What did Lyndon B. Johnson do to get people to vote Democrat for the next 200 yrs?

[realibrad]

Weird, I put LBJ as the second worst Democrat President behind Andrew Jackson.

Super subjective, so not much to debate on.

Despite the lies about Vietnam in this thread, he did get us into that garbage never needed war and then became the worst commander in chief in US history once he did get us in it.

No. He would have been a senator at the time. All he could have done was vote against military action, but he could not have gotten the US into anything because that is now how our government works. He was for containment so he supported going into Vietnam, but its wrong to say he got us into it.

At first, all he did was to support Kennedy's plans. He later moved over to peace which was undermined by people in the US, but that is a different issue. I personally thing he should have finished off the war, but he went for peace so I cant be too unhappy about it.

Also Civil rights act was long in the making before he got into office, Eisenhower and JFK put down the foundation to even make it possible.

Correct. The difference is that LBJ actually got it done on his watch. History gives a lot of credit to people who actually get things done. LBJ was not a passive bystander in terms of Civil Rights either. He actually pushed for it quite explicitly.

 

[buckshot24]

...he did get us into that garbage never needed war ...

Are you talking about the war on poverty? If so, I agree.

 

[Indus]

I have a feeling that Republicans are doing more now to ensure blacks, hispanics and asians will be voting democratic for a long time.

 

[HomerJS]

I have a feeling that Republicans are doing more now to ensure blacks, hispanics and asians will be voting democratic for a long time.

Like trying to eviscerate the Voting Rights Act?

 

[sm625]

They condone killing off future voters under the guise of protecting the rights of the downtrodden all while importing millions from other nations to take their place to name just one of the facets of their agenda. There is a genius quality to it, the whole movement actually. Very well orchestrated and implemented.

It is only genius to a certain degree. Bringing in new voters (both legal and illegal) from low IQ countries who tend to vote left... this is a military tactic. They cannot win on ideology so they flood the voter rolls with low IQ leftist imports or they buy votes with unfunded handouts. Under the right leadership, the people who engage in these tactics would be charged with treason.

 

[Indus]

Like trying to eviscerate the Voting Rights Act?

That and creating issues that the President isn't the President.. born in Kenya etc.. not even willing to consider scotus nominees, a wise latina, anchor babies

Way too much to name.. it certainly isn't going to help them.

 

[nickqt]

You pulled your data from Wikipedia I am sure, so let us be clear.

The original House version:[20]
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[21]
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[20]
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)



What party was doing the filibustering? The answer is Democrats.

Of those who voted against the act, the largest group was Democrats.

Republicans across the board were in majority favor of the act. Democrats were split as a party. The passage of the act meant that the southern Democrats would be looked at as being at fault for its passage as that was the southern party.

So no, nothing I said was wrong. Democrats voted less as a % then Republicans. That is not a value judgement, because Republicans simply filled the racist void left behind. Party bases flipped so its not like Republicans are the good guys. In terms of historical fact, Republicans voted more in favor than Democrats did.

I went through and made my argument, reflecting reality and not just numbers, that Opposition to the CRA was based almost entirely on region.

If you were from the South, whether Republican, or Democrat, you most likely voted against the CRA.

If you were from the North, whether Republican, or Democrat, you most likely voted for the CRA.

All you have to do to see reality, and not just abstract numbers, is read my post.

Northern Democrats voted FOR the CRA at a higher percentage than Northern Republicans, in both the House, and Senate.

Southern Democrats voted AGAINST the CRA at essentially the same percentage as Southern Republicans, in both the House and Senate. What clouds the issue is that because of the Civil War, almost all politicians in the South were Democrats. Again, 115 Southern Senators/Congressmen were Democrats, compared to 11 Southern Senators/Congressmen who were Republicans. Just focusing on the opposition to the CRA without acknowledging the EXCLUSIVELY REGIONAL basis of it leaves out valuable context to what happened then, and afterwards, that you can still see, today, on an electoral college map.

