Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…

[NYcarbineer]

Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.

Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened.

There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016
In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them.

False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
(most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).

I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).

Faun
deanrd

Ahahaha. Cute, okay, I'll play your game. I've been waiting to give leftists a beating, anyway, and you look like volunteers.

The theory you're trying to appeal to, while in the least informed way possible, is the "Goldwater" theory, which you apparently are trying to make appear even more sudden than it was claimed to be originally, by making the 'change' way earlier.

I suppose I'll refer to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina as "The South", since that seems to be what most people are referring to in those cases.

Firstly, the southern states didn't simply "Stop voting democrat", it only became less frequent in 1964, and it would be more accurate to say that "They stopped voting reliably for Democrats". Although, only the majority of these states voted Republican, from 1968-1992, and it was only in 5/7 of said elections. Although that's a change, Maine and California voted Republican in six of those elections.

The way the theory goes, it was in 1968 that the strategy starts.

The very next election, Nixon wins practically none of the south. Of the states that voted for Goldwater, only one voted for Nixon.

Sure, the next election he wins the south. On the other hand, he only missed DC and Maine, so practically every state was won by the Republican.

Next election, the entire south voted for Jimmy Carter. Clearly they've all gone Republican because of Racism, thanks to Goldwater... oh wait. Although, I do find it interesting that it's nearly an even split between east and west.

Oh look, the next time they go red... practically every state did as well... again. Ronald Reagan curbstomped one of the worst presidents in history. We're so surprised. Well, except Georgia.

Oh, the next election, Reagan sweeps the map again. Sure, the south voted red again, but so did nearly the entire rest of the United states.

In 1988, the south is more red than the rest of the nation, but it only lasts for THIS election.

Because Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana all go Democrat, making the south a nearly even split, much like the rest of the US.

Now, the south is more red than the rest of the Nation, and only now does it become a trend, in 1996, LONG after Goldwater ran, lost, later kicked the bucket. Though, Louisiana is still blue.

2000 is the first non-landslide victory in which all states that voted for Goldwater voted for the Republican candidate, and continued voting Republican from that point onward. Your theory holds no water.

Your maps clearly show the shift of the South from Democrat to Republican, and you don't even know it.

I know reading hurts your brain, and I can understand that, you're not used to actually using it for things, but if you bother to read my text, you can clearly see the south inconsistently voting for either party until 2000, at which point they turned red and stayed that way.

Make sure you take a break after reading this post, don't want you to hurt yourself too much.

Republicans won the former Confederate states of the South in how many elections from 1964 on?

Hint: 12 out of 14, and only lost them to Wallace in 1968 because he was more segregationist than Nixon.

Compare that to the 16 elections prior to 1964.

 

[hjmick]

Whether the photos are real or not, the 1924 Democrat convention is often referred to as the Klanbake...

Whether the photos are real or not, 1924 was 93 years ago. Irrelevant today.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened.

There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016
In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them.

False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
(most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).

I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).

Faun
deanrd

Ahahaha. Cute, okay, I'll play your game. I've been waiting to give leftists a beating, anyway, and you look like volunteers.

The theory you're trying to appeal to, while in the least informed way possible, is the "Goldwater" theory, which you apparently are trying to make appear even more sudden than it was claimed to be originally, by making the 'change' way earlier.

I suppose I'll refer to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina as "The South", since that seems to be what most people are referring to in those cases.

Firstly, the southern states didn't simply "Stop voting democrat", it only became less frequent in 1964, and it would be more accurate to say that "They stopped voting reliably for Democrats". Although, only the majority of these states voted Republican, from 1968-1992, and it was only in 5/7 of said elections. Although that's a change, Maine and California voted Republican in six of those elections.

The way the theory goes, it was in 1968 that the strategy starts.

The very next election, Nixon wins practically none of the south. Of the states that voted for Goldwater, only one voted for Nixon.

Sure, the next election he wins the south. On the other hand, he only missed DC and Maine, so practically every state was won by the Republican.

Next election, the entire south voted for Jimmy Carter. Clearly they've all gone Republican because of Racism, thanks to Goldwater... oh wait. Although, I do find it interesting that it's nearly an even split between east and west.

Oh look, the next time they go red... practically every state did as well... again. Ronald Reagan curbstomped one of the worst presidents in history. We're so surprised. Well, except Georgia.

Oh, the next election, Reagan sweeps the map again. Sure, the south voted red again, but so did nearly the entire rest of the United states.

