My Sad Realization

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I recently discovered something very sad: In 2008, President Obama carried all the states that Lincoln carried in 1860.    Thankfully, that probably won't happen this year.  What do you think?

[traininthedistance]

I recently discovered something very sad: In 2008, President Obama carried all the states that Lincoln carried in 1860.    Thankfully, that probably won't happen this year.  What do you think?

I think it means the Democrats have now become the true Party of Lincoln, whereas the Republicans have taken up the mantle of Southern treason instead.

Pretty simple if you ask me.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I recently discovered something very sad: In 2008, President Obama carried all the states that Lincoln carried in 1860.    Thankfully, that probably won't happen this year.  What do you think?

I think it means the Democrats have now become the true Party of Lincoln, whereas the Republicans have taken up the mantle of Southern treason instead.

Pretty simple if you ask me.

So....Republicans are traitors? How levelheaded and reasonable of you.

[CountryRoads]

ChairmanSanchez, asking democrats to be reasonable is implausible

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm pretty sure he's being facetious.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I recently discovered something very sad: In 2008, President Obama carried all the states that Lincoln carried in 1860.    Thankfully, that probably won't happen this year.  What do you think?

I think it means the Democrats have now become the true Party of Lincoln, whereas the Republicans have taken up the mantle of Southern treason instead.

Pretty simple if you ask me.

So....Republicans are traitors? How levelheaded and reasonable of you.

Former Dixiecrat are now arend Republicans. Don't you know history at all?

[Mechaman]

I will say what everyone else has been saying in just one word:

1964

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

[Miles]

Yeah, electoral realignment is a bitch.

[Torie]

A truly depressingly true point. It makes me a bit ashamed.

[opebo]

A truly depressingly true point. It makes me a bit ashamed.

You should be.  Switch to Democrat or move to Mississippi and pull a Lindsay Graham.

[Torie]

A truly depressingly true point. It makes me a bit ashamed.

You should be.  Switch to Democrat or move to Mississippi and pull a Lindsay Graham.

The bolded part will never happen, trust me, and even if I do do it elsewhere, it won't be the Lindsay way.  I'm much more macho.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I recently discovered something very sad: In 2008, President Obama carried all the states that Lincoln carried in 1860.    Thankfully, that probably won't happen this year.  What do you think?

I think it means the Democrats have now become the true Party of Lincoln, whereas the Republicans have taken up the mantle of Southern treason instead.  And it was primarily economic issues that led Southerners to become more Republican.  One word for you guys: 1980.

Pretty simple if you ask me.

So....Republicans are traitors? How levelheaded and reasonable of you.

Former Dixiecrat are now arend Republicans. Don't you know history at all?

Not true.  The only "Dixiecrat" to become a Republican was Strom Thurmond.  A lot of other Southern Democrats did become Republicans, but Thurmond was the only major segregationist to do so.

[Miles]

I recently discovered something very sad: In 2008, President Obama carried all the states that Lincoln carried in 1860.    Thankfully, that probably won't happen this year.  What do you think?

I think it means the Democrats have now become the true Party of Lincoln, whereas the Republicans have taken up the mantle of Southern treason instead.  And it was primarily economic issues that led Southerners to become more Republican.  One word for you guys: 1980.

Pretty simple if you ask me.

So....Republicans are traitors? How levelheaded and reasonable of you.

Former Dixiecrat are now arend Republicans. Don't you know history at all?

Not true.  The only "Dixiecrat" to become a Republican was Strom Thurmond.  A lot of other Southern Democrats did become Republicans, but Thurmond was the only major segregationist to do so.

True, but I would argue that most of those Dixiecrats were still personally popular with their constituencies, so changing parties wasn't electorally necessary. Eastland and Stennis would be be good examples.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

That is a sad realization, but it's a bit more complex than that.  My liberal friends here who would like to cover up for their party's rather evil past are over-simplifying political history in a way that is somewhat distorted.

