Should Blacks Pay Reparations To Whites?

[Correll]

The thing here is that the dixiecrats who were southern democrats did primarily switch to the republican party due to integration. There may be several reasons outside of the fact that one wants to claim that Carter swept the south as a bass that it was not so. Number 1 being that no one wanted more Nixon and saw Ford as an extension of Nixon. There was a reason why Regan began is campaign in the town where the 3 slain civil rights workers were found dead sneaking in favor of states rights. Yes there was a southern strategy. The leftist academia did not make this up, a republican political operative did. Reagan did appeal to racism and what Reagan started created what we see today in Trump.

Why Did The South Turn Republican?

There are a range of opinions on this matter so I added the link to a search about this.

why did the south turn fro democrat to republican - Yahoo Search Results

The Republican political operative that you mention was Lee Atwater. The following is the full audio interview with him regarding The Southern Strategy

Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy

Yes it was Lee Atwater and that interview is very telling. I've seen it before.

There s no debate as to what he did to turn the south republican really.

There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.

 

[Correll]

Nope. Cotton was too labor intensive. You pay real wages and the margins would become to small to support the Plantation Class. Their world would end.


The labor would leave to be small farmers supporting themselves in better conditions.

Capital would have been in plentiful supply in the South after that "reimbursement".

The Industrial Revolution was beginning; and we really could have avoided the Civil War, and made more progress on our Industrial Revolution.

People who entire business experience and workforce and culture and infrastructure were set up to grow and export cotton are NOT going to suddenly and successfully transform into industrialists.


THey might TRY. The vast majority would fail.


The South would be impoverished and marginalized for generations.

Why should anyone take the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

The capital laws of demand and supply don't stop for right wing fantasy.

I called you on your normal bullshit of posting incoherent garbage.

You finally made a real point.

I addressed it seriously, honestly and even respectfully.

ANd you run away from serious discussion back into incoherent garbage.



Barring an unlikely return to seriousness on your part, my rebuttal of your point on "eminent domain" stands as the Final Word.




People who entire business experience and workforce and culture and infrastructure were set up to grow and export cotton are NOT going to suddenly and successfully transform into industrialists.


THey might TRY. The vast majority would fail.


The South would be impoverished and marginalized for generations.

Why would the laws of demand and supply stop for right wing fantasy? there are no traffic controls under, laissez-fair.

With that influx in capital, the South would have been advancing their commercial interests. Some Southern railroads were quite progressive in this area, according to a video on YouTube.

YOU accuse me of engaging in fantasy because I am skeptical that a agricultural region can quickly and easily transform into an industrial region?


The South was an agricultural region. The upper class was based on agricultural exports. They feared that a loss of forced labor and a trade policy based on the interests of the industrial north would lead to them and the SOuth being impoverished and marginalized for generations.

Which is exactly what happened.

Your belief that it would have been easy for them to industrialize is disproved by history.

 

[IM2]

The thing here is that the dixiecrats who were southern democrats did primarily switch to the republican party due to integration. There may be several reasons outside of the fact that one wants to claim that Carter swept the south as a bass that it was not so. Number 1 being that no one wanted more Nixon and saw Ford as an extension of Nixon. There was a reason why Regan began is campaign in the town where the 3 slain civil rights workers were found dead sneaking in favor of states rights. Yes there was a southern strategy. The leftist academia did not make this up, a republican political operative did. Reagan did appeal to racism and what Reagan started created what we see today in Trump.

Why Did The South Turn Republican?

There are a range of opinions on this matter so I added the link to a search about this.

why did the south turn fro democrat to republican - Yahoo Search Results

The Republican political operative that you mention was Lee Atwater. The following is the full audio interview with him regarding The Southern Strategy

Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy

Yes it was Lee Atwater and that interview is very telling. I've seen it before.

There s no debate as to what he did to turn the south republican really.

There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.

 

[IM2]

The thing here is that the dixiecrats who were southern democrats did primarily switch to the republican party due to integration. There may be several reasons outside of the fact that one wants to claim that Carter swept the south as a bass that it was not so. Number 1 being that no one wanted more Nixon and saw Ford as an extension of Nixon. There was a reason why Regan began is campaign in the town where the 3 slain civil rights workers were found dead sneaking in favor of states rights. Yes there was a southern strategy. The leftist academia did not make this up, a republican political operative did. Reagan did appeal to racism and what Reagan started created what we see today in Trump.