In 1988, the south is more red than the rest of the nation, but it only lasts for THIS election.

Because Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana all go Democrat, making the south a nearly even split, much like the rest of the US.

Now, the south is more red than the rest of the Nation, and only now does it become a trend, in 1996, LONG after Goldwater ran, lost, later kicked the bucket. Though, Louisiana is still blue.

2000 is the first non-landslide victory in which all states that voted for Goldwater voted for the Republican candidate, and continued voting Republican from that point onward. Your theory holds no water.

Your maps clearly show the shift of the South from Democrat to Republican, and you don't even know it.

I know reading hurts your brain, and I can understand that, you're not used to actually using it for things, but if you bother to read my text, you can clearly see the south inconsistently voting for either party until 2000, at which point they turned red and stayed that way.

Make sure you take a break after reading this post, don't want you to hurt yourself too much.

Republicans won the former Confederate states of the South in how many elections from 1964 on?

Hint: 12 out of 14, and only lost them to Wallace in 1968 because he was more segregationist than Nixon.

Compare that to the 16 elections prior to 1964.

As I explained in the above post you didn't bother to read because it didn't serve your false narrative, the vast majority of the times the states turned red were sweeping victories that nearly covered the entire US. The entire south wasn't red outside of sweeping victories until 2000. May hurt your head, but actually reading is beneficial.

 

[monkeytrots]

Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.

Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened.

There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016
In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them.

False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
(most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).

I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).

Faun
deanrd

Ahahaha. Cute, okay, I'll play your game. I've been waiting to give leftists a beating, anyway, and you look like volunteers.

The theory you're trying to appeal to, while in the least informed way possible, is the "Goldwater" theory, which you apparently are trying to make appear even more sudden than it was claimed to be originally, by making the 'change' way earlier.

I suppose I'll refer to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina as "The South", since that seems to be what most people are referring to in those cases.

Firstly, the southern states didn't simply "Stop voting democrat", it only became less frequent in 1964, and it would be more accurate to say that "They stopped voting reliably for Democrats". Although, only the majority of these states voted Republican, from 1968-1992, and it was only in 5/7 of said elections. Although that's a change, Maine and California voted Republican in six of those elections.

The way the theory goes, it was in 1968 that the strategy starts.

The very next election, Nixon wins practically none of the south. Of the states that voted for Goldwater, only one voted for Nixon.

Sure, the next election he wins the south. On the other hand, he only missed DC and Maine, so practically every state was won by the Republican.

Next election, the entire south voted for Jimmy Carter. Clearly they've all gone Republican because of Racism, thanks to Goldwater... oh wait. Although, I do find it interesting that it's nearly an even split between east and west.

Oh look, the next time they go red... practically every state did as well... again. Ronald Reagan curbstomped one of the worst presidents in history. We're so surprised. Well, except Georgia.

Oh, the next election, Reagan sweeps the map again. Sure, the south voted red again, but so did nearly the entire rest of the United states.

In 1988, the south is more red than the rest of the nation, but it only lasts for THIS election.

Because Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana all go Democrat, making the south a nearly even split, much like the rest of the US.

Now, the south is more red than the rest of the Nation, and only now does it become a trend, in 1996, LONG after Goldwater ran, lost, later kicked the bucket. Though, Louisiana is still blue.

2000 is the first non-landslide victory in which all states that voted for Goldwater voted for the Republican candidate, and continued voting Republican from that point onward. Your theory holds no water.

Your maps clearly show the shift of the South from Democrat to Republican, and you don't even know it.

I know reading hurts your brain, and I can understand that, you're not used to actually using it for things, but if you bother to read my text, you can clearly see the south inconsistently voting for either party until 2000, at which point they turned red and stayed that way.

Make sure you take a break after reading this post, don't want you to hurt yourself too much.

Oh, Pumpkin - you have hit 'em with overload. Excellent review of non-leftist-revisionism REAL History

And let's not forget the1964 election ... WHO WAS THE RACIST IN THAT ELECTION - hint: one of the most racist presidents in history - next to Woodrow Wilson, and FDR - both of whom were extreme racists.

Why, in 1964 the RACIST Candidate was ... nope, not Goldwater ... t'was the other guy. And then note EXACTLY how the so-called racist 'south' voted in that election:

 

[monkeytrots]

False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
(most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).

I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).

Faun
deanrd

Ahahaha. Cute, okay, I'll play your game. I've been waiting to give leftists a beating, anyway, and you look like volunteers.

