|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 30, 2020, 06:13:19 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: Torie, ON Progressive)
  McKinley and the solid south
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: McKinley and the solid south  (Read 2993 times)
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 05, 2005, 08:21:34 am »

Why did William Bryan carry the south? It seems like this is when the southern realignment should have occured.

Bryan was, after all, very economically left-wing.
Logged
Erc
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,818
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2005, 11:16:32 am »

The South was never extremely anti-Populist...
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,239
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2005, 11:18:21 am »

And the South was very very poor. Also, I think there was a realignment in the South in the Bryan years. The Populists mounted something of a challenge in a number of Southern states such as Arkansas IIRC - and then went on to endorse Bryan in 96 - making the South more solid than ever. Turnout in the South took another big downwards step at the end of the Bryan era, too. In fact Black turnout didn't really fall towards nil until this period, which saw enactment of a no of Grandfather Clauses etc.
Logged
Rob
Bob
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,282
United States
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2005, 05:19:30 pm »

Why did William Bryan carry the south? It seems like this is when the southern realignment should have occured.

Bryan was, after all, very economically left-wing.

Yes, as was the South... Besides, the Democrats were neutral on segregation at this time, while the GOP was mildly pro-civil rights.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2005, 05:29:36 pm »

The South was economically left-wing? They voted for Grover Cleveland three times. When did they become right-wing?
Logged
Rob
Bob
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,282
United States
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2005, 05:46:52 pm »

They voted on cultural issues (i.e., hating the GOP as the Party of Lincoln and Reconstruction). The South started swinging to the right economically during the suburban boom of the Fifties, when a great many southerners became affluent for the first time.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,239
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2005, 02:54:44 am »

The rural South is still very much Populist country.
Logged
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,969
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 06, 2005, 11:27:43 am »

The rural South is still very much Populist country.
Yes, states like Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi, Louisiana, and South Carolina are very much populist.  States like Tennesse, Alabama, and Florida have moved less populist in the years do to growth of suburbs.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2005, 01:29:51 pm »

South Carolina is definitely not populist at all. I don't know about Mississippi and Louisiana, but they conistently elect conservative senators who are big advocates of tax reform.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,239
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2005, 01:42:18 pm »

There is a difference between state and federal politcs in these states.
As for South Carolina, well they did reelect Fritz Hollings quite recently.
Logged
zorkpolitics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,185
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2005, 06:19:34 pm »


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, as was the South... Besides, the Democrats were neutral on segregation at this time, while the GOP was mildly pro-civil rights.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Democrats were not neutral, they were totally racist at this time.  The Democrats were against all civil rights, favored (actually invented) Jim Crow laws, and used terror to keep Southern Blacks from registering.  The southern Democrats wielded the filibuster to block any legislation that affected blacks.  Even a Northern like Woodrow Wilson was a harsh racist with nothing but disdain for Blacks.
Given the long history of the Filibuster as a tool of Racists, its fairly ironic that the current crop of Democratic Senators are once again trying to block the majority with the Filibuster.
Logged
Grand Mufti of Northern Virginia
Frodo
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,130
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2005, 06:32:24 pm »
« Edited: May 08, 2005, 06:34:59 pm by Frodo »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

wasn't Woodrow Wilson actually a Virginian by birth, having been born in Staunton? 

and with regard to his racism, i doubt he was any more racist than anyone else at that time. 
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,239
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 09, 2005, 12:57:43 am »

Yes, Wilson was a Southerner. Very much so.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 10, 2005, 12:58:24 am »

Philip, this is the exact reason that Democrats still have huge majorities in state governments of some of the deepest southern states. It's all about populism - the Republicans can, however, since the state is so used to electing federal representatives from the GOP, fairly easily get away with nominating full-fledged conservatives.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 10, 2005, 08:04:44 pm »

Um, no. Part of the modern southern strategy is emphasizing tax cuts.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 10, 2005, 08:13:33 pm »

Um, no. Part of the modern southern strategy is emphasizing tax cuts.

So how exactly do you explain heavily populist, Democratically-controlled state senates? Magic?
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 10, 2005, 08:20:17 pm »

As Bob said:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know what heavily populist Democrat state senates you're talking about. South Carolina sure as hell doesn't have one. Louisiana's Democrats are basically the same as the Republicans.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 62,998
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2005, 02:28:33 am »

I don't know what heavily populist Democrat state senates you're talking about.

Alabama comes to mind. In fact most rural state senate districts in the Deep South are represented by populist Democrats (black and white).

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who on earth told you that?
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 11, 2005, 12:07:30 pm »

Someone who, you know, actually lives in Louisiana.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 62,998
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 11, 2005, 03:17:42 pm »

Someone who, you know, actually lives in Louisiana.

So? That line of arguement is pretty weak you know.

Sure some Democrats in Louisiana are pretty similer to Republicans but it's not true that they all are, as you seem to be claiming.

Weird state though.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines