Racism Powered Republican Triumph

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Turnout matters, of course. If you had a more representative voting public I think results would've been more favorable. But not all of the people who stayed home did so because of voting laws. If they felt it was pointless, that's not their fault, it's the Democrats'.

Indeed, all the talk of "well 2/3rds didn't vote" being used to deflect from the results fails to acknowledge the fact that if things were okay, they would have turned out or at least enough of them would have. They didn't turn out because they were pissed at the Democrats, but also hated the Republicans jsut as much or more and therefore did not have an option to vote for.

[Wisconsin+17]

I'm not sure how the party that elected the first black senator in the south since reconstruction is defind as the party of 'racism'.

[ElectionsGuy]

I'm not sure how the party that elected the first black senator in the south since reconstruction is defind as the party of 'racism'.

With 82% of the white vote too.

[GaussLaw]

I'm not sure how the party that elected the first black senator in the south since reconstruction is defind as the party of 'racism'.

With 82% of the white vote too.

Yeah.  Ideology trumps race any day of the week.  Of course, most liberals here would argue that Tim Scott is against everything that's in the best interest of blacks, but that's another story.

[Recalcuate]

I'm not sure how the party that elected the first black senator in the south since reconstruction is defind as the party of 'racism'.

Because they don't agree with the author or the red hats on here's world view.  Therefore, they gloss over things like the election of Tim Scott (at a better % rate than white male Lindsay Graham in the same state) and the election of Mia Love in Utah.

Republicans are against the expansion of the welfare state and want to do a silly thing like control the border.  And they oppose a black President on *gasp* principles. Screw ideological differences. They must clearly be racist instead.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I'm not sure how the party that elected the first black senator in the south since reconstruction is defind as the party of 'racism'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokenism

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I'm not sure how the party that elected the first black senator in the south since reconstruction is defind as the party of 'racism'.

Me neither, especially since that was this year.  It reminds me of Tom Brokaw calling the 1994 election "the year of the bitter, angry white male."  No matter how much the GOP does for civil rights, or how much Democrats hold it back, the left will still tell people that Republicans are racist.

Liberal sour grapes, that's all it is.

[Lief 🗽]

Well the GOP would have to actually do something for civil rights first to test that little theory of yours, oldies.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, like voting for the Civil Rights Act back in 1964 by a margin80+ Percent.

As for tokenism the score in the south, since reconstruction, is:

Republicans 1:0.

Democrats dominated the south for nearly 100 years and not a single southern state elected a democrat Black man. Not one. Bupkis.

[old timey villain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, like voting for the Civil Rights Act back in 1964 by a margin80+ Percent.

As for tokenism the score in the south, since reconstruction, is:

Republicans 1:0.

Democrats dominated the south for nearly 100 years and not a single southern state elected a democrat Black man. Not one. Bupkis.

Republicans just don't get it, and they probably never will. Making the claim that your party is champion of civil rights based on a vote that was taken over 50 years ago means nothing.

Go to a barbershop in south Atlanta and use that cute argument. See how long it takes you to get laughed out of the place.

[Lief 🗽]

Yeah it's pathetic. "BUT ONE TIME WHEN THE PARTIES WERE TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND MY PARENTS WERE CHILDREN REPUBLICANS VOTED FOR ONE THING" No one gives a sh[inks].

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, like voting for the Civil Rights Act back in 1964 by a margin80+ Percent.

As for tokenism the score in the south, since reconstruction, is:

Republicans 1:0.

Democrats dominated the south for nearly 100 years and not a single southern state elected a democrat Black man. Not one. Bupkis.

Republicans just don't get it, and they probably never will. Making the claim that your party is champion of civil rights based on a vote that was taken over 50 years ago means nothing.

Go to a barbershop in south Atlanta and use that cute argument. See how long it takes you to get laughed out of the place.

The argument isn't for black people. It's for white people who have no concept of history.

[Adam Griffin]

I hate to bump this, but I just noticed so much nonsense that I couldn't resist.

So you need six seats to win the majority, you win nine, three out of which are in the South (Confederacy defined) and it is because South is racist that Democrats lost the Senate?

Sure. The Republican electorate of this country nowadays is for all intents and purposes part of the South, because their present-day ideology has been irreversibly shaped by the dominance of Southerners in the Republican Party and its media. Southern culture as a whole is now altering the entire country's culture (much more so than vice-versa) as we become a larger share of the nation; why on God's green earth would that not apply to the politics of the region's dominant party? As I'm sure I don't have to tell you, there was a time in which Republicans from the North varied considerably from Republicans in the South and Republicans in the West; this really is no longer the case by and large (I'm talking about the electorate here, so please don't go into giving examples like Charlie Baker to refute). Republicans in Iowa and Colorado now respond in the same way to dog-whistling tactics as Republicans in Alabama respond to them. The Republican Party's belief system has been nationalized, and the Republican Party is now Southern.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, like voting for the Civil Rights Act back in 1964 by a margin80+ Percent.

