Vanderbilt professor of political science Carol Swain delivers a history lesson on the Repub. part

[MindWars]

Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science, Carol Swain, delivers a history lesson on the Republican party.



Dems Hate This Video: Hidden Truth About The Republican Party Revealed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well lets see who bothers to listen and see what she has to say................................. Ready , set, go........................

 

[Pogo]

Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science, Carol Swain, delivers a history lesson on the Republican party.



Dems Hate This Video: Hidden Truth About The Republican Party Revealed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 171686


Well lets see who bothers to listen and see what she has to say................................. Ready , set, go........................

I dig history, but I'm not inclined to sit through some lecture of indeterminate length without some reason to do so.

Can you sum it up? Because otherwise you're not gonna get any takers.

 

[MindWars]

Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science, Carol Swain, delivers a history lesson on the Republican party.



Dems Hate This Video: Hidden Truth About The Republican Party Revealed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 171686


Well lets see who bothers to listen and see what she has to say................................. Ready , set, go........................

I dig history, but I'm not inclined to sit through some lecture of indeterminate length without some reason to do so.

Can you sum it up? Because otherwise you're not gonna get any takers.

Yes, but later i'm on a a few missions right now for other articles. Thanks for stopping though.

 

[miketx]

Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science, Carol Swain, delivers a history lesson on the Republican party.



Dems Hate This Video: Hidden Truth About The Republican Party Revealed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 171686


Well lets see who bothers to listen and see what she has to say................................. Ready , set, go........................

I dig history, but I'm not inclined to sit through some lecture of indeterminate length without some reason to do so.

Can you sum it up? Because otherwise you're not gonna get any takers.

Not wanting to hear the truth, asking for an explanation and then promptly denying it; the ROE!

 

[MindWars]

Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science, Carol Swain, delivers a history lesson on the Republican party.



Dems Hate This Video: Hidden Truth About The Republican Party Revealed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 171686


Well lets see who bothers to listen and see what she has to say................................. Ready , set, go........................

I dig history, but I'm not inclined to sit through some lecture of indeterminate length without some reason to do so.

Can you sum it up? Because otherwise you're not gonna get any takers.

The video is only 5 minutes ..................................... She mentions how Dems screwed over the population and Republicans stepped in and became the saviors .................... just listen to it i'm sure you'll get the gist of it.

maybe this should have went into history instead of politics. I'll have to report it and see what the mods think.

Thanks PO.

 

[JoeMoma]

Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science, Carol Swain, delivers a history lesson on the Republican party.



Dems Hate This Video: Hidden Truth About The Republican Party Revealed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 171686


Well lets see who bothers to listen and see what she has to say................................. Ready , set, go........................

I dig history, but I'm not inclined to sit through some lecture of indeterminate length without some reason to do so.

Can you sum it up? Because otherwise you're not gonna get any takers.

Its only 5 and 1/2 minutes long; however, you would be wasting your time watching it because you would not believe any of it.

 

[MindWars]

Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science, Carol Swain, delivers a history lesson on the Republican party.



Dems Hate This Video: Hidden Truth About The Republican Party Revealed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 171686


Well lets see who bothers to listen and see what she has to say................................. Ready , set, go........................

I dig history, but I'm not inclined to sit through some lecture of indeterminate length without some reason to do so.

Can you sum it up? Because otherwise you're not gonna get any takers.

Its only 5 and 1/2 minutes long; however, you would be wasting your time watching it because you would not believe any of it.

I'm thinking PO really watched it and isn't admitting it LOL.

 

[JoeMoma]

Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science, Carol Swain, delivers a history lesson on the Republican party.



Dems Hate This Video: Hidden Truth About The Republican Party Revealed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 171686


Well lets see who bothers to listen and see what she has to say................................. Ready , set, go........................

I dig history, but I'm not inclined to sit through some lecture of indeterminate length without some reason to do so.

Can you sum it up? Because otherwise you're not gonna get any takers.