Again, you can note observable reality, where after the Democratic party voted FOR the CRA, Southern politicians and the electorate went Republican. You can either believe that Atwater's Southern Strategy was a myth that he himself discussed openly, and that Nixon and to a lesser extent, Reagan, made sure to exploit the Democratic party split on the CRA, or that the Southern Strategy was real. I'll go with Atwater's account, myself.

Either way, after the CRA vote, Democratic politicians were elected from former free states that voted for the CRA, while Republican politicians got elected from former slave states that voted against the CRA.

And please, don't forget that starting in 1948, when Truman, a Democratic president, desegregated the Army and also got anti-lynching laws and anti-poll tax laws passed, that many SOUTHERN Democrats split the party right there and then, forming the States Rights "Dixiecrat" party. In other words, the Democratic party essentially split in 1948, and it just took another 30+ years for all of the Pro-Segregation Democrats to switch parties...mostly because the Republican party and the Civil War still made people apprehensive about voting Republican.

More Democrats voted for the CRA than Republicans in terms of numbers. And once you acknowledge the reality on the ground that opposition to the CRA was regional, with Southerners of BOTH PARTIES opposing it, the Northern Democratic party politicians voted in higher percentages than the Northern Republican party politicians, for passage of the CRA.

Now, take a look at where the Democratic party blue states are today. The north. And the Republican red states. The south. And the change started in 1964, effectively complete by 1980 (minus Clinton and Gore pulling some southern states temporarily into the D camp).

You can point to numbers that leave out context if you like, but it doesn't change the analysis. If you were a Southern politician, you voted against the CRA, and if you were a Northern politician, you voted in favor of the CRA. Literally, regardless of your political party.

 

[realibrad]

I went through and made my argument, reflecting reality and not just numbers, that Opposition to the CRA was based almost entirely on region.

If you were from the South, whether Republican, or Democrat, you most likely voted against the CRA.

If you were from the North, whether Republican, or Democrat, you most likely voted for the CRA.

All you have to do to see reality, and not just abstract numbers, is read my post.

Northern Democrats voted FOR the CRA at a higher percentage than Northern Republicans, in both the House, and Senate.

Southern Democrats voted AGAINST the CRA at essentially the same percentage as Southern Republicans, in both the House and Senate. What clouds the issue is that because of the Civil War, almost all politicians in the South were Democrats. Again, 115 Southern Senators/Congressmen were Democrats, compared to 11 Southern Senators/Congressmen who were Republicans. Just focusing on the opposition to the CRA without acknowledging the EXCLUSIVELY REGIONAL basis of it leaves out valuable context to what happened then, and afterwards, that you can still see, today, on an electoral college map.

Again, you can note observable reality, where after the Democratic party voted FOR the CRA, Southern politicians and the electorate went Republican. You can either believe that Atwater's Southern Strategy was a myth that he himself discussed openly, and that Nixon and to a lesser extent, Reagan, made sure to exploit the Democratic party split on the CRA, or that the Southern Strategy was real. I'll go with Atwater's account, myself.

Either way, after the CRA vote, Democratic politicians were elected from former free states that voted for the CRA, while Republican politicians got elected from former slave states that voted against the CRA.

And please, don't forget that starting in 1948, when Truman, a Democratic president, desegregated the Army and also got anti-lynching laws and anti-poll tax laws passed, that many SOUTHERN Democrats split the party right there and then, forming the States Rights "Dixiecrat" party. In other words, the Democratic party essentially split in 1948, and it just took another 30+ years for all of the Pro-Segregation Democrats to switch parties...mostly because the Republican party and the Civil War still made people apprehensive about voting Republican.

More Democrats voted for the CRA than Republicans in terms of numbers. And once you acknowledge the reality on the ground that opposition to the CRA was regional, with Southerners of BOTH PARTIES opposing it, the Northern Democratic party politicians voted in higher percentages than the Northern Republican party politicians, for passage of the CRA.