The voting habits of northern white protestants and urban immigrants hasn't changed much since the late 1800's. Obviously the voting habits of southern whites has reversed, but we also have a very different south today than we had 50 years ago.  Many of today's southerners, myself included, have parents and grandparents from Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.

One only needs to look to the 1936 election to find a good example of the more conservative candidate winning only Maine and Vermont and the liberal, bordering on socialistic, candidate winning everything else, including the south.

Here in Tennessee, the east Tennessee counties who bravely stayed loyal to the Union are just as Republican today as they ever were, they've just been joined by much of the rest of the state.  Even so, anciently Democratic rural white counties remain more Democratic - even with Obama - than suburban white counties with more northern transplants.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Because the GOP is not the same as it was in 1860, nor 1960 and the same goes for the Democrats... It's actually pretty simple...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I recently discovered something very sad: In 2008, President Obama carried all the states that Lincoln carried in 1860.    Thankfully, that probably won't happen this year.  What do you think?

I think it means the Democrats have now become the true Party of Lincoln, whereas the Republicans have taken up the mantle of Southern treason instead.  And it was primarily economic issues that led Southerners to become more Republican.  One word for you guys: 1980.

Pretty simple if you ask me.

So....Republicans are traitors? How levelheaded and reasonable of you.

Former Dixiecrat are now arend Republicans. Don't you know history at all?

Not true.  The only "Dixiecrat" to become a Republican was Strom Thurmond.  A lot of other Southern Democrats did become Republicans, but Thurmond was the only major segregationist to do so.

I was refeering to the Southern Democrats that started to vote Republican in presidential elections, and the pretty much every election, in direct result of the civil rights issue.

One only needs to look to the 1936 election to find a good example of the more conservative candidate winning only Maine and Vermont and the liberal, bordering on socialistic, candidate winning everything else, including the south.

FDR a "socialist"? I wish

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I recently discovered something very sad: In 2008, President Obama carried all the states that Lincoln carried in 1860.    Thankfully, that probably won't happen this year.  What do you think?

I think it means the Democrats have now become the true Party of Lincoln, whereas the Republicans have taken up the mantle of Southern treason instead.  And it was primarily economic issues that led Southerners to become more Republican.  One word for you guys: 1980.

Pretty simple if you ask me.

So....Republicans are traitors? How levelheaded and reasonable of you.

Former Dixiecrat are now arend Republicans. Don't you know history at all?

Not true.  The only "Dixiecrat" to become a Republican was Strom Thurmond.  A lot of other Southern Democrats did become Republicans, but Thurmond was the only major segregationist to do so.

I was refeering to the Southern Democrats that started to vote Republican in presidential elections, and the pretty much every election, in direct result of the civil rights issue.

Southern Democrats didn't start voting Republican because of civil rights.  That makes no sens for two reasons:

1. Democrats had a strong segregationist faction, and more Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats in terms of percentages.  To switch from Democrat to Republican over civil rights would have made no sense since Republicans were so much stronger on that issue.

2. After the fight for civil rights had largely been fought and won, the shift toward the GOP in the South grew stronger.  If those people were voting based on civil rights, then it would have most likely stopped.

Indeed, the latest academic research confirms that it was in-migration from other parts of the country, coupled with economic issues (due to the increasing wealth in the South) and religious conservatism that led to the shift.  Not to mention, Eisenhower carried a large number of Southern states in 1952 and 1956, even when the Democrats nominated Northern racist Adlai Stevenson and put Southerners on his ticket (including one segregationist) both times.  In 1960, Nixon carried a number of Southern states and only narrowly lost several more despite his strong support for civil rights, in part because of fears of Kennedy's Catholicism.  In 1968, Nixon carried several Southenr states again, but largely because Wallace carried the Deep South and split the Democratic vote elsewhere.  It wasn't until 1980 that the South really became solidly Republican in national elections.

