utterly dominated by the Democratic party from the Civil War through the Civil Rights Act

I don’t dispute this. I’m saying you’re exaggerating how “monolithic” it was for the entire “South.” Additionally, the Democratic party is by no means dead within the South…although people like you are helping to kill it.

Here’s the percentage of Republican votes within the time frame you give for a few of the southern states:
TX 12% (but voted Dem in 64, 68 — delayed racism?)
KY 21% (also voted Dem in 64)
VA 22% (also voted Dem in 64)
TN 25% (also voted Dem in 64)
FL 29% (also voted Dem in 64)

Additionally, Carter won more of the South than did Clinton. Coupled with the number of Democratic governors in the South, I argue that the general transition of the entire South from Dem to Rep was more gradual than you make it out to be.

And I remain curious as to why racists would join a party that voted more heavily for the Civil Rights Act. (Well, maybe you could argue that they aren’t the brightest America has to offer, so it may not be a stretch to imagine them missing the obvious.)

Bush s 2004 margin over Kerry among white people nationally (58-41) is nowhere near what it is in the South.

So voting for Bush over Kerry demonstrates that they vote Republican based on racism. Got it. There are no other socially conservative issues that matter.

By the way, I’d appreciate a link to the numbers if you’ve got one.

I m not attempting to explain any part of the country but the South

Exactly. You want to isolate the South in order to make the argument that they used to be Dem but switched to Rep due to racism. The fact that they made the switch when dealing with presidential politics in 1964 is clear. You can’t make the case that it continued due to racism. Did the racists miss the fact that a higher percentage of Republicans voted for civil rights?

You claimed earlier that “Democrats ran the South for 100 years. There were no Republicans.” I demonstrated that this a huge exaggeration. You keep referring to Alabama. But if you look at the voting statistics for most of the other southern states, you find that there were quite a few Republican votes. Facts are facts. You try to use one extreme example as your generality. It doesn’t work.

It was monolithic before 1964, under Dems.

Half of the states you identified as “the South” voted Republican at times, sometimes several, before 1964. Not quite monolithic.

Your eloquence concerning the polarization of the white southern vote and the manifestly racist social undercurrent that causes it is nothing short of astounding. Thank you for thoroughly addressing this so that I don’t have too. The truth sometimes hurts and I for one am glad that you so thoroughly enjoy inflicting that hurt.

Mississippi – 85-14 (34%)
Alabama – 80-19 (25%)
South Carolina – 78-22 (30%)
Georgia – 76-23 (25%)
Louisiana – 75-24 (27%)
North Carolina – 73-27 (26%)
Texas – 72-16 (12%)
Virginia – 68-32 (21%)
Tennessee – 65-34 (12%)
Kentucky – 64-35 (8%)
Arkansas – 63-36 (15%)
Florida – 57-42 (12%)
Nationally – 58-41

JWG said: “The obvious break for the  South began in 1964, but it s not consistent.”
Nor did I claim it was a perfect, immediate switch; 1964 broke the ice and brought the South into play, by cynical, coded appeals on the part of the GOP to “law and order” and “states rights.” But it s also complicated by the fact that after the civil rights act, BLACK PEOPLE COULD ACTUALLY VOTE! The votes of white people remained uniform and polarized against the black-supported candidate. This trend has not changed. I can dig up the data this weekend on Southern white voters to show that they remain the most uniform in their presidential voting patterns, and become increasingly polarized (as in, against the guy that black people like nationally) the more black people that are present in the given Southern state. But since you ve already made up your mind (based on no evidence at all!) that the South s racists are equally present in both parties, I think I ll just say  fuck you, you pig-ignorant clueless mouthbreather for now.

To clarify, The South is VA, NC, SC, TN, GA, AL, MS, AK, LA, and sometimes TX. Additionally, I’m not attempting to explain any part of the country but the South, so whatever vague, drive-by claim you want to prove about the southwest or whatever the  heartland is, is incumbent upon you to make.

JWG said: “the  South is certainly not  monolithic in their support of non-Dems since 1964.
Read what I wrote again. It was monolithic before 1964, under Dems. It has been undergoing a transformation over the last 50 years, trending steadily toward the GOP, to the point where now it is the most GOP region of the country in presidential contests. The fact that it only took 50 years is in itself fairly impressive, and it s also impressive given the relentlessly anti-GOP stance of southern blacks, and the (dare I say) slavish devotion to the GOP shown by Southern whites. Cities and black districts in the south remain reliable democratic strongholds, and east Tennessee (home of notorious asshole Glenn Reynolds) has actually never been Democratic, but was Republican even during the Civil War. But among white voters, it s essentially still a one-party region, just like before 1964.