The theory you're trying to appeal to, while in the least informed way possible, is the "Goldwater" theory, which you apparently are trying to make appear even more sudden than it was claimed to be originally, by making the 'change' way earlier.

I suppose I'll refer to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina as "The South", since that seems to be what most people are referring to in those cases.

Firstly, the southern states didn't simply "Stop voting democrat", it only became less frequent in 1964, and it would be more accurate to say that "They stopped voting reliably for Democrats". Although, only the majority of these states voted Republican, from 1968-1992, and it was only in 5/7 of said elections. Although that's a change, Maine and California voted Republican in six of those elections.

The way the theory goes, it was in 1968 that the strategy starts.

The very next election, Nixon wins practically none of the south. Of the states that voted for Goldwater, only one voted for Nixon.

Sure, the next election he wins the south. On the other hand, he only missed DC and Maine, so practically every state was won by the Republican.

Next election, the entire south voted for Jimmy Carter. Clearly they've all gone Republican because of Racism, thanks to Goldwater... oh wait. Although, I do find it interesting that it's nearly an even split between east and west.

Oh look, the next time they go red... practically every state did as well... again. Ronald Reagan curbstomped one of the worst presidents in history. We're so surprised. Well, except Georgia.

Oh, the next election, Reagan sweeps the map again. Sure, the south voted red again, but so did nearly the entire rest of the United states.

In 1988, the south is more red than the rest of the nation, but it only lasts for THIS election.

Because Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana all go Democrat, making the south a nearly even split, much like the rest of the US.

Now, the south is more red than the rest of the Nation, and only now does it become a trend, in 1996, LONG after Goldwater ran, lost, later kicked the bucket. Though, Louisiana is still blue.

2000 is the first non-landslide victory in which all states that voted for Goldwater voted for the Republican candidate, and continued voting Republican from that point onward. Your theory holds no water.

Your maps clearly show the shift of the South from Democrat to Republican, and you don't even know it.

I know reading hurts your brain, and I can understand that, you're not used to actually using it for things, but if you bother to read my text, you can clearly see the south inconsistently voting for either party until 2000, at which point they turned red and stayed that way.

Make sure you take a break after reading this post, don't want you to hurt yourself too much.

Republicans won the former Confederate states of the South in how many elections from 1964 on?

Hint: 12 out of 14, and only lost them to Wallace in 1968 because he was more segregationist than Nixon.

Compare that to the 16 elections prior to 1964.

As I explained in the above post you didn't bother to read because it didn't serve your false narrative, the vast majority of the times the states turned red were sweeping victories that nearly covered the entire US. The entire south wasn't red outside of sweeping victories until 2000. May hurt your head, but actually reading is beneficial.

And yes... "Who is John Galt ?" hehehe

It is interesting going through this entire thread that the preponderence of ad hominen (name calling for the illiterate) and revisionist history arises NOT from the 'conservative side' - but from the leftist trolls entrenched here.

CONSERVATIVES are CLASSICAL LIBERALS - always have been, always will be. Belief in inalienable rights and the equality of ALL men - rights from their CREATOR, not rights granted by some state.

Another 'history lesson' on RACISM - look at the race riots of the 70's over 'school bussing' - hint: They weren't in the South or Red States - they were in DEEP BLUE STATES- New York, Baltimore, Denver, Chicago - real bastions of 'conservatism', eh ? Yes, I am old enough to remember all of that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened.

There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016
In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them.

False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
(most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).

I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).

Faun
deanrd

Ahahaha. Cute, okay, I'll play your game. I've been waiting to give leftists a beating, anyway, and you look like volunteers.

The theory you're trying to appeal to, while in the least informed way possible, is the "Goldwater" theory, which you apparently are trying to make appear even more sudden than it was claimed to be originally, by making the 'change' way earlier.

I suppose I'll refer to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina as "The South", since that seems to be what most people are referring to in those cases.

Firstly, the southern states didn't simply "Stop voting democrat", it only became less frequent in 1964, and it would be more accurate to say that "They stopped voting reliably for Democrats". Although, only the majority of these states voted Republican, from 1968-1992, and it was only in 5/7 of said elections. Although that's a change, Maine and California voted Republican in six of those elections.

The way the theory goes, it was in 1968 that the strategy starts.

The very next election, Nixon wins practically none of the south. Of the states that voted for Goldwater, only one voted for Nixon.

