Max, the refusal to accept clear historical fact by the right wingers is amazing..

You will never accept it , I know, but one more after about a dozen other explanatioins, this very simple and well known event..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party e*******l strategy to increase political support among white v**ers in the South by appealing to r****m against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as p**********l candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative v**ers in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]

Max, the refusal to accept clear historical fact by the right wingers is amazing..

You will never accept it , I know, but one more after about a dozen other explanatioins, this very simple and well known event..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party e*******l strategy to increase political support among white v**ers in the South by appealing to r****m against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as p**********l candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative v**ers in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]

I HAVE done my research. There was only a small number (4 or 5) that switched parties. Democrats never switched anything except they went after the black v**e after they did all they could to prevent it. They have them convinced though, that's why so many live in ghettos and projects...democrats. YOU do some research and look up how many from both sides v**ed for the Equal Rights Amendment. Democrats STILL don't give a crap about minorities...that is...AFTER they v**e.
Look it up if you dare...the actual v****g numbers verify what I have said.

After the assassination of President John F. Kennedy--a strong proponent of civil rights--in late 1963, Southern Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson saw it as his mission to pass the Civil Rights Act as a tribute to Kennedy, who had first proposed the bill five months before he was k**led. Democrats in the Senate, however, filibustered it.

In June of 1964, though, the bill came up again, and it passed...over the strenuous objections of Southern Democrats. 80% of House Republicans v**ed for the measure, compared with just 61% of Democrats, while 82% of Republicans in the Senate supported it, compared with 69% of Democrats.

Nearly all of the opposition was, naturally, in the South, which was still nearly unanimously Democratic and nearly unanimously resistant to the changing country. One thing that most assuredly didn't change, though, was party affiliation. A total of 21 Democrats in the Senate opposed the Civil Rights Act. Only one of them, "Dixiecrat" Strom Thurmond, ever became a Republican. The rest, including Al Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd--a former Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan--remained Democrats until the day they died.

Moreover, as those 20 lifelong Democrats retired, their Senate seats remained in Democrat hands for several decades afterwards. So too did the overwhelming majority of the House seats in the South until 1994, when a Republican wave e******n swept the GOP into control of the House for the first time since 1952. 1994 was also the first time Republicans ever held a majority of House seats in the South--a full 30 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

From there, Republicans gradually built their support in the South until two more wave e******ns in 2010 and 2014 gave them the overwhelming majorities they enjoy today.

If this was a sudden "switch" to the Republican Party for the old Democrat segregationists, it sure took a long time to happen.

The reality is that it didn't. After the 1964 e******n--the first after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the opportune time for r****t Democrat v**ers to abandon the party in favor of Republicans--Democrats still held a 102-20 House majority in states that had once been part of the Confederacy. In 1960, remember, that advantage was 117-8. A pickup of 12 seats (half of them in Alabama) is hardly the massive shift one would expect if r****t v**ers suddenly abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of the GOP.

In fact, v****g patterns in the South didn't really change all that much after the Civil Rights era. Democrats still dominated Senate, House, and gubernatorial e******ns for decades afterward. Alabama, for example, didn't elect a Republican governor until 1986. Mississippi didn't elect one until 1991. Georgia didn't elect one until 2002.

In the Senate, Republicans picked up four southern Senate seats in the 1960s and 1970s, while Democrats also picked up four. Democratic incumbents won routinely. If anything, those r****t southern v**ers kept v****g Democrat.

So how did this myth of a sudden "switch" get started?

It's rooted in an equally pernicious myth of the supposedly r****t "Southern Strategy" of Richard Nixon's 1968 p**********l campaign, which was accused of surreptitiously exploiting the innate r****m of white southern v**ers.

