One More Fabrication: “The Southern Strategy”

[Mac1958]

We cannot have anything resembling rational discussion or social harmony, when one side is allowed to just dismiss the other, whenever convenient by calling them "racist".

We also can't fix our racial issues when the other side convinces itself that racism no longer exists and that it's not even an issue.

As I point out constantly, both ends of this issue need to clean their own house first, and both ends always deny it.

That would involve effort, honesty and humility, qualities that in tragically short supply on both ends.

I'm not trying to accomplish anything in this thread. There is nothing to be accomplished on an online message board.

As always, I just observe and belch out my little opinion here and there. Invariably, someone comes right along to prove me right.
.

You talk about how both sides need to do something, but when I point out what your side is doing, instead of addressing it,

you immediately try to turn it around.


And we CAN have rational discussion or social harmony, when one side "convinces itself that racism no longer exists and that it's not even an issue."


All it means is that each time your side wants to cry racism, it actually has to make the case there there is a real injustice occurring, instead of just screaming it, and expecting that to be enough.


The SOuthern Strategy is a lie. Nixon did not pander to southern Racists. The South drifted right, due to the South becoming more and more prosperous and educated.

As you well know, no one on this board takes more shit from the PC police/Identity Politics zealots/Regressive Left than me. If you seriously can't see that, there's nothing else I can say. That's pretty disappointing, but I guess that's the way things go here.

There will be some who will hopefully be part of a conversation that leads to healing. Obviously, there will be many who will not be.
.

I have seen that, and defended you on many occasions.


That being said, you just made a statement lamenting the impossibility of rational discussion, and then airy dismissed my post, instead of responding to any of my four valid and serious points.


So, how is that going to lead to a conversation that leads to healing?

Those who are part of a conversation that leads to healing, if it happens, will do more than just point at the other side. They'll be brave and honest enough to challenge their own side to clean their own house before attacking the other.

Flinging poo with the rest of the tribe is easy; holding your own tribe accountable is hard.

Those who refuse to do that, or even to admit any faults in the first place, simply won't be a part of the conversation.
.

 

[Correll]

We cannot have anything resembling rational discussion or social harmony, when one side is allowed to just dismiss the other, whenever convenient by calling them "racist".

We also can't fix our racial issues when the other side convinces itself that racism no longer exists and that it's not even an issue.

As I point out constantly, both ends of this issue need to clean their own house first, and both ends always deny it.

That would involve effort, honesty and humility, qualities that in tragically short supply on both ends.

I'm not trying to accomplish anything in this thread. There is nothing to be accomplished on an online message board.

As always, I just observe and belch out my little opinion here and there. Invariably, someone comes right along to prove me right.
.

You talk about how both sides need to do something, but when I point out what your side is doing, instead of addressing it,

you immediately try to turn it around.


And we CAN have rational discussion or social harmony, when one side "convinces itself that racism no longer exists and that it's not even an issue."


All it means is that each time your side wants to cry racism, it actually has to make the case there there is a real injustice occurring, instead of just screaming it, and expecting that to be enough.


The SOuthern Strategy is a lie. Nixon did not pander to southern Racists. The South drifted right, due to the South becoming more and more prosperous and educated.

As you well know, no one on this board takes more shit from the PC police/Identity Politics zealots/Regressive Left than me. If you seriously can't see that, there's nothing else I can say. That's pretty disappointing, but I guess that's the way things go here.

There will be some who will hopefully be part of a conversation that leads to healing. Obviously, there will be many who will not be.
.

I have seen that, and defended you on many occasions.


That being said, you just made a statement lamenting the impossibility of rational discussion, and then airy dismissed my post, instead of responding to any of my four valid and serious points.


So, how is that going to lead to a conversation that leads to healing?

Those who are part of a conversation that leads to healing, if it happens, will do more than just point at the other side. They'll be brave and honest enough to challenge their own side to clean their own house before attacking the other.

Flinging poo with the rest of the tribe is easy; holding your own tribe accountable is hard.

Those who refuse to do that, or even to admit any faults in the first place, simply won't be a part of the conversation.
.

Facing the fact that the Southern Strategy is a myth, is part of what your side has to do.


We cannot have healing, if half the country assumes that a solid Third of the nation, is racist every time it votes gop.


We can't do anything, as long as that lie is tearing us apart.