As for tokenism the score in the south, since reconstruction, is:

Republicans 1:0.

Democrats dominated the south for nearly 100 years and not a single southern state elected a democrat Black man. Not one. Bupkis.

Shut up.

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)

Not a single Southern Republican voted for the Civil Rights Act; 7 Southern Democratic Senators and 1 Southern Democratic member of the House, however, did. In the North, more Republicans voted against the Act than Democrats.

At the end of the day, both a higher percentage of Northern Democrats voted for CRA than Northern Republicans, and a higher percentage of Southern Democrats voted for CRA than Southern Republicans. To simply combine the two groups and aggregate the numbers to fit your point is hilariously foolish from a historical perspective.

And how convenient of you to cut off the time period so that it fits your narrative, but let me oblige your timeline for just a minute. How many blacks were elected to statewide or federal office between the end of Reconstruction and 1964? Zero. Not a single one from the North; at least the South elected some during Reconstruction. Furthermore, the first black elected Senator post-Reconstruction was elected by a very Democratic electorate.

Douglas Wilder became the first black Governor in the South in 1990, in Virginia and as a Democrat.

Mike Thurmond ran for Labor Commissioner and won 43% of the white vote in 1998 against a very well-known white candidate, becoming the first newly-elected black Democrat in Georgia.

Thurbert Baker was appointed to AG in Georgia, sought election in 1998, and won 42% of the white vote. He won 48% of the white vote in 2002 and 53% of the white vote in 2006.

I'm not sure how the party that elected the first black senator in the south since reconstruction is defind as the party of 'racism'.

With 82% of the white vote too.

Uh, South Carolina would have elected a black Senator no matter what, considering that the Democratic opponent was black, too. I'm sure had it been a white Democrat against a black Republican, many current Republicans wouldn't have hesitated for a second to split their tickets.

[jaichind]

Of course race place a role.  See



Which the Economist published a couple of months ago.  The main theses is that the more diverse from an ethnic or linguistic point of view  an economy is, the less the government spending will be.  Namely it is often true in ethnic diverse economies there is often an economic dominate ethnic group (could be majority like Whites in USA or minority like Chinese in Malaysia) that plays a larger role in politics due their economic power and will pursue policies that will reduce assets being spent on making society more "equal" because they feel that all it does is to help the "other."  I am sure this effect gets greater as intra-ethnic economic gaps gets bigger.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I hate to bump this, but I just noticed so much nonsense that I couldn't resist.

So you need six seats to win the majority, you win nine, three out of which are in the South (Confederacy defined) and it is because South is racist that Democrats lost the Senate?

Sure. The Republican electorate of this country nowadays is for all intents and purposes part of the South, because their present-day ideology has been irreversibly shaped by the dominance of Southerners in the Republican Party and its media. Southern culture as a whole is now altering the entire country's culture (much more so than vice-versa) as we become a larger share of the nation; why on God's green earth would that not apply to the politics of the region's dominant party? As I'm sure I don't have to tell you, there was a time in which Republicans from the North varied considerably from Republicans in the South and Republicans in the West; this really is no longer the case by and large (I'm talking about the electorate here, so please don't go into giving examples like Charlie Baker to refute). Republicans in Iowa and Colorado now respond in the same way to dog-whistling tactics as Republicans in Alabama respond to them. The Republican Party's belief system has been nationalized, and the Republican Party is now Southern.

I don't disagree with much in your post so I am at a loss as to your point. There has always been a degree of racism in the Midwest and West as well as the South and even the Northeast (Why Mecha, why?), but unless you think Conservatism is entirely underpinned by racism, it is hard to claim that it drove the bulk of Republican successes outside of those states that trended away from Obama (WV, LA, AR etc), anymore then it drove 2014 any other Republican victory going back for the last four decades and maybe you do.

Racism comes from a traditionalist mindset and so they would be naturally attracted to a Conservative Party over a liberal one, particularly over one that long ago cease to be marginally any better than the other in representing their economic interests. However, as long as the person they are voting for knows what they are fighting for and why, those voter's racism doesn't suddenly invalidate legitimate conservative points and ideology. You can play out this game to its furthest extent that you want and turn every conservative slogan into a dog whistle, but Conservatism isn't going to just disappear and the country will be all the worse for it being further divided. You would also be torturing yourself for with a two party system, "The Devil" is going to win sooner or later and to some exten I agree with Jon Stewart, in that you shouldn't demonize everything.