Oh, and Bleeding Heart, if those areas are as Republican now as they were then then why is the Northeast so heavily Democrat (except PA and NH) now?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It's important to note in 1960 that there were many liberal Republicans calling on Nixon to try to focus on what I believe were the "Big Six" and try to appeal African-Americans so they would go heavily Republican there. Instead Nixon made his last campaign stop in South Carolina. And you have to understand, the vote in the Congress for the CRA's is irrelevant to how people perceive what happened, and that was a Democratic president passing an act many in the South perceived as radical. Who were they cursing? That evil Yankee Everett Dirksen? Or the traitor Lyndon Johnson?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's important to note in 1960 that there were many liberal Republicans calling on Nixon to try to focus on what I believe were the "Big Six" and try to appeal African-Americans so they would go heavily Republican there. Instead Nixon made his last campaign stop in South Carolina. And you have to understand, the vote in the Congress for the CRA's is irrelevant to how people perceive what happened, and that was a Democratic president passing an act many in the South perceived as radical. Who were they cursing? That evil Yankee Everett Dirksen? Or the traitor Lyndon Johnson?

Also, Barry Goldwater personally voted against the Civil Rights Act, which was a pure political pandering. Goldwater never was a segregationist, in fact he's been a financial supporter of the NAACP and, as commander of the Arizona Air National Guard, ordered desegregation before Truman did it on national level. But in 1964 he reached for dissatisfacted Southern Democrats, that became a core of his voting bloc.

[Mechaman]

It's important to note in 1960 that there were many liberal Republicans calling on Nixon to try to focus on what I believe were the "Big Six" and try to appeal African-Americans so they would go heavily Republican there. Instead Nixon made his last campaign stop in South Carolina. And you have to understand, the vote in the Congress for the CRA's is irrelevant to how people perceive what happened, and that was a Democratic president passing an act many in the South perceived as radical. Who were they cursing? That evil Yankee Everett Dirksen? Or the traitor Lyndon Johnson?

Pretty much.
The Election of 1964 was pretty much a "gateway" for many otherwise "never in a million years" Democrats to vote Republican.  Sure, what Oldiesfreak says is true.  There were a legion of other factors besides the Civil Rights issue (I'm thinking that issues such as the whole "law and order" theme by Nixon and later on the rise of religious conservatism in the GOP) that led the South to be more GOP.  However, I think that considering the cold facts, it would be hard to argue that the permamajority in the South could've happened without 1964.
I say this for several reasons.

1. Previous Republican victories in the South were based on extenuating circumstances and were often decades between repeat successful performances in the South.  The Reconstruction victories were possible due to record amounts of freedmen voting along with still high levels of machine control.  In the election of 1872 especially Democratic turnout in some states dramatically decreased due to the lack of a "true Democratic" ticket and wouldn't swallow the bitter pill and vote for Greeley on the "Liberal Republican" ticket.  Once the so-called "Redeemers" took control of Southern state governments, Democratic representation in the South exploded back to where it was pre-Civil War.  And then later on, as Jim Crow was implemented, Democrats became the super majority in some states as non-white minorities were essentially wiped out from voting.  The next strong Republican performance came in 1928, which pitted an almost universally acclaimed humanitarian engineer (Herbert Hoover) against a Catholic Governor of New York who was "wet" (Al Smith).  Hoover, who took the "dry" position and fired a bunch of black patrons from the Southern leadership, won over many otherwise staunch Democrats who were afraid of the "agent of the pope".  1952 and 1956 saw a similarly popular war general who beat Nazi Germany as the Republican nominee, which with the more fiscally moderate positions of the GOP would appeal to many conservative Democrats who would've voted for the oft accused "pinko" Adlai Stevenson.

