State run by Democrats turning into a Third World Country

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So we're just going to ignore the parts of WV, MS, AL and KY that have been 3rd world countries for a long time and will only get worse?

Why don't we give Republicans any meaningful time having any power in KY and WV before we chalk up their problems to GOP policy, LOL.  MS and AL are better examples, though it's worth pointing out that both were arguably in even worse shape when Democrats controlled them.

Yeah, all those conservative Democrats that became Republicans should be ashamed!

Democratic Governors of Alabama since 1964, the YEAR EVERYTHING CHANGED (year they became Republicans in parentheses)
Don Siegelman (Never)
Jim Folsom, Jr. (Never)
George Wallace (Never)
Fob James (1994)
Albert Brewer (Never)
Lurleen Wallace (Never)

Democratic Governors of Mississippi since 1964, the YEAR EVERYTHING CHANGED (year they became Republicans in parentheses)
Ronnie Musgrove (Never)
Ray Mabus (Never)
William Alain (Never)
William Winter (Never)
Cliff Finch (Never)
William Waller (Never)
Jon Bell Williams (Never)
Paul B. Johnson, Jr. (Never)
Ross Barnett (Never)

So, out of all of those Democratic governors, one became a Republican.  Mostly false?  Obviously the state legislatures changed at some point during the last 20-30 years, but governors is one of the better proxies for who had control, given Democrats controlled those legislatures for decades.

Moving on to your next claim that all of these Democrats who resided over the governance of Alabama and Mississippi were "conservatives" (a subjective term in its own right), I guess I will just let you believe that.  They all ran against and beat Republican challengers, and something set them apart from their opponent.  I would argue it is that their opponent was more conservative than they were.  To go all third grader and suggest that the South hasn't gotten more CONSERVATIVE over the last 30 years as opposed to just more Republican is below this site.

Anyway, sorry to derail the thread!  MAYBE, just maybe, some places have troubles that have very little do with which party is currently winning their electoral votes ... crazy, I know.

To argue that the Democrats controlling these states were conservative, how about we look at the adoption of "right to work" laws? I believe we can agree that a state adopting and sustaining rtw laws is not being governed by liberals.

Arkansas - 1944
Florida - 1944
Virginia - 1947
Tennesse - 1947
North Carolina - 1947
Georgia - 1947
Texas - 1947
Alabama - 1953
Mississipi - 1954
South Carolina - 1954
Louisiana - 1976

https://nrtwc.org/facts/state-right-to-work-timeline-2016/

So 10/11 former states of the Confederacy had adopted right to work laws by 1955. Louisiana Followed suit in 1976. They all did this under Democratic control.

(Of course, two states mentioned earlier in this thread, Kentucky and West Virginia, are recent adopters of RTW laws and clearly had a stronger organized labor presence.)
 
While this metric is not the end all be all of everything, it demonstrates a level of economic conservatism, especially when considering the role organized labor has played in American Liberalism.

That is because these states were mostly one party states and their establishments were deeply tied to the Business interests since they were ones in power. Once that began to change in the 1950's, you began to see more of a drift of business aligned interests towards the Republicans.

That is consistent with the point I was making. I also agree with your later post regarding this issue being more complex than "party switching". My main objection was the idea that the old South was a hotbed of progressive policy or that the Democrats who dominated it were largely liberal.

It varies based on state. There were certainly progressive factions in some of those state's Democratic parties, but the same thing that held down black voting, also held down poor whites in some cases so that meant that turnout was low and corruption was rampant. I think there was a saying that the windows were always open in the MS legislature so they could throw in the bags of business money.

[Santander]

Moving on to your next claim that all of these Democrats who resided over the governance of Alabama and Mississippi were "conservatives" (a subjective term in its own right), I guess I will just let you believe that.  They all ran against and beat Republican challengers, and something set them apart from their opponent.  I would argue it is that their opponent was more conservative than they were.  To go all third grader and suggest that the South hasn't gotten more CONSERVATIVE over the last 30 years as opposed to just more Republican is below this site.

