- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Explain the Democrat party switch myth like I'm 5
Posted on 6/23/20 at 9:29 am to Rover Range
Posted on 6/23/20 at 9:29 am to Rover Range
I highly recommend searching PragerU's video on it. Quite informative.
Posted on 6/23/20 at 9:31 am to Rover Range
The switch is complete nonsense.
The Democrats didn't elect their first black senator until 1993.
The Democrats didn't elect their first black senator until 1993.
Posted on 6/23/20 at 9:31 am to Rover Range
The best way I can describe it is this-
If the parties truly switched in the late 60s after the Civil Right and Voting Rights Acts were passed, why did it take every Southern State another 20 years to elect Republican governors? Wouldn't the governor's mansions switched parties in the next election?
If the parties truly switched in the late 60s after the Civil Right and Voting Rights Acts were passed, why did it take every Southern State another 20 years to elect Republican governors? Wouldn't the governor's mansions switched parties in the next election?
Posted on 6/23/20 at 9:54 am to Rover Range
Dammit. Don't you know that a very small amount of dems switched to the gop..and a few rinos switched to the dem party.. so that means that the entirety of the Democrat history, before that... now belongs to the Republicans, and the history of the Republicans belong to the Democrats.
It must be nice to pretend that every fricking vile deed done by the Democrat party shouldn't be held over the heads of Democrats.... but Republicans instead. Those motherfrickers created the klan. They fought Lincoln every step of the way when it came to freeing slaves. They vehemently rejected giving black people and women the right to vote.
They are a party of evil. The tactics they are using now, are the same fricking tactics they used during their klan days. Intimidation and violence. False flags. Their targets used to be black people who weren't voting Democrat, and white people who weren't voting Democrat. Now, their targets are black people not voting Democrat and white people not voting Democrat.
Back during the dem klan, if they didn't like a black person... they'd lie and claim that the black dude did something he didn't do.. just so the mob would attack the black dude.
They were protected by that era's media, local politicians and national politicians. For a party that smugly claims to have"switched", they utilize every dirty trick of their predecessors.
It must be nice to pretend that every fricking vile deed done by the Democrat party shouldn't be held over the heads of Democrats.... but Republicans instead. Those motherfrickers created the klan. They fought Lincoln every step of the way when it came to freeing slaves. They vehemently rejected giving black people and women the right to vote.
They are a party of evil. The tactics they are using now, are the same fricking tactics they used during their klan days. Intimidation and violence. False flags. Their targets used to be black people who weren't voting Democrat, and white people who weren't voting Democrat. Now, their targets are black people not voting Democrat and white people not voting Democrat.
Back during the dem klan, if they didn't like a black person... they'd lie and claim that the black dude did something he didn't do.. just so the mob would attack the black dude.
They were protected by that era's media, local politicians and national politicians. For a party that smugly claims to have"switched", they utilize every dirty trick of their predecessors.
Posted on 6/23/20 at 9:56 am to Rover Range
I mean I think People can pretend all they want but it’s pretty clear in the 1960 the Dems started pushing civil rights and the south started voting republicans/segregationist candidates in national elections.
Barry Goldwater only 6 states. Arizona his home state and 5 Deep South States.
That’s not a demographic thing. That’s a voting issue thing.
Looking back it’s not like all Democrats were racist. The party essentially split in 1860.
The 1960 Civil Rights Act passed a Dem dominated House and Senate. And the 1964 Civil Right Act. With a Safe majority of Dem congressmen voting for both.
As some point the Dems stopped being for small government (Jackson destroyed the national bank) and republicans started being the party of “states rights”
Barry Goldwater only 6 states. Arizona his home state and 5 Deep South States.
That’s not a demographic thing. That’s a voting issue thing.
Looking back it’s not like all Democrats were racist. The party essentially split in 1860.
The 1960 Civil Rights Act passed a Dem dominated House and Senate. And the 1964 Civil Right Act. With a Safe majority of Dem congressmen voting for both.
As some point the Dems stopped being for small government (Jackson destroyed the national bank) and republicans started being the party of “states rights”
This post was edited on 6/23/20 at 10:15 am
Posted on 6/23/20 at 10:53 am to Floyd Dawg
quote:
If the parties truly switched in the late 60s after the Civil Right and Voting Rights Acts were passed, why did it take every Southern State another 20 years to elect Republican governors? Wouldn't the governor's mansions switched parties in the next election?
Southern Democrat’s could still win on a local level but the national party wasn’t putting up southern candidates.
Posted on 6/23/20 at 10:55 am to Rover Range
It’s a losing battle - I’m always surprised that folks on the right think that the party history will be an effective argument
Posted on 6/23/20 at 10:57 am to SirWinston
It’s an appealing argument to boomers and middling IQ types because they don’t grasp the fact this is only reinforces the left’s frame/narrative.