Sure, the next election he wins the south. On the other hand, he only missed DC and Maine, so practically every state was won by the Republican.

Next election, the entire south voted for Jimmy Carter. Clearly they've all gone Republican because of Racism, thanks to Goldwater... oh wait. Although, I do find it interesting that it's nearly an even split between east and west.

Oh look, the next time they go red... practically every state did as well... again. Ronald Reagan curbstomped one of the worst presidents in history. We're so surprised. Well, except Georgia.

Oh, the next election, Reagan sweeps the map again. Sure, the south voted red again, but so did nearly the entire rest of the United states.

In 1988, the south is more red than the rest of the nation, but it only lasts for THIS election.

Because Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana all go Democrat, making the south a nearly even split, much like the rest of the US.

Now, the south is more red than the rest of the Nation, and only now does it become a trend, in 1996, LONG after Goldwater ran, lost, later kicked the bucket. Though, Louisiana is still blue.

2000 is the first non-landslide victory in which all states that voted for Goldwater voted for the Republican candidate, and continued voting Republican from that point onward. Your theory holds no water.

Your maps clearly show the shift of the South from Democrat to Republican, and you don't even know it.

I know reading hurts your brain, and I can understand that, you're not used to actually using it for things, but if you bother to read my text, you can clearly see the south inconsistently voting for either party until 2000, at which point they turned red and stayed that way.

Make sure you take a break after reading this post, don't want you to hurt yourself too much.

Oh, Pumpkin - you have hit 'em with overload. Excellent review of non-leftist-revisionism REAL History

And let's not forget the1964 election ... WHO WAS THE RACIST IN THAT ELECTION - hint: one of the most racist presidents in history - next to Woodrow Wilson, and FDR - both of whom were extreme racists.

Why, in 1964 the RACIST Candidate was ... nope, not Goldwater ... t'was the other guy. And then note EXACTLY how the so-called racist 'south' voted in that election:

LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. Goldwater voted against it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
(most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).

I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).

Faun
deanrd

Ahahaha. Cute, okay, I'll play your game. I've been waiting to give leftists a beating, anyway, and you look like volunteers.

The theory you're trying to appeal to, while in the least informed way possible, is the "Goldwater" theory, which you apparently are trying to make appear even more sudden than it was claimed to be originally, by making the 'change' way earlier.

I suppose I'll refer to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina as "The South", since that seems to be what most people are referring to in those cases.

Firstly, the southern states didn't simply "Stop voting democrat", it only became less frequent in 1964, and it would be more accurate to say that "They stopped voting reliably for Democrats". Although, only the majority of these states voted Republican, from 1968-1992, and it was only in 5/7 of said elections. Although that's a change, Maine and California voted Republican in six of those elections.

The way the theory goes, it was in 1968 that the strategy starts.

The very next election, Nixon wins practically none of the south. Of the states that voted for Goldwater, only one voted for Nixon.

Sure, the next election he wins the south. On the other hand, he only missed DC and Maine, so practically every state was won by the Republican.

Next election, the entire south voted for Jimmy Carter. Clearly they've all gone Republican because of Racism, thanks to Goldwater... oh wait. Although, I do find it interesting that it's nearly an even split between east and west.

Oh look, the next time they go red... practically every state did as well... again. Ronald Reagan curbstomped one of the worst presidents in history. We're so surprised. Well, except Georgia.

Oh, the next election, Reagan sweeps the map again. Sure, the south voted red again, but so did nearly the entire rest of the United states.

In 1988, the south is more red than the rest of the nation, but it only lasts for THIS election.

Because Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana all go Democrat, making the south a nearly even split, much like the rest of the US.

Now, the south is more red than the rest of the Nation, and only now does it become a trend, in 1996, LONG after Goldwater ran, lost, later kicked the bucket. Though, Louisiana is still blue.

2000 is the first non-landslide victory in which all states that voted for Goldwater voted for the Republican candidate, and continued voting Republican from that point onward. Your theory holds no water.

Your maps clearly show the shift of the South from Democrat to Republican, and you don't even know it.

I know reading hurts your brain, and I can understand that, you're not used to actually using it for things, but if you bother to read my text, you can clearly see the south inconsistently voting for either party until 2000, at which point they turned red and stayed that way.

Make sure you take a break after reading this post, don't want you to hurt yourself too much.

Republicans won the former Confederate states of the South in how many elections from 1964 on?

