Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Weekly Open Thread: What races are you interested in? (360 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Disagree with your last sentence... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, gabjoh, sacman701

    Civil rights had been an issue that Democrats had been evolving on since the 1930's.  There were lots of splits, but FDR, Truman, etc. all made strong attempts to advance civil rights against the wishes of many of it's members.  The GOP may have been the party of lincoln, but it did little to advance the cause (even if it did not actively hinder it).  While the civil rights bills of the 60's were big in bringing minorities to the Democratic party, I think that Nixon's blatant race baiting did much more.

    I find it hard to believe that the the GOP would get much credit for immigration reform, considering what people are hearing from the GOP base.  Yes, southern democrats screamed just as much in the 60's, but there are two big differences here.  One, a Democratic president pushed those initiatives.  Two, the Democrats didn't do it to get more votes.  The minority vote was paltry back then.  I would say that had Bush managed to get immigration reform through, the GOP probably would be in much, much better shape, because he would have gotten a lot of credit for going against much of his base.  Right now, I have a hard time believing that anyone will get much credit from their side for what is clearly an attempt to pander for voters--one that will be vehemently opposed in the press by most of the GOP base.

    But, who knows.  The GOP are master manipulators.  They might make a winning case out of this, yet.

    GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

    by LordMike on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 10:06:32 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Hence why whenever a non-white Republican (9+ / 0-)

      says they are Republican because it's the party of Lincoln because he emancipated the slaves while the Democrats are the party of the Confederacy (rum, romanism, and rebellion) I roll my eyes.  That was ages ago when politics and the Overton window was vastly different.  Lincoln was a liberal in his own right as he believed in a centralized US government at all costs, instituted the first income tax (to cover war costs in part), and was opposed to nullification.  Democrats were the conservatives calling for decentralized government, nullification, and the right to own slaves as property and the government should stay out of it.

      "Didn't anyone ever tell you? There's one thing you never put in a trap—if you're smart, if you value your continued existence, if you have any plans about seeing tomorrow—there's one thing you never—ever, put in a trap. …Me." -The Eleventh Doctor

      by KingofSpades on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 10:39:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  entirely different time period (6+ / 0-)

        I hate conservatives as much as the next guy, but there are a lot of things people tend to gloss over

        1. being antislavery didn't necessarily mean supporting civil rights for blacks

        2. blacks were voting for democrats before 1964. 1936 is the first election where polls showed them voting dem. They were probably closer to hispanics now however.

        3. blacks started voting democrat because they were often introduced to leftist politics from the eastern european immigrants when they came to the urban centers. Southern black however, who were mostly disenfranchised and declining in %, voted republican until 1964 (I read this in Kevin Phillips book)

        4. the south was voting republican as early as 1952. It wasn't a racial factor as much as it was economic. Areas like Charlotte, NOVA, St Petersburg, Dallas were prosperous metro areas and the rural corrupt pork barrel dixiecrat structure didn't reasonate as much. A lot of the residents weren't even from the south.

        RRH expat (known as AquarianLeft). Also known as freepcrusher on leip atlas forum

        by demographicarmageddon on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 10:58:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's true (6+ / 0-)

          Texas went for Eisenhower both times and even putting LBJ on the ticket BARELY put JFK across the line there in 1960. JFK also did worse in the south arguably than Adlai Stevenson did, overall. He BARELY won South Carolina in 1960...and that was when Strom Thurmond was still a Democrat. To say that "it started with the Civil Rights Act of 1964" is simply false.

          •  Ike also pandered to southern evangelicals (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LordMike

            by working closely with the likes of Billy Graham and Abraham Vereide despite not being evangelical himself.

            "Didn't anyone ever tell you? There's one thing you never put in a trap—if you're smart, if you value your continued existence, if you have any plans about seeing tomorrow—there's one thing you never—ever, put in a trap. …Me." -The Eleventh Doctor

            by KingofSpades on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 10:31:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  JFK's Catholicism hurt him too. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LordMike, HoosierD42, bythesea

            20, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
            politicohen.com
            Love the class war, hate identity politics and purism
            UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.4.12, -4.92

            by jncca on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 12:29:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  All very good points (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, KingofSpades

      I hope you're right -- and you probably will be. It's just a worry that comes to me sometimes, born out of the myriad examples of IOKIYAR and things like President Bush's favorability rebounding now that he's out of office -- all the stuff that makes me question just how long a political memory Americans actually have, for all of the memes and trends and scandals-of-the-day that punctuate the news cycle.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site