Republican-Democrat Party Switch

>Had Nixon won the election in 1960 and presided over the Civil Rights movement, Blacks would be voting republican to this day.

Many would, just as many did in '56. They liked Ike.

That's my point. Prior to the civil rights movement, the black vote was split. Democrats just happened to be in power the the CRM came to a head, and made the decision that any savvy party would make. If Republicans had been the ones to pass the Civil Rights act, Black people would be voting for them.

>muh Lincoln's party RETARDS ITT

Literally look at an electoral map of Lincoln's victory, it was all northern/industrial/urban populations, whereas his opponent got all the southern slave states.

Are you absolute fucking retard memers actually trying to argue that these southern state modern Republicans are the same party as Lincoln, who vot basically no southern states? Likewise, would you argue that the new deal Republicans are the same party as modern republicans, even though they were supported by the North and not the south?

Trying to argue that your party is fundamentally the same as a historical party that: 1)had progressive goals that were opposed by the populations of the south that are currently Republican
2)won votes from the states that are modern Democrat states and virtually no votes from states that are now run by modern republicans
3)pursued equality and black rights in direct competition with the southern states that insistuted jim crow laws and supported white supremacy and the KKK

...is retarded

There was a clear ideological shift in the 50s and 60s that saw the conservatives that had opposed Lincoln and his reforms for a hundred years as Democrats switch to the Republican platform whilst the progressives that had supported Lincoln's reforms for a 100 years switched to the Democratic side. All of this can be proved with electoral maps, are you trying to argue that suddenly the southern states became progressive lincoln-esque republicans, because that's fucking retarded considering that "Lincoln's" party at this point in history is hard at work suppressing the civil rights movement.

Basically, "Lincoln's party" memers are the most retarded fucking subhuman on Veeky Forums. There has never been a more retarded and easily refuted position to take, you're obviously wrong and it's incredibly pathetic to try to argue against the obvious.

>northern/industrial/urban populations
You mean like the Rust Belt that overwhelmingly voted red in these last elections? For Donald Trump who is from New York fucking City?

>Rust Belt
>implying industrial, urban, or northern

I'm sorry were you trying to make a point? There is absolutely nothing that Donald trump has in common with Lincoln. Literally fucking nothing.

Is that reeeeally your argument? Because that's pathetic.

Both are dictatorial cunts that have made half of the country get extremely asspained over them getting elected so I would say that they have plenty of common with each other.

>Lincoln's" party at this point in history is hard at work suppressing the civil rights movement.
No, they're fucking not. /pol/ memers do not make up the Republican party, you retard.
People who voted for Lincoln would've agreed more with modern Republicans than with modern Democrats, while old Democrats would also agree more with modern Republicans than with modern Democrats.

>back then: democrats are pro-slavery
>now: democrats are pro-illegal immigration so that american south-west can continue using illegals as extremely cheap labor

Century and half later and they're still same bunch of slave owning cunts.

They practically enslave blacks with welfare and the minimum wage too because they both serve to keep people locked into poverty.

>no arguments or sources
>just "I disagree you're wrong" and that's it

brilliant argument, really restored my faith in humanity.

>rust belt
>not industrial
Do you even know why is it called the Rust Belt you troglodyte?

>urban
Western Pennsylvania, Ohio, upstate New York, southern Michigan, Indiana. Are you saying these are not urban? Pic related.

>There is absolutely nothing that Donald trump has in common with Lincoln.
What doesn't he have to do with Lincoln? They're both Republican conservatives and staunch economic protectionists. They're actually very alike.

Also, the last genuinely Southern president in the oval office was Bill Clinton, a Democrat. Before him it was Jimmy Carter, also a Democrat.

Forgot that pic

so other than the fact that they're both divisive figures, absolutely fucking nothing. The people that hate trump are the people that would have voted for lincoln, and the people that like trump are the same people that didn't vote for lincoln.

There's literally nothing you can argue to suddenly make the point that modern republicans have fucking ANYTHING specific in common with Lincoln republicans.

I bet you retards think that your republicans are the same republicans that instigated the French Revolution just because they're both called "republicans"

keep grasping at straws you fucking retards.

It took forever for the south to become republican this is a stupid fucking meme.

the rust belt industry died years ago, the populations you mentioned are distinctly different from actual urban populations, see: Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco, etc. The biggest cities are all Democrat powerhouses. Obviously the unemployed shits in the dead industrial centers of the North are gonna vote for protectionist policies, doesn't mean that suddenly the urban areas are now Republican because obviously that's a huge lie.

>the only urban areas are the ones I say are urban

Can you prove otherwise? The burden of proof is not on us. They have been republicans since 1864? Are you telling me people 150 years later might be different in the same party? Say it aint so.

>the rust belt industry died years ago
They still lead the nation in manufacturing, by a mile. The only non-rust belt states that come close are Texas are California

>the populations you mentioned are distinctly different from actual urban populations, see: Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco
>urban areas are somehow not urban
Ohio in particular is the 7th most populated state with 10th highest destiny and three metro areas in the biggest 30 (out of 382 MSAs). I want to see the mental gymnastics to claim it's somehow not urban.

Moreover, I see you've conceded about Lincoln since you're not mentioning him anymore.

The urban areas I mentioned are all MUCH larger than what you mentioned, and they all had other economic moves to make that kept them relevant whereas the stupid industrial cities had nothing after they lost their factories and proceeded to become the same stupid poor whites that voted for Trump in the south.

These communities are distinctly different from actual large American urban areas that were all republicans when republicans suited them, and all Democrat when the Democrats suited them. If you can't understand the difference you're just retarded.