Even before that, though, modern-day Democrats point to the 1964 p**********l campaign of Republican Barry Goldwater, who refused to back the 1964 Civil Rights Act as proof that the GOP was actively courting r****t southern v**ers. After all, they argue, Goldwater only won six states--his home state of Arizona and five states in the deep south. His "States' Rights" platform had to be code for a r****t return to a segregated society, right?

Hardly. Goldwater was actually very supportive of civil rights for b***k A******ns, v****g for the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts and even helping to found Arizona's chapter of the NAACP. His opposition to the 1964 Act was not at all rooted in r****m, but rather in a belief that it allowed the federal government to infringe on state sovereignty.

The Lyndon B. Johnson campaign pounced on Goldwater's position and, during the height of the 1964 campaign, ran an ad titled "Confessions of a Republican," which rather nonsensically tied Goldwater to the Ku Klux Klan (which, remember, was a Democratic organization).

The ad helped Johnson win the biggest landslide since 1920 and for the first time showed Democrats that accusing Republicans of being r****t (even with absolutely no evidence to back this up) was a potent political weapon.

It would not be the last time they used it.

Four years later, facing declining popularity ratings and strong primary challenges from Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy, Johnson decided not to run for re-e******n. As protests over the Vietnam War and race r**ts following the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. raged in America's streets, Republican Richard Nixon, the former Vice President, launched a campaign based on promises of "restoring law and order."

With the southerner Johnson out of the race and Minnesota native Hubert Humphrey as his opponent, Nixon saw an opportunity to win southern states that Goldwater had, not through r****m, but through aggressive campaigning in an area of the country Republicans had previously written off.

Yet it didn't work. For all of Nixon's supposed appeals to southern r****ts (who still v**ed for Democrats in Senate and House races that same year), he lost almost all of the south to a Democrat--George Wallace, who ran on the American Independent ticket and won five states and 46 e*******l v**es.

It shouldn't have been surprising that Nixon ran competitively in the South, though. He carried 32 states and won 301 e*******l v**es. Four years later, he won every state except Massachusetts. Was it because of his r****m? Had he laid the groundwork for r****t appeals by Republicans for generations to come?

Of course not. The supposedly r****t southern Republicans who v**ed for Nixon in 1972 also v**ed to re-elect Democrat Senators in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. Republicans gained only eight southern seats in the House even though their p**********l candidate won a record 520 e*******l v**es.

After Nixon resigned in disgrace in 1974, Democrat Jimmy Carter swept the South en route to the presidency in 1976. Did Carter similarly run on r****t themes? Or was he simply a stronger candidate? After Ronald Reagan carried the south in two landslides (including the biggest in U.S. history in 1984) and George H.W. Bush ran similarly strongly in 1988 while promising to be a "third Reagan term," Democrat Bill Clinton split the southern states with Bush in 1992 and with Bob Dole in 1996.

All the while, Democrats kept winning House, Senate, and gubernatorial e******ns. Only in 2000 did southern v**ers return to unanimous E*******l College support for a Republican p**********l candidate.

Since then, the south has v**ed reliably Republican (with the exception of Florida and North Carolina) in every p**********l e******n as it has consistently v**ed for Republicans in Senate, House, and Governor's races.

Yet this shift was a gradual, decades-long t***sition and not a sudden "shift" in response to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. R****m didn't turn the South Republican--if it did, then why did it take 30 years for those r****t v**ers to finally give the GOP a majority of southern House seats? Why did it take r****t v**ers in Georgia 38 years to finally v**e for a Republican governor? And why did only one southern Democrat ever switch to the Republican Party?

The myth of the great Republican-Democrat "switch" summarily falters under the weight of actual historical analysis, and it becomes clear that prolonged e*******l shifts combined with the phenomenal nationwide popularity of Republicans Richard Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 were the real reason for the Republican strength in the south.

Reagan in particular introduced the entire nation to conservative policies that it found that it loved, sparking a new generation of Republican v**ers and politicians who still have tremendous influence today.

R****m had nothing to do with it. That is simply a Democratic myth.

max, your rebuttals read as if they came from Liberty University..