2. Barry Goldwater, although he didn't harbor the same racist sentiments as many "Deep South" residents did, still took a position that, most unfortunately, agreed with them.  It didn't matter how many pro-Civil Rights Republicans there were in 1964, the only thing that mattered to many people (and I would say they would be quite ignorant for making this chain of connection) was that the GOP candidate supported the status quo in many areas in the South.  Sure, Goldwater was probably less of a racist then LBJ.  That isn't what the vote record on the 1964 CRA told many people, however.  In this line of work all that matter is perception, and the perception was in 1964 that the GOP was finally open to the South people whereas before only the really bizarre parts of Tennessee and Kentucky and maybe one or two people from Texas were in the GOP congressional caucus.  Meanwhile, the Democrats had, in LBJ's own words "given up the South for a generation".  It should be noted though that despite Goldwater's vote on the CRA, many Southerners still voted for LBJ (thus my comment about the "Deep South" earlier as opposed to the overall "South").  I believe that Texas and Kentucky especially still voted over 60% for LBJ and that those people probably voted for him for other reasons than Civil Rights.  I would definitely agree that later on it became about more than just Civil Rights, as Nixon's campaigns in 1968 and 1972 showed.

and finally,

3. Without the 1964 Election the rise of Reagan conservatism, which I would say should be given the most credit for keeping the South "blue" (as in Atlas blue), wouldn'tve been possible.  Sure, Goldwater conservatism and Reagan conservatism were quite different.  However, if it weren't for ole Barry in 1964 Ronnie probably would've never had the momentum to enter politics in 1966.  By the early 60's he had converted to full tilt conservatism and I think he might've even have changed over to a Republican in 1964 during the Primaries.  However, the indications I got from researching him seem to say that he was just very disillusioned with the political process and had no real motivation for running until he made his pro-Goldwater speech in '64.  Without a Goldwater victory at the convention I see Reagan probably sitting at home grumbling while he hesitantly supports Rockefeller or Scranton or some other more moderate Republican.  Without Goldwater in the spotlight (and as Kal noted, his vote seemed to be an attempt at pandering) the brand of Republican conservatism that got Southern appeal probably wouldn'tve happened.  In such an alternate timeline the best I can see happening for Republican conservatism is probably some kind of more Midwestern blue collar conservatism that is more skeptical of free trade and is a little less pandering to the family unit and more to "law and order" (ie, a pretty pro-Suburbia Republican Party).  Sure, with migration and the Southern job boom there would be some Republican trending.  But definitely not the almost regional dominance that exists today.  The 1964 Election wasn't necessarily about race, but more about Southerners finally getting the message that it's okay for them to vote Republican.  If that makes any sense.

And a last point, though not explicitly related to the three previous.  I think a lot of people underestimate just how racist society was in the past.  Desegregation wasn't a popular proposition in the South.  Really it wasn't.  There were certain things about black people that made Southern Whites feel uncomfortable and they saw the 1964 law as downright radical.  Remember this is a nation that once only had voting rights for property owning males, so don't think too highly of the history

Also, I'm begging for a citation that Adlai Stevenson was a "northern racist".  And I mean more evidence than John Sparkman was the VP in 1952.

That is all.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Stevenson was not a racist, he was an opportunist Northern Democrat that simply ignored civil rights issue in order to not piss off the Southern base, pretty much like FDR. Sparkman was likewise an opportunist. In fact, in 1952 he told one Alabama reporter that if elected VP, he'll become "another Hugo Black", referring to Black changing his positions once in the SCOTUS. Surely, that doesn't make them better on the race question.

Also, it's important to make a distinction between the Deep South and the Upper South. The latter was more friendly for the Republicans before 1960s for numerous reasons. The Deep South, on the other hand, was firmly Democratic on the presidential level until the sixties, when Goldwater reversed the trend.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's important to note in 1960 that there were many liberal Republicans calling on Nixon to try to focus on what I believe were the "Big Six" and try to appeal African-Americans so they would go heavily Republican there. Instead Nixon made his last campaign stop in South Carolina. And you have to understand, the vote in the Congress for the CRA's is irrelevant to how people perceive what happened, and that was a Democratic president passing an act many in the South perceived as radical. Who were they cursing? That evil Yankee Everett Dirksen? Or the traitor Lyndon Johnson?