 

[Mac1958]

We also can't fix our racial issues when the other side convinces itself that racism no longer exists and that it's not even an issue.

As I point out constantly, both ends of this issue need to clean their own house first, and both ends always deny it.

That would involve effort, honesty and humility, qualities that in tragically short supply on both ends.

I'm not trying to accomplish anything in this thread. There is nothing to be accomplished on an online message board.

As always, I just observe and belch out my little opinion here and there. Invariably, someone comes right along to prove me right.
.

You talk about how both sides need to do something, but when I point out what your side is doing, instead of addressing it,

you immediately try to turn it around.


And we CAN have rational discussion or social harmony, when one side "convinces itself that racism no longer exists and that it's not even an issue."


All it means is that each time your side wants to cry racism, it actually has to make the case there there is a real injustice occurring, instead of just screaming it, and expecting that to be enough.


The SOuthern Strategy is a lie. Nixon did not pander to southern Racists. The South drifted right, due to the South becoming more and more prosperous and educated.

As you well know, no one on this board takes more shit from the PC police/Identity Politics zealots/Regressive Left than me. If you seriously can't see that, there's nothing else I can say. That's pretty disappointing, but I guess that's the way things go here.

There will be some who will hopefully be part of a conversation that leads to healing. Obviously, there will be many who will not be.
.

I have seen that, and defended you on many occasions.


That being said, you just made a statement lamenting the impossibility of rational discussion, and then airy dismissed my post, instead of responding to any of my four valid and serious points.


So, how is that going to lead to a conversation that leads to healing?

Those who are part of a conversation that leads to healing, if it happens, will do more than just point at the other side. They'll be brave and honest enough to challenge their own side to clean their own house before attacking the other.

Flinging poo with the rest of the tribe is easy; holding your own tribe accountable is hard.

Those who refuse to do that, or even to admit any faults in the first place, simply won't be a part of the conversation.
.

Facing the fact that the Southern Strategy is a myth, is part of what your side has to do.


We cannot have healing, if half the country assumes that a solid Third of the nation, is racist every time it votes gop.


We can't do anything, as long as that lie is tearing us apart.

I know, it's all on the other guys. I know.
.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Republicans say it was democrats who owned slaves but today it’s republicans who worship Robert e lee and fly confederate flags...and go to kkk rally’s.

And you say there was no flip? Learn history lady and not revisionist

Don't worship Lee but do acknowledge his place as one of the greatest strategist in history you would have to be totally ignorant of history not to. If your family is from the South you likely have ancestors who fought in the Civil War. My Great, Great, Grandfather served with the 57th Alabama Infantry regiment, he did not own slaves. If I was to exercise my right to free speech and fly the Confederate battle flag it would be to honor my ancestor and that has fuck all to do with slavery. The KKK is not the power it was back when its members were exclusively Democrat.

 

[Correll]

You talk about how both sides need to do something, but when I point out what your side is doing, instead of addressing it,

you immediately try to turn it around.


And we CAN have rational discussion or social harmony, when one side "convinces itself that racism no longer exists and that it's not even an issue."


All it means is that each time your side wants to cry racism, it actually has to make the case there there is a real injustice occurring, instead of just screaming it, and expecting that to be enough.


The SOuthern Strategy is a lie. Nixon did not pander to southern Racists. The South drifted right, due to the South becoming more and more prosperous and educated.

As you well know, no one on this board takes more shit from the PC police/Identity Politics zealots/Regressive Left than me. If you seriously can't see that, there's nothing else I can say. That's pretty disappointing, but I guess that's the way things go here.

There will be some who will hopefully be part of a conversation that leads to healing. Obviously, there will be many who will not be.
.

I have seen that, and defended you on many occasions.


That being said, you just made a statement lamenting the impossibility of rational discussion, and then airy dismissed my post, instead of responding to any of my four valid and serious points.


So, how is that going to lead to a conversation that leads to healing?

Those who are part of a conversation that leads to healing, if it happens, will do more than just point at the other side. They'll be brave and honest enough to challenge their own side to clean their own house before attacking the other.

Flinging poo with the rest of the tribe is easy; holding your own tribe accountable is hard.

Those who refuse to do that, or even to admit any faults in the first place, simply won't be a part of the conversation.
.