I know it must be hard for you to accept the fact that today, in the 21st century, the r****t h**ers identify as republicans or right wingers.. just as the same kind of r****t h**ers in the past identified as Democrats..

H**e lives not in a party name, but in the character of the h**ers, now in this day, that is the right wing republicans.. no other way to call it..

The orange mistake slithered into the oval office on the backs of these hating people..

Happy easter to you and yours.. and stay safe..

max, your rebuttals read as if they came from Liberty University..

I know it must be hard for you to accept the fact that today, in the 21st century, the r****t h**ers identify as republicans or right wingers.. just as the same kind of r****t h**ers in the past identified as Democrats..

H**e lives not in a party name, but in the character of the h**ers, now in this day, that is the right wing republicans.. no other way to call it..

The orange mistake slithered into the oval office on the backs of these hating people..

Happy easter to you and yours.. and stay safe..

You are right that racial h**ers identify as right wing, but we have no control over how someone identifies themselves. Take A****A for instance, they h**e just as bad but for different reasons. The people you're talking about and the people I'm talking about are extreme and should not be included in either party. I don't believe that there are enough of these extremists to sway an e******n...on either side.
Now, people like you and I can debate and be on differing platforms but I don't h**e you and would never seek to cause you any harm and I know you feel the same way. However possible, ( barring violence), the i***ts on both sides need to be expelled.

Max, we have been trying to recover from the Reagan economy for 50 years near..

Papa Bush had to change policy and was even forced to drop his "no new taxes" pledge..

Ronnie himself had to steal the SS solution money to repair his policies..

https://prezi.com/ceqfr0jhabcz/george-hw-bush-and-economic-policy/

The Economy
At the beginning of Bush's administration, the economy Reagan had claimed was peaceful and prosperous was really nearing a recession.
Bush inherited economic issues that had been either caused by or simply ignored by the Reagan administration.
Pressures on the economy included overbuilt commercial real estate resulting in deposit insurance and lax regulation, weakness in financial institutions, and decreased defense expenditures.

NYT: The Reagan Boom - Greatest Ever

Almost everyone knows that the greatest depression the U.S. ever had was in the 1930's. It was known as the Great Depression, and its infamy merits a separate section in economics textbooks. But what was its counterpart? When did our greatest economic expansion occur?

We just had it. And it is still expanding, setting new records with each passing month.

We don't know whether historians will call it the Great Expansion of the 1980's or Reagan's Great Expansion, but we do know from official economic statistics that the seven year period from 1982 to 1989 was the greatest, consistent burst of economic activity ever seen in the U.S. In fact, it was the greatest economic expansion the world has ever seen - in any country, at any time.

The two key measures that mark a depression or expansion are jobs and production. Let's look at the records that were set. Creation of jobs. From November 1982, when President Ronald Reagan's new economic program was beginning to take effect, to November 1989, 18.7 million new jobs were created. It was a world record: Never before had so many jobs been created during a comparable time period. The new jobs covered the entire spectrum of work, and more than half of them paid more than $20,000 a year. As total employment grew to 119.5 million, the rate of unemployment fell to slightly over 5 percent, the lowest level in 15 years. Creation of wealth.

The amount of wealth produced during this seven year period was stupendous - some $30 trillion worth of goods and services. Again, it was a world record. Never before had so much wealth been produced during a comparable period. According to a recent study, net asset values - including stocks, bonds and real estate - went up by more than $5 trillion between 1982 and 1989, an increase of roughly 50 percent.

There are other important measures. Steady economic growth. As we begin the decade of the 1990's, we are in our 86th straight month of economic growth - a new record for peacetime, five months longer than the wartime growth of World War II and only 23 months short of the wartime record set during the Vietnam War in the 1960's. Most experts now predict that it will last right through 1990, and perhaps beyond.

Income tax rates, interest rates and inflation.

