Will more black people vote for Republicans this year?

Look at that chart again.

 

The chart does not disprove anything. Most blacks over the years support liberal/progressive politicians from both parties. It just happens to be that in today's political climate, progressive/liberal politicians are Democrats, while supposedly conservative politicians are Republicans.

 

Yep, this sums it all up.

It's why most blacks today support the Democrats, while bitter right wing fellas support the GOP.

 

I have looked at the chart again, what is it you think I have missed?

 

1. I'm not sure the GOP path to black and hispanic voters is through gay marriage. Interesting theory but I'll have to see it to believe it.

2. I think you forgot what party George Wallace was a member of, and it didn't hurt the Democrat's ability to attract minority voters.

 

That blacks supported Democrats years before the Civil Rights Act was even a thought.

 

You missed the point entirely Mike. Not surprised though.

Wallace was a conservative. Those who voted for him were conservatives. Most people, outside of a few conservatives in denial, understand this.

Wallace, the conservative, wouldn't make it in today's Democratic party.

 

And yet Wallace won 90% of the Black vote in his last race for governor. Weird.

 

What's weird about it? Wasn't Wallace at that point claiming to have changed his views? (not that i necessarily believe him)

Regardless, what socially liberal positions did Wallace have? is "states rights" a popular position among liberals?

 

Well you have to go with what the social issues were in his day. States rights isn't even a social position, it's a constitutional one. Do liberals believe the constitution as written is obsolete with it's old fashioned "separation of powers?" Sure they do. But I wouldn't call it a socially conservative or liberal position. Now, I'm no expert on George Wallace, but I did find this quote in his Wikipedia page: "Judge George Wallace was the most liberal judge that I had ever practiced law in front of. He was the first judge in Alabama to call me 'Mister' in a courtroom."

 

That's your proof he was a liberal? Come on, Mike.

 

Wrong.............

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2088gl

https://www.nationalcenter.org/NVDavisBradley1299.html

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/john_kennedy_and_civil_rights.htm

 

Right. You're missing my main point: that ideological affiliation trumped party affiliation prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1964. Today it is more cut and dry: Democrat = Liberal and Republican = Conservative, prior to '64 this was not so because the majority of Southern Voters would not accept the Republican Party because of its affiliation with Lincoln.

To understand voting habits prior to '64 one must always remember the Southern voter was Conservative and anti-the party of Lincoln, a very different climate than today.

It is terribly misleading to try to give the current Conservative leaning Republican Party any kind of credit for Civil rights because the current Republican Party is bent on repealing and reversing all the work liberals did in the 1960s.

 

I'm not even arguing that. I just don't think "liberal" or "conservative" had much to do with it. Wallace was a Democrat, case closed.

 

Liberals did not run as Democrats so that they could get elected in the South. Southern Democrats were the most pro-segregation people in the country.

 

So you saying saying Wallace didn't identify with liberalism or conservatism?

 

Listen guys, I know this can be confusing but try to to understand, when it comes to the voting rights act, it's easier to understand how it passed in Congress was North vs South/ Liberal vs Conservative. The South and the North have not changed their politics, even though the names of the Parties they send to Congress has.

Just like it was 50 years ago: The North is Liberal and the South is Conservative. Once you understand this you will understand who fought and is fighting for civil rights and who opposes and opposed civil right.

In the 1960s it was race, today it is gay rights.

Look at the regional break-down of the vote for civil rights in the House and Senate:

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

 

Psssst . . . Texas has acted as a sanctuary state for illegal aliens for decades now. Those EVIL bigoted dastards! Or in other words it's not as simple as a leftwinger declaring yankees to be saints and southerners to be devils incarnate; but then again, it never really was that simple.

 

So you are saying conservatives down south love exploiting cheap labor so much, that they are willing to overlook their massive bigotry against EVIL brown people? That's pretty honest.

 

It's never easy, as you can see in what you quoted, I stated, "I know this can be confusing".

It is unacceptable to watch people try to equate the Republican Party of the 1960s to today's Republican Party. They are two completely different parties ideologically. Same thing with the Democrats. As far as Texas being a "sanctuary state", I'm not sure what that status means.

I never stated that Southerners were any kind of devil or anything of the sort. I stated the fact that the South is and was Conservative, the South would not accept Republicans by-and-large because of Lincoln, and the main opposition the civil rights came from the South. You may judge those facts as you want to.

 

Precisely. Just like leftwingers ignore immigration laws to bribe the next generation of legal citizens for their votes . . . oh and so that in the meantime gated community liberals will have cheap labor to cut their lawns and cook their family's food, and take care of their kids . . . and so it's a two-fer!

 

Which "gated community liberals" are you taking about? The black ones, the hispanic ones, the Asian ones, or do you just mean the EVIL white liberals? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

You think that gated community leftwingers differentiate according to skin tone? Give them more credit than that. They ALL cheerfully exploit the very minorities that they are claiming to champion. Nothing warms the cockles of the heart as much as watching a Brown skintoned gated community liberal giving a poor Brown skinned peasant 'what for' in regards to having taken a water break after SLAVING over a Houston yard on an August afternoon and all while the Brown liberal is standing in the open doorway so as to remain cool from the central air system. Sweet!

 

I guess those "gated community liberals" have a lot in common with their conservative counterparts, eh?

Only difference is, those right wingers who love exploiting cheap labor will tell their idiot voters otherwise. And those same idiot voters will not only believe them, but blame "the librul media". Funny how that works out, eh? In a way, the GOP has a good thing going, because they can continue exploiting cheap labor, while still getting the votes of every single low information right winger in America. Now that's what I would call "Sweet!".

 

Funny, but I don't recall ANY gated community leftwinger anywhere admitting to the exploitation of minorities . . . but they do commit that exploitation all the damn time. Funny that.