Why Did The South Turn Republican?

There are a range of opinions on this matter so I added the link to a search about this.

why did the south turn fro democrat to republican - Yahoo Search Results

The Republican political operative that you mention was Lee Atwater. The following is the full audio interview with him regarding The Southern Strategy

Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy

An adviser took credit for a change in his bosses favor? Gee, that never happens.


1. There is no evidence that Atwater EVER mentioned this to Nixon, nor recommended any actions or policies to pander to white southern racist.

2. There was no policies nor actions taken to attract white racists in the South. THe closest Nixon did to that was to FORCE desegregation thought quickly so as to have it be a dead issue by the time of his re-election. Hardly the way to endear him to racists.

Then explain why the south is primarily republican today.

 

[Correll]

The thing here is that the dixiecrats who were southern democrats did primarily switch to the republican party due to integration. There may be several reasons outside of the fact that one wants to claim that Carter swept the south as a bass that it was not so. Number 1 being that no one wanted more Nixon and saw Ford as an extension of Nixon. There was a reason why Regan began is campaign in the town where the 3 slain civil rights workers were found dead sneaking in favor of states rights. Yes there was a southern strategy. The leftist academia did not make this up, a republican political operative did. Reagan did appeal to racism and what Reagan started created what we see today in Trump.

Why Did The South Turn Republican?

There are a range of opinions on this matter so I added the link to a search about this.

why did the south turn fro democrat to republican - Yahoo Search Results

The Republican political operative that you mention was Lee Atwater. The following is the full audio interview with him regarding The Southern Strategy

Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy

Yes it was Lee Atwater and that interview is very telling. I've seen it before.

There s no debate as to what he did to turn the south republican really.

There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.

From that right wing rag, The New York Times.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’


"Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."

 

[katsteve2012]

The thing here is that the dixiecrats who were southern democrats did primarily switch to the republican party due to integration. There may be several reasons outside of the fact that one wants to claim that Carter swept the south as a bass that it was not so. Number 1 being that no one wanted more Nixon and saw Ford as an extension of Nixon. There was a reason why Regan began is campaign in the town where the 3 slain civil rights workers were found dead sneaking in favor of states rights. Yes there was a southern strategy. The leftist academia did not make this up, a republican political operative did. Reagan did appeal to racism and what Reagan started created what we see today in Trump.

Why Did The South Turn Republican?

There are a range of opinions on this matter so I added the link to a search about this.

why did the south turn fro democrat to republican - Yahoo Search Results

THe Dixiecrats were in the late 40s.

Nixon was a strong supporter of civil rights. He did more to integrate the south than anyone.

This is a fucking moronic myth.

l

Nixon was moderate at best on civil rights issues. He carefully sought ways to appease traditional SOUTHERN segregationist, and "appear" to take action on issues related to integration.

"The Nixon years witnessed the first large-scale integration of public schools in the south. Nixon sought a middle way between the segregationists (those supporting school segregation), and liberal Democrats who supported integration. He supported integration in principle, but he was opposed to the use of busing (using bus systems to transport African American students to previously all-white school districts and vice versa) to force integration. Nixon's goals were partly political; he hoped to retain the support of southern conservatives, many of whom had voted Republican for the first time in the 1964 and 1968 elections. These southern voters had been alienated from the Democratic party by Kennedy and Johnson's civil rights legislation; to capitalize on this, Nixon tried to get the issue of desegregation out of the way with as little damage as possible."

Source:://www.boundless.com/u-s-history/textbooks/boundless-u-s-history-textbook/the-conservative-turn-of-america-1968-1989-30/the-nixon-administration-224/civil-rights-under-nixon-1264-6479/

 

[IM2]

The thing here is that the dixiecrats who were southern democrats did primarily switch to the republican party due to integration. There may be several reasons outside of the fact that one wants to claim that Carter swept the south as a bass that it was not so. Number 1 being that no one wanted more Nixon and saw Ford as an extension of Nixon. There was a reason why Regan began is campaign in the town where the 3 slain civil rights workers were found dead sneaking in favor of states rights. Yes there was a southern strategy. The leftist academia did not make this up, a republican political operative did. Reagan did appeal to racism and what Reagan started created what we see today in Trump.

