2 ms·

This is the real answer, due to the civil rights movement the DNC lost the south due to the less civil minded parts of the party switched to the republicans.

rayiner 6y ago
That makes literally no sense. Republicans supported the civil rights acts of 1957 through 1968 with supermajorities, by far larger margins than democrats did. How can it be that "due to the civil rights movement," "less civil minded" people switched from a party that voted for the Civil Rights Acts, to the party that voted for the Civil Rights Acts by even larger margins? The realignment of southern democrats is due more to the fact that, once segregation--which democrats tolerated and republicans didn't--was off the table, they were more aligned with republicans on other issues, such as religion, gun control, abortion, business regulation, taxes, etc.
- kmonsen 6y ago
  You are either willfully cherry-picking facts here or being ignorant. This info is widely available and it was the racists south that was against the civil rights movement and the union states pushed it through. When the 64 law passed the DNC had 21 out of 22 confederate senators, 1 of whom voted for the act. GOP had 1 southern senator, who voted against it. Looking at the union numbers, DNC had 46 senators of whom 45 voted for the act while the GOP had 32 of which 27 voted for it. So in union numbers the DNC senators voted 98% for it, while GOP did so with 84%. Here is a longer article with this information: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republ... As a result of this both parties changed. The DNC took a stand for civil rights and the southern democrats left. At the same time the GOP got a lot new members that influenced the party and created the new power base for it. Later GOP close victories all relied on the previous southern democrats. Bigger picture, it is clear that the party depending on the south needs to cater to a voting base that is not very positive to civil rights movement, and the opposite for a party that wants to hold the north. It is important to understand that the DNC took a stand here that lost them the south long term because it was the right thing to do (in their minds).
  - rayiner 6y ago
    So your theory is that "racists" left the DNC because it "took a stand for civil rights" and decamped to the party that had taken a stronger stand for civil rights for the 100 years preceding that? How does that make sense? You are also not really correct in claiming that "later GOP close victories all relied on the previous southern democrats." The 1976 Carter-Ford election was pretty close, with Carter winning by 2% overall. In North Carolina, Carter won by 10 points, while he won New York by less than 5 points. Regan won North Carolina by 2 points and New York by 3 points 1980. It's no doubt that Republicans gained a decisive advantage in the south eventually, but that happened decades later.
    - kmonsen 6y ago
      Again you are cherry-picking data and ignoring the bigger picture. The fact that you are able to do so means that you are just a troll and I will not comment further after this post. Yes Carter had a larger margin in some souther states, he was also a souther politician. But this is not what I said. Close GOP victories relied on the south. These are the close elections after this period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidentia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia... Also if you look at the election during this time Johnson won every state except from the south: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_United_States_presidentia... Also, please no "racist" when it comes to Dixiecrats. Read up on for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Russell_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Russell_Jr. and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond The might not agree with the racist label but openly believe the white race is superior and would clearly today be called a racist.
      - rayiner 6y ago
        You’re pointing to elections that happened more than three decades after the Civil Rights Acts of 1957-1968. That doesn’t support your point that the parties’ positions in the Civil Rights Acts was critical to those results. Couldn’t it be that those results are the product of things that happened during the 1990s, such as Democratic support for affirmative action? As to the scare quotes, I’m using them because you’re using the term to refer to people who voted for Bush, it just Storm Thurmond.

rayiner 6y ago

That makes literally no sense. Republicans supported the civil rights acts of 1957 through 1968 with supermajorities, by far larger margins than democrats did. How can it be that "due to the civil rights movement," "less civil minded" people switched from a party that voted for the Civil Rights Acts, to the party that voted for the Civil Rights Acts by even larger margins? The realignment of southern democrats is due more to the fact that, once segregation--which democrats tolerated and republicans didn't--was off the table, they were more aligned with republicans on other issues, such as religion, gun control, abortion, business regulation, taxes, etc.

kmonsen 6y ago
You are either willfully cherry-picking facts here or being ignorant. This info is widely available and it was the racists south that was against the civil rights movement and the union states pushed it through. When the 64 law passed the DNC had 21 out of 22 confederate senators, 1 of whom voted for the act. GOP had 1 southern senator, who voted against it. Looking at the union numbers, DNC had 46 senators of whom 45 voted for the act while the GOP had 32 of which 27 voted for it. So in union numbers the DNC senators voted 98% for it, while GOP did so with 84%. Here is a longer article with this information: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republ... As a result of this both parties changed. The DNC took a stand for civil rights and the southern democrats left. At the same time the GOP got a lot new members that influenced the party and created the new power base for it. Later GOP close victories all relied on the previous southern democrats. Bigger picture, it is clear that the party depending on the south needs to cater to a voting base that is not very positive to civil rights movement, and the opposite for a party that wants to hold the north. It is important to understand that the DNC took a stand here that lost them the south long term because it was the right thing to do (in their minds).
- rayiner 6y ago
  So your theory is that "racists" left the DNC because it "took a stand for civil rights" and decamped to the party that had taken a stronger stand for civil rights for the 100 years preceding that? How does that make sense? You are also not really correct in claiming that "later GOP close victories all relied on the previous southern democrats." The 1976 Carter-Ford election was pretty close, with Carter winning by 2% overall. In North Carolina, Carter won by 10 points, while he won New York by less than 5 points. Regan won North Carolina by 2 points and New York by 3 points 1980. It's no doubt that Republicans gained a decisive advantage in the south eventually, but that happened decades later.
  - kmonsen 6y ago
    Again you are cherry-picking data and ignoring the bigger picture. The fact that you are able to do so means that you are just a troll and I will not comment further after this post. Yes Carter had a larger margin in some souther states, he was also a souther politician. But this is not what I said. Close GOP victories relied on the south. These are the close elections after this period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidentia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia... Also if you look at the election during this time Johnson won every state except from the south: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_United_States_presidentia... Also, please no "racist" when it comes to Dixiecrats. Read up on for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Russell_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Russell_Jr. and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond The might not agree with the racist label but openly believe the white race is superior and would clearly today be called a racist.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      You’re pointing to elections that happened more than three decades after the Civil Rights Acts of 1957-1968. That doesn’t support your point that the parties’ positions in the Civil Rights Acts was critical to those results. Couldn’t it be that those results are the product of things that happened during the 1990s, such as Democratic support for affirmative action? As to the scare quotes, I’m using them because you’re using the term to refer to people who voted for Bush, it just Storm Thurmond.