Hint: 12 out of 14, and only lost them to Wallace in 1968 because he was more segregationist than Nixon.

Compare that to the 16 elections prior to 1964.

As I explained in the above post you didn't bother to read because it didn't serve your false narrative, the vast majority of the times the states turned red were sweeping victories that nearly covered the entire US. The entire south wasn't red outside of sweeping victories until 2000. May hurt your head, but actually reading is beneficial.

You are just wrong and ineducable.

 

[Pop23]

Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists? Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!

Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…

I think the third from the left is Robert Byrd, Democratic Senator, a KKK leader and someone Hillary Clinton called a Hero and her greatest mentor.

Things really never change.

 

[Pop23]

Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists? Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!

Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…

The KKK believes is racial purity, faith, and family. No liberal believes in such things. And the KKK used to made of up of Democrats until the Yankees did them wrong and they wised up and joined the GOP instead. Now we have Trump and we are once again blessed by God.

And neither of those rallies was at a Democratic convention. That's an old internet lie you are too stupid to catch on to.

^^
So who's sock are you? Ravi...Mani or a Mod?

You mean there's more klansmen running amok here?

Apparently so. dudes are talking about "racial purity" and shit. Isn't incest the highest form of preserving racial purity? (dueling banjos playing in the background)

You do realize your reference to dueling banjos is kind nuts, right?

Gays don't procreate.

 

[xyz]

 

[monkeytrots]

False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
(most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).

I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).

Faun
deanrd

Ahahaha. Cute, okay, I'll play your game. I've been waiting to give leftists a beating, anyway, and you look like volunteers.

The theory you're trying to appeal to, while in the least informed way possible, is the "Goldwater" theory, which you apparently are trying to make appear even more sudden than it was claimed to be originally, by making the 'change' way earlier.

I suppose I'll refer to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina as "The South", since that seems to be what most people are referring to in those cases.

Firstly, the southern states didn't simply "Stop voting democrat", it only became less frequent in 1964, and it would be more accurate to say that "They stopped voting reliably for Democrats". Although, only the majority of these states voted Republican, from 1968-1992, and it was only in 5/7 of said elections. Although that's a change, Maine and California voted Republican in six of those elections.

The way the theory goes, it was in 1968 that the strategy starts.

The very next election, Nixon wins practically none of the south. Of the states that voted for Goldwater, only one voted for Nixon.

Sure, the next election he wins the south. On the other hand, he only missed DC and Maine, so practically every state was won by the Republican.

Next election, the entire south voted for Jimmy Carter. Clearly they've all gone Republican because of Racism, thanks to Goldwater... oh wait. Although, I do find it interesting that it's nearly an even split between east and west.

Oh look, the next time they go red... practically every state did as well... again. Ronald Reagan curbstomped one of the worst presidents in history. We're so surprised. Well, except Georgia.

Oh, the next election, Reagan sweeps the map again. Sure, the south voted red again, but so did nearly the entire rest of the United states.

In 1988, the south is more red than the rest of the nation, but it only lasts for THIS election.

Because Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana all go Democrat, making the south a nearly even split, much like the rest of the US.

Now, the south is more red than the rest of the Nation, and only now does it become a trend, in 1996, LONG after Goldwater ran, lost, later kicked the bucket. Though, Louisiana is still blue.

2000 is the first non-landslide victory in which all states that voted for Goldwater voted for the Republican candidate, and continued voting Republican from that point onward. Your theory holds no water.

Your maps clearly show the shift of the South from Democrat to Republican, and you don't even know it.

I know reading hurts your brain, and I can understand that, you're not used to actually using it for things, but if you bother to read my text, you can clearly see the south inconsistently voting for either party until 2000, at which point they turned red and stayed that way.

Make sure you take a break after reading this post, don't want you to hurt yourself too much.

Oh, Pumpkin - you have hit 'em with overload. Excellent review of non-leftist-revisionism REAL History

And let's not forget the1964 election ... WHO WAS THE RACIST IN THAT ELECTION - hint: one of the most racist presidents in history - next to Woodrow Wilson, and FDR - both of whom were extreme racists.

Why, in 1964 the RACIST Candidate was ... nope, not Goldwater ... t'was the other guy. And then note EXACTLY how the so-called racist 'south' voted in that election:

LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. Goldwater voted against it.

You strike out again.

Let me give you a little schoolyard lesson in History: (one that does NOT attempt to bias and revise history the way you do.)