Why Did The South Turn Republican?

There are a range of opinions on this matter so I added the link to a search about this.

why did the south turn fro democrat to republican - Yahoo Search Results

The Republican political operative that you mention was Lee Atwater. The following is the full audio interview with him regarding The Southern Strategy

Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy

Yes it was Lee Atwater and that interview is very telling. I've seen it before.

There s no debate as to what he did to turn the south republican really.

There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.

From that right wing rag, The New York Times.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’


"Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."

Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was a kid in the 60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.

Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call yourself, you are full of shit.

 

[Correll]

The thing here is that the dixiecrats who were southern democrats did primarily switch to the republican party due to integration. There may be several reasons outside of the fact that one wants to claim that Carter swept the south as a bass that it was not so. Number 1 being that no one wanted more Nixon and saw Ford as an extension of Nixon. There was a reason why Regan began is campaign in the town where the 3 slain civil rights workers were found dead sneaking in favor of states rights. Yes there was a southern strategy. The leftist academia did not make this up, a republican political operative did. Reagan did appeal to racism and what Reagan started created what we see today in Trump.

Why Did The South Turn Republican?

There are a range of opinions on this matter so I added the link to a search about this.

why did the south turn fro democrat to republican - Yahoo Search Results

THe Dixiecrats were in the late 40s.

Nixon was a strong supporter of civil rights. He did more to integrate the south than anyone.

This is a fucking moronic myth.

l

Nixon was moderate at best on civil rights issues. He carefully sought ways to appease traditional SOUTHERN segregationist, and "appear" to take action on issues related to integration.

"The Nixon years witnessed the first large-scale integration of public schools in the south. Nixon sought a middle way between the segregationists (those supporting school segregation), and liberal Democrats who supported integration. He supported integration in principle, but he was opposed to the use of busing (using bus systems to transport African American students to previously all-white school districts and vice versa) to force integration. Nixon's goals were partly political; he hoped to retain the support of southern conservatives, many of whom had voted Republican for the first time in the 1964 and 1968 elections. These southern voters had been alienated from the Democratic party by Kennedy and Johnson's civil rights legislation; to capitalize on this, Nixon tried to get the issue of desegregation out of the way with as little damage as possible."

Source:://www.boundless.com/u-s-history/textbooks/boundless-u-s-history-textbook/the-conservative-turn-of-america-1968-1989-30/the-nixon-administration-224/civil-rights-under-nixon-1264-6479/

And the way he got the issue out of the way was to slam it though as quickly as possible so that by the time of his reelection it would be a dead issue.

Hardly a "middle road".

And certainly NOT a policy that would support the nonsense of the "Southern Strategy".


AND as discussed in the link I provided, republican support was from the expanding, more educated middle class and northerns who had moved south.

The poorer, more backwards, less educated rural and older voters stayed dem.

 

[Correll]

The Republican political operative that you mention was Lee Atwater. The following is the full audio interview with him regarding The Southern Strategy

Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy

Yes it was Lee Atwater and that interview is very telling. I've seen it before.

There s no debate as to what he did to turn the south republican really.

There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.

From that right wing rag, The New York Times.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’


"Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."

Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was a kid in the 60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.

Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call yourself, you are full of shit.

Did you read this part?


"The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."



If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.

Instead it is the other way around.


What political affiliation did your parents have?

 

[IM2]

Yes it was Lee Atwater and that interview is very telling. I've seen it before.

There s no debate as to what he did to turn the south republican really.

There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.

From that right wing rag, The New York Times.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’


"Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."

Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was a kid in the 60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.

Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call yourself, you are full of shit.

Did you read this part?


"The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."



If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.

Instead it is the other way around.


What political affiliation did your parents have?

I lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.

 

[Correll]

There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.

From that right wing rag, The New York Times.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’


"Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."

Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was a kid in the 60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.

Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call yourself, you are full of shit.

Did you read this part?


"The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."



If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.

Instead it is the other way around.


What political affiliation did your parents have?

I lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.

You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.

Correlation does not prove causation.

Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.

THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.

 

[katsteve2012]

The Republican political operative that you mention was Lee Atwater. The following is the full audio interview with him regarding The Southern Strategy

Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy

Yes it was Lee Atwater and that interview is very telling. I've seen it before.

