Can Conservatives ever quit the Southern Strategy?

[GennGreymane]

I wish I knew how to quit you!

[rogueMatthias]

I'll refer you to my above post inquiring "what Hillary clinton would have done worse than Trump."


Hell even Trump supporters could never tell me what the problems with her platform were. Probably because they knew neither her nor Trump's platform (what little existed of the latter's) to begin with.

We can't really predict what Clinton would have done by now. Clinton's hawkishness and her strong belief in American Exceptionalism were a dangerous combination.

[Taso]

What southern strategy? Nixon didn't just win the south he won 49/50 states. Republicans didn't win state elections until deep in the 90s and early 2000s. Even now their are still southern democrats who control some of the most populated cities in those southern states.

[Theodarzna]

We can't really predict what Clinton would have done by now. Clinton's hawkishness and her strong belief in American Exceptionalism were a dangerous combination.

At the end of the day has anythingTrump ha she ever done been as bad as Hillarys Iraq war vote? How many people were sentenced to death by that decision?

[Kujako]

At the end of the day has anythingTrump ha she ever done been as bad as Hillarys Iraq war vote? How many people were sentenced to death by that decision?

Yeah, they never should have put the entire thing in the hands of one senator like that.

[Kaleredar]

We can't really predict what Clinton would have done by now. Clinton's hawkishness and her strong belief in American Exceptionalism were a dangerous combination.

...versus Trump threatening North Korea with nuclear hellfire all while pushing an "us vs them" mentality for every other country on the planet?


Yawn.

[Glorious Leader]

This is a ludicrous series of statements. Identity politics is divisive, and a scourge upon decency. It pits everyone against a perceived majority, despite the fact that the sum of the groups, when added together, IS THE MAJORITY. It's completely nonsensical, and bigoted, to subscribe to dividing people up by identity.

The morally superior method, is to stand for the smallest minority of them all: The individual. Group think is not a good thing, and it leads to tyranny.

The entirety of the trump campaign was run on and won by identity politics.

For the record appealing to the individual is also potentially quite divisive.

[Tijuana]

Maybe the "majority", or rather, group in power, should have not started it then.

Black people would have no reason to complain about racism if whites hadn't enslaved, lynched and later made them second class citizens.

Gay and trans people would have no reason to complain about homo- / transphobia if straights had not been, and would not still be, discriminating against them and murder them.

Women would have no reason to complain about misogyny if men would not have, and still are, been violating, raping and treating them like second class citizens.

Identity politics started when whites, straights and men decided they were better than the others.

Blacks were NOT enslaved, lynched, or made second class citizens by Republicans. Yet, they would never vote anything but Democrat, the party that factually did these things to them.

The rest of your post is just drivel, and not worthy of discussion. I feel sorry for anyone who actually thinks such untrue things are real.

Identity politics started when Democrats realized their efforts to help the poor, were getting them black votes, despite being actively against blacks.

[Vyuvarax]

Blacks were NOT enslaved, lynched, or made second class citizens by Republicans. Yet, they would never vote anything but Democrat, the party that factually did these things to them.

The rest of your post is just drivel, and not worthy of discussion. I feel sorry for anyone who actually thinks such untrue things are real.

Identity politics started when Democrats realized their efforts to help the poor, were getting them black votes, despite being actively against blacks.

Southern democrats in favor of racial segregation joined the Republican Party decades ago. That was part of Nixon's southern strategy. Amazing you can be this dumb in a thread on the very topic.

[Tijuana]

All politics is divisive, not all agree, people have competing objectives. Everyone is against each other, even if you do not wish to acknowledge it. People divide themselves up by identity as is. There never was nor ever will be a day when that isn't true.

I never said that humans would stop grouping themselves in various ways. Rather, that we need to stop grouping ourselves by appearance. If MLK had lived longer, he would have fought against this race baiting. EQUALITY is the goal, not pay back for dead ancestors.

The Democrat view of race is completely repugnant. The notion that skin tone means something, is sick and wrong. It doesn't mean anything. Obama did not grow up in black culture, and he had zero trouble navigating a successful career as a black man. I'm not aware of anyone standing in Obama's way, at any point in his life, over his skin color.

Groups like BLM, and other racist entities, have no interest in moving past race. They just want to be the big dog, so they can "get back" at white people who they perceive as villains, based on the color of their skin. Their answer to racism is, more racism. Genius!

- - - Updated - - -

Southern democrats in favor of racial segregation joined the Republican Party decades ago. That was part of Nixon's southern strategy. Amazing you can be this dumb in a thread on the very topic.

Clearly you have not read my other comments. Prior to Nixon, the Southern Strategy was just the Democrat strategy. Democrats ran on racism for 200 years, and now they want to tar and feather Republicans for doing it in ONE election, that didn't even work. Please.

Also, I did not insult you, or call you names. Why not keep it civil, instead? Were you not taught in school that, using insults and name calling makes your arguments weaker, not stronger? Really no teacher taught you that before?

[Vyuvarax]

Clearly you have not read my other comments. Prior to Nixon, the Southern Strategy was just the Democrat strategy. Democrats ran on racism for 200 years, and now they want to tar and feather Republicans for doing it in ONE election, that didn't even work. Please.

Also, I did not insult you, or call you names. Why not keep it civil, instead? Were you not taught in school that, using insults and name calling makes your arguments weaker, not stronger? Really no teacher taught you that before?

There is no point in being civil with someone who blatantly misinformed people. The Southern Strategy was used in every Southern Republican campaign in Nixon's campaign year (it overwhelmingly worked) and has continued to be used to this day. You can look at any body of information to see what party racists and the KKK vote for in modern elections. Hint:think red.

Your acting otherwise is dishonest, and blatant dishonesty is not civil. You deserve no such favor when you're so immoral.

