Southern Strategy: Did The Parties Switch?

Okay let's do this! (AGAIN)

Let's have a debate about the Southern Strategy. Did it really occur or is it a myth? Feel free to join in.

Instead, let's debate the issue, point by point, shall we?

First of all, I have to point out that your use of the word "Denialism" is offensive and antisemitic. Please refrain from using that. It trivializes the phrase "Holocaust deniers" and is often used against climate skeptics calling them "science deniers". It's very offensive usage to many Jewish people. Ironically, Holocaust deniers try to rewrite history which is what you are similarly doing by claiming the political parties switched.

It's true that a good part of the reason Ford lost in 1976 is due to Nixon but it is also Ford himself who made a major blunder in the Presidential debate. Plus, Jimmy Carter had a nice smile. It had little to do with race.

Again, please don't use that offensive word.

So let's begin the debate about the Southern Strategy. I will allow you to go first. If you want to convince me that the parties switched, you must prove the following three things:

1) When did the parties switch. Give me a date or a range of time.

2) Who switched. This means politicians and the general public.

3) What political policies or party platforms changed and when?

You must convince me this happened by proving all 3 of these things.

I yield the floor to you. Please keep your arguments short, focused and concise. Try to make one argument per post and let's set a limit of one link per post as well.

Poll is public, closes in 6 months and you are allowed to change your vote.

 

Nice try;

https://dictionary.apa.org/denial

Denial is not an Anti-Semitic term it is a psychological mechanism. You happen to be gripped by an extreme case of DENIALISM.

I don't care what party the people who started executing southern murderers of freed slaves belonged to. But I do believe they were justified in doing so.

I gave you a source for all of your questions and you said it was fake news, which it is not. You then failed to provide any evidence of your position that I asked for. So no, I'm not gonna participate in this troll game you are playing.

 

Did webster just change the meaning? Because it said "Denialism" was offensive a few minutes ago

 

I have discovered that the only way for a liberal to win this debate is not to participate. You win. Bye bye.

LOL LOL

 

PS Could you please switch you vote to "unsure" as you apparently don't know much about the subject of the thread.

Thank you.

The Management

 

Complete and utter BOVINE EXCREMENT on your part!

The term HOLOCAUST deniers is offensive and antisemitic.

The term DENIERS is NOT antisemitic and no amount of DESPERATION on your part is going to alter that FACT!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denialism

FACTS matter, try sticking to them!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats

Those are the UNDENIABLE FACTS!

It is utterly IRRELEVANT whether or not YOU choose to DENY those FACTS .

Have a nice day!

 

Where do YOU see the term "offensive" at this link for Merriam-Webster's dictionary?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denialism

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3321972/

 

There was a switch, but it was a little bit more complex than that.

Not every group switched. It was more like a "re-aligning".

Goldwater had previously paved the way and showed that a "Southern strategy" could work, although he ended up losing the election. Nixon followed the path with the same strategy the next year.

Fascinatingly, the Democrat Party carried a lot of their same ideals of an egalitarian society, albeit it previously it had been a little bit more of an egalitarian ideal within a, what we today might call a "white supremacist" ideology.
That is, so fascinating and ironically, a lot of roots (or at least precedent) for "equality" today originated from very racist origins.
You see, back then, the Democrat Party could afford to be a lot more "egalitarian" and "Democratic" because it was really only a certain limited segment of society they were talking about.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party of the time resembled in many ways the Democratic Party of today. Big city politics. Except it didn't really have the racism, at least not at its upper echelons, because the population in the northern states at the time were almost entirely white.
So it was full of all the same type of "elitism" that the Democratic Party is today.

Republicanism was so called because they didn't think the masses could be trusted to vote (lots of unwashed masses in the city and urban poverty), at least not directly.

Whereas the "Democrats" in the South wanted a more direct democracy - of only white people voting.

Today those concepts have been totally twisted around on their head.

 

It doesn't bother you that webster is now making stuff up as they go??

 

It doesn't bother you that what you alleged has been PROVEN to be 100% false?

 

If you insist upon using antisemitic terms after having been warned that's your choice.

Your link and quotation doesn't answer any of the 3 questions, who (switched), what (policies switched), and when (did the switch take place).

 

Well that is just doubling down on antisemitism and not on the main subject of the thread which is the Southern Strategy.

 

By whom? You just can never get over the fact the new generation southerners rejected the Democrat party not because of race but because of economics.

No one changed party's except three the rest remained Democrats, hell the mayor of Atlanta has been Democrat for like a 100 years.

 

I've only watched the first few minutes of this. It has some good information. Sorry about the host's language but he's got a crude mouth. I like a lot of his videos but he doesn't exactly have the filters he should have. Other than that he is good and presents some unique videos and still pictures. This is the real history of racism, the Democrats and the KKK. Please watch.

 

I see. What proof can you show that republicans only want white people to vote?

 

I think you are misunderstanding what I said.

 

Which means you have no proof.

 

Proof of what? Something I never said or meant?

 

Perhaps I misinterpreted this.

 

Kneejerk DENIALISM on your part does NOT refute any of the FACTS that I provided.

But that is ALL you have left now!

Sad!

 

The HISTORICAL facts!

 

By not answering the questions you haven't provided facts.

 

No amount of DENIALISM on your part alters the FACTS that I provided in the LINK and QUOTED in my prior post in this thread,

 

Now we back on the antisemitism.

QED