Alabama and Mississippi (among other Southern states) were one-party states until the early 80s, when Reagan's fanning of racial tensions dragged the states into competitiveness. The real election was the Democratic primary, where conservatives generally beat out moderates and liberals. Before Reagan, Republican candidates were not "challengers", they were just paper candidates who were not in any way politically relevant. So what you are saying only starts resembling what actually happened after at least 1980, and really only truly becomes the rule after around 1990.

In any case, why are you upset that all racists became Republicans in 1964? From that base of racists, the GOP managed to grow the tent to eventually even include "totally not racist but only have white friends" people like you.

[RINO Tom]

Moving on to your next claim that all of these Democrats who resided over the governance of Alabama and Mississippi were "conservatives" (a subjective term in its own right), I guess I will just let you believe that.  They all ran against and beat Republican challengers, and something set them apart from their opponent.  I would argue it is that their opponent was more conservative than they were.  To go all third grader and suggest that the South hasn't gotten more CONSERVATIVE over the last 30 years as opposed to just more Republican is below this site.

Alabama and Mississippi (among other Southern states) were one-party states until the early 80s, when Reagan's fanning of racial tensions dragged the states into competitiveness. The real election was the Democratic primary, where conservatives generally beat out moderates and liberals. Before Reagan, Republican candidates were not "challengers", they were just paper candidates who were not in any way politically relevant. So what you are saying only starts resembling what actually happened after at least 1980, and really only truly becomes the rule after around 1990.

In any case, why are you upset that all racists became Republicans in 1964? From that base of racists, the GOP managed to grow the tent to eventually even include "totally not racist but only have white friends" people like you.

I get trolling me every once in a while, dude, but I do post some serious things.  You don't have to derail everything.  Obviously, in a one-party region you are going to have a wide range of ideologies in that one party, but to use the term "conservative" as it is used to define their Republican successors is misleading, as NC Yankee pointed out and the poster I quoted oversimplified.  As for your somewhat offensive characterization of me, people like that obviously existed in the GOP well before, so your tongue-in-cheek comment, while clearly an attempt to be funny and insult me, doesn't make any sense.  When you live in an area that is almost all White, you tend to have White friends (though, not that you give a shlt, not all of my friends are White ... that would be ridiculous).  Now go try to have a better day than arguing with me, eh?

[MasterJedi]

Moving on to your next claim that all of these Democrats who resided over the governance of Alabama and Mississippi were "conservatives" (a subjective term in its own right), I guess I will just let you believe that.  They all ran against and beat Republican challengers, and something set them apart from their opponent.  I would argue it is that their opponent was more conservative than they were.  To go all third grader and suggest that the South hasn't gotten more CONSERVATIVE over the last 30 years as opposed to just more Republican is below this site.

Alabama and Mississippi (among other Southern states) were one-party states until the early 80s, when Reagan's fanning of racial tensions dragged the states into competitiveness. The real election was the Democratic primary, where conservatives generally beat out moderates and liberals. Before Reagan, Republican candidates were not "challengers", they were just paper candidates who were not in any way politically relevant. So what you are saying only starts resembling what actually happened after at least 1980, and really only truly becomes the rule after around 1990.

In any case, why are you upset that all racists became Republicans in 1964? From that base of racists, the GOP managed to grow the tent to eventually even include "totally not racist but only have white friends" people like you.

I get trolling me every once in a while, dude, but I do post some serious things.  You don't have to derail everything.  Obviously, in a one-party region you are going to have a wide range of ideologies in that one party, but to use the term "conservative" as it is used to define their Republican successors is misleading, as NC Yankee pointed out and the poster I quoted oversimplified.  As for your somewhat offensive characterization of me, people like that obviously existed in the GOP well before, so your tongue-in-cheek comment, while clearly an attempt to be funny and insult me, doesn't make any sense.  When you live in an area that is almost all White, you tend to have White friends (though, not that you give a shlt, not all of my friends are White ... that would be ridiculous).  Now go try to have a better day than arguing with me, eh?

