House: Nine percent of Confederacy Democrats, zero percent of Confederacy Republicans.
Senate: Five percent of Confed Dems, zero percent of Confed Repubs.
Rest of the nation: Ayes were 95% of Democrats / 85% Repubs in the House, and 98 to 84 (D/R) in the House.
>> You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.
But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".
In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.
Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did.
The same pattern holds true when looking at ideology instead of party affiliation. The folks over at Voteview.com, who created DW-nominate scores to measure the ideology of congressmen and senators, found that the more liberal a congressman or senator was the more likely he would vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once one controlled for a factor closely linked to geography. <<
This ^^ is your brain on facts. Any questions?
We've done this before. Yet here you are running the same shit expecting different results.
Oh and we've done this "fill in this list" too, which we did fill in, yet ditto.
would the bill have passed without republican votes? simple question. would it have failed if no republicans voted for it? second simple question.
It was a bi-partisan vote and that was good for the country. We need more bi-partisan votes and we need to silence the radicals on both sides. Trump asked for just that in the SOTU speech and the dems sat on their hands. There is no question which party is the party of obstruction.