There s no debate as to what he did to turn the south republican really.

There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.

From that right wing rag, The New York Times.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’


"Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."

Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was a kid in the 60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.

Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call yourself, you are full of shit.

"Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee hired three new staffers to assist with African American outreach. They will have their work cut out for them. Donald Trump’s average level of black support from four recent national polls is 2 percent, and a July NBC/Wall Street Journalbattleground poll showed Trump getting exactly 0 percent support among African American voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And the candidate is not helping his own cause. He has demonstrated a steady penchant for resurrecting racially divisive campaign tactics of the past, tactics that simultaneously ignored black voters and used race as a wedge to attract disgruntled white voters in the South.

acknowledged the party’s “Southern Strategy” and directly apologized: “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” In 2010, Michael Steele—the first black head of the RNC—admitted in a talk with students at DePaul University that Republicans had given minorities little reason to vote for them: “For the last 40-plus years we had a Southern Strategy that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”

Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.

From that right wing rag, The New York Times.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’


"Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."

Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was a kid in the 60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.

Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call yourself, you are full of shit.

Did you read this part?


"The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."



If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.

Instead it is the other way around.


What political affiliation did your parents have?

I lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.

You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.

Correlation does not prove causation.

Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.

THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.

Nixon did NOT rum his campaign on a civil rights platform.

His platform message was "restoration of law and order."
You are attempting to make it appear otherwise.

The fact is that "wedge" issues such as the introduction of affirmative action and school desegregation drove the flight to the Republican party.

Nixon took office on the heels of some of the worst race riots in history. He had NO CHOICE except to do something to change the climate or more anarchy in the streets would have negatively impacted the perception of his administration.

But he was absolutely NOT a known primarily for being a supporter and advocate for civil rights.

He did what he had to for political reasons.

I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.

And the worst of it was that we all HATED being there as well.

And that was in so called "liberal" California. Resistance and hostility was much more obvious in Southern states.

Like it or not, there WAS a southern strategy. Then and now. Furthermore, you actually believe that a more affluent, more educated southern voter is the backbone of todays Republican party?

Then explain why the majority of rural, lower income white SOUTHERN voters who in the past were Democrats have over time redirected their loyaly to the Republican party...(except for an anomaly in 1976 when Carter was elected?)

 

[Correll]

Yes it was Lee Atwater and that interview is very telling. I've seen it before.

There s no debate as to what he did to turn the south republican really.

There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.

From that right wing rag, The New York Times.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’


"Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."

Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was a kid in the 60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.

Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call yourself, you are full of shit.

"Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee hired three new staffers to assist with African American outreach. They will have their work cut out for them. Donald Trump’s average level of black support from four recent national polls is 2 percent, and a July NBC/Wall Street Journalbattleground poll showed Trump getting exactly 0 percent support among African American voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And the candidate is not helping his own cause. He has demonstrated a steady penchant for resurrecting racially divisive campaign tactics of the past, tactics that simultaneously ignored black voters and used race as a wedge to attract disgruntled white voters in the South.

acknowledged the party’s “Southern Strategy” and directly apologized: “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” In 2010, Michael Steele—the first black head of the RNC—admitted in a talk with students at DePaul University that Republicans had given minorities little reason to vote for them: “For the last 40-plus years we had a Southern Strategy that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”

From that right wing rag, The New York Times.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’


"Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."

Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was a kid in the 60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.

Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call yourself, you are full of shit.

Did you read this part?


"The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."



If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.

Instead it is the other way around.


What political affiliation did your parents have?

I lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.

You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.

Correlation does not prove causation.

Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.

THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.

Nixon did NOT rum his campaign on a civil rights platform.

His platform message was "restoration of law and order."
You are attempting to make it appear otherwise.

The fact is that "wedge" issues such as the introduction of affirmative action and school desegregation drove the flight to the Republican party.

Nixon took office on the heels of some of the worst race riots in history. He had NO CHOICE except to do something to change the climate or more anarchy in the streets would have negatively impacted the perception of his administration.

But he was absolutely NOT a known primarily for being a supporter and advocate for civil rights.

He did what he had to for political reasons.

I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.

And the worst of it was that we all HATED being there as well.

