More crazee in Georgia

Would someone please look at the electoral map of 1968 and explain to me how the South carried Nixon to victory?

 

Nixon won California. He won the Mountain West. He won the industrial Midwest. He won the Plains states. Aside from Texas, he won the Southwest. He won New Jersey, Delaware, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

How many of the Southern states did he win?

Considering how well he did in the rest of he country, I'd say he underperformed in the South.

 

"If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, he has a right to do so." -- Ronald Reagan, as candidate for governor of California in 1966

As for the rest, you can spin it any way you like, but when he arrived in Philadelphia, Miss., in 1980 and proclaimed that he was going to restore "states' rights," I know what that meant. Lee Atwater knew what that meant. The rest of it -- the "Chicago welfare queen," showing up at the NASCAR race, etc. -- just fed into that.

 

I don't know that anyone claimed Nixon won on the South. As the person who wrote the post above, I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.

 

Reagan won the Presidency in the election of 1980. You know that don't you?

If that 1966 comment was so important to him in 1980, why didn't he repeat it? (Also, the term Negro looks repugnant know, but it was the prevailing term at the time.)

States Right is all about racism? Please. It's about the power of the federal government.

Atwater did no have a role in the Reagan 1980 election team.

Do you want to argue that there were not gross abuses of the welfare system? Do you want to argue that reform was not needed?

NASCAR? Really? Do I actually have to rebut this?

 

So, what did you mean by it?

What do folks mean when the reference Nixon's "Southern Strategy"?

Was it his strategy to lose most of the Southern states? Great strategy.

 

From NYTimes obit on Lee Atwater: Mr. Atwater first came to national attention at the age of 29 when he helped Ronald Reagan win the 1980 Republican Presidential nomination as the campaign's political coordinator.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9d0ceed91f3df933a05750c0a967958260

That alone should be enough to invalidate the factual assertions in your post. But I notice there were no other truly factual assertions, only a lot of blowing of hot air. States rights is my favorite, yes, it was what Ronald Reagan was talking about and it was also why the Civil War was fought. Mmm hmmm.

My point on this discussion was that you cited a vote from the 1960s as proof that the Republicans are actually the party on the side of racial progress, and that while that may have been true 50 years ago it isn't true now.

 

"Strapping young buck"; food stamps; T-bone steak!

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/10/innocent-mistakes/

 

Related to Nixon, I meant that Spiro Agnew carried a certain amount of broad appeal to voters who might want to return to a simpler time, when only those with money and an acceptable amount of literacy could vote. This was not exclusive to the South, although it did carry the Southern Strategy label. Agnew was also selected to counter-balance George Wallace, although, as your map showed, that didn't work so great.

 

Right. The power of the federal government to tell states to desegregate their schools, water fountains and buses.

 

The 'Southern Strategy'?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E6DF1E30F935A35753C1A9639C8B63

Listen to the late Lee Atwater in a 1981 interview explaining the evolution of the G.O.P.'s Southern strategy:

''You start out in 1954 by saying, 'N****r, n****r, n****r.' By 1968 you can't say 'n****r' -- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

''And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me -- because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'N****r, n****r.'''

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-southern-strategy.htm


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/026214.php


http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-national-committee/michael-steele-acknowledges-gop-had-southern-strategy-for-decades/


http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/03/reagan_southern_strategy

 

Civil rights for minorities are still an issue, even in this guilded age

This is a talking point that makes no sense. So the Democratic Party became the party of atheists and whatever exactly the opposite of"conservatives values" are when black people became able to vote, sorta, in the 60s.

Conservative values are just code for racist nonsense.