Now, take a look at where the Democratic party blue states are today. The north. And the Republican red states. The south. And the change started in 1964, effectively complete by 1980 (minus Clinton and Gore pulling some southern states temporarily into the D camp).

You can point to numbers that leave out context if you like, but it doesn't change the analysis. If you were a Southern politician, you voted against the CRA, and if you were a Northern politician, you voted in favor of the CRA. Literally, regardless of your political party.

Its funny that you are missing something important. There was something else that was regional... political parties.

Just as there is today, regions have different parties that dominate. In those regions, you also see views that are more popular than in other regions. The south was mostly Democrat because at the time the Democrats were the ones who were against Civil rights up until about the late 40s. A split started to happen with northern Democrats and Southern Democrats.

The House of Representatives in 1964 was 295 Democrat and 140 Republican. That is more than 2 Dems for every 1 R.

You should notice a trend. The North was more Republican vs the South that was Democrat. Parties reflect their base and their base reflects their party. Democrats were the racist party because they were the southern party. Once the Republicans became the southern party, they became the racist party.

So yes, the south was more likely to vote against the CRA, but that reflects the party as well. Just as there is today, we see Democrats that are in the south and they are basically Republicans without the badge.

 

[nickqt]

Its funny that you are missing something important. There was something else that was regional... political parties.

Just as there is today, regions have different parties that dominate. In those regions, you also see views that are more popular than in other regions. The south was mostly Democrat because at the time the Democrats were the ones who were against Civil rights up until about the late 40s. A split started to happen with northern Democrats and Southern Democrats.

The House of Representatives in 1964 was 295 Democrat and 140 Republican. That is more than 2 Dems for every 1 R.

You should notice a trend. The North was more Republican vs the South that was Democrat. Parties reflect their base and their base reflects their party. Democrats were the racist party because they were the southern party. Once the Republicans became the southern party, they became the racist party.

So yes, the south was more likely to vote against the CRA, but that reflects the party as well. Just as there is today, we see Democrats that are in the south and they are basically Republicans without the badge.

But you're looking only at Southern Democrats in the House to make the argument that the parties were regional.

The parties weren't regional as much, again, as Southern Congressmen were Democrats because of the history of the Civil War.

Let's take a look at the numbers of Northern and Southern politicians' party affiliation, in 1964, based on the CRA vote. Up first, the House:

Northern Democrats in the House: 154
Northern Republicans in the House: 162

I'd call the preference of northern states (and more accurately, northern congressional districts in northern states) for Democrats or Republicans a close draw. In other words, a random Congressman from the North was basically as likely to be a Democrat as they were to be a Republican.

Now, let's look at the numbers of Northern and Southern politicians' party affiliation, in 1964, based on the CRA vote. This time, the Senate:

Northern Democrats in the Senate: 46
Northern Republicans in the Senate: 32

Here, I'd call the preference of northern states for Democrats to be slightly higher than that of Republicans. (And as I'm sure you're well aware, Senators are voted on by the entire state, whereas Congressmen represent particular districts. That there were more Democratic Senators than Republican Senators from the North says a lot about the regional nature of the Democratic and Republican parties in 1964...as well as today).

Again, you are focusing on the sheer number of Southern Democrats in the House to make the argument that the parties were divided among regional lines. Yet, by breaking it down, Northern States elected almost as many Democrats to Congress, and noticeably more Democrats to the Senate, than Republicans.

The South was and is its own creature. You can see that support or opposition to the CRA was based on region, rather than party, once you account for the South, being the heart of segregation that the CRA was aimed at.

In fact, after the Democratic party voted for passage of the CRA, Southern Democrats began switching party en masse, as their sole reason for identification as a Democrat (because of the Republican v. Democrat Civil War issue) was effectively severed, permanently.

[Edit]
A picture I find revealing, that the South is its own creature. The South is the South, while the rest of the US is slightly more heterogenous, in general.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

LOL, that montage is exactly one demographic map short of something people would find offensive and racist.