Ryskind recalled that Goldwater had led the successful effort to integrate the Arizona Air National Guard. In addition, as biographer Edwards wrote, Goldwater had years earlier changed his opposition to the Supreme Court's power to enforce school integration (his longtime friend, attorney Denison Kitchel, persuaded him) and told Southern delegates to the 1964 convention that segregation was "wrong, morally, and in some instances constitutionally."

"I never met anyone who said they supported Goldwater because he would be somehow harder on blacks," Ryskind told Newsmax. "Conservatives thought — and I still believe — that every state in the South was promoting more progressive policies towards blacks and that some states were moving more rapidly in that direction than others."

As for the Republican nominee's position on the Civil Rights Act, Goldwater had said he would vote for passage if Section II on public accommodations and Section VII on equal employment opportunity were removed. With his view reinforced by a detailed memorandum from Phoenix lawyer and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Goldwater felt these sections were unconstitutional, were unenforceable without a federal police force, and would lead to the creation of racial quotas and affirmative action.

"He was absolutely right about [the two sections of the Civil Rights Act] and they did lead to precisely what Goldwater and most conservatives were afraid of," said Tom Winter, then executive editor of Human Events, who would join Ryskind as its co-owner a year later. As for the "extremism in the defense of liberty" speech, Winter recalled watching it from a San Francisco restaurant "and cheering it because it was clearly about freedom and fighting communism. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with race."

NPR Wrong on Goldwater '64, Civil Rights, Say 4 Who Were There

Now - there is some ACCURATE HISTORY. Chew on that for a while.

 

[Pogo]

David Duke ran as a Democrat in 1988.

That is a straight up fact.

Of course. Because he wanted to win. Ray Nagin ran as a Democrat for the same reason. In New Orleans, that's what works.

That was in the transitional period y'all are talking about when the "Solid South" was solidifying in the other direction. Within a year he switched to Republican and that's how he won the one office he had. And he's been Republican ever since, because in Louisiana outside New Orleans --- that's what works.

 

[Pogo]

Leftwing propaganda.

Nope. Recorded history.

Maine was a big state for the Klan, and in that state Republicans owned politics in the same way the Democrats owned Louisiana. Owen Brewster was a strongly-Klan-backed candidate who won offices of Governor, Congressman and Senator, and a close ally of Joe McCarthy.

What that meant was that the Klan political faction in Maine was Republican, and the anti-Klan political faction in Maine was also Republican. The Democrats of course seized on the Klan connections but their state infrastructure was weak. Same sort of intra-party division was going on around the same time in Kansas, where Ben Paulen took the Republican governor nomination (and the office) over other Republican elements that wanted to condemn the Klan.

Paulen's predecessor Henry Allen had been trying to oust the Klan out of Kansas a few years prior, the same time as Gov. Jack Walton of neighboring Oklahoma was trying to oust them out of that state. Allen was a Republican, Walton a Democrat.

The Klan, in that period of political activity, split political parties that way --- which was actually what this thread could have been about if it hadn't started with a picture from Madison Wisconsin claiming it was the Democratic convention in New York City.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Faun
deanrd

Ahahaha. Cute, okay, I'll play your game. I've been waiting to give leftists a beating, anyway, and you look like volunteers.

The theory you're trying to appeal to, while in the least informed way possible, is the "Goldwater" theory, which you apparently are trying to make appear even more sudden than it was claimed to be originally, by making the 'change' way earlier.

I suppose I'll refer to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina as "The South", since that seems to be what most people are referring to in those cases.

Firstly, the southern states didn't simply "Stop voting democrat", it only became less frequent in 1964, and it would be more accurate to say that "They stopped voting reliably for Democrats". Although, only the majority of these states voted Republican, from 1968-1992, and it was only in 5/7 of said elections. Although that's a change, Maine and California voted Republican in six of those elections.

The way the theory goes, it was in 1968 that the strategy starts.

The very next election, Nixon wins practically none of the south. Of the states that voted for Goldwater, only one voted for Nixon.

Sure, the next election he wins the south. On the other hand, he only missed DC and Maine, so practically every state was won by the Republican.

Next election, the entire south voted for Jimmy Carter. Clearly they've all gone Republican because of Racism, thanks to Goldwater... oh wait. Although, I do find it interesting that it's nearly an even split between east and west.

Oh look, the next time they go red... practically every state did as well... again. Ronald Reagan curbstomped one of the worst presidents in history. We're so surprised. Well, except Georgia.