Facing the fact that the Southern Strategy is a myth, is part of what your side has to do.


We cannot have healing, if half the country assumes that a solid Third of the nation, is racist every time it votes gop.


We can't do anything, as long as that lie is tearing us apart.

I know, it's all on the other guys. I know.
.

On this issue, pretty much.


ONe difference is, that I am will to debate people who are arguing that the Southern Strategy is real.


I'm engaged in discussion. I'm defending my position and at least listening to the other side.


I made two points in my last post. You addressed neither.

 

[Mac1958]

As you well know, no one on this board takes more shit from the PC police/Identity Politics zealots/Regressive Left than me. If you seriously can't see that, there's nothing else I can say. That's pretty disappointing, but I guess that's the way things go here.

There will be some who will hopefully be part of a conversation that leads to healing. Obviously, there will be many who will not be.
.

I have seen that, and defended you on many occasions.


That being said, you just made a statement lamenting the impossibility of rational discussion, and then airy dismissed my post, instead of responding to any of my four valid and serious points.


So, how is that going to lead to a conversation that leads to healing?

Those who are part of a conversation that leads to healing, if it happens, will do more than just point at the other side. They'll be brave and honest enough to challenge their own side to clean their own house before attacking the other.

Flinging poo with the rest of the tribe is easy; holding your own tribe accountable is hard.

Those who refuse to do that, or even to admit any faults in the first place, simply won't be a part of the conversation.
.

Facing the fact that the Southern Strategy is a myth, is part of what your side has to do.


We cannot have healing, if half the country assumes that a solid Third of the nation, is racist every time it votes gop.


We can't do anything, as long as that lie is tearing us apart.

I know, it's all on the other guys. I know.
.

On this issue, pretty much.


ONe difference is, that I am will to debate people who are arguing that the Southern Strategy is real.


I'm engaged in discussion. I'm defending my position and at least listening to the other side.


I made two points in my last post. You addressed neither.

I'm terrible at myopic, binary, partisan back-and-forth. One of my many weaknesses. I don't see the point of it.

Especially online.

There are plenty of people who will be willing to play along, though.
.

 

[Polishprince]

Southerners are clearly easily brainwashed, thanks in part to their British ethnic origins.
.

Large numbers of people in the Southlands aren't British in ethnicity at all. Particularly since the Carter Regime, large numbers of Rust Belters of various ethnicities have moved to the Land of Cotton because of the incredible opportunities.

 

[centerleftFL]

In order to hide their racist background, the Democrats/Liberals have developed a story line that the party created to end slavery somehow decided to ‘flip’ and become an endorser of racism….and then engaged in a ‘Southern Strategy’ to win the racist vote in the South.

Bogus.

Time to blow up that lie.





1.The facts are simple: The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
To obfuscate this and fortify it, the Democrats have largely used lies and violence.

One truly sophomoric attempt has been the ‘flip flop’ pretense, that a century after the Civil War, still sulking because the Republicans pried their slaves away from them, they tried to claim that the party formed to fight the Democrats and slavery, suddenly became the racists.

The lie is easily defeated by asking any reliable Democrat voter what the chances are that they would suddenly become Trump supporters.




2. Unable to comprehend that Southern Americans are not the racists that the Democrats are, they had to find some explanation for their ancient base, the South, turning to vote Republican. Sooo….they claimed that Nixon campaigned as a racist to gain the Deep South, to win over the Dixiecrats and segregationists to the Republican fold.

Of course, problem #1 is that the Democrats cannot provide a single example of an explicitly racist pitch in the campaign. There never was one.



3. “The two biggest issues in the 1968 campaign were the Vietnam War…and the anti-war movement….

Nixon campaigned on a strong anti-communist, law and order platform. While embracing the welfare state- Nixon was no conservative on domestic issues- he also railed against what he termed ‘the excesses of bleeding heart liberalism.’” "Death Of A Nation,” Dinesh D’Souza, p. 203




4.”Liberal neurotic obsession with this apocryphal notion- (that Southern Strategy) it’s been cited hundreds of times in the NYTimes- is supposed to explain why Democrats can’t get nice churchgoing, patriotic southerners to vote for the party of antiwar protesters, abortion, the ACLU and gay marriage.

They tell themselves it’s because they won’t stoop to pander to a bunch of racists. This slander should probably be the first clue as to why southerners don’t like them.