 

[MongGrel]

It is only genius to a certain degree. Bringing in new voters (both legal and illegal) from low IQ countries who tend to vote left... this is a military tactic. They cannot win on ideology so they flood the voter rolls with low IQ leftist imports or they buy votes with unfunded handouts. Under the right leadership, the people who engage in these tactics would be charged with treason.

I'll be polite and just laugh instead of even trying to respond to that post.

No one is flooding voter rolls with illegal aliens, sorry.

The vast majority of voting fraud claims have been proven to be complete BS many times in the past.

Unless you mean some SCOTUS rulings.

 

[nickqt]

LOL, that montage is exactly one demographic map short of something people would find offensive and racist.

I think the "slavery" demographic map pretty much covers the "where African-Americans live" map. For clearly obvious and non-racist reasons, although I guess I can understand your reluctance to point it out explicitly, since somewhere, some libruul might paint you as racist for bringing it up.

Although because of the inverse law regarding racism, I think the fact that I explicitly said it means that I'm the real racist. Or something. So it goes.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I think the "slavery" demographic map pretty much covers the "where African-Americans live" map. For clearly obvious and non-racist reasons, although I guess I can understand your reluctance to point it out explicitly, since somewhere, some libruul might paint you as racist for bringing it up.

Although because of the inverse law regarding racism, I think the fact that I explicitly said it means that I'm the real racist. Or something. So it goes.

I'm not calling you a racist, and people frequently call me a racist. I'm just saying that obesity (diabetes, etc) is more of a black problem than a white problem, teen pregnancy is more of a black problem than a white problem, lack of education is more of a black problem than a white problem, etcetcetc. I don't know about child maltreatment deaths, never looked into that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it fit the pattern too. Unless I'm mistaken, Southern blacks vote Democratic roughly as much as Northern blacks do, so what I'm interpreting as an attempt to paint those redneck inbred Republican hillbillies as having all the problems is at least somewhat misleading.

 

[Brainonska511]

. I'm just saying that obesity (diabetes, etc) is more of a black problem than a white problem

http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-inf...tics/Pages/overweight-obesity-statistics.aspx

Among Hispanic, black, and white adults age 20 and older: 2

• Overweight and obesity affect more than 3 in 4 Hispanics (78.8 percent) and blacks (76.7 percent).
• About 2 in 3 whites (66.7 percent) are considered to be overweight or obese.
• About half of blacks (49.5 percent), and more than 1 in 3 Hispanics (39.1 percent) and whites (34.3 percent) are considered to be obese.
• Extreme obesity affects more than 1 in 10 blacks (13.1 percent), and about 1 in 20 whites (5.7 percent) and Hispanics (5 percent).

 

[nickqt]

I'm not calling you a racist, and people frequently call me a racist. I'm just saying that obesity (diabetes, etc) is more of a black problem than a white problem, teen pregnancy is more of a black problem than a white problem, lack of education is more of a black problem than a white problem, etcetcetc. I don't know about child maltreatment deaths, never looked into that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it fit the pattern too. Unless I'm mistaken, Southern blacks vote Democratic roughly as much as Northern blacks do, so what I'm interpreting as an attempt to paint those redneck inbred Republican hillbillies as having all the problems is at least somewhat misleading.

I'm not trying to paint anyone as anything, whether personally or by race. My map just shows that the "South" is definitely a distinct region, and is the most obvious reason for the CRA opposition in 1964 (Southern R's and D's voted against it, en masse...the party didn't matter).

 

[MongGrel]

Looks like a lot of BS to me, unless you point out a lot of things may have been cherry picked from the past.

And even the I'd think a few things might be pretty inaccurate, but nice try.

Wasn't aware the Protestants had migrated to the South so heavily, I guess someone might be using the definition of a Protestant pretty loosely to even try to make that look anywhere near realistic.

Looks like a collection of BS charts to me. 1846 ?