[Tijuana]

There is no point in being civil with someone who blatantly misinformed people. The Southern Strategy was used in every Southern Republican campaign in Nixon's campaign year (it overwhelmingly worked) and has continued to be used to this day. You can look at any body of information to see what party racists and the KKK vote for in modern elections. Hint:think red.

Your acting otherwise is dishonest, and blatant dishonesty is not civil. You deserve no such favor when you're so immoral.

How is it then, that the Congress was not won by the south until 1994? It is you, who is misinformed my friend.

Yes, of course white racists don't vote for Democrats. NOBODY is denying that. But that doesn't make all Republicans racist. The modern day neo-racists call THEMSELVES the alt-right, but they are not welcome. These racist movements are authoritarian and collectivist, both dirty words in the modern American right. These neo-Nazis have NOTHING to do with Conservatism. They only reason they vote for Republicans, is because Democrats champion minorities. That is literally the only connection to the ideologies, is that they both hate Democrats.

My point is two fold. One, the really terrible things done to black Americans (slavery/Jim Crow/Segregation) were ALL done by Democrats, and they have yet to apologize, or even acknowledge those crimes. Two, actual facts do not support "the big switch" being due to racism, as the various groups moved as much as two generations before and after the civil rights movement. Blacks changed sides in the 1930's, at the height of the KKK, segregation, and Jim Crow. The South didn't elect a GOP congress until 1994. Therefore, in order to accept the "big switch" being based on race relations, you have to accept the notion that black voters were unaware of what Democrats were up to, and that white Southerners didn't notice that Democrats stopped being racist for two generations. Both of these seem pretty silly.

The reality is, race and racism has little to do with why the South votes GOP, if we look at the facts.

[Vyuvarax]

How is it then, that the Congress was not won by the south until 1994? It is you, who is misinformed my friend.

Yes, of course white racists don't vote for Democrats. NOBODY is denying that. But that doesn't make all Republicans racist. The modern day neo-racists call THEMSELVES the alt-right, but they are not welcome. These racist movements are authoritarian and collectivist, both dirty words in the modern American right. These neo-Nazis have NOTHING to do with Conservatism. They only reason they vote for Republicans, is because Democrats champion minorities. That is literally the only connection to the ideologies, is that they both hate Democrats.

My point is two fold. One, the really terrible things done to black Americans (slavery/Jim Crow/Segregation) were ALL done by Democrats, and they have yet to apologize, or even acknowledge those crimes. Two, actual facts do not support "the big switch" being due to racism, as the various groups moved as much as two generations before and after the civil rights movement. Blacks changed sides in the 1930's, at the height of the KKK, segregation, and Jim Crow. The South didn't elect a GOP congress until 1994. Therefore, in order to accept the "big switch" being based on race relations, you have to accept the notion that black voters were unaware of what Democrats were up to, and that white Southerners didn't notice that Democrats stopped being racist for two generations. Both of these seem pretty silly.

The reality is, race and racism has little to do with why the South votes GOP, if we look at the facts.

More blatant dishonesty. The Southern strategy being successful - which it was - does not guarantee you control of congress. Your claims are so misinformational. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Tijuana]

More blatant dishonesty. The Southern strategy being successful - which it was - does not guarantee you control of congress. Your claims are so misinformational. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Having a different opinion from yours is not dishonesty. None of my facts presented are untrue. This is why Democrats can't win elections anymore.

[Vyuvarax]

Having a different opinion from yours is not dishonesty. None of my facts presented are untrue. This is why Democrats can't win elections anymore.

That you can win a majority of congressional seats in the south and not have control of congress - which you are trying to deny - is what makes you dishonest. So yes, you have said things that are untrue. Go sulk and come back when you're ready to adult conversation. Leave the little kid lying outside.

[Tijuana]

That you can win a majority of congressional seats in the south and not have control of congress - which you are trying to deny - is what makes you dishonest. So yes, you have said things that are untrue. Go sulk and come back when you're ready to adult conversation. Leave the little kid lying outside.

You don't understand what I said. That is the only problem here. I didn't say what you are refuting. I said that the GOP didn't win THE SOUTH, not the whole thing, THE SOUTH until 1994. Look it up, brah.

[PC2]

Having a different opinion from yours is not dishonesty. None of my facts presented are untrue. This is why Democrats can't win elections anymore.

But can a person ever be above identity politics while still citing particular parties? To me it seems that any defense/criticism based on party is going to create a barrier of mistrust among party members who last voted the other way.

[Vyuvarax]

You don't understand what I said. That is the only problem here. I didn't say what you are refuting. I said that the GOP didn't win THE SOUTH, not the whole thing, THE SOUTH until 1994. Look it up, brah.

You claimed the Southern strategy wasn't successful until 1994. Again, a blatant lie by numerous metrics as early as Nixon's original Southern strategy. The South began leaving democrats as soon as they endorsed the civil rights bill and republicans didn't. So your claim it wasn't about race is also factually wrong.

[PC2]

You claimed the Southern strategy wasn't successful until 1994. Again, a blatant lie by numerous metrics as early as Nixon's original Southern strategy. The South began leaving democrats as soon as they endorsed the civil rights bill and republicans didn't. So your claim it wasn't about race is also factually wrong.

More party bickering. Let's ask a more interesting question. Does a racial strategy for getting elected in 2017 actually help the related racial groups? It's not a like a person can become president and secretly channel well-being to certain races.

[Vyuvarax]

More party bickering. Let's ask a more interesting question. Does a racial strategy for getting elected in 2017 actually help the related racial groups? It's not a like a person can become president and secretly channel well-being to certain races.

One person being honest and another caught being a liar is party bickering? Your false equivalencies are more partisan than anything you think you're decrying.