Nixon's 'Southern Strategy' is a myth: it didn't work!

[itshappening]

This is a good post on Hotair in their thread on Rand's speech. The biggest problem with the South these days in political terms is that they seem content to vote Democrat senators like Pryor, Landreiu etc. who pretend to be conservative or had conservative records in State office but when they get to Washington they're lock-step with and supporting the liberal national Democrat (Obama/Reid/Durbin/Pelosi) agenda.

Someone needs to tell them and make it clear that it's not your daddy's Democrat Party any more.

It's a radical, liberal big government version.

Quit sending these fake conservative Democrats who vote for liberal legislation. If they did then the Democrats would have a tough time holding a Senate majority.

-
What ‘Southern Strategy’?

Nixon didn’t win the South in 1968. He split it with Wallace. Nixon won the South in 1972, but he also won every state in the Union save Massachusetts…and the District of Columbia.

Instead of blaming some phantom ‘Southern Strategy’ for losses, maybe, people should look at who the next two Democrat candidates were for POTUS were in 1968: Humphrey and McGovern.

The South was/is CONSERVATIVE. It was never going to vote for Liberal peaceniks.

Jimmy Carter won the ENTIRE South in 1976 a mere EIGHT YEARS after Nixon had supposedly crafted the Southern Strategy that was going to steal the region from the Democrats f-o-r-e-v-e-r. Sure, Carter lost the South in 1980, but he also lost 44 out of 50 states…not just the South.

Yes, Mondale and Dukakis lost the South, but Mondale lost every state except Minnesota – his home state – and he only won there by a mere 3,761 votes and Dukakis only won 10 states and the District of Columbia. In other words, it wasn’t just the South that voted against two liberals.

Clinton won Louisiana, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Kentucky in 1992. He won all of those except Georgia, which he swapped for Florida, in 1996.

Since the 1960s, there have been more Democrat governors in the South than Republicans and more Democratic legislatures. As I said, the South is CONSERVATIVE. It is not LIBERAL. It voted for CONSERVATIVE Democrats. It was never going to support Northern Liberals like Mario Cuomo, Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, Barack Obama, etc. It has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with philosophy.

Congressman Tim Scott beat Strom Thurmond’s son, a white guy, and became the first black Republican Representative from South Carolina in 114 years…and he beat the Democrat by a margin of 65 to 29 percent. There’s only one word to describe that kind of beating: B-R-U-T-A-L.

How bad of a beating was it? Consider this: Alvin Greene lost to Senator Jim DeMint by a margin of 63% to 28%.

The black Tim Scott beat the white Democrat by a larger margin than the white Senator, Jim DeMint, beat the black Alvin Greene.

He was elected on his character not the colour of his skin. He won because he is a Conservative.

Anyone, who believes that the South would’ve voted for Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary Clinton, Cuomo, etc., but for that nasty ‘Southern Strategy’ has lost her ever-loving mind.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013

[juleswin]

Myth means it never existed not it didn't work. Now to read the rest of the article

[itshappening]

I would be interested to hear the views of any Southern political watchers .

[RonPaulMall]

I would be interested to hear the views of any Southern political watchers .

Prior to 1964, the Republican Party didn't even properly exist in the South. The local GOP offices were often controlled by the local Democratic Parties who handed out leadership positions in the local GOP as political favors to "worthy" blacks. So to say that there wasn't a massive political transformation in the South at that time would be a little ridiculous. Prior to the 1960's, Southern whites voted Democratic 100% and blacks largely didn't vote. Today, Southern whites vote 75% and up for the GOP and blacks vote over 90% for the Dems.

If there is "myth" element to any of this it is the idea that any of this is "nasty", at least not on the GOP end. Unlike the Dems, the GOP never made an alliance with segregationists to win white voters. The "Southern Strategy" after all, first became evident in 1964 during the campaign of the most principled man the GOP ever nominated for the Presidency. The racial shift in the South occurred simply because the Dems went from Pro-Segregationists to Pro-Minority. The GOP on the other hand, simply maintained their colorblind policies.

[itshappening]

Prior to 1964, the Republican Party didn't even properly exist in the South. The local GOP offices were often controlled by the local Democratic Parties who handed out leadership positions in the local GOP as political favors to "worthy" blacks. So to say that there wasn't a massive political transformation in the South at that time would be a little ridiculous. Prior to the 1960's, Southern whites voted Democratic 100% and blacks largely didn't vote. Today, Southern whites vote 75% and up for the GOP and blacks vote over 90% for the Dems.