Its only 5 and 1/2 minutes long; however, you would be wasting your time watching it because you would not believe any of it.

I'm thinking PO really watched it and isn't admitting it LOL.

My understanding is that the democrats and the republicans swapped positions as a result of Nixon’s southern strategy.

 

[gipper]

I wish the R party would die a quick death.

...and Lincoln was a blood thirsty tyrant who should be despised rather than lionized.

 

[EnterSandman]

Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science, Carol Swain, delivers a history lesson on the Republican party.



Dems Hate This Video: Hidden Truth About The Republican Party Revealed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 171686


Well lets see who bothers to listen and see what she has to say................................. Ready , set, go........................

That's going to leave a mark!

 

[DarkFury]

Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science, Carol Swain, delivers a history lesson on the Republican party.



Dems Hate This Video: Hidden Truth About The Republican Party Revealed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 171686


Well lets see who bothers to listen and see what she has to say................................. Ready , set, go........................

I dig history, but I'm not inclined to sit through some lecture of indeterminate length without some reason to do so.

Can you sum it up? Because otherwise you're not gonna get any takers.

I watched it. The woman is a respected historian and speaker.

 

[Pogo]

Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science, Carol Swain, delivers a history lesson on the Republican party.



Dems Hate This Video: Hidden Truth About The Republican Party Revealed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 171686


Well lets see who bothers to listen and see what she has to say................................. Ready , set, go........................

I dig history, but I'm not inclined to sit through some lecture of indeterminate length without some reason to do so.

Can you sum it up? Because otherwise you're not gonna get any takers.

Its only 5 and 1/2 minutes long; however, you would be wasting your time watching it because you would not believe any of it.

I'm thinking PO really watched it and isn't admitting it LOL.

No, I had things to do, like you did. They're done now, so if it's just 5-6 minutes it should be quick.

 

[Pogo]

OK done.

Within the first 15 seconds she's set up a generalization strawman, i.e. that "Republican" and "racist" mean the same thing. Fallacious.. After that when she finally gets to history at 1:18 she's misleading, implying South Carolina was "dominated by Democrats" and "voted to secede from the Union". What she leaves out is that that very state South Carolina had already effectively seceded from the Democratic Party when it tried to hold its convention there in Charleston. That convention was disrupted to such an extent it had to be suspended and moved north, whereupon the Southerners ran their own candidate in defiance -- and the eventual Democratic candidate Stephen Douglas, got exactly the same number of electoral votes from South Carolina, and from the entire South, as did Lincoln, which was ZERO. And Lincoln's name wasn't even on ballots in the South. MORE moreover nobody's name was on the ballot in South Carolina that year because it did not have a popular vote then. This is all history that anybody can look up.

So South Carolina wasn't "dominated by Democrats" at all, in fact none of the South was until AFTER the Civil War. And during the Civil War the Confederacy deliberately had no political parties.

Also her entire theme seems to be propped up by the bogus idea that "Republican" and "Democrat" mean the same thing consistently over time and never change. But they do. A LOT. And her inability to see that just makes the whole thing come off as a late night TV ad. Trafficking in that kind of bogus basis is not going to get you credibility.

She also seems to be leaning on a crutch that imagines racism to be some kind of political philosophy. It isn't. It's a social construct, originally a commercial construct, centuries older than political parties, that was contrived to rationalize human trafficking. And for what it's worth, the guy who organized what is now the Democratic Party, Martin van Buren -- was himself an abolitionist.

The Calvin Coolidge quote is curious, since he was the only major 1924 presidential candidate who did not denounce the Ku Klux Klan and won the Klan's endorsement a a result. As did his successor Hoover. She seems to have failed to mention that.

And then on the 1964 CRA, pushed to its conclusion by LBJ and HHH, she again glosses over the stark statistical fact that both "Democrats" and "Republians" favored and passed the bill while "Southerners" were against it --- Republicans more against it than Democrats.

