Racism Powered Republican Triumph

[Adam Griffin]

I hate to bump this, but I just noticed so much nonsense that I couldn't resist.

So you need six seats to win the majority, you win nine, three out of which are in the South (Confederacy defined) and it is because South is racist that Democrats lost the Senate?

Sure. The Republican electorate of this country nowadays is for all intents and purposes part of the South, because their present-day ideology has been irreversibly shaped by the dominance of Southerners in the Republican Party and its media. Southern culture as a whole is now altering the entire country's culture (much more so than vice-versa) as we become a larger share of the nation; why on God's green earth would that not apply to the politics of the region's dominant party? As I'm sure I don't have to tell you, there was a time in which Republicans from the North varied considerably from Republicans in the South and Republicans in the West; this really is no longer the case by and large (I'm talking about the electorate here, so please don't go into giving examples like Charlie Baker to refute). Republicans in Iowa and Colorado now respond in the same way to dog-whistling tactics as Republicans in Alabama respond to them. The Republican Party's belief system has been nationalized, and the Republican Party is now Southern.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, like voting for the Civil Rights Act back in 1964 by a margin80+ Percent.

As for tokenism the score in the south, since reconstruction, is:

Republicans 1:0.

Democrats dominated the south for nearly 100 years and not a single southern state elected a democrat Black man. Not one. Bupkis.

Shut up.

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%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)

Not a single Southern Republican voted for the Civil Rights Act; 7 Southern Democratic Senators and 1 Southern Democratic member of the House, however, did. In the North, more Republicans voted against the Act than Democrats.

At the end of the day, both a higher percentage of Northern Democrats voted for CRA than Northern Republicans, and a higher percentage of Southern Democrats voted for CRA than Southern Republicans. To simply combine the two groups and aggregate the numbers to fit your point is hilariously foolish from a historical perspective.

And how convenient of you to cut off the time period so that it fits your narrative, but let me oblige your timeline for just a minute. How many blacks were elected to statewide or federal office between the end of Reconstruction and 1964? Zero. Not a single one from the North; at least the South elected some during Reconstruction. Furthermore, the first black elected Senator post-Reconstruction was elected by a very Democratic electorate.

Douglas Wilder became the first black Governor in the South in 1990, in Virginia and as a Democrat.

Mike Thurmond ran for Labor Commissioner and won 43% of the white vote in 1998 against a very well-known white candidate, becoming the first newly-elected black Democrat in Georgia.

Thurbert Baker was appointed to AG in Georgia, sought election in 1998, and won 42% of the white vote. He won 48% of the white vote in 2002 and 53% of the white vote in 2006.

I'm not sure how the party that elected the first black senator in the south since reconstruction is defind as the party of 'racism'.

With 82% of the white vote too.

Uh, South Carolina would have elected a black Senator no matter what, considering that the Democratic opponent was black, too. I'm sure had it been a white Democrat against a black Republican, many current Republicans wouldn't have hesitated for a second to split their tickets.

[Adam Griffin]

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%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)

Not a single Southern Republican voted for the Civil Rights Act; 7 Southern Democratic Senators and 1 Southern Democratic member of the House, however, did. In the North, more Republicans voted against the Act than Democrats.

At the end of the day, both a higher percentage of Northern Democrats voted for CRA than Northern Republicans, and a higher percentage of Southern Democrats voted for CRA than Southern Republicans. To simply combine the two groups and aggregate the numbers to fit your point is hilariously foolish from a historical perspective.

You got your numbers flipped in the second to the last paragraph.

Care to specify? I'm not seeing an error.

[Adam Griffin]

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%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)

Not a single Southern Republican voted for the Civil Rights Act; 7 Southern Democratic Senators and 1 Southern Democratic member of the House, however, did. In the North, more Republicans voted against the Act than Democrats.

At the end of the day, both a higher percentage of Northern Democrats voted for CRA than Northern Republicans, and a higher percentage of Southern Democrats voted for CRA than Southern Republicans. To simply combine the two groups and aggregate the numbers to fit your point is hilariously foolish from a historical perspective.

You got your numbers flipped in the second to the last paragraph.

Care to specify? I'm not seeing an error.

You said House had 1 while the House had 7.

Ah, I reversed House/Senate Southern Dems. Thanks.