Once and for all. Flipping of the Parties.

[heydaralon]

These clowns aint no puppet masters but they is public masturbators

[brewster]

So I had some time to contemplate this cooking dinner (Korean BBQ chicken thighs with pesto pasta & grilled zucchini). The argument being made seems to be that racist whites didn't leave the Dems for the GOP, Conservatives did, who just happened to be white.

I don't find it a terribly compelling narrative, it ignores how long these things take and how people tend to change the fastest for national elections and slowest for local. Even true Blue NJ had a GOP governor up until last year but hadn't gone for a GOP president in decades.

But ultimately: so what? What difference does it make? So it's not 3+3=6, it's 2+4=6, the answer is still 6. Why is it important that your "origin story" be that way, when you end up in the same place, with a party whose primary coalition members are the wealthy, the economic conservatives, and religious conservatives, all of whom are overwhelmingly white. Asking the public to believe this is purely accidental is a very hard stretch.

[Speaker to Animals]

Weird that 99% of the racism is coming from the democratic party. They are not the real racists, though..

[Speaker to Animals]

As far as why southern whites left.. that was generally because it became clear that the democratic party was the party of Satan.



They got out when the getting was good. Now it is obvious that the democratic party is totally evil. That is why they left.

[DBTrek]

The difference between "The GOP courted all the racists in the 60's and became the party of racism" and "Because the GOP has more conservative values the South eventually migrated there by the 1980s" is pretty severe. That's the difference.

[clubgop]

So I had some time to contemplate this cooking dinner (Korean BBQ chicken thighs with pesto pasta & grilled zucchini). The argument being made seems to be that racist whites didn't leave the Dems for the GOP, Conservatives did, who just happened to be white.

I don't find it a terribly compelling narrative, it ignores how long these things take and how people tend to change the fastest for national elections and slowest for local. Even true Blue NJ had a GOP governor up until last year but hadn't gone for a GOP president in decades.

But ultimately: so what? What difference does it make? So it's not 3+3=6, it's 2+4=6, the answer is still 6. Why is it important that your "origin story" be that way, when you end up in the same place, with a party whose primary coalition members are the wealthy, the economic conservatives, and religious conservatives, all of whom are overwhelmingly white. Asking the public to believe this is purely accidental is a very hard stretch.

Because demographics are static that's the dipshit theory you are working with. And because you bitches run public education full of zero sum dumbassery like this.

It happened over decades not because people switched. Demographics dont work like that. People moved, people died, people turned 18 and voted. It's ok you got caught being a dumb hack bitch trying to pass this off as a zero sum game. But you wrong, punky brewster the public education system failed you or worked. However you want to look at it.

[TheReal_ND]

Maybe when Democrats decided sexual liberation is more important than workers rights a lot of people left.

[brewster]

The difference between "The GOP courted all the racists in the 60's and became the party of racism" and "Because the GOP has more conservative values the South eventually migrated there by the 1980s" is pretty severe. That's the difference.

That distinction seems unimportant when there's an all white party with policies (and large numbers of members) hostile to non-whites.

Here's fun quotes you'll love from a GOP strategist in a 1970 article, the best is last:

For a political expert, Phil lips is the most impolitic of men. Sitting in his office three doors away from the Attorney General (the only subordi nate's office in the Attorney General's suite entirely closed off and suitable for private conversations), Phillips was wont to deliver himself of acerbities that Martha Mitchell would prudently forbear.

On the 1968 Nixon cam paign:

“It was a catastrophe— millions of dollars spent by Madison Avenue lightweights who converted certain victory into near defeat. The soap salesmen drained all of the issues out of the campaign that would have won it big. McGinnis should have called his book ‘The Unselling of the President.’”

On his campaign associates:

“I respect John Mitchell. He and Murray Chotiner were the real people in the campaign, not the artificial public‐rela tions phonies who called Nix on ‘the product’ as if he were some kind of underarm deo dorant.”

On conservatives:

“I wish we could drop into the Potomac all those obso lescent conservatives who are still preoccupied with Alger Hiss and General MacArthur, and who keep trotting out laissez faire economics and other dead horses. They make the Republican party look musty to millions of ignored working‐class people who are looking for a party that re lates to their needs.”

On liberals:

“Liberalism has turned away from the common people and become institutionalized into an establishment. Its spokes men are driven around in limousines and supported by rich foundations, the television networks and publishing houses, the knowledge indus try, the billion‐dollar universi ties and the urban consulting firms which profiteer from poverty. Liberalism is doin inant only in the Northeast, which is always the last bas tion of a dying order of privi lege. The Northeast resists the populist surge of our day just as it fought the revolution of Jefferson, Jackson, Bryan and Roosevelt. The states that Humphrey carried in 1968 were roughly the states that Hoover carried in 1932.”

On the Republican party of the Northeast:

“It's run by Yankee silk stockings like Josiah Spalding, who send their kids 2,000 miles to look for poverty in Mississippi but won't travel one subway stop to help poor whites working for $1,800 a year. As long as they are in charge, the Republican party won't do well there. But the upper crust is gradually leav ing us to become Democrats. The Republicans are getting thousands of Irish and Italian working‐class switchovers and the Democrats are getting Chub Peabody.”

On Negroes and the G.O.P.:

“All the talk about Republi cans making inroads into the Negro vote is persiflage. Even ‘Jake the Snake’ [Senator Ja cob K. Javitsj only gets 20 per cent. From now on, the Re publicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 per cent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that . . . but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Dem ocrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and be come Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrange ment with the local Demo crats.”

Here the guy was fucking Nostradamus, but he missed the trend in the rockies:

WHAT of the Democratic party? It will retreat to the Northeast corner, where there is a high percentage of liberal Jews, Yankees, Negroes and, Phillips believes, masses of subsidized radicals employed by the liberal establishment. The only other Democratic area will be the Pacific North west, which historically fol lows the electoral patterns of the Northeast.

Cool article https://www.nytimes.com/1970/05/17/arch ... harts.html

[clubgop]

More zero sum bullshit desperately trying to move the goalpost.

[DBTrek]

Yelling “Republicans so white and hostile” and linking some half-century old NYT article about the random opinions of a self-described “ethnologist”certainly changes all the facts on the ground about the Dixiecrat myth.

Now, miraculously, all the bullshit that was false about your previous narrative has suddenly become true.
Right?

Pfffft.