If there is "myth" element to any of this it is the idea that any of this is "nasty", at least not on the GOP end. Unlike the Dems, the GOP never made an alliance with segregationists to win white voters. The "Southern Strategy" after all, first became evident in 1964 during the campaign of the most principled man the GOP ever nominated for the Presidency. The racial shift in the South occurred simply because the Dems went from Pro-Segregationists to Pro-Minority. The GOP on the other hand, simply maintained their colorblind policies.

WHy are we seeing these red state Dems time and time again such as Pryor, Manchin, Landreiu and so on. They're voting to expand government and on a liberal agenda under Obama/Reid/Pelosi. This is not your daddy's Democrat Party. Why do they keep sending them to DC? If they stopped sending these morons the Dems would not have a senate majority.

[RonPaulMall]

WHy are we seeing these red state Dems time and time again such as Pryor, Manchin, Landreiu and so on. They're voting to expand government and on a liberal agenda under Obama/Reid/Pelosi. This is not your daddy's Democrat Party. Why do they keep sending them to DC? If they stopped sending these morons the Dems would not have a senate majority.

Well, one thing you don't seem to be considering is that most black people (who vote Dem over 90%) live in the South. Louisiana, for example, is 32% black. So a potential Democratic candidate only needs a small minority of the white vote in order to win an election. That they so rarely win that small minority is a testament to the success of the "Southern Strategy". West Virginia is not a Southern State. Louisiana is a unique Southern state that has a Protestant/Catholic divide among the white vote helps Dems peel off enough of those white voters. Arkansas has been a Democratic holdout. Dems still control the statehouse there, which is pretty much unheard of in the South anymore. Why that is I don't know. Perhaps the local Dem party is particularly skilled. Perhaps Arkansas Republicans have been particularly unskilled. Perhaps there is some unique dynamic in Arkansas that distinguishes it from Georgia or Mississippi. I don't know. But the point is, 19 of the 26 Senators from the former Confederate States are Republican. 10 out of 13 Governors are Republican. That is domination, and considering the party barely existed in the South prior to the 1960's, it has to be viewed as a pretty epic transformation.

[parocks]

This is a good post on Hotair in their thread on Rand's speech. The biggest problem with the South these days in political terms is that they seem content to vote Democrat senators like Pryor, Landreiu etc. who pretend to be conservative or had conservative records in State office but when they get to Washington they're lock-step with and supporting the liberal national Democrat (Obama/Reid/Durbin/Pelosi) agenda.

Someone needs to tell them and make it clear that it's not your daddy's Democrat Party any more.

It's a radical, liberal big government version.

Quit sending these fake conservative Democrats who vote for liberal legislation. If they did then the Democrats would have a tough time holding a Senate majority.

-
What ‘Southern Strategy’?

Nixon didn’t win the South in 1968. He split it with Wallace. Nixon won the South in 1972, but he also won every state in the Union save Massachusetts…and the District of Columbia.

Instead of blaming some phantom ‘Southern Strategy’ for losses, maybe, people should look at who the next two Democrat candidates were for POTUS were in 1968: Humphrey and McGovern.

The South was/is CONSERVATIVE. It was never going to vote for Liberal peaceniks.

Jimmy Carter won the ENTIRE South in 1976 a mere EIGHT YEARS after Nixon had supposedly crafted the Southern Strategy that was going to steal the region from the Democrats f-o-r-e-v-e-r. Sure, Carter lost the South in 1980, but he also lost 44 out of 50 states…not just the South.

Yes, Mondale and Dukakis lost the South, but Mondale lost every state except Minnesota – his home state – and he only won there by a mere 3,761 votes and Dukakis only won 10 states and the District of Columbia. In other words, it wasn’t just the South that voted against two liberals.

Clinton won Louisiana, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Kentucky in 1992. He won all of those except Georgia, which he swapped for Florida, in 1996.

Since the 1960s, there have been more Democrat governors in the South than Republicans and more Democratic legislatures. As I said, the South is CONSERVATIVE. It is not LIBERAL. It voted for CONSERVATIVE Democrats. It was never going to support Northern Liberals like Mario Cuomo, Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, Barack Obama, etc. It has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with philosophy.

Congressman Tim Scott beat Strom Thurmond’s son, a white guy, and became the first black Republican Representative from South Carolina in 114 years…and he beat the Democrat by a margin of 65 to 29 percent. There’s only one word to describe that kind of beating: B-R-U-T-A-L.

How bad of a beating was it? Consider this: Alvin Greene lost to Senator Jim DeMint by a margin of 63% to 28%.