Plus in labeling everything as racist, you devalue the meaning of what true racism really is and run the risk of it being normalized behavior amongst a larger percentage of the population as opposed to the slow decline one could argue has been occuring over the past several decades, which I think is more what everyone desires.

I don't need to remind you also, that as the South grows it is changing and at a rapid pace. The Republican Party adapted its issue focus to cater to the South, ironically as a means to preserve itself as a conservative party and they tolerated far too much in the way of Helms, Thurmond etc to get there. The alterantive was somehow for a split to occur and with each party taking half of the racists and for two decades that was the case more or less, but you aren't going to just drop them in the ocean and if you don't want them as Democrats they are going to be Republicans (again two party system). At that point our only recourse is communication, education and eventually, generational change and that has done wonders over the decades to reduce their number.  Let that process of attrition continue.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A much better thread title would be that apathy powered the Republican triumph. And if anything, the election shows that this tactic of defining Republicans as racist et al isn't enough to get them out to vote, not when they expected results and didn't get it. NC demonstrates that more than any other state.

Culture defines the limits of what a person is willing to vote for (a swing vote is merely that narrow tract that can decided between the two) in a polarized environment, but votes are still won and lost at the kitchen table and there is always a second option even if it means not voting.

[DrScholl]

You can't have your cake and eat it too, Republicans won, but a lot of those wins were racially polarized. In the south, Republican equals white and Democratic equals black, that is just how it is.

[Maxwell]

Salon is really the best out there now when it comes to real journalism.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/salon-writer-condemns-arithmetic-as-racist.html

ahahaha that's awesome.

[SNJ1985]

I'm sure had it been a white Democrat against a black Republican, many current Republicans wouldn't have hesitated for a second to split their tickets.

The results of the 2013 Virginia lieutenant gubernatorial election suggest otherwise...

While there were more than a few Cuccinelli/Northam counties throughout the state; Southwest Virginia, the whitest and most conservative part of the state, had no problem voting for Jackson over Northam.

[Indy Texas]

Everything on the ballot below the top one or two races (president/governor/senator) is so irrelevant to the average voter that it would be hard to see racism influencing a down-ballot race one way or the other.

I seriously doubt a randomly selected 2013 Virginia voter could tell you the race of any candidates apart from those running for governor.

Add to that the fact that E. W. Jackson is a racially ambiguous name in a way that, say, the surname Cuccinelli is not and to a lesser extent McAuliffe is not (being more of an Irish Catholic name than an Ulster Scots name that an antebellum slaveowner may have conceivably had).

[ElectionsGuy]

I'm not sure how the party that elected the first black senator in the south since reconstruction is defind as the party of 'racism'.

With 82% of the white vote too.

Uh, South Carolina would have elected a black Senator no matter what, considering that the Democratic opponent was black, too. I'm sure had it been a white Democrat against a black Republican, many current Republicans wouldn't have hesitated for a second to split their tickets.

You really think that if someone like Sheheen ran against Scott instead of Dickerson, the margin would've been different?

I don't think Scott would've lost any white voters, and I also don't think he would've gained any black voters.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm sure had it been a white Democrat against a black Republican, many current Republicans wouldn't have hesitated for a second to split their tickets.

The results of the 2013 Virginia lieutenant gubernatorial election suggest otherwise...

While there were more than a few Cuccinelli/Northam counties throughout the state; Southwest Virginia, the whitest and most conservative part of the state, had no problem voting for Jackson over Northam.

Many of those who voted for Jackson, it's true, surely knew nothing about his race or anything else about him apart from his party. It is interesting however that SW Virginia is the one region with several counties that voted for both Wilder in 1989 and Jackson in 2013.

[DrScholl]

Politicians are fairly anonymous everywhere, so I would wager that a lot voters did not even know that Scott is black. His anonymity is one reason why he over performed Haley and Graham (they also have more detractors).

[hopper]

I hope Liberals keep on bringing up the race card or "war on women" talking point. It lost them the Colorado US Senate Election this year. The GOP candidates just let the Dems talk about "War on Women" and didn't take the bait this time.

[hopper]

Definitely a part of it. This election was the revenge of the white men, after being told for the past two years that they're demographically doomed and after how much they've suffered economically (relatively). The Ferguson business inflamed things and riled them up just as election season was beginning, and then the Republicans rode the wave of white male resentment home with a xenophobic campaign of amnesty, ebola and ISIS.

I hope your kidding. It just sounds like a lame post.