 

[nickqt]

Looks like a lot of BS to me, unless you point out a lot of things may have been cherry picked from the past.

And even the I'd think a few things might be pretty inaccurate, but nice try.

Wasn't aware the Protestants had migrated to the South so heavily, I guess someone might be using the definition of a Protestant pretty loosely to even try to make that look anywhere near realistic.

Looks like a collection of BS charts to me. 1846 ?

Find the more accurate charts with those same statistics and I'll replace it, no problem.

Thanks in advance.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-inf...tics/Pages/overweight-obesity-statistics.aspx

[/LIST]

Still more or less what I said, especially since extreme obesity is where health problems really begin to accelerate.

I'm not trying to paint anyone as anything, whether personally or by race. My map just shows that the "South" is definitely a distinct region, and is the most obvious reason for the CRA opposition in 1964 (Southern R's and D's voted against it, en masse...the party didn't matter).

Ok, fair enough, I wouldn't ever dispute that it's a distinct region.

 

[boomerang]

It is only genius to a certain degree. Bringing in new voters (both legal and illegal) from low IQ countries who tend to vote left... this is a military tactic. They cannot win on ideology so they flood the voter rolls with low IQ leftist imports or they buy votes with unfunded handouts. Under the right leadership, the people who engage in these tactics would be charged with treason.

You'll probably be as interested in reading this as I was.

How Public Pension Contracts Violate the U.S. Constitution

 

[realibrad]

But you're looking only at Southern Democrats in the House to make the argument that the parties were regional.

The parties weren't regional as much, again, as Southern Congressmen were Democrats because of the history of the Civil War.

Let's take a look at the numbers of Northern and Southern politicians' party affiliation, in 1964, based on the CRA vote. Up first, the House:

Northern Democrats in the House: 154
Northern Republicans in the House: 162

I'd call the preference of northern states (and more accurately, northern congressional districts in northern states) for Democrats or Republicans a close draw. In other words, a random Congressman from the North was basically as likely to be a Democrat as they were to be a Republican.

Now, let's look at the numbers of Northern and Southern politicians' party affiliation, in 1964, based on the CRA vote. This time, the Senate:

Northern Democrats in the Senate: 46
Northern Republicans in the Senate: 32

Here, I'd call the preference of northern states for Democrats to be slightly higher than that of Republicans. (And as I'm sure you're well aware, Senators are voted on by the entire state, whereas Congressmen represent particular districts. That there were more Democratic Senators than Republican Senators from the North says a lot about the regional nature of the Democratic and Republican parties in 1964...as well as today).

Again, you are focusing on the sheer number of Southern Democrats in the House to make the argument that the parties were divided among regional lines. Yet, by breaking it down, Northern States elected almost as many Democrats to Congress, and noticeably more Democrats to the Senate, than Republicans.

The South was and is its own creature. You can see that support or opposition to the CRA was based on region, rather than party, once you account for the South, being the heart of segregation that the CRA was aimed at.

In fact, after the Democratic party voted for passage of the CRA, Southern Democrats began switching party en masse, as their sole reason for identification as a Democrat (because of the Republican v. Democrat Civil War issue) was effectively severed, permanently.

[Edit]
A picture I find revealing, that the South is its own creature. The South is the South, while the rest of the US is slightly more heterogenous, in general.

Yes, the north had a good mixture, the south did not. The reason is that in the North did not need racism to be part of their platform. Democrats had the history of pro slavery. Democrats had been the party of pro slavery for years at that point. Republicans were formed to end slavery. The Republicans had stayed anti-slavery and the Democrats slowly grew away from that. Up until about the 40s, the Democrats were still very much a group of pro racism. The reason the Democrats dominated in the south, was because the party of the south was Democrat.

Woodrow Wilson was president from 1913-1921. When he took office, federal segregation was added back. He choose people who were from the south and from his party which also pushed for more segregation. The "racist" party back then was very much Democrat.

