#fyrefestival

[Okeefenokee]

I read it, and then after that response, reread it. I didn't change my mind. Just because one doesn't agree with someone doesn't agree with someone else even after seeing the same thing does not mean somebody is being malicious. It usually just means a difference in interpretation. Few things are straight black and white. They are usually some shade of gray.

And too me, it is a very very dark shade of gray that says the South was solidly Democratic before 1964 and after 1972 was solidly Republican with the same people moving from one party to another. More, it was a two decade long event that sped up after 1964 when the national Democratic Party became the active backer of civil rights and the national Republican Party didn't. Although Goldwater was a supporter of civil rights, he didn't believe in using the national government, and especially the army, to do the supporting.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 6-1964.png

IMG_0137.PNG

And yes, saying that the Trump win is all about the racism is annoyingly stupid, but it is a good excuse for the neoliberal establishment (the neoconservatives too) not to look at themselves.

The south was not solidly democrat before 1964, nor was it solidly republican after 1972.

You believe in a myth.

[Okeefenokee]

So in 1968, goodbye to the Democratic Solid South.

The solid South really was solidly Democratic from the end of Reconstruction through 1924. Democratic unity, however, began to exhibit cracks when the party nominated Al Smith for president in 1928. Smith, a Catholic, lost five out of eleven southern states. While anti-Catholic bigotry may have played a role in his disappointing returns, Smith won only one state outside the South. Southerners were in fact Smith’s biggest supporters.

You didn't read shit. The solid south started crumbling 44 years before your garbage myth says it did. Long before any semblance of the civil rights movement or the party switch myth was ever thought of.

You believe in a myth.

[clubgop]

So in 1968, goodbye to the Democratic Solid South.

The solid South really was solidly Democratic from the end of Reconstruction through 1924. Democratic unity, however, began to exhibit cracks when the party nominated Al Smith for president in 1928. Smith, a Catholic, lost five out of eleven southern states. While anti-Catholic bigotry may have played a role in his disappointing returns, Smith won only one state outside the South. Southerners were in fact Smith’s biggest supporters.

You didn't read shit. The solid south started crumbling 44 years before your garbage myth says it did. Long before any semblance of the civil rights movement or the party switch myth was ever thought of.

You believe in a myth.

These SJW's always want to tell us about the future of demographics how things change, people move and die and demos change, how their ascendancy is inevitable. But when it comes to this myth in order to make it fit the denizens of the South are immortal that same voting public from 1860-1964 hasn't changed in 2017.

[clubgop]

And yes, saying that the Trump win is all about the racism is annoyingly stupid, but it is a good excuse for the neoliberal establishment (the neoconservatives too) not to look at themselves.

And yet you do the same damn thing with the propagation of this damn myth.

[clubgop]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 6-1964.png

This map is less than useless. Talk about lying with stats. 23 elections over almost 100 years is a small sample size and even then most of the states voted not democrat 20-26% of the time. That is like building a bridge and calling it solid cause it only collapses when every 4th car tries to cross it.
Wow you showed us.

[heydaralon]

Al Smith really destroyed the party when he was managing the Raiders. A lot of his comments remain divisive to sports fans to this day...

[jbird4049]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 6-1964.png

This map is less than useless. Talk about lying with stats. 23 elections over almost 100 years is a small sample size and even then most of the states voted not democrat 20-26% of the time. That is like building a bridge and calling it solid cause it only collapses when every 4th car tries to cross it.
Wow you showed us.

Oh I know it's a small sample. It does however covers 14 states over 23 elections. Which can be useful if done carefully.

[clubgop]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 6-1964.png

This map is less than useless. Talk about lying with stats. 23 elections over almost 100 years is a small sample size and even then most of the states voted not democrat 20-26% of the time. That is like building a bridge and calling it solid cause it only collapses when every 4th car tries to cross it.
Wow you showed us.

Oh I know it's a small sample. It does however covers 14 states over 23 elections. Which can be useful if done carefully.

Well it wasn't, so it isn't.

[Okeefenokee]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 6-1964.png

This map is less than useless. Talk about lying with stats. 23 elections over almost 100 years is a small sample size and even then most of the states voted not democrat 20-26% of the time. That is like building a bridge and calling it solid cause it only collapses when every 4th car tries to cross it.
Wow you showed us.

Oh I know it's a small sample. It does however covers 14 states over 23 elections. Which can be useful if done carefully.

Can not, to save his own life, admit that his myth is utter bullshit.

[de officiis]

Sue the bastards!. (And pray they have some dough, 'cause insurance companies don't cover fraud....)