Also, Barry Goldwater personally voted against the Civil Rights Act, which was a pure political pandering. Goldwater never was a segregationist, in fact he's been a financial supporter of the NAACP and, as commander of the Arizona Air National Guard, ordered desegregation before Truman did it on national level. But in 1964 he reached for dissatisfacted Southern Democrats, that became a core of his voting bloc.

Even as someone who desegregated government, Goldwater's reasons for voting against CRA make sense on their own. There's no reason to think he was pandering - he never showed himself very interested in that.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

It's important to note in 1960 that there were many liberal Republicans calling on Nixon to try to focus on what I believe were the "Big Six" and try to appeal African-Americans so they would go heavily Republican there. Instead Nixon made his last campaign stop in South Carolina. And you have to understand, the vote in the Congress for the CRA's is irrelevant to how people perceive what happened, and that was a Democratic president passing an act many in the South perceived as radical. Who were they cursing? That evil Yankee Everett Dirksen? Or the traitor Lyndon Johnson?

Pretty much.
The Election of 1964 was pretty much a "gateway" for many otherwise "never in a million years" Democrats to vote Republican.  Sure, what Oldiesfreak says is true.  There were a legion of other factors besides the Civil Rights issue (I'm thinking that issues such as the whole "law and order" theme by Nixon and later on the rise of religious conservatism in the GOP) that led the South to be more GOP.  However, I think that considering the cold facts, it would be hard to argue that the permamajority in the South could've happened without 1964.
I say this for several reasons.

1. Previous Republican victories in the South were based on extenuating circumstances and were often decades between repeat successful performances in the South.  The Reconstruction victories were possible due to record amounts of freedmen voting along with still high levels of machine control.  In the election of 1872 especially Democratic turnout in some states dramatically decreased due to the lack of a "true Democratic" ticket and wouldn't swallow the bitter pill and vote for Greeley on the "Liberal Republican" ticket.  Once the so-called "Redeemers" took control of Southern state governments, Democratic representation in the South exploded back to where it was pre-Civil War.  And then later on, as Jim Crow was implemented, Democrats became the super majority in some states as non-white minorities were essentially wiped out from voting.  The next strong Republican performance came in 1928, which pitted an almost universally acclaimed humanitarian engineer (Herbert Hoover) against a Catholic Governor of New York who was "wet" (Al Smith).  Hoover, who took the "dry" position and fired a bunch of black patrons from the Southern leadership, won over many otherwise staunch Democrats who were afraid of the "agent of the pope".  1952 and 1956 saw a similarly popular war general who beat Nazi Germany as the Republican nominee, which with the more fiscally moderate positions of the GOP would appeal to many conservative Democrats who would've voted for the oft accused "pinko" Adlai Stevenson.

2. Barry Goldwater, although he didn't harbor the same racist sentiments as many "Deep South" residents did, still took a position that, most unfortunately, agreed with them.  It didn't matter how many pro-Civil Rights Republicans there were in 1964, the only thing that mattered to many people (and I would say they would be quite ignorant for making this chain of connection) was that the GOP candidate supported the status quo in many areas in the South.  Sure, Goldwater was probably less of a racist then LBJ.  That isn't what the vote record on the 1964 CRA told many people, however.  In this line of work all that matter is perception, and the perception was in 1964 that the GOP was finally open to the South people whereas before only the really bizarre parts of Tennessee and Kentucky and maybe one or two people from Texas were in the GOP congressional caucus.  Meanwhile, the Democrats had, in LBJ's own words "given up the South for a generation".  It should be noted though that despite Goldwater's vote on the CRA, many Southerners still voted for LBJ (thus my comment about the "Deep South" earlier as opposed to the overall "South").  I believe that Texas and Kentucky especially still voted over 60% for LBJ and that those people probably voted for him for other reasons than Civil Rights.  I would definitely agree that later on it became about more than just Civil Rights, as Nixon's campaigns in 1968 and 1972 showed.

