even I can't stand the liberals out in Berkeley.

It would be like me basing all conservatives based on the conservatives in Plano, TX and then characterizing them.

One can make the argument that the Democrats stance on some controversial issues persuaded the more conservative Democrat voters to switch to the Republican Party. But one can also make that argument without sounding like a condescending douche.
 
2013-04-30 12:32:08 PM

Mrtraveler01: His whole argument is that when an area gets wealthier they vote Republican. He even wrote a book about it.

All one has to do is look at Silicon Valley, Colorado, and the entire Northeast to see how farking stupid an assumption that simplistic is.


I remember reading that in the richer areas of the nation like you mentioned above, the richest people (so-called "1%ers") still tend to be Republican, but the people who work for them -- who earn more than their counterparts in the South, Southwest, etc -- tend to be Democrats.
 
Displayed 50 of 132 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report