Under President Reagan, top personal income tax rates were lowered dramatically, from 70 percent to 28 percent. This policy change was the prime force behind the record breaking economic expansion. Interest rates and inflation also fell sharply and, so far, have stayed comfortably low - a further indication of the power and pervasiveness of Mr. Reagan's economic policies. The stock market. Perhaps the key indicator of an economy's booms and busts is the stock market, the bottom line economic report card. And here the record has been striking. During the period from 1970 to 1982, the stock market barely moved. The Standard & Poor's index of 500 stocks inched up about 35 percent during that entire period. But starting in late 1982, just as Reaganomics began to work, the stock market took off like a giant skyrocket. Since then, the Standard & Poor's index has soared, reaching a record high of 360, almost triple what it was in 1982.

There were other consequences of the expansion. Annual Federal spending on public housing and welfare, and on Social Security, Medicare and health all increased by billions of dollars. The poverty rate has fallen steadily since 1983.

When you add up the record of the Reagan years, and the first year of President Bush - during which he has faithfully continued Mr. Reagan's economic policies - the conclusion is clear, inescapable and stunning. We have just witnessed America's Great Expansion.

The Reagan economic expansion was not perfect and we will never have one that is. The Federal budget deficits were too high and still are, too many Federal regulations lay unreformed and the trade deficit is worrisome.

In fact, the Reagan expansion may not have been the best economic expansion in history, for every economic expansion must be judged by many criteria. But if we look at the sheer size and immensity of it, at its scope and power, then it cannot be denied that it was the greatest.

The full impact of the powerful economic recovery that President Reagan launched during the 1980s is still unfolding.

Mr. Reagan's expansion provided the financial resources to allow the U.S. to build up the combat capability of its defense forces and to begin blazing the new trail for a protective missile system. This, in turn, convinced the Soviet rulers they could never defeat the U.S., and today the Soviet Union and the U.S. are busily engaged in nuclear disarmament as peace breaks out in country after country throughout the world.

Equally important, it proved beyond doubt to all (except perhaps for a handful of left-wing faculty members in our best universities) that capitalism is superior to Socialism and C*******m. Our economy is the guiding beacon for all those countries that are ripping apart the ruthless collectivist regimes that ruined the lives of their people for so long.

One thing the Marxists got right: Economics is a powerful determining factor of history. But Marxists never dreamed it would be the economics of Ronald Reagan and all those capitalists that would prevail in the end.

Pretty dated stuff Blade, that times article was originally printed decades ago.. it also only speacks to the top of the food chain. What about the driving force of Americas golden years, the middle and working class?
what about the long term affects? What about the never accomplished recovery?

For the here and now.. problem of today..

https://today.duke.edu/2019/01/road-trump-began-reaganomics-loss-middle-class-economist-says

PUBLISHED JANUARY 29, 2019 IN ACADEMICS
THE ROAD TO TRUMP BEGAN WITH REAGANOMICS & THE LOSS OF THE MIDDLE CLASS, ECONOMIST SAYS

Donald Trump rise to the White House can be traced to President Reagan’s economic policies that “hollowed out the middle class.”

That’s according to an economic historian who laid out a slew of sobering data on income, taxes, Chinese imports, debt and more that he connected to across-the-board tax cuts that began in 1980.

“(Reaganomics) paved the way for Trumpism,” John Komlos, a former Duke economics professor and professor emeritus of economics and economic history at the University of Munich, said last week during a talk at the John Hope Franklin Center. “That to me is where our problems started, because it created a great amount of ine******y.”

Komlos cited “economic dislocations” in three Rustbelt states as one of the main reasons T***p w*n over v**ers who had gone for Barak Obama in 2008 and 2012.

This dislocation includes low and stagnating wages, increasing indebtedness, downward social mobility, declining relative incomes “and the hopelessness accompanying them while at the other end of the income distribution the economy was simply booming.”