Second part was trolling, first part was fact, sorry you disagree.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Moving on to your next claim that all of these Democrats who resided over the governance of Alabama and Mississippi were "conservatives" (a subjective term in its own right), I guess I will just let you believe that.  They all ran against and beat Republican challengers, and something set them apart from their opponent.  I would argue it is that their opponent was more conservative than they were.  To go all third grader and suggest that the South hasn't gotten more CONSERVATIVE over the last 30 years as opposed to just more Republican is below this site.

Alabama and Mississippi (among other Southern states) were one-party states until the early 80s, when Reagan's fanning of racial tensions dragged the states into competitiveness. The real election was the Democratic primary, where conservatives generally beat out moderates and liberals. Before Reagan, Republican candidates were not "challengers", they were just paper candidates who were not in any way politically relevant. So what you are saying only starts resembling what actually happened after at least 1980, and really only truly becomes the rule after around 1990.

In any case, why are you upset that all racists became Republicans in 1964? From that base of racists, the GOP managed to grow the tent to eventually even include "totally not racist but only have white friends" people like you.

Surely, if nothing else, you’re shifting the timeline, there were a few competitive races that were unprecedented from about 1962 to 1966. Jim Martin, Bo Calloway, etc.

[RINO Tom]

Moving on to your next claim that all of these Democrats who resided over the governance of Alabama and Mississippi were "conservatives" (a subjective term in its own right), I guess I will just let you believe that.  They all ran against and beat Republican challengers, and something set them apart from their opponent.  I would argue it is that their opponent was more conservative than they were.  To go all third grader and suggest that the South hasn't gotten more CONSERVATIVE over the last 30 years as opposed to just more Republican is below this site.

Alabama and Mississippi (among other Southern states) were one-party states until the early 80s, when Reagan's fanning of racial tensions dragged the states into competitiveness. The real election was the Democratic primary, where conservatives generally beat out moderates and liberals. Before Reagan, Republican candidates were not "challengers", they were just paper candidates who were not in any way politically relevant. So what you are saying only starts resembling what actually happened after at least 1980, and really only truly becomes the rule after around 1990.

In any case, why are you upset that all racists became Republicans in 1964? From that base of racists, the GOP managed to grow the tent to eventually even include "totally not racist but only have white friends" people like you.

I get trolling me every once in a while, dude, but I do post some serious things.  You don't have to derail everything.  Obviously, in a one-party region you are going to have a wide range of ideologies in that one party, but to use the term "conservative" as it is used to define their Republican successors is misleading, as NC Yankee pointed out and the poster I quoted oversimplified.  As for your somewhat offensive characterization of me, people like that obviously existed in the GOP well before, so your tongue-in-cheek comment, while clearly an attempt to be funny and insult me, doesn't make any sense.  When you live in an area that is almost all White, you tend to have White friends (though, not that you give a shlt, not all of my friends are White ... that would be ridiculous).  Now go try to have a better day than arguing with me, eh?

Second part was trolling, first part was fact, sorry you disagree.

I would be happy to actually engage in conversation, how are you defining "conservative"?  If it means opposition to civil rights, maybe this conversation isn't worth having, as I think that is a ridiculous thing to politicize.

[RINO Tom]

Moving on to your next claim that all of these Democrats who resided over the governance of Alabama and Mississippi were "conservatives" (a subjective term in its own right), I guess I will just let you believe that.  They all ran against and beat Republican challengers, and something set them apart from their opponent.  I would argue it is that their opponent was more conservative than they were.  To go all third grader and suggest that the South hasn't gotten more CONSERVATIVE over the last 30 years as opposed to just more Republican is below this site.

Alabama and Mississippi (among other Southern states) were one-party states until the early 80s, when Reagan's fanning of racial tensions dragged the states into competitiveness. The real election was the Democratic primary, where conservatives generally beat out moderates and liberals. Before Reagan, Republican candidates were not "challengers", they were just paper candidates who were not in any way politically relevant. So what you are saying only starts resembling what actually happened after at least 1980, and really only truly becomes the rule after around 1990.

