Nixon led George Wallace in the South by 9 points in a hypothetical 1972 poll

[darklordoftech]

I imagine you would have actually gotten a pretty similar county split to Reagan/Carter in 1980, as uncomfortable as that is for the "Dixiecrats were the first to switch to the GOP" narrative.

There would have been some major differences as compared to 1980. Nixon would have done way better with black voters than Reagan and much worse with Deep South whites, even compared to Carter's very decent showing with that group. Nixon also would have done a lot better than Reagan in New England.

My point is that Reagan did not win the Southern states that he won in 1980 by winning the areas that had supported Wallace in 1968.  He won those states by thin margins due to suburban strength, and he lost most of the counties that the eloquent users of Atlas would now classify as filled with "racist hicks" - voters that went to Carter, per county results.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that "the eloquent users of Atlas" wouldn't see Nixon counties as also being "filled with racist hicks".

[darklordoftech]

There's a big difference between saying, "Racist hicks tended to support Reagan" and "Reagan's supporters tended to be racist hicks."

[darklordoftech]

Why didn’t Wallace win South Carolina in 1968?

[darklordoftech]

Its a good thing I found this thread, because some have been using the wrong term to apply to the wrong group of people.

To be specific, Dixiecrat in reference to Wallace. The original Dixiecrat, Strom Thurmond, was much more conservative and his "best areas" were those in the low countries, suburbs and cities while the upcountry whites retained the most loyalty to Truman. It is these poorer voters that as one person put it couldn't afford to not vote Democratic. By 1968, the former category, The people who had supported the actual Dixiecrats, formed the base for Richard Nixon in the South along with more traditional GOP Mountain counties and of course northern transplants.

The Dixiecrat, referring to the more upscale black belt, urban, low country whites were indeed the first to switch to the Republicans, beginning in 1952.

Now obviously, Thurmond did well in a lot of upcountry areas too and Wallace won a lot of suburbs in the Deep South, but the point refers more to areas of strongest concentration more so than anything else.

What do you mean by “upcountry” and “low countries”?

[darklordoftech]

I’d love a 1928-1948-1968 comparison.

[darklordoftech]

Why didn’t Wallace win South Carolina in 1968?

Because of the suburbs going for Nixon.

Were there more suburbs in SC than in the Wallace states or did the SC suburbs go for Nixon more than the Wallace state suburbs did? If the latter, why?