So this is a way slanted twist that leaves out a lot, apparently for an agenda of selling a political party; it isn't historical. More like cherrypicked-historical.

 

[MindWars]

OK done.

Within the first 15 seconds she's set up a generalization strawman, i.e. that "Republican" and "racist" mean the same thing. Fallacious.. After that when she finally gets to history at 1:18 she's misleading, implying South Carolina was "dominated by Democrats" and "voted to secede from the Union". What she leaves out is that that very state South Carolina had already effectively seceded from the Democratic Party when it tried to hold its convention there in Charleston. That convention was disrupted to such an extent it had to be suspended and moved north, whereupon the Southerners ran their own candidate in defiance -- and the eventual Democratic candidate Stephen Douglas, got exactly the same number of electoral votes from South Carolina, and from the entire South, as did Lincoln, which was ZERO. And Lincoln's name wasn't even on ballots in the South. MORE moreover nobody's name was on the ballot in South Carolina that year because it did not have a popular vote then. This is all history that anybody can look up.

So South Carolina wasn't "dominated by Democrats" at all, in fact none of the South was until AFTER the Civil War. And during the Civil War the Confederacy deliberately had no political parties.

Also her entire theme seems to be propped up by the bogus idea that "Republican" and "Democrat" mean the same thing consistently over time and never change. But they do. A LOT. And her inability to see that just makes the whole thing come off as a late night TV ad. Trafficking in that kind of bogus basis is not going to get you credibility.

She also seems to be leaning on a crutch that imagines racism to be some kind of political philosophy. It isn't. It's a social construct, originally a commercial construct, centuries older than political parties, that was contrived to rationalize human trafficking. And for what it's worth, the guy who organized what is now the Democratic Party, Martin van Buren -- was himself an abolitionist.

The Calvin Coolidge quote is curious, since he was the only major 1924 presidential candidate who did not denounce the Ku Klux Klan and won the Klan's endorsement a a result. As did his successor Hoover. She seems to have failed to mention that.

And then on the 1964 CRA, pushed to its conclusion by LBJ and HHH, she again glosses over the stark statistical fact that both "Democrats" and "Republians" favored and passed the bill while "Southerners" were against it --- Republicans more against it than Democrats.

So this is a way slanted twist that leaves out a lot, apparently for an agenda of selling a political party; it isn't historical. More like cherrypicked-historical.

Well I know you won't want to believe this, but I trust Dinesh Douzusa's historical research and when he came out with the movie I believe it was " America what would we do without her" in it there have been many parts of history that were left out as we were growing up and being taught in the education systems.
Example how many learned in school about blacks owning black slaves and one black slave owner was very wealthy. We barely even hear about that one.

They taught us what they wanted us to know , that in itself is another scam LOL... but this is why we think so many parts of history is one way when really it's another.

I'm not thinking that just because of D.D. there are other documentaries on this subject.

There is so much that wraps up into one ball and it's been right in front of us this entire time.

Either way thanks for the view point of it and taking the time to check it out.

 

[Pogo]

Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science, Carol Swain, delivers a history lesson on the Republican party.



Dems Hate This Video: Hidden Truth About The Republican Party Revealed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 171686


Well lets see who bothers to listen and see what she has to say................................. Ready , set, go........................

I dig history, but I'm not inclined to sit through some lecture of indeterminate length without some reason to do so.

Can you sum it up? Because otherwise you're not gonna get any takers.

Its only 5 and 1/2 minutes long; however, you would be wasting your time watching it because you would not believe any of it.

I'm thinking PO really watched it and isn't admitting it LOL.

My understanding is that the democrats and the republicans swapped positions as a result of Nixon’s southern strategy.

