Trump Proves Republican Obama Hate Was Never About Obama’s Ideas

[Ebsy]

"Democrats are the real racists" is the last resort of a defeated, pathetic person.

[pbrower2a]

Let's just ignore the original racist party...

 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2008 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

...now tell me what Party won the racists in the 1950s and which one won the racists in 2008 and 2012. Think only of states bordering or east of the Mississippi River.

A hint: parts of Texas were very racist in the 1950s, but central and western Texas were no more racist than the American Midwest at the time.

No, Adlai Stevenson wasn't racist by the standard of his day, but his strongest support came from states in which people were defending segregation in public schools.

 

[All Along The Watchtower]

I have been saying for years that conservatism in America is cultural not ideological. Is this news to people?

Yeah, because you're still wrong.

Take it up with your party's current presidential nominee. Or basically the entire Republican congressional caucus. Or the countless examples of Republicans/conservatives at all levels of politics, activism, media, etc.

The present and future of the Republican Party is Donald Trump, no matter how much "respectable" Republicans like yourself want to believe otherwise. Your party has burned too many bridges with black voters, Latinos, and other "minorities" (who will soon be a majority - hence, why Donald Trump is the nominee) for anything else to be the case. And most of you elite "respectable" Republicans just happen to live in Democratic-voting states - particularly the major metro areas that make those states so damn Democratic. Funy how you love the results of liberalism, pluralism, multiculturalism, diversity, and progressive social policy, but apparently not enough to vote for the major party that most closely aligns with all of those things. I guess being a contrarian has a certain kind of appeal. Or maybe you (collectively) just vote Republican because you think that your "unfairly high" personal tax burden is a policy issue of the utmost importance.

Either way, I respect your kind of Republican politics less than any other kind - even less than Trump and his supporters. At least they have correctly identified the reality of their dominance over the 21st century Republican Party and have acted acordingly. Furthermore, by nominating Trump, they have exposed the Republicans for what they have become -  a particular strain of White Identity politics that owes much to Goldwater, Nixon, and Reagan, all of whom (especially the latter two) made it respectable to advocate against policies that benefited black people and other minorities in a "race-neutral" way. Trump is just the completely predictable result of decades of that trend, as well as the fact that - in spite of the White Identitarians' best efforts - black and minority political power and social influence (along with their percentage of the US population) has increased within the past half-century, which culminated in the historic election and reelection of America's first black President. You know, the one whom this year's Republican presidential nominee had spent the years immediately preceding his campaign demagoging against in a profoundly racist manner, questioning the President's very legitimacy as both a President and and as an American. And a few years later, he is now the Republican nominee. Go figure.

Your party can't and won't run from Trump. Sorry if that fact bothers you.

[Virginiá]

Let's just ignore the original racist party...

(I will need to retrieve a map overlaying elections of Dwight Eisenhower and Barack Obama. Please be patient while I so do).

Honestly, why bother? He doesn't appear willing to try and understand how the parties have changed since those days. It's just easier to make simple comparisons while ignoring the multitude of factors that make such a comparisons inaccurate. His comment on the usage of identity politics already shows he either can't or won't be objective, either.

I have been saying for years that conservatism in America is cultural not ideological. Is this news to people?

Yeah, because you're still wrong.

I think the issue here is that the vehicle for supposed conservatism (the Republican party) is not actually being driven by conservatism right now. It's being driven by resentment of cultural change in this country, and frankly, it's the actual conservatives' fault. Either they were too naive/ignorant to see where their racially divisive and out of touch politics was going, or they did see but were too greedy while enjoying the short-term electoral benefits, but the end result is they have lost control. Perhaps Hagrid didn't express it accurately enough, and there are actual conservatives who don't buy into / aggressively perpetuate this bigoted bs, but they are being overshadowed quite a bit.

To that end, it sort of makes 'conservative' politics irrelevant right now. A large portion of the party's voters do not seem to give a hoot about supply-side economics, deregulation or the like, but rather when, and approximately how fast the brown people can be dealt with.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

light blue -- Republican all but 2008 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)

Yes, altho the Second District then was larger in area than it is today, consisting of Cass, Douglas, Otoe, Sarpy, and Washington Counties, despite Nebraska having four districts then. Saline County in the First District was the only Nebraskan county that went for Stevenson in 1956, and Ike carried every county in 1952.

[pbrower2a]

Let's just ignore the original racist party...

(I will need to retrieve a map overlaying elections of Dwight Eisenhower and Barack Obama. Please be patient while I so do).

Honestly, why bother? He doesn't appear willing to try and understand how the parties have changed since those days. It's just easier to make simple comparisons while ignoring the multitude of factors that make such a comparisons inaccurate. His comment on the usage of identity politics already shows he either can't or won't be objective, either.