And that was in so called "liberal" California. Resistance and hostility was much more obvious in Southern states.

Like it or not, there WAS a southern strategy. Then and now. Furthermore, you actually believe that a more affluent, more educated southern voter is the backbone of todays Republican party?

Then explain why the majority of rural, lower income white SOUTHERN voters who in the past were Democrats have over time redirected their loyaly to the Republican party...(except for an anomaly in 1976 when Carter was elected?)

1. Your noting of Trump's low approval rating among blacks proves nothing.

2. I did not claim that Nixon RAN as on a Civil RIghts platform, I pointed out correctly that he GOVERNED on a civil rights platform. Which is more important.

3. THe idea that affirmative action drove the flight from the dems is disproved by the link I posted that looked into voting patterns.

4. Sure Busing sucked. That's why Nixon was against it. BUt it was the law of the land so he enforced it.


5. There was no "southern strategy". That is a lie of the LEft.

6. RE: higher income, higher education was in reference to the process of teh SOuth flipping. As I clearly explained. THat alone disproves the Left's view of the event. Are you prepared to address it?

 

[danielpalos]

Capital would have been in plentiful supply in the South after that "reimbursement".

The Industrial Revolution was beginning; and we really could have avoided the Civil War, and made more progress on our Industrial Revolution.

People who entire business experience and workforce and culture and infrastructure were set up to grow and export cotton are NOT going to suddenly and successfully transform into industrialists.


THey might TRY. The vast majority would fail.


The South would be impoverished and marginalized for generations.

Why should anyone take the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

The capital laws of demand and supply don't stop for right wing fantasy.

I called you on your normal bullshit of posting incoherent garbage.

You finally made a real point.

I addressed it seriously, honestly and even respectfully.

ANd you run away from serious discussion back into incoherent garbage.



Barring an unlikely return to seriousness on your part, my rebuttal of your point on "eminent domain" stands as the Final Word.




People who entire business experience and workforce and culture and infrastructure were set up to grow and export cotton are NOT going to suddenly and successfully transform into industrialists.


THey might TRY. The vast majority would fail.


The South would be impoverished and marginalized for generations.

Why would the laws of demand and supply stop for right wing fantasy? there are no traffic controls under, laissez-fair.

With that influx in capital, the South would have been advancing their commercial interests. Some Southern railroads were quite progressive in this area, according to a video on YouTube.

YOU accuse me of engaging in fantasy because I am skeptical that a agricultural region can quickly and easily transform into an industrial region?


The South was an agricultural region. The upper class was based on agricultural exports. They feared that a loss of forced labor and a trade policy based on the interests of the industrial north would lead to them and the SOuth being impoverished and marginalized for generations.

Which is exactly what happened.

Your belief that it would have been easy for them to industrialize is disproved by history.

We were in the beginning of an Industrial Revolution; only the right wing prefers special pleading for their Cause. All the South needed, was a "large capital infusion".

 

[Correll]

People who entire business experience and workforce and culture and infrastructure were set up to grow and export cotton are NOT going to suddenly and successfully transform into industrialists.


THey might TRY. The vast majority would fail.


The South would be impoverished and marginalized for generations.

Why should anyone take the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

The capital laws of demand and supply don't stop for right wing fantasy.

I called you on your normal bullshit of posting incoherent garbage.

You finally made a real point.

I addressed it seriously, honestly and even respectfully.

ANd you run away from serious discussion back into incoherent garbage.



Barring an unlikely return to seriousness on your part, my rebuttal of your point on "eminent domain" stands as the Final Word.




People who entire business experience and workforce and culture and infrastructure were set up to grow and export cotton are NOT going to suddenly and successfully transform into industrialists.


THey might TRY. The vast majority would fail.


The South would be impoverished and marginalized for generations.

Why would the laws of demand and supply stop for right wing fantasy? there are no traffic controls under, laissez-fair.

With that influx in capital, the South would have been advancing their commercial interests. Some Southern railroads were quite progressive in this area, according to a video on YouTube.

YOU accuse me of engaging in fantasy because I am skeptical that a agricultural region can quickly and easily transform into an industrial region?


The South was an agricultural region. The upper class was based on agricultural exports. They feared that a loss of forced labor and a trade policy based on the interests of the industrial north would lead to them and the SOuth being impoverished and marginalized for generations.