Nah --- that started way before Nixon and came in phases. By the turn of the 19th/20th century the RP was taking on the interests of the wealthy and corporations, while the DP was absorbing the populists after flirting with "fusion" parties. That effected a class migration, the DP taking on the constituencies of minorities in general and labor. These would be personified in the Presidential rival candidates McKinley and W.J. Bryan. After a brief national trend of Progressivism (in T Roosevelt) the RP in 1912 rejected that populism in favor of the corporate/wealthy/establishment route personified in Taft -- even though Roosevelt had dominated Taft in the primary elections.

The black vote was still Republican but growing disenchanted with the RP's timidity in addressing the rampant lynchings, the Klan and such. By the time the Depression hit and FDR turned the direction of the economy around the black vote had shifted to Democrat and has been there ever since.

Meanwhile back at the ranch of the South where white/Jim Crow dominated despite the outcome of the Civil War, the establishment whites had been predominantly Democrat since readmission to the Union, simply because it was not the Republicans, which was the evil "party of Lincoln" that had defeated and humiliated it in civil war. That history made being a Republican unthinkable to the white South, and it stayed unthinkable until 99 years after that War ended when Strom Thurmond did the unthinkable and became one, opening the floodgates. That was 1964, four years before Nixon ran. By the time Nixon's campaign started it was clear from the regional divisions of 1964 and the schism in the Democratic Party of losing its grip on the conservative "solid South" that there was a window of opportunity to court those disaffected conservatives (and the racists among them).

Those cracks had already appeared --- 1964 when Barry Goldwater won electoral votes of several states in the South based on his opposition to the CRA (and when George Wallace had secretly offered himself to Goldwater as a running mate, offering to switch to Republican to do it). As well as a dozen years earlier when Strom Thurmond endorsed Eisenhower and as a result saw his name tossed off the South Carolina ballot when he wanted to run for Senator.

So all this is an evolution taking about three-quarters of a century. But returning to the "historian" (saleswoman)'s fallacy of political parties being static, back in 1860 the young Republican Party was where the Liberals lived, by virtue of abolitionism, and was the party of doing big things with government, which it inherited from the Whigs. The Democrats were the party of decentralized government and "states rights". The transition of the latter phrase is embodied in two politicians who used it in the time of transition --- George Wallace and Ronald Reagan.

 

[Pogo]

OK done.

Within the first 15 seconds she's set up a generalization strawman, i.e. that "Republican" and "racist" mean the same thing. Fallacious.. After that when she finally gets to history at 1:18 she's misleading, implying South Carolina was "dominated by Democrats" and "voted to secede from the Union". What she leaves out is that that very state South Carolina had already effectively seceded from the Democratic Party when it tried to hold its convention there in Charleston. That convention was disrupted to such an extent it had to be suspended and moved north, whereupon the Southerners ran their own candidate in defiance -- and the eventual Democratic candidate Stephen Douglas, got exactly the same number of electoral votes from South Carolina, and from the entire South, as did Lincoln, which was ZERO. And Lincoln's name wasn't even on ballots in the South. MORE moreover nobody's name was on the ballot in South Carolina that year because it did not have a popular vote then. This is all history that anybody can look up.

So South Carolina wasn't "dominated by Democrats" at all, in fact none of the South was until AFTER the Civil War. And during the Civil War the Confederacy deliberately had no political parties.

Also her entire theme seems to be propped up by the bogus idea that "Republican" and "Democrat" mean the same thing consistently over time and never change. But they do. A LOT. And her inability to see that just makes the whole thing come off as a late night TV ad. Trafficking in that kind of bogus basis is not going to get you credibility.

She also seems to be leaning on a crutch that imagines racism to be some kind of political philosophy. It isn't. It's a social construct, originally a commercial construct, centuries older than political parties, that was contrived to rationalize human trafficking. And for what it's worth, the guy who organized what is now the Democratic Party, Martin van Buren -- was himself an abolitionist.

The Calvin Coolidge quote is curious, since he was the only major 1924 presidential candidate who did not denounce the Ku Klux Klan and won the Klan's endorsement a a result. As did his successor Hoover. She seems to have failed to mention that.