Educational purposes, I suppose. A simplistic falsehood takes a little sophistication and effort to debunk. Besides -- I love that map.

I have been saying for years that conservatism in America is cultural not ideological. Is this news to people?

Yeah, because you're still wrong.

I think the issue here is that the vehicle for supposed conservatism (the Republican party) is not actually being driven by conservatism right now. It's being driven by resentment of cultural change in this country, and frankly, it's the actual conservatives' fault. Either they were too naive/ignorant to see where their racially divisive and out of touch politics was going, or they did see but were too greedy while enjoying the short-term electoral benefits, but the end result is they have lost control. Perhaps Hagrid didn't express it accurately enough, and there are actual conservatives who don't buy into / aggressively perpetuate this bigoted bs, but they are being overshadowed quite a bit.

To that end, it sort of makes 'conservative' politics irrelevant right now. A large portion of the party's voters do not seem to give a hoot about supply-side economics, deregulation or the like, but rather when, and approximately how fast the brown people can be dealt with.
[/quote]

If anything, the Democrats have been co-opting much of what used to be conservative values that Republicans used to exploit. The map suggests that many of the demographic groups that would have voted for Eisenhower in the 1950s have gone to Barack Obama, or that the states have specific cultures favorable to Obama were generally favorable to Ike in the 1950s. It is amazing, is it not, that Eisenhower won some states that have consistently been tough wins for Democrats beginning in 1928 -- Massachusetts and Minnesota, the hold-out states preventing 50-state landslides for Nixon in 1972 and Reagan in 1984, and Rhode Island, one of only two states outside the South that went for Al Smith in 1928 (the other such state was Massachusetts).

Democrats are coming to recognize such old conservative values as rationality, sobriety, and even patriotism.

The 2016 overlay could be very interesting. Wait a couple months.     

[Figueira]

Let's just ignore the original racist party...

Yes, we're on the 2016 board, not the 1912 board.

[Kingpoleon]

"[The other party is] the real racists" is the last resort of a defeated, pathetic person.

FTFY

[Figueira]

Actually the "original racist parties" were the Federalists and the Dem-Reps.

[Virginiá]

If anything, the Democrats have been co-opting much of what used to be conservative values that Republicans used to exploit. The map suggests that many of the demographic groups that would have voted for Eisenhower in the 1950s have gone to Barack Obama, or that the states have specific cultures favorable to Obama were generally favorable to Ike in the 1950s. It is amazing, is it not, that Eisenhower won some states that have consistently been tough wins for Democrats beginning in 1928 -- Massachusetts and Minnesota, the hold-out states preventing 50-state landslides for Nixon in 1972 and Reagan in 1984, and Rhode Island, one of only two states outside the South that went for Al Smith in 1928 (the other such state was Massachusetts).

I'm unsure of what you mean when you say 'values' and then mention traditionally Republican demographics. Democrats have undoubtedly moved much further left since the Third Way days, and we are not really like the old Eisenhower-era Republicans, either. It's more like both the party and the electorate has changed. Well-educated Millennials will continue to cannibalize the white college-educated demographic, and Millennials are the most liberal generation in a long, long time. In addition, the GOP itself plays a role in chasing away certain states/demographics.

[RINO Tom]

I have been saying for years that conservatism in America is cultural not ideological. Is this news to people?

Yeah, because you're still wrong.

lol

Laugh all you wish.  A huge tenant of your political identity is that your opposition is made up entirely of racist rubes and tribal hicks, but you're just wrong.

[Figueira]

I have been saying for years that conservatism in America is cultural not ideological. Is this news to people?

Yeah, because you're still wrong.

lol

Laugh all you wish.  A huge tenant of your political identity is that your opposition is made up entirely of racist rubes and tribal hicks, but you're just wrong.

Most politics in the US is cultural. It's why most people vote the same way their parents do.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

I have been saying for years that conservatism in America is cultural not ideological. Is this news to people?

Yeah, because you're still wrong.

lol

Laugh all you wish.  A huge tenant of your political identity is that your opposition is made up entirely of racist rubes and tribal hicks, but you're just wrong.

Most politics in the US is cultural. It's why most people vote the same way their parents do.

It is very sad, actually.

[Yank2133]

If anything, the Democrats have been co-opting much of what used to be conservative values that Republicans used to exploit. The map suggests that many of the demographic groups that would have voted for Eisenhower in the 1950s have gone to Barack Obama, or that the states have specific cultures favorable to Obama were generally favorable to Ike in the 1950s. It is amazing, is it not, that Eisenhower won some states that have consistently been tough wins for Democrats beginning in 1928 -- Massachusetts and Minnesota, the hold-out states preventing 50-state landslides for Nixon in 1972 and Reagan in 1984, and Rhode Island, one of only two states outside the South that went for Al Smith in 1928 (the other such state was Massachusetts).