In any case, why are you upset that all racists became Republicans in 1964? From that base of racists, the GOP managed to grow the tent to eventually even include "totally not racist but only have white friends" people like you.

I get trolling me every once in a while, dude, but I do post some serious things.  You don't have to derail everything.  Obviously, in a one-party region you are going to have a wide range of ideologies in that one party, but to use the term "conservative" as it is used to define their Republican successors is misleading, as NC Yankee pointed out and the poster I quoted oversimplified.  As for your somewhat offensive characterization of me, people like that obviously existed in the GOP well before, so your tongue-in-cheek comment, while clearly an attempt to be funny and insult me, doesn't make any sense.  When you live in an area that is almost all White, you tend to have White friends (though, not that you give a shlt, not all of my friends are White ... that would be ridiculous).  Now go try to have a better day than arguing with me, eh?

Second part was trolling, first part was fact, sorry you disagree.

I would be happy to actually engage in conversation, how are you defining "conservative"?  If it means opposition to civil rights, maybe this conversation isn't worth having, as I think that is a ridiculous thing to politicize.

Can't a conservative mean different things regionally? There's clearly an element of opposition to Civil Rights among Southern conservatives. Not nearly as much northern ones

Sure, but Master Jedi's post that I quoted initially implied that there was no difference in the conservatism of Republicans and the conservatism of Southern Democrats that preceded them, and I think that's not only false but a deliberate narrative to discredit modern conservatism.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Moving on to your next claim that all of these Democrats who resided over the governance of Alabama and Mississippi were "conservatives" (a subjective term in its own right), I guess I will just let you believe that.  They all ran against and beat Republican challengers, and something set them apart from their opponent.  I would argue it is that their opponent was more conservative than they were.  To go all third grader and suggest that the South hasn't gotten more CONSERVATIVE over the last 30 years as opposed to just more Republican is below this site.

Alabama and Mississippi (among other Southern states) were one-party states until the early 80s, when Reagan's fanning of racial tensions dragged the states into competitiveness. The real election was the Democratic primary, where conservatives generally beat out moderates and liberals. Before Reagan, Republican candidates were not "challengers", they were just paper candidates who were not in any way politically relevant. So what you are saying only starts resembling what actually happened after at least 1980, and really only truly becomes the rule after around 1990.

In any case, why are you upset that all racists became Republicans in 1964? From that base of racists, the GOP managed to grow the tent to eventually even include "totally not racist but only have white friends" people like you.

Re Reagan and MS, on the contrary what is remarkable is how little the vote changed there between 1976 and 1980.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

RINO Tom, the southern Democrats in Congress who blocked the New Deal literally called themselves the "Conservative Coalition". It's pure revisionism to claim the US South wasn't conservative until Reagan.

[RINO Tom]

RINO Tom, the southern Democrats in Congress who blocked the New Deal literally called themselves the "Conservative Coalition". It's pure revisionism to claim the US South wasn't conservative until Reagan.

I never said that it wasn't at all "conservative," I am disputing that there is any meaningful connection to today's conservatism of the GOP.  Republicans who gained control in Dixie didn't just keep business as usual with a different letter next to their names, they tried to cut waste where they saw it, tried to create more business-friendly states, etc.  The Southern Democrats were "conservative" in the sense that 1) they were more politically consrevative than their Northern counterparts and 2) they were actually looking to "conserve" quite a lot (especially White supremacy in the South), but that second definition is rarely if ever used to describe the conservatism of the GOP today.  If it were, it could be argued that Democrats are "conservative" on abortion because they want to uphold a decades-old ruling and precedent on abortion, for example.  I am not acting like these politicians were liberals, but they had in much in common with national Democrats as they did objectively more conservative national Republicans, and that's all I'm saying - they aren't the political ancestors of modern Southern conservatives so much as they dinosaurs.