And then on the 1964 CRA, pushed to its conclusion by LBJ and HHH, she again glosses over the stark statistical fact that both "Democrats" and "Republians" favored and passed the bill while "Southerners" were against it --- Republicans more against it than Democrats.

So this is a way slanted twist that leaves out a lot, apparently for an agenda of selling a political party; it isn't historical. More like cherrypicked-historical.

Well I know you won't want to believe this, but I trust Dinesh Douzusa's historical research and when he came out with the movie I believe it was " America what would we do without her" in it there have been many parts of history that were left out as we were growing up and being taught in the education systems.
Example how many learned in school about blacks owning black slaves and one black slave owner was very wealthy. We barely even hear about that one.

They taught us what they wanted us to know , that in itself is another scam LOL... but this is why we think so many parts of history is one way when really it's another.

I'm not thinking that just because of D.D. there are other documentaries on this subject.

There is so much that wraps up into one ball and it's been right in front of us this entire time.

Either way thanks for the view point of it and taking the time to check it out.

Absolutely agree there is ALWAYS more to the story than the standard avenues tell us, especially the oversimplified school textbooks. Seems to me the latter is what the party saleswoman is going for. I didn't know any of that stuff about the 1860 elections etc until I dug for it on my own.

Not familiar with the d'Souza movie. But one of my favorite books in this area was "Lies my Teacher Told Me" by Loewen.

 

[Pogo]

Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science, Carol Swain, delivers a history lesson on the Republican party.



Dems Hate This Video: Hidden Truth About The Republican Party Revealed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 171686


Well lets see who bothers to listen and see what she has to say................................. Ready , set, go........................

I dig history, but I'm not inclined to sit through some lecture of indeterminate length without some reason to do so.

Can you sum it up? Because otherwise you're not gonna get any takers.

I watched it. The woman is a respected historian and speaker.

Apparently not. Curious about all the rampant propaganda misinformation from this "Prager U" (I visited some of their other stuff) ------ I did a search on it.

>> PragerU ("Prager University") is a 501(c)3 non-profit conservative digital media organization.

PragerU was founded in 2009 by radio talk show host Dennis Prager and radio producer and screenwriter Allen Estrin and is not an academic institution and does not offer certifications or diplomas.

Prager created PragerU with Estrin as his business partner[1] in order to present his conservative views and to offset what he regards as the undermining of college education by the left.[2][3][4] The videos usually feature a speaker who argues a particular side of a debate for about five minutes. << --- Wiki​

In other words a fake "university" featuring fake speakers with fake "credentials". It was pretty easy to see from all the glaring outright lies and shoddy 'research' that it is just a propaganda machine out to spread fake histories apparently for the purpose of selling the Republican Party. All it does is put up fake lectures on YouTube and its own page. That's it.

 

[flacaltenn]

And then on the 1964 CRA, pushed to its conclusion by LBJ and HHH, she again glosses over the stark statistical fact that both "Democrats" and "Republians" favored and passed the bill while "Southerners" were against it --- Republicans more against it than Democrats.

You keep blabbering this fractured history in thread after thread -- but the facts are simple to locate and absorb. Yet you won't do it..

Senate final vote on CRA passage..

Democrats Republicans
Yea 46 ---------- 27

Nay 21 ---------- 6

After awhile, folks just stop reading your fractured history analysis of the 2 parties..

 

[Pogo]

And then on the 1964 CRA, pushed to its conclusion by LBJ and HHH, she again glosses over the stark statistical fact that both "Democrats" and "Republians" favored and passed the bill while "Southerners" were against it --- Republicans more against it than Democrats.

You keep blabbering this fractured history in thread after thread -- but the facts are simple to locate and absorb. Yet you won't do it..

Senate final vote on CRA passage..

Democrats Republicans
Yea 46 ---------- 27

Nay 21 ---------- 6

After awhile, folks just stop reading your fractured history analysis of the 2 parties..

