Question: can someone explain to me the demographic switch of the solid south?

April 18, 2013 | epsdude

[Epsdude]

Sorry for this unusual post. I'm probably the youngest one this site so you can imagine I've got a lot to learn in politics, but one thing has always puzzled me.

I know that Republicans broke away from the Whigs to oppose the pro-slavery Democrats but the change in party demographics since then has perplexed me.

I recently saw this picture: http://manwiththemuckrake.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/slavery-2012.jpg

I'm just curious, what caused such a radical shift in the solid south? Some people accredit this to an 'ideological party switch' but that seems rather implausible to me. So what did cause this arbitrary shift and, also why did the black vote slowly drift over to the Democrats?

Thanks.

[ansel12]

Water?

Do you have any idea how off topic you drift, and how ridiculous are your claims about the 6.6% black population of California making the state democrat?

[Zionist Conspirator]

Many of those who were New England Republicans are now New England Democrats for the same reason.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. True, some New Englanders who were originally Republican were becoming disaffected with the Republican party as early as 1872 (the Liberal Republicans) with a big break coming in 1884 (the Mugwumps), but I doubt the Calvin Coolidge types ever became Democrats. New England was swamped by ethnic Catholic Democrats and I think that's mostly what prompted the initial change. Now of course most New Englanders are crazy, with nothing in common with their great ancestors.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, forced integration, and school busing created the red south.

There's more to it than that. You're essentially repeating the Democrat claim.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Nope. The Republicans were the new face of the Know Nothings. They were not anti-slavery Whigs. The Whigs that merged into the Republican party were mainly the hard core central bank/protective tariff/corporate welfare Whigs (of which Lincoln was a fervent member). A few other weird northern parties, such as the Anti-Mason party, also threw in their lot. The unifying theme of the Republican party was that it was a pro North and anti South, a purely sectional party. On every issue the Republican party aligned itself with the interests of the North. The party didn't even run any candidates in the South. The legend that the Republican party was somehow an anti-slavery party was invented after the war.

First, the Federalist/Whig tradition is America's genuine conservative political tradition (the Jeffersonian/Jacksonian tradition has always been radical).

Second, the Republican party was formed as a single-issue party and that issue was "anti-extensionism." Many of the early Radical Republicans were actually anti-bank and anti-tariff, etc. (Thaddeus Stevens held the same position on money that many of today's neo-Confederates do).

After the Civil War was over the party's initial founder, Alvan E. Bovay, even suggesting ending the party (since it had achieved its purpose) and creating a new single-issue party based on prohibition and temperance.

Don't tell me . . . neo-Confederate . . . right?

[Zionist Conspirator]

See Alan Stang’s GOP: Red From The Start...

Birchite neo-Confederate slander.

[Zionist Conspirator]

As to why blacks are such a one-party block, there are many reasons: freebies from FDR and LBJ, principled-yet-unattractive opposition to the Civil Rights Act by conservatives (even though a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted to pass it), and the rise of the racial grievances industry in the wake of the Civil Rights Act. The CRA did break the Democrat’s machine in the South, but the captive votes of welfare recipients kept them competitive nationally, as LBJ hoped.

There's one more reason: Communist penetration of Black churches. Communists originally attacked the Black church and Black preachers but at a certain point in the 1930's they switched their strategy and started infiltrating church youth groups. This combined with their penetration of seminaries means the majority of Black churches, even in the rural South, were under Communist influence for decades and eventually they switched to 100% social gospel. There are still a few fundamentalist Black churches left (never called "fundamentalist" since that label is reserved for "racist rednecks") but they still vote Democrat just like a few white "yellow dog Democrats" do. That and the fact that they churches have always tended to create J*sus in their own image leading to worshiping two separate "gxds" (whites worshiping "redneck J*sus," Blacks worshiping "J*sus X--Soul Brother Number One") which divides churches ethnically and keeps them from being true co-religionists.

[muawiyah]

You are the one who wanted to know if it were possible. Since you seem to not be capable of understanding the concept of how a minority can acquire enough power to leverage a larger containing minority into a position of political dominance, let's go back through the idea.

It's pretty basic and was developed by the Urban League first, and later adopted by the NAACP and various black oriented voting rights groups.

First off, let's round that to 7%. We'll make blacks 7% of the total population. Since it's California, they might well have gotten the vote earlier than in the South ~ but there they are 7% of the total population.

If 40% of the population turned out to vote ~ in California elections ~ and split roughly 50/50, you'd have just 20% of the population voting Democrat and 20% voting Republican. A few votes here and there could sway the whole election with a close division like that.

If 100% of adult blacks showed up to vote, that'd be about 2/3 of their total population, or 4.3% of the total vote, or, roughly nearly 25% of the Democrat vote.