The central premise of this folklore is that anyone who votes Republican is a racist. Pretty sophisticated thinking.”
Coulter, Mugged



Soooo....what happened to the Southern voter?

They behaved as good Americans, refused to support racist Democrats, and the racist voters aged out....and died.

Rectitude and Republicans won out.

I'll tell you what, since ANYONE can change Wikipedia, change THIS. Go for it...

Southern strategy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Southern United States as defined by the Census Bureau In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party.[4] It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]

The "Southern strategy" refers primarily to "top down" narratives of the political realignment of the South which suggest that Republican leaders consciously appealed to many white Southerners' racial grievances in order to gain their support.[5] This top-down narrative of the Southern strategy is generally believed to be the primary force that transformed Southern politics following the civil rights era.[6][7] This view has been questioned by historians such as Matthew Lassiter, Kevin M. Kruse and Joseph Crespino, who have presented an alternative, "bottom up" narrative, which Lassiter has called the "suburban strategy". This narrative recognizes the centrality of racial backlash to the political realignment of the South,[8] but suggests that this backlash took the form of a defense of de facto segregation in the suburbs rather than overt resistance to racial integration and that the story of this backlash is a national rather than a strictly Southern one.[9][10][11][12]

The perception that the Republican Party had served as the "vehicle of white supremacy in the South", particularly during the Goldwater campaign and the presidential elections of 1968 and 1972, made it difficult for the Republican Party to win back the support of black voters in the South in later years.[4] In 2005, Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a national civil rights organization, for exploiting racial polarization to win elections and ignoring the black vote.[13][14]

 

[Correll]

I have seen that, and defended you on many occasions.


That being said, you just made a statement lamenting the impossibility of rational discussion, and then airy dismissed my post, instead of responding to any of my four valid and serious points.


So, how is that going to lead to a conversation that leads to healing?

Those who are part of a conversation that leads to healing, if it happens, will do more than just point at the other side. They'll be brave and honest enough to challenge their own side to clean their own house before attacking the other.

Flinging poo with the rest of the tribe is easy; holding your own tribe accountable is hard.

Those who refuse to do that, or even to admit any faults in the first place, simply won't be a part of the conversation.
.

Facing the fact that the Southern Strategy is a myth, is part of what your side has to do.


We cannot have healing, if half the country assumes that a solid Third of the nation, is racist every time it votes gop.


We can't do anything, as long as that lie is tearing us apart.

I know, it's all on the other guys. I know.
.

On this issue, pretty much.


ONe difference is, that I am will to debate people who are arguing that the Southern Strategy is real.


I'm engaged in discussion. I'm defending my position and at least listening to the other side.


I made two points in my last post. You addressed neither.

I'm terrible at myopic, binary, partisan back-and-forth. One of my many weaknesses. I don't see the point of it.

Especially online.

There are plenty of people who will be willing to play along, though.
.

What IF, I am correct, and the Southern Strategy is a myth?

 

[Mac1958]

What IF, I am correct, and the Southern Strategy is a myth?

I have no idea. I don't see how it matters right now, at this very moment.

What matters to me is that both ends of this issue refuse to look in the mirror.
.

 

[Correll]

What IF, I am correct, and the Southern Strategy is a myth?

I have no idea. I don't see how it matters right now, at this very moment.

What matters to me is that both ends of this issue refuse to look in the mirror.
.

You don't think it would be relevant, if a third of the country, you thought was voting based on hate, was NOT?


You dont' think that would matter?

 

[Polishprince]

Republicans say it was democrats who owned slaves but today it’s republicans who worship Robert e lee and fly confederate flags...and go to kkk rally’s.

And you say there was no flip? Learn history lady and not revisionist

The "Southern Strategy" had nothing to do with people flipping en masse or the Republicans deciding to embrace racism.

After the Republicans achieved their total victory in the Civil Rights battle of the 1960's and burying Jim Crow in the unmarked grave of discredited lies, why shouldn't they try to appeal to southern voters? The main platform plank of the Democrat Party was no longer an issue. Sure, the Left would continue to maintain a majority in the South for several more decades with despots like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and the Gores, but the people were no longer beholden to the left.

The Clintons and other Far Lefters were rejected for incompetence, not because of the electorate's racism.

 

[Mac1958]

What IF, I am correct, and the Southern Strategy is a myth?