[RINO Tom]

There was obviously a massive switch, but it didn't happen overnight (i.e., "in 1964" or "in 1980"), and there wasn't ONE event that caused White Southerners to ditch the Democrats.  I'd also argue that DWN scores show that once those politicians switched parties, they almost always actually had more conservative voting records, so they weren't "the same old conservatives."

Whatever, sorry for derailing the thread about how modern Democrats are driving certain states into ruin with tales of previous ones.

[Santander]

Dude in the Senate alone right now there's a former conservaDem State Treasurer from Louisiana, a former conservaDem Congressman from Alabama who switched parties after the '94 thrashing, a homophobic judge who used to be a Dem about to be elected to another seat in Alabama, and most the Republican statewide officials in Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana used to be Democrats. Stop pretending like there wasn't a massive switch of allegiance. These are literally the same conservatives, just different parties.

Yeah. The evidence is pretty clear and visible that, at least as far as AL and MS are concerned (but many other Southern states, too), these are the same people with the same views who changed parties out of political expedience. Individually, they may have changed a few of their positions along the way, but that has more to do with the changing times more than their new party label.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

RINO Tom, the southern Democrats in Congress who blocked the New Deal literally called themselves the "Conservative Coalition". It's pure revisionism to claim the US South wasn't conservative until Reagan.

I never said that it wasn't at all "conservative," I am disputing that there is any meaningful connection to today's conservatism of the GOP.  Republicans who gained control in Dixie didn't just keep business as usual with a different letter next to their names, they tried to cut waste where they saw it, tried to create more business-friendly states, etc.  The Southern Democrats were "conservative" in the sense that 1) they were more politically consrevative than their Northern counterparts and 2) they were actually looking to "conserve" quite a lot (especially White supremacy in the South), but that second definition is rarely if ever used to describe the conservatism of the GOP today.  If it were, it could be argued that Democrats are "conservative" on abortion because they want to uphold a decades-old ruling and precedent on abortion, for example.  I am not acting like these politicians were liberals, but they had in much in common with national Democrats as they did objectively more conservative national Republicans, and that's all I'm saying - they aren't the political ancestors of modern Southern conservatives so much as they dinosaurs.

I think this bleeds more into a philosophical discussion of what it means to be 'conservative'. Conservatism (and the right in general) is best defined as a support of hierarchy, as opposed to the left, which is egalitarian. It's a philosophical orientation toward hierarchies of the family, the nation, the workplace, of race and gender, rather than something as nebulous as being 'business-friendly' and cutting government waste (which, by the way, were arguments conservative Democrats used to oppose the New Deal).  

The South was more conservative than the rest of America in the English Civil Wars, when New England was settled by dissenters and Virginia was full of cavaliers; during the American Revolution when the Tories were strongest in the southern colonies; and during the ACW when, well, slavery. So I don't find the takeover of the region by the more conservative party during the period when the two US parties coalesced into ideological blocs a particularly novel development.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

RINO Tom, the southern Democrats in Congress who blocked the New Deal literally called themselves the "Conservative Coalition". It's pure revisionism to claim the US South wasn't conservative until Reagan.

I never said that it wasn't at all "conservative," I am disputing that there is any meaningful connection to today's conservatism of the GOP.  Republicans who gained control in Dixie didn't just keep business as usual with a different letter next to their names, they tried to cut waste where they saw it, tried to create more business-friendly states, etc.  The Southern Democrats were "conservative" in the sense that 1) they were more politically consrevative than their Northern counterparts and 2) they were actually looking to "conserve" quite a lot (especially White supremacy in the South), but that second definition is rarely if ever used to describe the conservatism of the GOP today.  If it were, it could be argued that Democrats are "conservative" on abortion because they want to uphold a decades-old ruling and precedent on abortion, for example.  I am not acting like these politicians were liberals, but they had in much in common with national Democrats as they did objectively more conservative national Republicans, and that's all I'm saying - they aren't the political ancestors of modern Southern conservatives so much as they dinosaurs.