The black Tim Scott beat the white Democrat by a larger margin than the white Senator, Jim DeMint, beat the black Alvin Greene.

He was elected on his character not the colour of his skin. He won because he is a Conservative.

Anyone, who believes that the South would’ve voted for Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary Clinton, Cuomo, etc., but for that nasty ‘Southern Strategy’ has lost her ever-loving mind.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013

Well, in 2010, Blacks voted for the Black candidate and the GOP voted for the GOP.
In 2012, Blacks voted for the Black candidate and the GOP voted for the GOP.

The difference is that the Black was GOP in 2012.

Anyway, there was a southern strategy. Typically, the GOP has done well in the southern states in Presidential elections. Democrats have a "northeast, west coast, great lakes strategy".

[itshappening]

Well, one thing you don't seem to be considering is that most black people (who vote Dem over 90%) live in the South. Louisiana, for example, is 32% black. So a potential Democratic candidate only needs a small minority of the white vote in order to win an election. That they so rarely win that small minority is a testament to the success of the "Southern Strategy". West Virginia is not a Southern State. Louisiana is a unique Southern state that has a Protestant/Catholic divide among the white vote helps Dems peel off enough of those white voters. Arkansas has been a Democratic holdout. Dems still control the statehouse there, which is pretty much unheard of in the South anymore. Why that is I don't know. Perhaps the local Dem party is particularly skilled. Perhaps Arkansas Republicans have been particularly unskilled. Perhaps there is some unique dynamic in Arkansas that distinguishes it from Georgia or Mississippi. I don't know. But the point is, 19 of the 26 Senators from the former Confederate States are Republican. 10 out of 13 Governors are Republican. That is domination, and considering the party barely existed in the South prior to the 1960's, it has to be viewed as a pretty epic transformation.

Thanks for this analysis. The problem for the GOP is they need more than 19 out of 26 of those senate seats from the South. If they just had 2 or 3 more that would be nice. Maybe they will in future but it's annoying. If you combine the fact that the GOP is unable to run the table in the South with just 19/26 with the other conservative states like Montana which strangely has 2 Dem senators, West Virginia plus a Dem in AK. Then you can see these are all states who voted for Romney 60%+ and yet are basically keeping Reid and Dicky Durbin in power comfortably and so they're able to drive through liberal legislation like gun control.

I am hoping that after another 4 years of Obama and Obamacare coming in 2014 then that should be the final nail in the coffin for allegedly conservative Dems. Gun control might do it too but if any GOP members supply Reid with votes on his bill then he can "allow" his red staters to vote against it strategically. This is completely nuts from the GOP if any of them vote for it because the more that do the more cover Reid can give to his red staters. Irony is that the GOP are HELPING their re-election !!

[jmdrake]

Richard Nixon implemented the first federal affirmative action program. So if pandering to black people in order to make white racists vote for you was the "southern strategy"....well....I don't get it. :confused:

Here's an affirmative action timeline:

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/aahist.html

Note that this timeline attempts to give JFK credit for affirmative action, but that's inaccurate. JFK may have first used the phrase, but it was not affirmative action as we know it. (Set aside quotas for minorities). Instead it was "affirmative action against discrimination." Same with Johnson. It was Nixon that first made target goals.

1961. President John F. Kennedy's Executive Order (E.O.) 10925 used affirmative action for the first time by instructing federal contractors to take "affirmative action to ensure that applicants are treated equally without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Created the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity.

1964. Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law. This was landmark legislation prohibiting employment discrimination by large employers (over 15 employees), whether or not they have government contracts. Established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

1965. President Lyndon B. Johnson issued E.O. 11246, requiring all government contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to expand job opportunities for minorities. Established Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCC) in the Department of Labor to administer the order.

1967. President Johnson amended E.O. 11246 to include affirmative action for women. Federal contractors now required to make good-faith efforts to expand employment opportunities for women and minorities.

1970. The Labor Department, under President Richard M. Nixon, issued Order No.4, authorizing flexible goals and timetables to correct "underutilization" of minorities by federal contractors.

1971. Order No.4 was revised to include women.

1971. President Nixon issued E.O. 11625, directing federal agencies to develop comprehensive plans and specific program goals for a national Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) contracting program.

1973. The Nixon administration issued "Memorandum-Permissible Goals and Timetables in State and Local Government Employment Practices," distinguishing between proper goals and timetables and impermissible quotas.

[otherone]

Also to be considered is the huge influx of yankees into the Carolinas.