JWG on Ohio: “Compare the 11 elections before 1964 and after.”
I am only dwelling on this detour to demonstrate how shitty your analytical abilities are, and how pointless it is for you to try to use Ohio to argue it was obeying some unarticulated national trend that the South was following as well. They weren t on similar trajectories at all. If anything, Ohio is the opposite of the South. It was strongly Republican, and went Democrat only in cases of a national landslide, but there is no evidence of a shift for the LBJ/Goldwater contest, and really, why would there be? For presidential elections, Ohio was Republican from 1860-1912. Voted for Wilson both times, then went back to Republican for Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. Went for FDR and Truman, but then went back to Republican for Eisenhower and Nixon. Went Democrat for LBJ. Your point was to show, somehow, that 1964 was a transformative year for Ohio? Into what? Ohio will vote Democratic if that Democrat is a landslide winner, like Clinton, but otherwise it was mainly Republican before 1964 and it still is. Why don t you compare that electoral history with Alabama s from 1860-present and see if you still think they re obeying similar trends.

There is nothing more cynical or contemptible than for so-called independents like you to delude yourselves into thinking you re being even-handed by declaring both parties equally complicit for racism in our society. The GOP has demonstrably courted the racist vote through the tactics of Nixon, Reagan, and Haley Barbour. But if you are insistent on being willfully ignorant, then there never was any hope for you to begin with.

To summarize: Keep your dumb-shit, racist-abetting, pig-ignorant opinions about the South to your own fucking self next time, JWG.

It is obvious that the South in general has aligned with the “heartland” in their support for conservatives. The obvious break for the “South” began in 1964, but it’s not consistent. It’s also been 50 years and you attribute their continued support for conservatives as racist. What about the other states in the “heartland” that have made a similar shift? Maybe if the Democratic leadership stopped alienating the South (with the support of “enlightened” progressives) there would be more Democratic presidents. Instead, people like you help the Democrats lose and then blame racism.

Deny that, you willfully ignorant GOP liar.

I don’t deny that there are racists. I do deny that racists are any more important to the Republican party than they are to the Democratic party

I also deny that I support the GOP.

Wait, you re saying Ohio, the state that gave us Hayes, McKinley, Mark Hanna, Harding, and the Taft dynasty was a Democratic stronghold comparable to Alabama? Ohio was one of the bedrock states of Republican politics since the founding of the GOP. You re a fucking idiot JWG. Read a book.

Compare the 11 elections before 1964 and after. How many times did Ohio go for the Dem before? How many times did it go for the non-Dem after? I look at the facts.

South had been monolithic for 100 years before 1964

I gave you the percents in my post above since 1922 (11 elections prior to 1964). The “South” was not “monolithic.” Please tell me who you consider the “South.”

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘nigger’ – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

“And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me – because obviously sitting around saying, ‘We want to cut this,’ is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘Nigger, nigger.’ ”

Deny that, you willfully ignorant GOP liar.

In the South, economic conservatism never won out against pork, even today. But appeals against liberals, and appeals to state’s rights — and most importantly, Goldwater’s vote against the Civil Rights Act on the basis of states rights — that carried a whole hell of a lot of weight. In your time poring over electoral college spreadsheets, did you at least notice that the South had been a) monolithic for 100 years before 1964, b) switched en masse for some weird reson in 1964, and c) only ever voted for the conservative candidate or a decreasingly effective Democratic Southern candidate after 1964? Because that’s a fucking trend, JWG. Civil rights broke the democratic ice, and it’s been trending Republican ever since.

I was incorrect in a previous statement. Instead of 3 southern states shifting their “reliable” Democratic vote to a “reliable” non-Democratic vote since 1964, I should have stated four:
South Carolina (91% vs 91%)
North Carolina (91% vs 82%)
Alabama (82% vs 91%)
Mississippi (82% vs 91%)

Depending on your definition of “reliable” you could add some more states:
Georgia (100% vs 73%)
Arkansas (100% vs 64%)
Louisiana (82% vs 73%)
Texas (73% vs 73%)
Virginia (64% vs 91%)

Of course, you should consider how many Democratic governors and senators these states have elected as well.

You may want to consider why the following states also made a significant switch from pre-1964 to post-1964 (Dem to non-Dem):
Oklahoma
Nevada
New Mexico
Missouri
Illinois
Utah
Arizona
Montana
Idaho
Ohio

Are they “racist” as well?

Jonathan Chait.

Different guys.

From George Bush the Unauthorized biography by Tarpley and Chaitkin

“Bush’s unsuccessful attempt in 1964 to unseat Texas Democratic Senator Ralph Yarborough is a matter of fundamental interest to anyone seeking to probe the wellsprings of Bush’s actual political thinking. In a society which knows nothing of its own recent history, the events of a quarter century ago might be classed as remote and irrelevant. But as we review the profile of the Bush Senate campaign of 1964, what we see coming alive is the characteristic mentality that rules the Oval Office today. The main traits are all there: the overriding obession with the race issue, exemplified in Bush’s bitter rejection of the civil rights bill before the Congress during those months; the genocidal bluster in foreign affairs, with proposals for nuclear bombardment of Vietnam, an invasion of Cuba, and a rejection of negotiations for the return of the Panama Canal; the autonomic reflex for union-busting expressed in the rhetoric of “right to work”; the paean to free enterprise at the expense of farmers and the disadvantaged, with all of this packaged in a slick, demagogic television and advertising effort.”

Thus we can see that demagoguery doesn’t fall far from the tree.