I think this bleeds more into a philosophical discussion of what it means to be 'conservative'. Conservatism (and the right in general) is best defined as a support of hierarchy, as opposed to the left, which is egalitarian. It's a philosophical orientation toward hierarchies of the family, the nation, the workplace, of race and gender, rather than something as nebulous as being 'business-friendly' and cutting government waste (which, by the way, were arguments conservative Democrats used to oppose the New Deal).  

The South was more conservative than the rest of America in the English Civil Wars, when New England was settled by dissenters and Virginia was full of cavaliers; during the American Revolution when the Tories were strongest in the southern colonies; and during the ACW when, well, slavery. So I don't find the takeover of the region by the more conservative party during the period when the two US parties coalesced into ideological blocs a particularly novel development.

And yet the Federalists and Whigs, both with centers in New England, was far more hierarchical then the "egalitarian" Jeffersonians and Jacksonians. And yes there were slave owning planters who were members of the Federalists and the Whigs. You also cite Calvinists in New England and Anglicans in Virginia. Except their were also Calvinists in the south and Anglicans in the North as well. It should also be noted that such "dissidents" were so because they were more doctrinaire and saw the Anglicans as "too Catholic". Many of these colonies had taxes to support the Congregationalist church making it a "hierarchical structure", that was opposed by the like of Jefferson.

One big factor in that changing was that the last "Awakenings" in the early and mid 20th centuries were largely centered on the sunbelt, while religious fervor collapsed in the NE, first among protestants and then among Catholics.

[AtorBoltox]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellison_D._Smith
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Talmadge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Manifesto
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_G._Bilbo#U.S._Senate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_coalition

It's quite ridiculous to even attempt to argue that Southern Democrats weren't primarily conservative, on all issues, not just civil rights.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Dude in the Senate alone right now there's a former conservaDem State Treasurer from Louisiana, a former conservaDem Congressman from Alabama who switched parties after the '94 thrashing, a homophobic judge who used to be a Dem about to be elected to another seat in Alabama, and most the Republican statewide officials in Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana used to be Democrats. Stop pretending like there wasn't a massive switch of allegiance. These are literally the same conservatives, just different parties.

He claimed to be a liberal in 2004 and supported John Kerry. Kennedy is very much an opportunist.

In many cases these "opportunists" were moderate Democrats who switched parties for self-advantage or self-preservation and then moved right to secure the deal. This would certainly apply to Kennedy and Shelby.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellison_D._Smith
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Talmadge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Manifesto
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_G._Bilbo#U.S._Senate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_coalition

It's quite ridiculous to even attempt to argue that Southern Democrats weren't primarily conservative, on all issues, not just civil rights.

That is a rather narrow and selective list. It leaves out progressives like the Longs, Ralph Yarborough and Estes Kefauver.

Also Bilbo was on the more "progressive side" of Mississippi politics on economic issues.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is literally from the link you posted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The simple fact of the matter is, the Progressive ascendency within the Democratic Party is entirely rooted in the allignment of poor white farmers in the South and West to the Democratic Party and the election of people dedicated to their economic interests under that label.

It just so happens that said people were militantly racist and their representatives reflected that.

of course the Bourbons were hardly any better, but it was the maturity of militant lost causers like Bilbo that led to the Constitution of 1890 in MS. They were thus far more aggressive in removing black voting, then the previous generation of Bourbon oriented types who also used the title "Conservatives", I would note in the 1870's in some states.

Southern politicians throughout history, love to appropriate titles and terms and philosophies to justify their peculiar institutions, and politics is necessarily skewed substantially by the presence of the single party state from the 1870's until the mid to late 20th century.

