The Myth of the Southern Strategy

Race never ceased to be an issue in this country. But by the 80's and 90's, it was far less prominent in the national discourse.

That is, until a black man got in the White House.

The bigots have been yelling ever since.

 

He did, did he? Let's see that.

And if so, why was he the architect of the Willie Horton ad 18 years later?

 

I agree. Those bigots have been yelling racism, racism, racism, from day one because through their race filter, disagreement with the most radical leftist President in history is racism because he is black. Talk about race obsession, lots on the left sure show it.

 

I'm almost certain he said 1970, and have listened to that interview several times. Are you sure I need to go listen to it again?

 

Um, the one in 1964 where they showed the nays and yeas broken down by region. Doesn't matter democratic or republican, it was majority north yea, majority south nay. No other proof is really needed to see how the south is solid red which is also conservative.

I'm guessing if you still can't follow after that explanation, crayons would be the next option.

 

He's only the most radical leftist president to the people who must have been either asleep during the Bush years, or are looking for any reason to hate him.

 

Amen!!

- - - Updated - - -

Yep!!!!

 

What I heard was by 1980 Harry Dents Southern Strategy was no longer needed as the tide turned to economics and security and that is what Reagan ran on. The point is that Republicans knew that you could not win in the South unless you ran on race and party and were a democrat in 1970 and like he said it was subtle, not the racism the Democrats resorted to. Busing was mentioned as one of the issues.

 

No that is like if you walked into a Klan meeting and said all people are equal.

Liberals who believe the southern strategy do so was because they are an absolute bigots. It's impossible for an arrogant ignorant Yankee to see the south as place with a thriving economy, manufacturing plants, banking centers, sprawling suburban shopping malls filled with soccer moms. To a bigot liberal the south is right out of Deliverance.

 

I stand partially corrected, he stated that starting in 1970 with the beginning of GOP primaries in the South and more blacks voting, race (and busing) began to fall off the radar, such that race (busing) was not a major issue by 1978-1980. Thanks for the heads-up, interestingly none of the lefties have even listened to the interview.

 

I don't think he was stating necessarily that HE was a proponent of the SS, just his expectation based on how these threads always turn out.

 

The above goes no-where in evidencing some pervasive strategy in the GOP to court racists. You are the one who needs crayons.

Yes, I knew that Democrats in the South voted against the 1964 CRA, thanks for demonstrating your mastery of sixth grade history.

...and still 0 substance, 0 facts, 0 Southern Strategy.

 

About as informative as your responses have been. Wouldn't you agree?

 

Nothing like blaming republicans for what democrats did. I would run from the racist past of the democrat party too if I were you.

 

I was partially incorrect, he said 1978-80, and that in 1970, GOP primaries and more blacks voting began the process of race falling off the radar. Doesn't change that race has been a total nonissue in the South among a vast majority of the voters for 35 years, and is most certainly not the marquee issue the left tries to make of it today in its ignorant lie narrative on Southern politics.

Ad had 0 to do with race and everything to do with an unwise furlough/parole of a violent criminal who ended up killing someone? IIRC. I never saw the ad, but heard all about it for ages, and never had any idea he was black until fairly recently, thought the "dirty trick" aspect of it was making an ad of an unfortunate coincidence, not race. I don't think you'll be able to find many reasonable people in the nonleft to agree that ad was a "race" thing.

 

Damn, let me find my son's crayons then, obviously words are not your forte.

Democrats in the south were conservative. The GOP courted the racists in order to try and win elections.

 

Pot, kettle and all that jazz.

 

So, you think that everyone knows that the socially conservative, states-rights, bible thumping Southern White politicians who called themselves "Democrats" raised taxes to pay for infrastructure, governmental services, etc., but that the socially conservative, states-rights, bible thumping Southern White politicians lowered taxes when they began calling themselves "Republicans"?

I was unaware that folks like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms ever cited taxation as the reason for their changing their labels, especially since taxes had been relatively low in the South when they called themselves "Democrats" - or are you just focusing on the poll tax that was abolished in 1964?

 

There is no need to run from the past. When Blacks abandoned the Party of Lincoln, they were running from the present.

They certainly weren't fooled by all those Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms types changing their labels.

 

Not aware of much other than your obsession with race, are you.

 

It's absurdly simple, obfuscate transparently all you like. I claimed that one of the REAL reasons (as opposed to fartwhistle conspiracy theories) the South has switched GOP over the last 40 years has been a perception of Democrats as raising taxes, which they do and they have, and of GOP lowering taxes, which they do and they have. Southerners, who have vastly more income now than they had in 1960 due to several decades of explosive growth in the South, have become more sensitive to taxes, hence they are more likely to vote GOP. This is not some hard to understand mystery of the ages, but simple socioeconomic mobility and the political results of it.

 

Guess what? Helms never ran for national office as a Democrat, switched very early in his career, leaving the list of Southern Congressmen who switched parties due to segregation a lonely list of -one-, Strom Thurmond. I would give you "two" and laugh at how that doesn't even come close to evidencing a Congressional switch founding a Southern Strategy, but Helms simply doesn't fit. In all that fartwhistle strategy of switcheroo, only ONE Congressman switched to the GOP. Pathetic. 0 facts, 0 substance, 0 Southern Strategy.

 

Here's a new "word" for you to forte, non sequitur.

0 facts, 0 substance, 0 Southern Strategy.

 

On the other side changed strategy, I seem to remember a democrat saying 'Ill have those ni#### voting democrat for a century' and a new equilibrium was formed. You aren't very good at game theory are you.

It should be very easy to prove your thoery. There are plenty of election returns and exit polls. The data should support your theory if correct. The poor rural south should turn first as should the most racist of states like Mississippi. The demographics should also support a change of parties the older voters which should flip.

In proving a theory you have to show more than correlation. If the southern strategy flipped the south then it should flip in a manner consistent with the theory. If it flips in a manner not consistent with the theory then the cause was something or somethings else.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't worry we know you cant post a paragraph. Its far beyond your ability.

 

You see the south as something straight out of Deliverance. The bigot here is you.