Which is exactly what happened.

Your belief that it would have been easy for them to industrialize is disproved by history.

We were in the beginning of an Industrial Revolution; only the right wing prefers special pleading for their Cause. All the South needed, was a "large capital infusion".

Lots of Third World nations believed that bs in the 70. Just get a "large capital infusion" and invest in industry and BOOM, become industrialized.


THey ended up with heavy loans and shit to show for it.


Granted in your scenario, the capital was not loans, but a direct payment.

But your assumption that industrialization is easy, is nonsense disproved by history.

THOUGH, your belief system is in keeping with someone from the Third World, provided they have learned nothing from the last 50 years.

 

[S.J.]

I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.

Why don't you be honest for once in your life? The reason white parents were furious over blacks being bused to white schools is because they got tired of their children being physically attacked by violent black students. They started enrolling their kids in private schools to protect them, leaving the public schools dominated by unruly and disruptive black students (who had no interest in an education) and low income white students who had no choice. Many of them opted to drop out of school to avoid the violence. Politicians who did not support busing started winning all the elections and the liberal social engineers backed off.

 

[danielpalos]

Why should anyone take the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

The capital laws of demand and supply don't stop for right wing fantasy.

I called you on your normal bullshit of posting incoherent garbage.

You finally made a real point.

I addressed it seriously, honestly and even respectfully.

ANd you run away from serious discussion back into incoherent garbage.



Barring an unlikely return to seriousness on your part, my rebuttal of your point on "eminent domain" stands as the Final Word.




People who entire business experience and workforce and culture and infrastructure were set up to grow and export cotton are NOT going to suddenly and successfully transform into industrialists.


THey might TRY. The vast majority would fail.


The South would be impoverished and marginalized for generations.

Why would the laws of demand and supply stop for right wing fantasy? there are no traffic controls under, laissez-fair.

With that influx in capital, the South would have been advancing their commercial interests. Some Southern railroads were quite progressive in this area, according to a video on YouTube.

YOU accuse me of engaging in fantasy because I am skeptical that a agricultural region can quickly and easily transform into an industrial region?


The South was an agricultural region. The upper class was based on agricultural exports. They feared that a loss of forced labor and a trade policy based on the interests of the industrial north would lead to them and the SOuth being impoverished and marginalized for generations.

Which is exactly what happened.

Your belief that it would have been easy for them to industrialize is disproved by history.

We were in the beginning of an Industrial Revolution; only the right wing prefers special pleading for their Cause. All the South needed, was a "large capital infusion".

Lots of Third World nations believed that bs in the 70. Just get a "large capital infusion" and invest in industry and BOOM, become industrialized.


THey ended up with heavy loans and shit to show for it.


Granted in your scenario, the capital was not loans, but a direct payment.

But your assumption that industrialization is easy, is nonsense disproved by history.

THOUGH, your belief system is in keeping with someone from the Third World, provided they have learned nothing from the last 50 years.

Mexico is our third largest trading partner; we infuse Mexico with capital, all the time.

 

[IM2]

Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.

From that right wing rag, The New York Times.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’


"Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."

Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was a kid in the 60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.

Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call yourself, you are full of shit.

Did you read this part?


"The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."



If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.

Instead it is the other way around.


What political affiliation did your parents have?

I lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.

You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.

Correlation does not prove causation.

Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.

THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.

Causation proves causation though.

Nixon had t support civil rights. It was the law.

He was a racist himself. Fact.

Like I said cornel I'm not going to argue with you about this, things happened the way I said they did. I was here and saw it.

Nobody is making things up about Nixon.

Except you.

 

[IM2]

Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.

From that right wing rag, The New York Times.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’


"Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."

Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was a kid in the 60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.

Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call yourself, you are full of shit.

Did you read this part?


"The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."



If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.

Instead it is the other way around.


What political affiliation did your parents have?

I lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.

You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.

Correlation does not prove causation.

Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.

THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.

Causation proves causation though.

Nixon had to support civil rights. It was the law.

He was a racist himself. Fact.

Like I said cornel I'm not going to argue with you about this, things happened the way I said they did. I was here and saw it.

Nobody is making things up about Nixon.

Except you.

 

[Leweman]

No