[RINO Tom]

All I know is that if I see another suggestion that the ancestors of the racist white southern Democrats (or still living white former conservadems) aren't mostly present-day Republicans I'm goin to start slamming my head on my desk

NO ONE SAID THAT.  It's obviously not a simple topic.  Yes, the White voters in these states that used to be Democratic are now very, very Republican, and many have even switched parties in the last 10-20 years.  So what?  Is that supposed to have some meaningful impact on today's politics?  Are you insinuating that modern White Southern Republicans support the same things their Democratic grandparents supported or something?  I don't know why it makes people so angry to point out a few basic things like:

1. Southern Democrats were absolutely to the left of Northern and Southern Republicans on economic issues, for the most part.
2. As the South got less agrarian and more industrialized, it became more Republican.
3. The vast majority of elected Southern Democrats never changed parties.
4. The Republican South is objectively much less racist than the Democratic South was.
5. There wasn't a clear "switch" moment, and a HUGE component of the GOP gaining power in the South was old Dixiecrats dying off and retiring.

None of this absolves modern Southern Republicans of anything or legitimizes the GOP or whatever, it simply points out that this was a complicated change in power (I thought that is partly what this site is for) that can't be explained in a sentence or two.  The Arkansas that voted for Wallace is night and day different than the one that voted for Trump, just as the Vermont that voted for Reagan is night and day different than the one that voted for Clinton, and that has to at least get airtime during these conversations, and it rarely does.  All I have done here is reject the narrative, "The old Southern Democrats became the new Southern Republicans!" and it's frankly amazing that having some intellectual curiosity about such an interesting topic is met with being shouted down and an insinuation that I'm distorting history or in denial about my party or whatever other chip-on-your-shoulders BS you guys usually throw my way, LOL.

[HillGoose]

I never visited CA, but I knew some girls who lived in San Bruno and San Francisco at one point, they were the most hardcore liberals you ever saw.

[HillGoose]

And the fact that we're still the best state speaks volumes about the rest!

Oh yeah, I forgot the upscale part of your state. The modern "Trusts" Google, Facebook, and other pretentious tech companies. My mistake.

U want to punish people for being successful financially? That sounds communistic.

[AtorBoltox]

All I know is that if I see another suggestion that the ancestors of the racist white southern Democrats (or still living white former conservadems) aren't mostly present-day Republicans I'm goin to start slamming my head on my desk

NO ONE SAID THAT.  It's obviously not a simple topic.  Yes, the White voters in these states that used to be Democratic are now very, very Republican, and many have even switched parties in the last 10-20 years.  So what?  Is that supposed to have some meaningful impact on today's politics?  Are you insinuating that modern White Southern Republicans support the same things their Democratic grandparents supported or something?  I don't know why it makes people so angry to point out a few basic things like:

1. Southern Democrats were absolutely to the left of Northern and Southern Republicans on economic issues, for the most part.

Ah yes. The opposition to child labor laws, opposition to the new deal, the hatred of organised labour and the slavish support of the cotton industry are all noted left wing economic policies.

[Badger]

WTF this thread?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

All I know is that if I see another suggestion that the ancestors of the racist white southern Democrats (or still living white former conservadems) aren't mostly present-day Republicans I'm goin to start slamming my head on my desk

Ancestors? Don't you mean descendents?


If they were ancestors, they would be racist, Jacksonians or Jeffersonians.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

All I know is that if I see another suggestion that the ancestors of the racist white southern Democrats (or still living white former conservadems) aren't mostly present-day Republicans I'm goin to start slamming my head on my desk

NO ONE SAID THAT.  It's obviously not a simple topic.  Yes, the White voters in these states that used to be Democratic are now very, very Republican, and many have even switched parties in the last 10-20 years.  So what?  Is that supposed to have some meaningful impact on today's politics?  Are you insinuating that modern White Southern Republicans support the same things their Democratic grandparents supported or something?  I don't know why it makes people so angry to point out a few basic things like:

1. Southern Democrats were absolutely to the left of Northern and Southern Republicans on economic issues, for the most part.

Ah yes. The opposition to child labor laws, opposition to the new deal, the hatred of organised labour and the slavish support of the cotton industry are all noted left wing economic policies.

Do you deny that Bilbo supported the New Deal? The wikipedia article you linked to, to claim that he was a "Conservative" on "all issues" said he did.