Mississippi 1964?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Only 6% of Black adults in Mississippi were registered in 1964. Various methods were used to keep this, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed to change this. The segregationist candidate (or his closest substitute) ALWAYS gets 87% or more of the White vote in Mississippi. It was so under Woodrow Wilson, under FDR, under Thurmond, under Goldwater, under Wallace, and under Romney. Even Al Smith got 82%.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Mississippi also elected Republican Prentiss Walker to Congress.  Had they put up Republican candidates in all 5 districts, they may have won them all.

That is complete and baseless speculation.  There is zero evidence that White Southerners felt an urgent need to throw their Democratic politicians out of office (politicians that voted against the CRA, while most Republicans in Congress voted for it, so even with a Goldwater nomination, that whole theory just never held up) after 1964.  The Civil Rights Act opened up politics in the South, there's no question about that; however, it didn't even kind of usher in an era of Republican dominance.  Not even close.

-Deep South Goldwater voters did feel an urgent, but temporary need to throw their Dem politicians out of office. Look at Alabama's House delegation in 1964. However, the Deep South took two more generations to fully throw off the Democratic yoke.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Mississippi also elected Republican Prentiss Walker to Congress.  Had they put up Republican candidates in all 5 districts, they may have won them all.

That is complete and baseless speculation.  There is zero evidence that White Southerners felt an urgent need to throw their Democratic politicians out of office (politicians that voted against the CRA, while most Republicans in Congress voted for it, so even with a Goldwater nomination, that whole theory just never held up) after 1964.  The Civil Rights Act opened up politics in the South, there's no question about that; however, it didn't even kind of usher in an era of Republican dominance.  Not even close.

-Deep South Goldwater voters did feel an urgent, but temporary need to throw their Dem politicians out of office. Look at Alabama's House delegation in 1964. However, the Deep South took two more generations to fully throw off the Democratic yoke.

How can you TOTALLY discount that during those several decades, literally all of the White Southerners who grew up hating Republicans for being the Party of Lincoln or fought vigorously against civil rights or lived through the Great Depression DIED OFF.  You keep talking about White Southerners are the same in every decade; different people make up "The White South."  It's just quite literally a fact that GOP strength in the South started in suburban areas and took the longest to grow in rural areas.  ONE Southern Democrat who voted against the CRA became a Republican, dude.  There was no mass exodus, period.

-Mississippi did not become more Republican than DC was Democratic in 1972 on the presidential level because all those Stevenson voters in 1956 died off.

Eisenhower did well in 1952 in the most vehemently segregationist rural areas. There was very much a mass exodus of voters in the Deep South from the Dems on the presidential level in 1964. The Democratic Party changed a lot more than Deep South FDR voters did from 1944 to 1968.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Mississippi also elected Republican Prentiss Walker to Congress.  Had they put up Republican candidates in all 5 districts, they may have won them all.

That is complete and baseless speculation.  There is zero evidence that White Southerners felt an urgent need to throw their Democratic politicians out of office (politicians that voted against the CRA, while most Republicans in Congress voted for it, so even with a Goldwater nomination, that whole theory just never held up) after 1964.  The Civil Rights Act opened up politics in the South, there's no question about that; however, it didn't even kind of usher in an era of Republican dominance.  Not even close.

-Deep South Goldwater voters did feel an urgent, but temporary need to throw their Dem politicians out of office. Look at Alabama's House delegation in 1964. However, the Deep South took two more generations to fully throw off the Democratic yoke.

How can you TOTALLY discount that during those several decades, literally all of the White Southerners who grew up hating Republicans for being the Party of Lincoln or fought vigorously against civil rights or lived through the Great Depression DIED OFF.  You keep talking about White Southerners are the same in every decade; different people make up "The White South."  It's just quite literally a fact that GOP strength in the South started in suburban areas and took the longest to grow in rural areas.  ONE Southern Democrat who voted against the CRA became a Republican, dude.  There was no mass exodus, period.

Like, I wouldn't be a big enough hack to claim causation, but there is a direct correlation with segregationists' stranglehold on Southern politics loosening and increased Republican gains.  Again, the New South's GOP had its own flaws, including appealing to racism, but it's just blatantly false that the GOP sort of "became" the substitute for former Dixiecrats; they just didn't.  They introduced a new brand of Southern conservatism that caught favor with the KIDS and GRANDKIDS of "the old Southern Democrats."

-How did segregationists' stranglehold on southern politics loosen in the 1950s, when Eisenhower made yuge gains in the Deep South?

You really seem to be stuck in the 1990s.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Mississippi also elected Republican Prentiss Walker to Congress.  Had they put up Republican candidates in all 5 districts, they may have won them all.