You might want to read http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html which shows that total voter turnout in California is about 60% of total possible voters.

A 25% share of the statewide party vote definitely gets you positions in the party power structure as well as delegates to the conventions, and members of the legislature! This is particularly so if they live concentrated in a few areas where you have heavy Democrat party voting by other groups ~ unions, teachers, mexicans, etc.

So, yeah, if you didn't have blacks voting Democrat in California they'd be marginalized into near oblivion! Republicans would always win California elections if there were no black voters, and that's not just for the top offices, but for most of the offices almost everywhere but Compton, San Fran, Los Angeles and a number of really hard core Democrat cities.

That's the way the process works in the East and in Illinois and in California!

Would you rather be a little fish in a big pond, or a big fish in a little pond?

[ansel12]

HuH? I didn’t want to know if whatever you are rambling about is possible, I already know that the 6.6% of the black population of California did not take it out of the republican column and turn it into the democrat stronghold that it is today, just like that didn’t happen in Hawaii, or Vermont, or Massachusetts, or why they can’t control Mississippi even though it is the blackest state in the nation.

Your post about blacks being “40% of the Democrat vote overall”, and that “Blacks are today THE DEMOCRAT PARTY itself.” just isn’t accurate.

[muawiyah]

You are misrepresenting what I posted ~ why are you doing that? Has your name been taken over by a leftwingtard, or what? It’s like you’ve forgotten the implications of this map: https://d3r4ecz8hnfnqf.cloudfront.net/4ff32b9b246b709a9cd78ed7/full/2008-election-reults-county-by-county.png

[muawiyah]

you keep forgetting “...... overall, and .......” ~ punctuation has meaning.

[ansel12]

"The percentage is hardly the story ~ by 1990 black voters had actually become about 40% of the Democrat vote overall, and in areas controlled by Democrats black voters controlled the party (through back politicians).

"Blacks are today THE DEMOCRAT PARTY itself.

What did I misrepresent? I disagree that blacks are 40% of the democrat party, and that they are "the democrat party itself".

[boop]

To the original poster: Read Mugged by Ann Coulter.

I know she's not popular here at FR, but that book will open your eyes about voting patterns, the truth about the "Southern Strategy" and why it somehow didn't work with Carter, Clinton and Obama. In addition she notes that all but one of the segregationist democrats who stayed in the Senate became liberal kooks. These people stayed democrats for the rest of their careers with the exception of Strom Thurmond.

Even George Wallace on his deathbed proclaimed his eternal allegiance to the democratic party.

That's right, the "segregation forever" guy was NOT a republican.

And to tell you how powerful the democratic lock is on black voters, Wallace reliably got quite a lot of votes from blacks. IIRC 30-35%.

That's right black people voted for a segregationist DEMOCRAT.

[ansel12]

This is from NPR “ In his last election as governor of Alabama, in 1982, he won with more than 90 percent of the black vote.”

With the exception of 1968, Wallace was a lifelong democrat.

[boop]

Wow I was WAY off. 90% of the black vote in 1982? Not 1952? Impressive.
Guess being a democrat is more important than being allowed to enter a schoolhouse.

[OneWingedShark]

Gentlemen! No fighting in the War Room!

[SeeSharp]

First, the Federalist/Whig tradition is America's genuine conservative political tradition (the Jeffersonian/Jacksonian tradition has always been radical).

LOL. Completely backwards. The Jefferson/Jackson party was always the most popular party. The Whigs had to continually result to gimmicks and subterfuge to get elected since their position were mostly unpopular. What exactly is "conservative" about inflationism and corporate welfare?

Thaddeus Stevens held the same position on money that many of today's neo-Confederates do.

Sigh... the inevitable Lincoln idolator.

Thaddeus Stevens was not a Whig. He was the leader of the anti-Mason party, and a complete loon.

[muawiyah]

EVEN STENNY HOYER was forced to give up his Congressional district in Prince George's County Maryland when the black politicians took over!

Even the top Demo Dog!

They made him move. And their 'minority' has a higher rate of voter turnout than other Democrats in Maryland ~ plus they cheat like crazy. There is no white political leadership among Democrats in Maryland. They are all tokens in thrall to the black politico-criminal class.

It's the same everywhere in this country.

[ansel12]

Which has nothing to do with your crazy claims.

[muawiyah]

you are always so bizarre.

[ansel12]

LOL,no, you say the most bizarre things and get so rambling and incoherent and start posting gibberish that doesn’t make sense while trying to avoid simply admitting that you were wrong.

Blacks do not make up 40% of the democrat party and are not “Blacks are today THE DEMOCRAT PARTY itself.”