It's entirely relevant. The Dixiecrats broke away, not the "non-racist Democrats" and they did so on their principles, as f-d up as they were. The Democrats obviously did not feel such affinity for their anti-racist morals. You made my point here, thank you.What an irrelevant argument to make. That the overwhelming majority doesn't suit your standards for the voting to be based on geographic lines is your problem. As for the second ridiculous point, it was the Southern Democrats who broke away from the Democratic Party in 1948. Lol. Where did you think Dixiecrats came from?
Northern support for Southern Democrats throughout the history of the party. There's even a name for it: Doughface.Northern support... for what? They literally voted in opposition to each other. Again, you're really trying hard to fight the facts.
It's ENTIRELY relevant. Specially in light of your implication that post 1964, all the racists broke away from the Democrats and joined the Republicans. :Now, whether you think one section should have broken away from the other is completely irrelevant.
It has everything to do with the Discussion. Southern dominance in the Democratic party was nothing new in 1964, yet Northern Democrats continued to participate in their party. Why? Because their opposition to racist policies, where it did exist, was not important enough for them to break away from an OBVIOUSLY racist party leadership.It has nothing to do with the discussion. Ignoring the support of what? Northern Democrats of racist policies? See, there you go with the weird sentences and no facts. The facts don't lie mac, overwhelmingly in 3 different CRA votes, Democrats came out in large droves. 3 times, more than 50% voted in favor of CRAs. 3 times, those votes were divided along geographic lines. 3 times, the Democrats who voted against it were Southerners for the most part. Alabama(D), Arkansas (D), Mississippi(D), Georgia (D), South Carolina(D), Virginia (D), South Carolina (D) - against....... in contrast...Rhode Island (R), NJ (R), NY (R), Vermont (R)... in favor... hmmm odd, those look amazingly familiar... I wonder why?
I'm not refusing to answer the questions, I'm pointing out all the OTHER facts that you are ignoring. Like the opposition to the 1957 civil rights act.You're refusing to answer a questions. I wonder why. Once Democrats changed their stance on segregation (and they did), what happened to voters who were pro-segregation? Did they migrate North? Did they stay put for the most part? Did they disappear? C'man mac, I want to hear you bull**** your way out of this. What happened to these people after 1964? What happened to the high schoolers who were pro-segregation? What happened to the 20 year olds who'd be in the 70s by now? Did they simply stop existing? They didn't raise kids or pass down their values? Again, I'm trying to see why you find the statement so flawed when you've literally spent the last 4 pages ducking and dodging questions.