Racism Powered Republican Triumph

[hopper]

While it may be true that racism provided a rallying factor for a disproportionately-represented-in-mid-terms group, discussing this as anything other than an academic point isn't going to accomplish much. Coming away from an election with the attitude of "well, if only the rest of society weren't homophobic woman-hating racists we would've won" is smug and intellectually lazy. More than that, though, is that it doesn't win many allies. Democrats win with a coalition of groups, and obsessively running on accusing people of -phobias and -isms does not win many elections.

Whites, and white men in particular, are more than capable of voting for Democrats (and liberals in general) when the argument is compelling and tailored to their interests in a clear and concise manner.

. It's time to get better at campaigning to all groups of people, and admit that Democrats did a really sh**ty job of selling their ideas (what ideas?) to voters in general, instead of circulating articles like this. You don't shame people into voting for you. That doesn't work.

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'.

Exactly!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

You got your numbers flipped in the second to the last paragraph.

To arbitrarily seperate them implies that these Democrats 1) share nothing in common with Democrats and 2) that they all left the Democrating Party and the Democrats abandoned wholesale their values. All were born and most died as the Democrats they were. Most still viewed themselves as fighting for the common man, as Democrats have nearly all agreed upon going back to the days of Jackson. Those that came to be termed as Conservatives/Bourbons embraced the business interests and continued to see the political realm through the lens of the approach versus the objective to be achieved. Those that became Populist/Progressivess/New Dealers emphasized the objective over the means and came to embrace a larger government to help the common folk. They both had in common the racist views dominant at the time. At the end of the day, those Southern Democrats were Democrats even if they were absolutely repulsive to you, they are the reason you have a Democratic Party, a suffrage beyond just the rich, a country beyond just that of the elites, a New Deal, a Great Society, a politics based on advancing those who cannot advance themselves.

Whether they took the off ramp in 1830, 1880, 1930, 1965, 1994, or 2010, they are still etched upon nature and soul of the Democratic Party. The liberalized and helped to Laborize America and you wonder why as they have streamed out of the Party to be replaced by rich pro-choice Republicans and well to do elites, that you now have a Democratic Party that doesn't stand for anything that can motivate even its new base to turn out. In rejecting their flaws, it seems something else has been thrown out with the bathwater as well.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

You got your numbers flipped in the second to the last paragraph.

Care to specify? I'm not seeing an error.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

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.

You got your numbers flipped in the second to the last paragraph.

Care to specify? I'm not seeing an error.

You said House had 1 while the House had 7.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

You got your numbers flipped in the second to the last paragraph.

Care to specify? I'm not seeing an error.

You said House had 1 while the House had 7.

Ah, I reversed House/Senate Southern Dems. Thanks.

[Rockefeller GOP]

This thread has a few good posts surrounded by some of the dumbest garbage in the world, haha.