That is complete and baseless speculation.  There is zero evidence that White Southerners felt an urgent need to throw their Democratic politicians out of office (politicians that voted against the CRA, while most Republicans in Congress voted for it, so even with a Goldwater nomination, that whole theory just never held up) after 1964.  The Civil Rights Act opened up politics in the South, there's no question about that; however, it didn't even kind of usher in an era of Republican dominance.  Not even close.

-Deep South Goldwater voters did feel an urgent, but temporary need to throw their Dem politicians out of office. Look at Alabama's House delegation in 1964. However, the Deep South took two more generations to fully throw off the Democratic yoke.

How can you TOTALLY discount that during those several decades, literally all of the White Southerners who grew up hating Republicans for being the Party of Lincoln or fought vigorously against civil rights or lived through the Great Depression DIED OFF.  You keep talking about White Southerners are the same in every decade; different people make up "The White South."  It's just quite literally a fact that GOP strength in the South started in suburban areas and took the longest to grow in rural areas.  ONE Southern Democrat who voted against the CRA became a Republican, dude.  There was no mass exodus, period.

Like, I wouldn't be a big enough hack to claim causation, but there is a direct correlation with segregationists' stranglehold on Southern politics loosening and increased Republican gains.  Again, the New South's GOP had its own flaws, including appealing to racism, but it's just blatantly false that the GOP sort of "became" the substitute for former Dixiecrats; they just didn't.  They introduced a new brand of Southern conservatism that caught favor with the KIDS and GRANDKIDS of "the old Southern Democrats."

-How did segregationists' stranglehold on southern politics loosen in the 1950s, when Eisenhower made yuge gains in the Deep South?

You really seem to be stuck in the 1990s.

The politics of the 1990s aren't worlds apart from today's, despite your wet dream of a populist GOP vs. an elitist Democratic Party, which will never happen, sorry.

Bold prediction: Justin Amash will NOT win East Grand Rapids in 2018.

Politics since the 1990s have been a logical culmination of trends during the 1990s. The Democratic Party is much more concentrated in cities like Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Nashville, Houston, Dallas, Miami, Denver, and Atlanta. The GOP is much more rural.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Mississippi also elected Republican Prentiss Walker to Congress.  Had they put up Republican candidates in all 5 districts, they may have won them all.

That is complete and baseless speculation.  There is zero evidence that White Southerners felt an urgent need to throw their Democratic politicians out of office (politicians that voted against the CRA, while most Republicans in Congress voted for it, so even with a Goldwater nomination, that whole theory just never held up) after 1964.  The Civil Rights Act opened up politics in the South, there's no question about that; however, it didn't even kind of usher in an era of Republican dominance.  Not even close.

-Deep South Goldwater voters did feel an urgent, but temporary need to throw their Dem politicians out of office. Look at Alabama's House delegation in 1964. However, the Deep South took two more generations to fully throw off the Democratic yoke.

How can you TOTALLY discount that during those several decades, literally all of the White Southerners who grew up hating Republicans for being the Party of Lincoln or fought vigorously against civil rights or lived through the Great Depression DIED OFF.  You keep talking about White Southerners are the same in every decade; different people make up "The White South."  It's just quite literally a fact that GOP strength in the South started in suburban areas and took the longest to grow in rural areas.  ONE Southern Democrat who voted against the CRA became a Republican, dude.  There was no mass exodus, period.

Like, I wouldn't be a big enough hack to claim causation, but there is a direct correlation with segregationists' stranglehold on Southern politics loosening and increased Republican gains.  Again, the New South's GOP had its own flaws, including appealing to racism, but it's just blatantly false that the GOP sort of "became" the substitute for former Dixiecrats; they just didn't.  They introduced a new brand of Southern conservatism that caught favor with the KIDS and GRANDKIDS of "the old Southern Democrats."

-How did segregationists' stranglehold on southern politics loosen in the 1950s, when Eisenhower made yuge gains in the Deep South?

You really seem to be stuck in the 1990s.

The politics of the 1990s aren't worlds apart from today's, despite your wet dream of a populist GOP vs. an elitist Democratic Party, which will never happen, sorry.

Bold prediction: Justin Amash will NOT win East Grand Rapids in 2018.

Politics since the 1990s have been a logical culmination of trends during the 1990s. The Democratic Party is much more concentrated in cities like Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Nashville, Houston, Dallas, Miami, Denver, and Atlanta. The GOP is much more rural.

There are more Republicans in non-rural areas than rural areas, and the party will literally forever have a very strong wing committed to business interests.

-Somebody oughta make a cartogram of the Republican vote, and compare that with a cartogram of the Democratic one.

Donald Trump is so committed to business interests, he even hired the CEO of ExxonMobil to be his Secretary of State!