Talk:Southern Strategy

	This United States politics related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

(create an archive)

Topic

"In 1968, this strategy failed." ORLY? Since that's when Nixon finally won the Prizidincy? Must read more, artikle might need help. ħuman 23:31, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Nixon failed in the south in 1968, that's what it means. Should rewrite though since he did (just barely) win the election. Secret Squirrel 23:41, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Thanks. ħuman 23:49, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Think this could use headers for each election cycle to organize it? ħuman 23:50, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Yup. Really snarky headers or what? Secret Squirrel 23:52, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

I messed with the idea. We need to point out that Carter was the anti-Watergate candidate, especially if we can do it four words or less ;) ħuman 23:54, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Is this a serious article

...or just cut n' paste talking points from the DNC website? nobs^{Ye shall all perish in flames - Kim Jong-un} 05:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you google for "Sauls, a lifelong Democrat," to try to squish a quote into the article, you dissembling liar? Hipocrite (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No, "lifelong" came up in the most results. nobs^{Ye shall all perish in flames - Kim Jong-un} 05:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

One of President Obama's early mentors, wp:Michael Barone, editor of the wp:Almanac of American Politics is an a good source about how the Democratic Party stills dominates Southern local politcs; and the evidence the RNC has made inroads in Presidential politics is scant over the past 49 years.. nobs^{Ye shall all perish in flames - Kim Jong-un} 05:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure you didn't google for "Sauls, a lifelong Democrat?" If I can prove you did, will you LANCB? Hipocrite (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

How could you prove that? nobs^{Ye shall all perish in flames - Kim Jong-un} 17:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ooow, I gettit now. Nah; the only results that came up for Sauls+Democrat was Newsmax or another Sauls [1]. Since Newsmax is no good, I did use the accelarator for a better source. But all results seem to quote from the NYT or Washington Post for the phrase in question. nobs^{Ye shall all perish in flames - Kim Jong-un} 18:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

So, when you said "No, "lifelong" came up in the most results," were you lying? Hipocrite (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No. Newsmax was quoting the NYT; when it was re-googled, a few scholarly books came up all quoting the NYT and Washington Post. But Micahel Barone has even a better explanation how Democrats still dominate the South at the local level. And bottomline, you can't prove the GOP had any advantage in 1968, 1976, 1992, 1996, 2008, or 2012. The premise of this article is just flawed, nobs^{Ye shall all perish in flames - Kim Jong-un} 01:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Silent majority

What joke WP's Silent majority article is. After saying Nixon's silent majority speech gave Nixon an 81% approval rating, it goes on to say it was an attempt to divide the country. Even Nixon wasn't that stupid, but WP's showing it sure is. nobs^{Dump Trump} 20:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but your bullshit still doesn't make any sense

In the It's a myth section says, "from day one"; and the other quote references 1971 plans for the 1972 elections. Please please please if the authors of this crap wish to have a dimes worth of credibly, drop the motherfucking reference to 1968 in the Intro. "from day one" obviously refers to January 21, 1969, the day Nixon was sworn into office. Now, how long are you ignorant, hard headed liberals going to stand by blatantly flawed propagandistic revisionism in the face of facts which anyone, everyone, can easily see what it is? Your historical methodology and reasoning border on pseudoscience. nobs^{Trump/Sanders 2016} 15:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

So are you calling Lee Atwater a liar? Maybe he was really a deep cover liberal! --Ymir (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Sorry, but I just don't see it. In 1956 South Carolina, what Atwater was speaking about, Democrats still said "Nigger nigger nigger" and Democrats carried the state. Same was true for subsequent elections.

CNN recently ran a series on Presidential elections; CNN claimed Nixon & Martin Luther King were good friends. Jack & Bobby Kennedy didn't know King. Bobby was totally opposed to getting involved with King.

You still haven't not addressed the fundamentally flawed premise that Nixon used some sort of "Southern strategy" in 1968. Yes, he did in 1972 because George Wallace was not a factor.

Now, the only "Southern strategy" Nixon used in 1968 was a "Texas strategy". Combining the Electoral votes of Nixon's native California with Texas, one-third of all Electoral votes, and Nixon won. This was possible because Lyndon Johnson of Texas was not a factor.

John Kennedy pursued what you allege is a "Southern Strategy" in 1960 by carrying Texas with Johnson on the ticket. So, Kennedy pursuing a Southern Strategy combined with his controversial outreach to King (which Bobby opposed) makes both Jack and Bobby racists, according to this article.

Nixon's biggest regret in his afterlife was not making John Connally VP rather than Spiro Agnew in both 1968 and 1972. Connally was the guy riding in the car with Jack Kennedy when Kennedy was killed. The guy shot by the "magic bullet". But Nixon figured at that time that the GOP convention wouldn't go for an ex-Democrat as his heir-apparent, which shoots another hole in you "Southern strategy" theory. Connally was chased out of the Democratic party by the McGovern-Fraser Commission reforms. In fact, if the Democrats had Superdelegates in 1968 or 1972, Connally probably would have been a Democrat til the day he died.