Oh, the next election, Reagan sweeps the map again. Sure, the south voted red again, but so did nearly the entire rest of the United states.

In 1988, the south is more red than the rest of the nation, but it only lasts for THIS election.

Because Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana all go Democrat, making the south a nearly even split, much like the rest of the US.

Now, the south is more red than the rest of the Nation, and only now does it become a trend, in 1996, LONG after Goldwater ran, lost, later kicked the bucket. Though, Louisiana is still blue.

2000 is the first non-landslide victory in which all states that voted for Goldwater voted for the Republican candidate, and continued voting Republican from that point onward. Your theory holds no water.

Your maps clearly show the shift of the South from Democrat to Republican, and you don't even know it.

I know reading hurts your brain, and I can understand that, you're not used to actually using it for things, but if you bother to read my text, you can clearly see the south inconsistently voting for either party until 2000, at which point they turned red and stayed that way.

Make sure you take a break after reading this post, don't want you to hurt yourself too much.

Republicans won the former Confederate states of the South in how many elections from 1964 on?

Hint: 12 out of 14, and only lost them to Wallace in 1968 because he was more segregationist than Nixon.

Compare that to the 16 elections prior to 1964.

As I explained in the above post you didn't bother to read because it didn't serve your false narrative, the vast majority of the times the states turned red were sweeping victories that nearly covered the entire US. The entire south wasn't red outside of sweeping victories until 2000. May hurt your head, but actually reading is beneficial.

You are just wrong and ineducable.

If I were wrong, you'd have told me why instead of creating post with no substance to it. Sounds like you've discovered your defeat and don't want to admit it. How mature of you~

 

[Pogo]

Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists? Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!

Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…

The top picture is from Madison, Wisconsin. The Democratic convention was in New York City.

DESCRIPTION
Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing conic masks and white robes parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger. Dreger was shot to death in "Death's Corner" (South Murray Street) on December 2, 1924.
RECORD DETAILS
Image ID: 1902
Creation Date: 1924-12-05
Creator Name: Vinje, Arthur M., 1888-1972
City: Madison
County: Dane
State: Wisconsin
Collection Name: Vinje, Arthur M. : Photographs and Negatives-
Genre: Photograph
Original Format Type: photographic print, b&w
Original Format Number: CF 67957
Original Dimensions: 10 x 8 inches

Ku Klux Klan Parade | Photograph | Wisconsin Historical Society

What a moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So the top photograph was mis-sourced, that doesn't change the fact that there's historical records, showing that a large amount of Klan members were at the 1924 convention. It was called the Klanbake for a reason. A little more than half of the convention attendees were KKK and/or KKK supporters, as in that convention, they voted on whether or not to condemn the KKK; 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against. After which, the KKK celebrated by burning crosses and such.

Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno. And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.

"Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City. Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge. Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist. And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.

Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support. By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes. Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia. Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.

The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.

The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston". That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.

--- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.

 

[Pogo]

Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists? Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!

Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…

The top picture is from Madison, Wisconsin. The Democratic convention was in New York City.

DESCRIPTION
Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing conic masks and white robes parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger. Dreger was shot to death in "Death's Corner" (South Murray Street) on December 2, 1924.
RECORD DETAILS
Image ID: 1902
Creation Date: 1924-12-05
Creator Name: Vinje, Arthur M., 1888-1972
City: Madison
County: Dane
State: Wisconsin
Collection Name: Vinje, Arthur M. : Photographs and Negatives-
Genre: Photograph
Original Format Type: photographic print, b&w
Original Format Number: CF 67957
Original Dimensions: 10 x 8 inches

Ku Klux Klan Parade | Photograph | Wisconsin Historical Society

What a moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So the top photograph was mis-sourced, that doesn't change the fact that there's historical records, showing that a large amount of Klan members were at the 1924 convention. It was called the Klanbake for a reason. A little more than half of the convention attendees were KKK and/or KKK supporters, as in that convention, they voted on whether or not to condemn the KKK; 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against. After which, the KKK celebrated by burning crosses and such.

Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno. And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.

"Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City. Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge. Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist. And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.

Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support. By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes. Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia. Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.

The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.

The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston". That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.

--- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.