Posted on 6/23/20 at 11:00 am to Rover Range
I told an acquaintance of mine, “remember when you switched from being a KC fan to being a Broncos fan?” He said, “what? I hate the Broncos.”
Exactly.
Exactly.
Posted on 6/23/20 at 11:06 am to Rover Range
The South didn’t really switch to Republican until 2000 - 36 years after the media’s so called switch because Southerners are racist and didn’t like the civil rights act. The South still most went for Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Abortion was the real issue that drove the South to the Republicans in 2000 but the media won’t tell you that dirty little secret because it’s easier and hits harder to lie and say they all switched in 1964 because they’re racist.
Posted on 6/23/20 at 11:08 am to Rover Range
"I’ll have those [n-words] voting Democratic for 200 years"
- LBJ
- LBJ
Posted on 6/23/20 at 11:12 am to Rover Range
The Democrat Party came to the realization that, rather than show their utter disdain for blacks, it was more beneficial to pretend to help them in exchange for their votes. That's really the only switch.
Posted on 6/23/20 at 11:17 am to Rover Range
It's a complete myth
To believe it, you have to COMPLETELY ignore all other politics and look ONLY at race and even then, be a little retarded.
The problem with the whole switch thing is you have to pretend to not notice that FDR-LBJ-TODAY Democrats are policy brethren.
You have to somehow believe that a bunch of formerly small government Republicans who largely opposed things like the New Deal and the Great Society...……."switched" and effectively became Chuck Schumer.
Meanwhile, a bunch of racist assed Democrats who supported the ND and GS, "switched" and suddenly became basically, Newt Gingrich.
It's complete hogwash
To believe it, you have to COMPLETELY ignore all other politics and look ONLY at race and even then, be a little retarded.
The problem with the whole switch thing is you have to pretend to not notice that FDR-LBJ-TODAY Democrats are policy brethren.
You have to somehow believe that a bunch of formerly small government Republicans who largely opposed things like the New Deal and the Great Society...……."switched" and effectively became Chuck Schumer.
Meanwhile, a bunch of racist assed Democrats who supported the ND and GS, "switched" and suddenly became basically, Newt Gingrich.
It's complete hogwash
Posted on 6/23/20 at 11:17 am to Rover Range
The Democrat Party became more and more leftist, especially on the social issues and on National Security issues. Two of the three pillars of the Republican Party. As the south became more wealthy and developed a middle class the third pillar economic freedom became valued as well.
There were also local issues in different states that made Republicans appealing. In Louisiana Dave Treen wins because of corruption within the Edwards administration. But Louisiana had always historically switched between populists and reformers. And it still does that today.
There were also local issues in different states that made Republicans appealing. In Louisiana Dave Treen wins because of corruption within the Edwards administration. But Louisiana had always historically switched between populists and reformers. And it still does that today.
Posted on 6/23/20 at 11:19 am to SammyTiger
quote:Um...….for the ENTIRE Duration of the supposed "switch", the Dems have been FDR's love children.
As some point the Dems stopped being for small government (Jackson destroyed the national bank) and republicans started being the party of “states rights”
Reaching in to Andrew Jackson to try and play your silliness is just absurd.
Posted on 6/23/20 at 11:20 am to Knight of Old
quote:
"I’ll have those [n-words] voting Democratic for 200 years"
- LBJ

Posted on 6/23/20 at 11:21 am to ibldprplgld
quote:Carol Swain needs more FaceTime in prime-time.
Someone much smarter than I am explaining it here.
Her resume/ life achievements make me wonder what I've been doing. Raising kids and having a productive job doesn't scratch the surface of what she's accomplished
Posted on 6/23/20 at 11:22 am to Rover Range
I asked this question to one of my history professors in college.
He responded with the conservative elements of the Democratic party started to move to the Republican party while the progressive elements of the Republican party started to move to the Democratic party after the Kennedy assassination (he just used that time as a reference, he didn't say that's what caused it.) I believe the election of 1964 was the first that the majority of dixie states went red. Thus we have two sides that are vastly different from each other.
He responded with the conservative elements of the Democratic party started to move to the Republican party while the progressive elements of the Republican party started to move to the Democratic party after the Kennedy assassination (he just used that time as a reference, he didn't say that's what caused it.) I believe the election of 1964 was the first that the majority of dixie states went red. Thus we have two sides that are vastly different from each other.
This post was edited on 6/23/20 at 11:37 am
Posted on 6/23/20 at 11:31 am to SirWinston
quote:
It’s a losing battle - I’m always surprised that folks on the right think that the party history will be an effective argument
Truth is truth. Robert Byrd, Russell Long, William Fullbright, Hale Boggs, Al Gore Sr., and Richard Russell were life long democrats. The record speaks for itself. One party had Lincoln, the other eschewed Stephen Douglas for John Breckinridge.
Popular
Back to top