So yes, there was a Southern strategy in 1972, which is what Atwater, Buchanan, and Kevin Phillips speak of; but this article characterizes it with fatally flawed errors that make the issue appear as rubbish.

Facts are: Goldwater courted Southern states, the same way Jack Kennedy & FDR did (FDR, for instance, long opposed the GOP's Anti-Lynching Bill). Goldwater got in bed with Southern Democrat segregationists & racists. That did not necessarily make Goldwater a racist anymore than Kennedy or FDR, or Adlai Stevenson for that matter. Nixon, in 1972 pursuing the same states Goldwater won, proving a Republican could win the South 100 years after the Civil War, didn't make Nixon a racist, either. But there no evidence whatsoever Nixon pursued anything other than Texas in 1968, which had cost him the 1960 contest against Kennedy.

It was McGovern-Fraser that caused Democrats to leave the Democrat party after 1968, and the birth of a "Southern strategy" inside Nixon's White House for the 1972 election. And George Wallace's shooting in May of 1972, handicapping Wallace's Democratic nomination bid, handing the nomination to a loser-McGovern, had more to do with the success of Nixon's Southern strategy than anything else.

Bottomline, the contortions to allege Nixon was pursuing some racially motivated strategy in 1968 undermines the credibility of the article and makes look like what it is-partisan hogwash. nobs^{#NeverHillary} 06:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Proof for this quote?

"Part of this strategy also involved wooing ultraconservative Southern Democratic senators to switch parties, and most did." To my knowledge, only Strom Thurmond switched parties. I am not denying the Southern Strategy, just this rather inaccurate sentence.

Ok. Please rewrite that sentence with at least one source backing it up. Thanks! Nerd (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

There were a number of politicians who switched party. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

All the sources seem to be conservative websites, but Strom was then only ultraconservative Southern Democratic senator. The rest of the Southern Democratic senators (Fulbright, Gore Sr., KKK Byrd, Ervin, Hollings, etc.) were liberal.

The big fish the GOP reeled in was Gov. John Connally of Texas, the guy whom the magic bullet went threw riding ahead of Kennedy when he was killed. Texas, home Lyndon Johnson who passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and Texas which built the New Deal coalition with the Roosevelt/Garner ticket in 1932 & 1936, has been solid Republican since Connally switched. Nixon was so excited about Connally, and liked him so much, Nixon's biggest regret (and many other people) to his dying day, was not dumping Agnew in 1972 & putting Connally on the ticket.

Some Democrats did not switch, but became solid supporters of Nixon and the GOP program, like John Stennis of Alambama (or was it Mississippi?). nobs^{Bern baby bern} 03:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are my edits constantly being reverted?JohnLogan (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAlZHfaksQM

Is this the man who embraced the Southern strategy? The same man who fought for the civil rights act of 1964? 83.128.173.145 (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Bias

This article has some very serious problems with bias. For example, The myth of Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’, The Hill and PICKET: Coulter shreds 'southern strategy' myth as GOP successfully runs more blacks in conservative districts and Ann Coulter: White liberals tell lies about civil rights. ^{— Unsigned, by: Venisaac / talk / contribs} 23:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not gona lie and pretend I know a lot about the subject (not American). But I don't think Ann Coulter is a good source if we're fighting bias either. The Hill is ok though. GeeJayK (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I would like to point out that hill piece is by Dinesh D'Souza. Not a reliable writer.-Flandres (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Lmao at citing Dinesh and Ann Coulter. Two absolute jokes. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec)And also, Washington Times is a shit source owned by a literal cult. So yeah, these sources ain't it chief. Plutocow (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest reading RationalWiki's article Genetic fallacy which indicates: "A genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a claim is accepted or rejected based on the source of the evidence, rather than on the quality or applicability of the evidence. It is also a line of reasoning in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. The fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit."

I hope next time you address the actual content and arguments of material I cite instead of employing fallacious reasoning.Venisaac (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

You might want to read the "exceptions" part.-Flandres (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Venisaac, are you just UShistoryanalyzer? You're making the exact same arguments. Plutocow (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

There are some great articles on the genetic fallacy on the net. None of them use some of the exceptions that RationalWiki use in its genetic fallacy article. This isn't suprising since the exceptions part of RWs article on the genetic fallacy is poorly sourced.Venisaac (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I notice you yourself can't actually refute any of the sources in the article. You just say they are wrong because they don't fit your pet narrative. Can't wait for you to try and accuse us of the same thing...-Flandres (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This is probably USHistoryAnalyzer trying to get around his short block, to be honest. What a maroon. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention that their block already expired by the time this account showed up. Plutocow (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)