I always do, it's two days of birthdays, never know what we'll watch..or burn..or shoot..
The 1964 CRA was ioppsodsed by legislators from the South and supported by legislators outside the Sojuth.
Tou are being dishonest to blame the Democrat Party as it was HHH who helped overcome that filibuster (67 votes)/
I understand how you lying Republicans want to paint Democrats as being racists & citing the CRA of 1964. But it was regional. 100% of the Republican legislators in the South voted against it.
I also understand how you need to hide the idea that the racists are primarily Republican. Trump used this to win the election.
Indeed. That opposition was broken by Hubert Humphrey, Everett Dirksen and Mike Mansfield all working together.
>> 80% of Republicans in the
House and
Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did. Indeed, Minority Leader Republican
Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as
Richard Russell of Georgia and
Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.
Of course, it was also Democrats who helped usher the bill through the House, Senate, and ultimately a Democratic president who signed it into law. The bill wouldn't have passed without the support of Majority Leader
Mike Mansfield of Montana, a Democrat. Majority Whip
Hubert Humphrey, who basically split the Democratic party in two with his 1948 Democratic National Convention speech calling for equal rights for all, kept tabs on individual members to ensure the bill had the numbers to overcome the filibuster.
Put another way, party affiliation seems to be somewhat predictive, but something seems to be missing. So, what factor did best predicting voting?
You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.
But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende
noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".
-- So of course the OP's being dishonest. That's his gig here. What's more, he copied his OP from a Gateway Plopper page five years old. Five years he could have been doing five minutes' worth of reasearch that would have saved him looking like an idiot.
Just after this historic vote went down, Strom Thurmond was so pissed he went and did what was unthinkable in the white South for exactly 99 years --- joined the Republicans. He could see he was going to get nowhere with Democrats. Kinda already knew that from 16 years prior but the DP was the only game in town.