and finally,

3. Without the 1964 Election the rise of Reagan conservatism, which I would say should be given the most credit for keeping the South "blue" (as in Atlas blue), wouldn'tve been possible.  Sure, Goldwater conservatism and Reagan conservatism were quite different.  However, if it weren't for ole Barry in 1964 Ronnie probably would've never had the momentum to enter politics in 1966.  By the early 60's he had converted to full tilt conservatism and I think he might've even have changed over to a Republican in 1964 during the Primaries.  However, the indications I got from researching him seem to say that he was just very disillusioned with the political process and had no real motivation for running until he made his pro-Goldwater speech in '64.  Without a Goldwater victory at the convention I see Reagan probably sitting at home grumbling while he hesitantly supports Rockefeller or Scranton or some other more moderate Republican.  Without Goldwater in the spotlight (and as Kal noted, his vote seemed to be an attempt at pandering) the brand of Republican conservatism that got Southern appeal probably wouldn'tve happened.  In such an alternate timeline the best I can see happening for Republican conservatism is probably some kind of more Midwestern blue collar conservatism that is more skeptical of free trade and is a little less pandering to the family unit and more to "law and order" (ie, a pretty pro-Suburbia Republican Party).  Sure, with migration and the Southern job boom there would be some Republican trending.  But definitely not the almost regional dominance that exists today.  The 1964 Election wasn't necessarily about race, but more about Southerners finally getting the message that it's okay for them to vote Republican.  If that makes any sense.

And a last point, though not explicitly related to the three previous.  I think a lot of people underestimate just how racist society was in the past.  Desegregation wasn't a popular proposition in the South.  Really it wasn't.  There were certain things about black people that made Southern Whites feel uncomfortable and they saw the 1964 law as downright radical.  Remember this is a nation that once only had voting rights for property owning males, so don't think too highly of the history

Also, I'm begging for a citation that Adlai Stevenson was a "northern racist".  And I mean more evidence than John Sparkman was the VP in 1952.

That is all.

Stevenson was not a racist, he was an opportunist Northern Democrat that simply ignored civil rights issue in order to not piss off the Southern base, pretty much like FDR. Sparkman was likewise an opportunist. In fact, in 1952 he told one Alabama reporter that if elected VP, he'll become "another Hugo Black", referring to Black changing his positions once in the SCOTUS. Surely, that doesn't make them better on the race question.

Also, it's important to make a distinction between the Deep South and the Upper South. The latter was more friendly for the Republicans before 1960s for numerous reasons. The Deep South, on the other hand, was firmly Democratic on the presidential level until the sixties, when Goldwater reversed the trend.

Yes, Stevenson was a racist.  He was once quoted as experiencing "personal discomfort in the presence of Negroes."  And the civil rights issue shifted the South toward Republicans in 1964, but it didn't after that. 

"Stevenson did not favor the repeal of Taft-Hartley, opposed national health insurance, and believed that civil rights legislation should be left to the states so that the federal government did not 'put the South over a barrel.' As John Kenneth Galbraith noted,'He ran for President not to rescue the downtrodden but to assume the responsibilities properly belonging to the privileged.'"
(http://www.solidarity-us.org/site/node/2178)

When Johnson said "we have lost the South for a generation", he was fearing that the segregationists would start a third party, like the Dixiecrats.  And in fact, George Wallace did exactly that.  Goldwater voted for the 1957 and 1960 CRAs but voted against the 1964 Act because he thought it extended too much power over the states (he was wrong, according to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.)  Reagan initially supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act, stating that it "should be enforced at gunpoint if necessary."

Here's an article about about Southern realignment I recommend:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300432/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson

[bgwah]

Wow, so much spin in this thread I'm dizzy!