And I've corrected this bogus distinction time after time after time after time, which is exactly what I'm referring to.

Natuarally I bookmarked it since it doesn't seem to take. Roll tape on that moldy oldie.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -​

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NONSOUTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NONSOUTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode. NOW you can cite chew some polarization. BIG time.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. And regional, once again, means cultural.

You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
​

You'll notice, as already stated, that for what it's worth Southern Republicans were more in the No column than Southern Democrats were. That's really not significant ---- because they're Southerners. So again it was never about a political party, following as I said the fact that racism is not a political issue but a sociocultural one. That's why there's no significant difference between Democrats and Republicans but a YUGE significant difference between the former Confederacy and the others. Regardless of party. So to try to cherrypick this into political parties is just dishonest. Nobody's gonna sit here with a straight face and claim a 13-17 point difference means something while an 82-87 point difference does not.

I'm not the only one to have analyzed this honestly ---

>> What linked Dirksen (R-IL) and Mansfield (D-MT) was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.

But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".

​

In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.

Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did.

The same pattern holds true when looking at ideology instead of party affiliation. The folks over at Voteview.com, who created DW-nominate scores to measure the ideology of congressmen and senators, found that the more liberal a congressman or senator was the more likely he would vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once one controlled for a factor closely linked to geography. << (---- The Guardian)​

Which is, again, exactly as I posted. K?

This charade of trying to pretend the red puppets and the blue puppets are somehow different animals only serves to distract from the real dynamics.

 

[flacaltenn]

And then on the 1964 CRA, pushed to its conclusion by LBJ and HHH, she again glosses over the stark statistical fact that both "Democrats" and "Republians" favored and passed the bill while "Southerners" were against it --- Republicans more against it than Democrats.

You keep blabbering this fractured history in thread after thread -- but the facts are simple to locate and absorb. Yet you won't do it..

Senate final vote on CRA passage..

Democrats Republicans
Yea 46 ---------- 27

Nay 21 ---------- 6

After awhile, folks just stop reading your fractured history analysis of the 2 parties..

And I've corrected this bogus distinction time after time after time after time, which is exactly what I'm referring to.

Natuarally I bookmarked it since it doesn't seem to take. Roll tape on that moldy oldie.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -​

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NONSOUTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NONSOUTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode. NOW you can cite chew some polarization. BIG time.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. And regional, once again, means cultural.

You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
​

You'll notice, as already stated, that for what it's worth Southern Republicans were more in the No column than Southern Democrats were. That's really not significant ---- because they're Southerners. So again it was never about a political party, following as I said the fact that racism is not a political issue but a sociocultural one. That's why there's no significant difference between Democrats and Republicans but a YUGE significant difference between the former Confederacy and the others. Regardless of party. So to try to cherrypick this into political parties is just dishonest. Nobody's gonna sit here with a straight face and claim a 13-17 point difference means something while an 82-87 point difference does not.

I'm not the only one to have analyzed this honestly ---

>> What linked Dirksen (R-IL) and Mansfield (D-MT) was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.

But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".

​

In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.

Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did.

The same pattern holds true when looking at ideology instead of party affiliation. The folks over at Voteview.com, who created DW-nominate scores to measure the ideology of congressmen and senators, found that the more liberal a congressman or senator was the more likely he would vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once one controlled for a factor closely linked to geography. << (---- The Guardian)​

Which is, again, exactly as I posted. K?

This charade of trying to pretend the red puppets and the blue puppets are somehow different animals only serves to distract from the real dynamics.

You proved NOTHING about Republican support for CRA.. Not a damn thing. There were only about 33 Repubs TOTAL n the Senate. And all but SIX bailed out LBJ against the Dem opposition. The North/South split was entirely predictable and uninteresting. BECAUSE the South BELONGED to the Dems. And YET -- 80% or MORE of the Repubs supported the CRA.

So your statement --- "Repubs MORE AGAINST it -- then Dems" is completely patently false.