The epilogue to that never-ending convention deadlock drama --- the conservative wing was able to deadlock all those 100+ ballots because the party at the time required a 2/3 majority for nomination. So all you needed to block was 33% plus one. Franklin Roosevelt put an end to that 12 years later when, at the height of his power while running for re-election in 1936, he got the rules changed to a simple majority (50% plus one). That ensured there would be no more 1924s and the next time the South wanted to block the flow, in 1948 the first election after World War Two, they were unable to do so under the new rules, walked out, and ran their own campaign. That was the "Dixiecrats", Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright.

The next time Thurmond came up for Senate re-election he found himself kicked off the ballot and had to run as a write-in (which he won).

 

[Pogo]

Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists? Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!

Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…

Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.

Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened.

Oh it happened, but it started well before FDR. Turn of the 19th-20th century. What did start with FDR was the black vote shifting to Democrat.

There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016
In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them.

That's not even remotely close. The winner of the last election for the most recent example, pulled 46% of the vote while the turnout was 55%. That works out to 25% of the electorate, juuuuuuuuuust a bit shy of "practically the entire US".

 

[Pogo]

Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists? Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!

Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…

Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.

Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened.

There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016
In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them.

False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
(most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).

I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).

Actually the Klan was founded originally by ex-soldiers who had no political party, and fifty years later re-founded by a con artist with also no known political affiliations. They may have their tendencies from one time and place to another but both of them insisted they were non-political.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists? Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!

Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…

The top picture is from Madison, Wisconsin. The Democratic convention was in New York City.

DESCRIPTION
Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing conic masks and white robes parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger. Dreger was shot to death in "Death's Corner" (South Murray Street) on December 2, 1924.
RECORD DETAILS
Image ID: 1902
Creation Date: 1924-12-05
Creator Name: Vinje, Arthur M., 1888-1972
City: Madison
County: Dane
State: Wisconsin
Collection Name: Vinje, Arthur M. : Photographs and Negatives-
Genre: Photograph
Original Format Type: photographic print, b&w
Original Format Number: CF 67957
Original Dimensions: 10 x 8 inches

Ku Klux Klan Parade | Photograph | Wisconsin Historical Society

What a moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So the top photograph was mis-sourced, that doesn't change the fact that there's historical records, showing that a large amount of Klan members were at the 1924 convention. It was called the Klanbake for a reason. A little more than half of the convention attendees were KKK and/or KKK supporters, as in that convention, they voted on whether or not to condemn the KKK; 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against. After which, the KKK celebrated by burning crosses and such.

Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno. And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.

"Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City. Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge. Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist. And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.

Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support. By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes. Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia. Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.

The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.

The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston". That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.

--- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.

You never mentioned this to me, though that also doesn't disprove anything I said.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists? Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!

Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…

The top picture is from Madison, Wisconsin. The Democratic convention was in New York City.

DESCRIPTION
Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing conic masks and white robes parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger. Dreger was shot to death in "Death's Corner" (South Murray Street) on December 2, 1924.
RECORD DETAILS
Image ID: 1902
Creation Date: 1924-12-05
Creator Name: Vinje, Arthur M., 1888-1972
City: Madison
County: Dane
State: Wisconsin
Collection Name: Vinje, Arthur M. : Photographs and Negatives-
Genre: Photograph
Original Format Type: photographic print, b&w
Original Format Number: CF 67957
Original Dimensions: 10 x 8 inches

Ku Klux Klan Parade | Photograph | Wisconsin Historical Society

What a moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So the top photograph was mis-sourced, that doesn't change the fact that there's historical records, showing that a large amount of Klan members were at the 1924 convention. It was called the Klanbake for a reason. A little more than half of the convention attendees were KKK and/or KKK supporters, as in that convention, they voted on whether or not to condemn the KKK; 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against. After which, the KKK celebrated by burning crosses and such.

Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno. And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.

"Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City. Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge. Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist. And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.

Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support. By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes. Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia. Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.

The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.

The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston". That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.

--- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.

The epilogue to that never-ending convention deadlock drama --- the conservative wing was able to deadlock all those 100+ ballots because the party at the time required a 2/3 majority for nomination. So all you needed to block was 33% plus one. Franklin Roosevelt put an end to that 12 years later when, at the height of his power while running for re-election in 1936, he got the rules changed to a simple majority (50% plus one). That ensured there would be no more 1924s and the next time the South wanted to block the flow, in 1948 the first election after World War Two, they were unable to do so under the new rules, walked out, and ran their own campaign. That was the "Dixiecrats", Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright.

The next time Thurmond came up for Senate re-election he found himself kicked off the ballot and had to run as a write-in (which he won).

What exactly makes them "The Conservative Wing"?