I'm unsure of what you mean when you say 'values' and then mention traditionally Republican demographics. Democrats have undoubtedly moved much further left since the Third Way days, and we are not really like the old Eisenhower-era Republicans, either. It's more like both the party and the electorate has changed. Well-educated Millennials will continue to cannibalize the white college-educated demographic, and Millennials are the most liberal generation in a long, long time. In addition, the GOP itself plays a role in chasing away certain states/demographics.

I think he is talking about patriotism, national defense, unity etc.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I have been saying for years that conservatism in America is cultural not ideological. Is this news to people?

Yeah, because you're still wrong.

lol

Laugh all you wish.  A huge tenant of your political identity is that your opposition is made up entirely of racist rubes and tribal hicks, but you're just wrong.

Keep telling yourself that...

Seriously, actual movement conservatives are only a fraction of the republican base.

[Xing]

If you have to resort to "your party was racist 150 years ago!" you don't have a point to make.

[Wisconsin+17]

LOL. Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act.

[Maxwell]

LOL. Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act.

More Northern Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act than Northern Republicans, and by percentage, less Southern Democrats voted against it than Southern Republicans. Dixiecrats were a real thing back then, and literally bolted the party because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But yes, keep telling yourself that without context.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What Southern Republicans? There were literally zero Southern Republicans in the Senate.

In any case, it's been well established that the Democrat party is the party of racists due to their opposition to the Civil Rights bill.

[Dr. Arch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What Southern Republicans? There were literally zero Southern Republicans in the Senate.

In any case, it's been well established that the Democrat party is the party of racists due to their opposition to the Civil Rights bill.

Here, educate yourself:
https://www.facebook.com/Vox/videos/545369252317348/

[RINO Tom]

LOL. Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act.

More Northern Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act than Northern Republicans, and by percentage, less Southern Democrats voted against it than Southern Republicans. Dixiecrats were a real thing back then, and literally bolted the party because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But yes, keep telling yourself that without context.

LOL, ONE of the Southern Democrats who voted against the CRA switched parties.  One.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What Southern Republicans? There were literally zero Southern Republicans in the Senate.

In any case, it's been well established that the Democrat party is the party of racists due to their opposition to the Civil Rights bill.

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What Southern Republicans? There were literally zero Southern Republicans in the Senate.

In any case, it's been well established that the Democrat party is the party of racists due to their opposition to the Civil Rights bill.

Which is why the Deep South voted heavily for the Republican presidential nominee and "Mr. Conservative" Barry Goldwater - in the same election in which he lost nationwide in a historic landslide - instead of the the Texas-born-and-raised Democratic President who pushed through the Civil Rights bill of the previous Democratic President. Seriously, what are you talking about?

Oh, and Republican Senator John Tower of Texas voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[Nyvin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What Southern Republicans? There were literally zero Southern Republicans in the Senate.

In any case, it's been well established that the Democrat party is the party of racists due to their opposition to the Civil Rights bill.

The 1964 Civil Rights bill was passed while there were 66 Democrats in the Senate, 258 Democrats in the House, and a Democrat in the White House.

How in the heck did a racist party let a civil rights act become law with such commanding majorities at the time??

[All Along The Watchtower]

Anyway, I don't think many people actually deny that the shift of Southern whites from being monolithically Democratic to being (nearly) monolithically Republican wasn't a long-term process. But you're kidding yourself if you think race wasn't central to it. Not only was the first Republican presidential nominee to ever win Dixie (and by large margins, I might add!) also the first Republican to campaign against expanding civil rights to black people, but the Republican figures of the South who began to emerge in that era (like John Tower) were basically all conservatives of the Goldwater stripe - with many, of course, also being closely associated with the Religious Right. And the few who weren't tended to not be native Southerners (e.g. George H.W. Bush, who still felt compelled to run as a hardline Goldwater type in 1964 in a statewide race in Texas, and whose political career - and possibly, his life - was seriously threatened when as a Congressman he voted for the fair housing provisions).

A good case study is the 1968 Republican presidential primaries. The candidate whom most Southern delegates initially supported wasn't Richard Nixon, but Ronald Reagan. It wasn't until Nixon ally Strom Thurmond convinced them that Nixon wasn't a closet Rockefeller Republican that the other Southerners came around.

As for later decades: the only Democrat to win the South (rather than a few Upper Southern states, like Arkansas native and serial pandered/populist Bill Clinton) in the post Civil Rights era was Georgia native and very openly Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter in 1976 - against the comparatively moderate (especially compared to Reagan) Gerald Ford. And then he loses much of the South (and reelection, of course)  to Reagan, who launched his presidential campaign by complaining about federal infringement upon states rights in the Mississippi town where three Northern civil rights volunteers were murdered by the Klan. Since then, the South has only gotten more Republican. Curious stuff, indeed!