Why didn't Southern Dems form their own party during the civil right years?

[David Hume]

Southern Dems voted R for president and D downballot till 1990s. Their believes with the national Dems were too huge. They could have formed their own party, yet the attempts of Thurmond and Wallace were short-lived. 

I feel it should be better for them to form a party or simply change name to Southern D or Conservative D, and pass some fusion laws in the Solid South. In this way, at federal level, their members can choose which party to caucus with, and thus gain more bargaining power. At state and local level, they can continue with their D infrastructure and monopolize their states. 

[Frodo]

They did:

States' Rights Democratic Party

American Independent Party

They simply did not last long as viable third parties given they were mainly protest parties instead of posing as genuine alternatives to the status quo.  

[Del Tachi]

Third parties don't work in the United States because our political institutions are bottom-heavy and diffuse enough to be influenced by individual candidates/politicians more so than strictly organized partisan hierarchies.

[David Hume]

They did:

States' Rights Democratic Party

American Independent Party

They simply did not last long as viable third parties given they were mainly protest parties instead of posing as genuine alternatives to the status quo.  

This is what I said Thurmond and Wallace's attempts did not last long. The question is why.

[Mr. Smith]

They did:

States' Rights Democratic Party

American Independent Party

They simply did not last long as viable third parties given they were mainly protest parties instead of posing as genuine alternatives to the status quo.  

The former was a pure protest party yes.

The latter was not, certainly no more than Reform Party was. The problem with that party is that Nixon's plumbers arguably played every card on the books they could to make it all about McGovern was a pinko.  John Schmitz simply never had a chance for any kind of meaningful exposure...but he did do quite well in The Interior West.

[smoltchanov]

Well, in fact Southern Democrats felt relatively well in Democratic party until mid-1960th at least (yes, party program was pro-civil rights, but that didn't created serious inconvenience for their election and reelection as "Alabama Democrats", "Mississippi Democrats" and so on). In addition - integration in the South was more symbolical, then real, until that time (and in some parts of Deep South - nonexistent). And after 1968 and Nixon - it was a Republican party, that more or less (more with every passing year) suited them. So, the need to create "something third" wasn't overriding..

[David Hume]

They did:

States' Rights Democratic Party

American Independent Party

They simply did not last long as viable third parties given they were mainly protest parties instead of posing as genuine alternatives to the status quo.  

The former was a pure protest party yes.

The latter was not, certainly no more than Reform Party was. The problem with that party is that Nixon's plumbers arguably played every card on the books they could to make it all about McGovern was a pinko.  John Schmitz simply never had a chance for any kind of meaningful exposure...but he did do quite well in The Interior West.

Dixiecrats may be too early, and AIP too late. Their window is probably between Brown and the Southern Strategy. I feel a party platform with "massive resistance" combined with Dem's economic policies that suits the south fits them better than R, and should be viable.

[Torie]

The white southern democrats were interested in lots of government spending and pork back in the day, but did on social issues vote with the Pubs. Tip O'Neal used to complain that about 35 members of his caucus ignored his whip more often than not. The Dems back then did not thin they could afford to bounce the Dixiecrats from the party. If they had, the political realignment would have occurred sooner, and the Pubs would have become less Northern country club types sooner.

[Greedo punched first]

They did:

States' Rights Democratic Party

American Independent Party

They simply did not last long as viable third parties given they were mainly protest parties instead of posing as genuine alternatives to the status quo.  

The former was a pure protest party yes.

The latter was not, certainly no more than Reform Party was. The problem with that party is that Nixon's plumbers arguably played every card on the books they could to make it all about McGovern was a pinko.  John Schmitz simply never had a chance for any kind of meaningful exposure...but he did do quite well in The Interior West.

Dixiecrats may be too early, and AIP too late. Their window is probably between Brown and the Southern Strategy. I feel a party platform with "massive resistance" combined with Dem's economic policies that suits the south fits them better than R, and should be viable.

Not a real party, but Southern "unpledged electors" in 1960 were a viable de facto third party in the South that got many electoral votes in states that ran them.

[Frodo]

This topic reminds me of this five-year-old article from Forbes:

Southern Conservatives Are America's Third Party

[politicallefty]

Third parties don't work in the United States because our political institutions are bottom-heavy and diffuse enough to be influenced by individual candidates/politicians more so than strictly organized partisan hierarchies.

I've wondered if presidential systems are less conducive to third parties in general (particularly longer lasting third parties). The executive in a presidential system is winner-take-all. I think that makes a big difference. When power is concentrated in the lower house, there is more incentive to have a seat at the table, so to speak (even when not part of the governing majority).

[Orser67]

Lots of factors. Decades of mostly uncontested Democratic dominance of the South, the fact that so many Southern Democrats held powerful positions in Congress (especially committee chairs), and an election system that wasn't (and still isn't) conducive towards third parties. National Democrats did also take some steps to appease the South (e.g. consistently nominating a Southerner on the national ticket from 1944 to 1964) and beginning in the 1960s, the Republicans started peeling off conservative Democrats like Strom Thurmond, thereby presenting another option as opposed to going third party.

[If my soul was made of stone]

It should be noted that there were attempts by Black progressives in the South to form third parties separate from the state Democratic apparatus, which would've lost its substantial ties to and power within the national Democratic organization had they/it gone rogue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Democratic_Party_(South_Carolina)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clennon_Washington_King_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Freedom_Democratic_Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowndes_County_Freedom_Organization