I have no idea. I don't see how it matters right now, at this very moment.

What matters to me is that both ends of this issue refuse to look in the mirror.
.

You don't think it would be relevant, if a third of the country, you thought was voting based on hate, was NOT?


You dont' think that would matter?

No, I sure don't.

Some declaration that "the Southern Strategy is a myth" would not change minds, one iota.

Minorities are far more likely to look at what they actually see, such as a President who pretends not to know who David Duke is.
.

 

[skews13]

Republicans say it was democrats who owned slaves but today it’s republicans who worship Robert e lee and fly confederate flags...and go to kkk rally’s.

And you say there was no flip? Learn history lady and not revisionist

Don't worship Lee but do acknowledge his place as one of the greatest strategist in history you would have to be totally ignorant of history not to. If your family is from the South you likely have ancestors who fought in the Civil War. My Great, Great, Grandfather served with the 57th Alabama Infantry regiment, he did not own slaves. If I was to exercise my right to free speech and fly the Confederate battle flag it would be to honor my ancestor and that has fuck all to do with slavery. The KKK is not the power it was back when its members were exclusively Democrat.

I am southern and have family members that fought in the war to.

I was born in a hospital in Richmond four blocks from where Lee lived on Grace St.

The KKK was started as a terrorist group by ex confederate soldiers. Who later enlisted Nathan Forrest as their leader. He quit a short time later because even he couldn’t stomach who these low life’s were.

Lee was the only one his family that sided with the confederacy. All of his other family members did not.

He wasn’t that brilliant of a strategist as he should have never went into Pennsylvania, which split his Army and cost him the war. He could have occupied Washington DC, and forced Lincoln to sign a truce which he would have done, because of the pressure from northern abolitionists and news papers at the time that were afraid of a confederate invasion.

Thomas Jackson on the other hand was a brilliant strategist and the most feared confederate general of the war. He never lost a battle, and his death prompted the meeting with Sherman Grant and Lincoln at City Point to press for a final push to win the war for the Union.

The political parties since that time have completely flipped, as the Dixiecrats would not accept Eisenhower’s or Johnson’s segregating of public schools in the south, and the Civil Rights Act by Johnson sealed that And the Southern Strategy became a campaign strategy by Nixon to win in 1968 which morphed into his law and order strategy in 1972

 

[PoliticalChic]

And you say there was no flip? Learn history lady and not revisionist

On other threads they'll tell you that racism isn't an issue any more. All one can do is observe at this point.

"...they'll tell you that racism isn't an issue any more."
Can you give a few examples of where it is?
No?
Of course you can't, fence-sitter.

See?
.

"...they'll tell you that racism isn't an issue any more."
Can you give a few examples of where it is?
No?
Of course you can't, fence-sitter.



As soon as you were challenged on your contention.....off you scurry with your tail between your legs.


Good little fence-sitter.

Whatever you like, hon.
.

What I like is proving you the one-dimensional fence-sitter too dumb and too cowardly to ever take a position, and defend it.

You've been a great help in that endeavor.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Republicans say it was democrats who owned slaves but today it’s republicans who worship Robert e lee and fly confederate flags...and go to kkk rally’s.

And you say there was no flip? Learn history lady and not revisionist

Your linking of confederate flags and the kkk, is you being a bigot.

It is not credible that you missed the last 150 years, where the Confederate Flag, lost it's role as a symbol of secession and became a symbol of regional pride.


So, you are thus, lying, in order to rationalize your bigotry.

I'm gonna ask you to modify that post in this way...

While born and bred Southerners see the statues and the flag as their history and heritage....not an endorsement of slavery or racism, the Democrat Party- believing that every Southerner is as racist as the party is.....have played the flag as a call to racism.




Bill Clinton, life-long Democrat and life-long racist, used the flag in that way:

1. Bill Clinton had a Confederate flag-like issue, every year he was governor: 1979-1992 Arkansas Code Annotated, Section 1-5-107, provides as follows:
   
   (a) The Saturday immediately preceding Easter Sunday of each year is designated as ‘Confederate Flag Day’ in this state.
   
   (b) No person, firm, or corporation shall display an Confederate flag or replica thereof in connection with any advertisement of any commercial enterprise, or in any manner for any purpose except to honor the Confederate States of America. [Emphasis added.]
   