That was the past though. The parties today are very different, but that was not the point I made. It is fully accurate to say that back then Democrats were the southern racist party. Its fully correct to say that Dems were the ones mostly fighting against CRA. I dont know why this seems wrong to you, but this is a fact. What the parties are today is very much not what they were, but the Democrats were the racist party.

 

[nickqt]

Yes, the north had a good mixture, the south did not. The reason is that in the North did not need racism to be part of their platform. Democrats had the history of pro slavery. Democrats had been the party of pro slavery for years at that point. Republicans were formed to end slavery. The Republicans had stayed anti-slavery and the Democrats slowly grew away from that. Up until about the 40s, the Democrats were still very much a group of pro racism. The reason the Democrats dominated in the south, was because the party of the south was Democrat.

Woodrow Wilson was president from 1913-1921. When he took office, federal segregation was added back. He choose people who were from the south and from his party which also pushed for more segregation. The "racist" party back then was very much Democrat.

That was the past though. The parties today are very different, but that was not the point I made. It is fully accurate to say that back then Democrats were the southern racist party. Its fully correct to say that Dems were the ones mostly fighting against CRA. I dont know why this seems wrong to you, but this is a fact. What the parties are today is very much not what they were, but the Democrats were the racist party.

Again, you're missing the forest for the trees.

Southern Politicians regardless of their political party were the ones who voted against the CRA. That most southern politicians were Democrats was an artifact of the Civil War. It's why many Democratic politicians took decades to switch parties after the desegregation of the Army and finally the CRA passage...the lingering disdain of the Republican party in the South. It had nothing to do with ideology, but with the brand name.

Northern Democrats voted in favor of the CRA in higher percentages than the Northern Republicans.

Southern Republicans voted against the CRA in essentially the same percentage as Southern Democrats.

It wasn't a party thing. Full stop.

It was a Southern Thing. If you want to predict which 1964 politicians will vote for or against the CRA, your best predictor variable is whether they were from the South, or North...not their political party.

And it still is today, which you seem to acknowledge.

 

[TheSlamma]

Are you talking about the war on poverty? If so, I agree.

I'm talking about the moron who asked for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and got it and ran with it. Our presence before 1964 this was negligible at best. More people show up for a single Jacksonville Jaguars game than the US had people in Vietnam before that resolution.

Correct. The difference is that LBJ actually got it done on his watch. History gives a lot of credit to people who actually get things done. LBJ was not a passive bystander in terms of Civil Rights either. He actually pushed for it quite explicitly.

It didn't help Eisenhower and Kennedy that they also had a lot more opposition during their terms, because of that they had to pave the way since they were trying to get through to people with the following mindset:

"During his first 20 years in Congress," Obama said, "he opposed every civil rights bill that came up for a vote, once calling the push for federal legislation a farce and a shame." - talking about LBJ

By the time LBJ got his chance the opposition was softened up, if people are gonna say Vietnam wasn't his fault he inherited it, then he inherited the CR movement also. So which is it?

For me he inherited a situation in Vietnam he could have removed us from before it was escalated by Tonkin, as far as civil rights he came in when it was already long in motion, I'm glad he did what he did for it, but one good move is overshadowed by all his bad ones.

 

[Strk]

Looks like a lot of BS to me, unless you point out a lot of things may have been cherry picked from the past.

And even the I'd think a few things might be pretty inaccurate, but nice try.

Wasn't aware the Protestants had migrated to the South so heavily, I guess someone might be using the definition of a Protestant pretty loosely to even try to make that look anywhere near realistic.

Looks like a collection of BS charts to me. 1846 ?

Protestant is any Christian that isn't a Catholic, so seems perfectly legit to me. I think Orthodox churches are their own thing though. And by that I mean they aren't considered Protestant or Catholic.

Other than the slavery one, they actually say 2010. However, text is kind of a bit small to see the authenticity of a lot of it or the significance of how much better one state does from the other (Ie: not really an accomplishment if the difference is so small it is within the margin of error).