   (c) Any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
   
   Bill Clinton took no steps during his twelve years as governor to repeal this law.
   Hillary Clinton's Confederacy Hypocrisy | The Gateway Pundit

Hillary Clinton's Confederacy Hypocrisy


View attachment 214924

You know that "clinton-gore" sign was individually made and was not a mass-produced pin for the campaign, right? Anyone can make a pin.

Wow....revealing the Confederate flag pin by the Clinton campaign really brings out the fear in you leftists.

Imagine, the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship, the Democrats, trying to deny that they are wedded to the confederacy!!!!


"In 1987, when her husband was governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton signed Act 116 that stated “The blue star above the word “ARKANSAS” is to commemorate the Confederate States of America.”

When the Confederate flag issue arose in the 2000 election, Matt Drudge reportedthat then-President Bill Clinton’s spokesman Joe Lockhart was asked about the issue. Lockhart told reporters, “I’ve just never heard any discussion or any objections that the president has raised.”
Flashback: As Governor, Bill Clinton Honored Confederacy On Arkansas Flag

As Governor, Bill Clinton Kept 'Confederate' Star On The Arkansas Flag | HuffPost




And, when asked directly about the authenticity of the Confederate Flag Clinton-Gore pin.....this is what we get from the career criminal:

"Hillary Clinton camp won’t say if Confederate flag button was official part of '92 presidential campaign
· Pin badges featuring distinctive Confederate symbol being sold on Ebay Clinton team have so-far refused to comment on whether it was endorsed

· Follows calls to scrap 'symbol of hate' from Capitol building


Hillary Clinton is refusing to say whether a Clinton-Gore pin featuring a Confederate flag was part of her husband's official campaign merchandise.

.....the former Arkansas first lady has not responded to questions by The Blaze over whether she knew if the pin was part of the official campaign. She has also failed to respond to requests over whether she is opposed now, or opposed then, to an act signed by her husband honoring the Confederate flag, the website said. "
Hillary Clinton won’t say if Confederate flag button was part of '92 presidential campaign | Daily Mail Online




Of course it was the official pin of the Democrat campaign.

Trying to lie your way away from it now, huh?

Too funny! Try try try and try again.

Try what again...smash another custard pie in your ugly kisser???

 

[PoliticalChic]

What IF, I am correct, and the Southern Strategy is a myth?

I have no idea. I don't see how it matters right now, at this very moment.

What matters to me is that both ends of this issue refuse to look in the mirror.
.

You don't think it would be relevant, if a third of the country, you thought was voting based on hate, was NOT?


You dont' think that would matter?

No, I sure don't.

Some declaration that "the Southern Strategy is a myth" would not change minds, one iota.

Minorities are far more likely to look at what they actually see, such as a President who pretends not to know who David Duke is.
.

David Duke....the Democrat.


State Senator, 1975 (Baton Rouge Area)[edit]
Threshold > 50%

First Ballot, November 1, 1975

Louisiana State Senate, 1975
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Kenneth Osterberger 22,287 66
Democratic David Duke 11,079 33
N/A Others 1
Total 100
State Senator, 10th District, 1979 (Suburban New Orleans)[edit]
Threshold > 50% First Ballot, October 27, 1979

Louisiana State Senate, 10th District, 1979
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Joseph Tiemann 21,329 57
Democratic David Duke 9,897 26
N/A Others 6,459 17
Total 37,685 100
Democratic Nomination for United States Presidential Candidate, 1988 (Louisiana results)[edit]
Threshold = Plurality

1988 Democratic Presidential primary in Louisiana
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Jesse Jackson 221,522 35
Democratic Al Gore 174,971 28
Democratic Michael Dukakis 95,661 15
Democratic Dick Gephardt 67,029 11
Democratic Gary Hart 26,437 4
Democratic David Duke 23,391 4
Democratic Others 16,008 3
Total 625,019 100
Electoral history of David Duke - Wikipedia



Duke left the KKK long before he became a Republicans....


"In 1979, after his first, abortive run for president (as a Democrat) and a series of highly publicized violent Klan incidents, Duke quietly incorporated the nonprofit National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) in an attempt to leave the baggage of the Klan behind."

David Duke - Wikipedia



Gads, you're ignorant.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Southerners are clearly easily brainwashed, thanks in part to their British ethnic origins.
.

Large numbers of people in the Southlands aren't British in ethnicity at all. Particularly since the Carter Regime, large numbers of Rust Belters of various ethnicities have moved to the Land of Cotton because of the incredible opportunities.

There's increasingly more Germans, Italians, Poles, Irish Catholics in some Southern states, but hardly enough to make up for the overwhelming British origins of most Southerners.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In order to hide their racist background, the Democrats/Liberals have developed a story line that the party created to end slavery somehow decided to ‘flip’ and become an endorser of racism….and then engaged in a ‘Southern Strategy’ to win the racist vote in the South.

Bogus.

Time to blow up that lie.





1.The facts are simple: The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
To obfuscate this and fortify it, the Democrats have largely used lies and violence.

One truly sophomoric attempt has been the ‘flip flop’ pretense, that a century after the Civil War, still sulking because the Republicans pried their slaves away from them, they tried to claim that the party formed to fight the Democrats and slavery, suddenly became the racists.

The lie is easily defeated by asking any reliable Democrat voter what the chances are that they would suddenly become Trump supporters.




2. Unable to comprehend that Southern Americans are not the racists that the Democrats are, they had to find some explanation for their ancient base, the South, turning to vote Republican. Sooo….they claimed that Nixon campaigned as a racist to gain the Deep South, to win over the Dixiecrats and segregationists to the Republican fold.

Of course, problem #1 is that the Democrats cannot provide a single example of an explicitly racist pitch in the campaign. There never was one.



3. “The two biggest issues in the 1968 campaign were the Vietnam War…and the anti-war movement….

Nixon campaigned on a strong anti-communist, law and order platform. While embracing the welfare state- Nixon was no conservative on domestic issues- he also railed against what he termed ‘the excesses of bleeding heart liberalism.’” "Death Of A Nation,” Dinesh D’Souza, p. 203




4.”Liberal neurotic obsession with this apocryphal notion- (that Southern Strategy) it’s been cited hundreds of times in the NYTimes- is supposed to explain why Democrats can’t get nice churchgoing, patriotic southerners to vote for the party of antiwar protesters, abortion, the ACLU and gay marriage.

They tell themselves it’s because they won’t stoop to pander to a bunch of racists. This slander should probably be the first clue as to why southerners don’t like them.

The central premise of this folklore is that anyone who votes Republican is a racist. Pretty sophisticated thinking.”
Coulter, Mugged



Soooo....what happened to the Southern voter?

They behaved as good Americans, refused to support racist Democrats, and the racist voters aged out....and died.

Rectitude and Republicans won out.

I'll tell you what, since ANYONE can change Wikipedia, change THIS. Go for it...

Southern strategy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Southern United States as defined by the Census Bureau In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party.[4] It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]

The "Southern strategy" refers primarily to "top down" narratives of the political realignment of the South which suggest that Republican leaders consciously appealed to many white Southerners' racial grievances in order to gain their support.[5] This top-down narrative of the Southern strategy is generally believed to be the primary force that transformed Southern politics following the civil rights era.[6][7] This view has been questioned by historians such as Matthew Lassiter, Kevin M. Kruse and Joseph Crespino, who have presented an alternative, "bottom up" narrative, which Lassiter has called the "suburban strategy". This narrative recognizes the centrality of racial backlash to the political realignment of the South,[8] but suggests that this backlash took the form of a defense of de facto segregation in the suburbs rather than overt resistance to racial integration and that the story of this backlash is a national rather than a strictly Southern one.[9][10][11][12]

The perception that the Republican Party had served as the "vehicle of white supremacy in the South", particularly during the Goldwater campaign and the presidential elections of 1968 and 1972, made it difficult for the Republican Party to win back the support of black voters in the South in later years.[4] In 2005, Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a national civil rights organization, for exploiting racial polarization to win elections and ignoring the black vote.[13][14]

As proven in this thread, the 'Southern Strategy' is a myth.

 

[konradv]

Of course, problem #1 is that the Democrats cannot provide a single example of an explicitly racist pitch in the campaign. There never was one.

Big issues were school integration, school bussing to achieve integration and law and order, all of which had racial overtones. Of course there were no explicit racist pitches, that would have been political suicide, but those issues and others contributed heavily to turning the Democratic south Republican.