>My brown filled crime ridden shitholes are better b-because they voted democrat!

all i'm reading are your eternal tears shillary

People like Andrew Jackson, William Jennings Bryan, Huey Long, and George Wallace would have no place in the modern Republican party because of their populist and anti-business rhetoric. There was a shift, but there wasn't a "switch" of any sort. Even Trump is a million miles away from those 4.

I haven't conceided anything regarding lincoln and you haven't made any points to make me address lincoln, so stop with this utterly revolting semantics discussion I'm fucking sick of having these non-discussions where you're too busy claiming victory to actually make a point.

There is a distinct difference between traditionally progressive urban cities on the west and east coasts and industrial cities in middle america. These areas on the coasts have always been liberal/progressive and mentioning midstate industrial centers is literally your only argument despite the fact that I have already addressed the differences. It really is sad that fucking Ohio is your best example, considering Chicago is firmly democrat.

>urban areas are how I define them based on no objective criteria

What does the Republican shift to a more business focus have to do with slaves other than democrats trying to paint them as not caring of the poor.

Lincoln was:

>Republican
>Northerner
>Conservative
>Staunch economic protectionist (literally called himself a "Henry Clay tariff Whig")

All of this perfectly describes Trump. So how are they different again?

it's common fucking knowledge that urban areas are more progressive and liberal than rural areas, and that even in rural states with huge Republican populations, the actual cities in those states tend to have the largest democrat populations.

I like how I'm busy wrecking 3 people by myself and as soon as I get bored and leave you guys will jump in with some inadequate last word, claim victory, and ride off on your retarded horse into the sunset.

have fun with that retards

Ohio is one of the most urbanized and densely populated states in the nation. The rust belt aren't rural peasants with pitchforks but heavily urbanized areas, maybe it's time to pop out of your Californian bubble once in a while.

And yet cities still voted for Republican.

>Republican
I guess Trump and Robespierre are the same since they were both "republicans"
>northern
Lincoln was born poor and trump was born into wealth. They're utterly different personalities.
>both conservative
nonsebse, Lincoln was the opposite of conservative when it came to social and political moves. I would hardly consider the emancipation proclamation to be a "conservative" move.

Likewise, isolationism was the ideology of the day and it made sense at that point in history, virtually everyone who became president was isolationist because you couldn't get elected if you werent.

In the modern age, when the globalized economy is so interdependant, it would be retarded to have an isolationist policy, so again this is a dead end argument. They were different men in different times appealing to different types of people and making blanket comparisons like you did is extremely misleading.

Slavery is completely irrelevant issue and have been ever since the 1870s. The real switch that happened was during the Great Depression when many northern Republican states switched to voting Democrat because of FDR and his pro-worker policies. Now that the spirit of FDR is long dead and the Democrats are in cahoots with international big business, those states are voting Republican yet again.

>I guess Trump and Robespierre are the same since they were both "republicans"
Shit I never knew Robespierre was a member of the Republican party. Notice people are saying Republican with a capital R you low IQ fucktard.

>Lincoln was born poor and trump was born into wealth. They're utterly different personalities.
Personality wise they are different, but they're both extremely divisive politicians that are loved by the poor people and absolutely despised by the oligarchy. You could even make an analogy between southern planters and modern business oligarchs, both slavery and globalization just shits on the American worker and make rich people richer.

1/2

see:chicago

>Lincoln was the opposite of conservative when it came to social and political moves

"But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of our fathers who framed the Government under which we live."

His own quote. As you can see, the only people calling him a non-conservative were the butthurt Southerners.

>Chicago is the only city in the Midwest
Moreover, Chicago and Columbus are the two cities that were literally never Rust Belt cities thanks to their diversified economies.

The point of that statement was that saying two people from different historical periods cannot be said to be similar because they share a purely synthetic political party title that has since drastically changed its voting bloc.

Furthermore, anyone that would have said "Donald trump loves poor people" 3 years ago would have been laughed out the room. Lincoln actually lived his ideology whereas Trump just says whatever to get votes and clearly doesn't give a shit about the poor. He's spent his entire first month in office signing executive orders helping the rich at the expense of the poor and turning away refugees, which is something that lincoln had experience with and did the opposite in response. Whereas Trump kicks out the racial minorities from the trouble spots, Lincoln accepted the refugees that came to the north after the emancipation proclamation, so there's a clear difference in policy.

Basically the two men have virtually nothing in common and this is the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen a retard try to make.

you just proved my point that only nondiverse shit cities that are now abandoned ghost towns voted republican, and even in the most conservative states the biggest cities are the most liberal

>He's spent his entire first month in office signing executive orders helping the rich at the expense of the poor
Really? Axing TPP was helping the rich at the expense of the poor? Are you on drugs?

>turning away refugees
That's only helping the poor Americans, we shouldn't want to import illiterate 3rd worlders who undercut our wages. Immigration restriction is pretty much the biggest pro-worker policy he could've came up with.

>racial minorities
If you think Trump is more racist than Lincoln then you have another thing coming:

>I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.
>You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.
>I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.
>I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.

TL;DR

1860s Republicans: Voters from the urban, industrial north

1860s Democrats: Voters from the rural, agrarian south

2016 Republicans: Voters from rural areas with declining industrial jobs

2016 Democrats: Voters from urban areas with post-industrial, white collar jobs

In between: a bunch of shit happens. South gets butthurt and switches sides after the Voting Rights Act

so lincoln allowed refugees into the north despite the fact that a)it made poor whites angry b)it was against his own personal beliefs, and c)it was potentially divisive to his own population, and he STILL did it despite angering those groups because it was the right thing to do for the country. Meanwhile Trump is appealing to poor whites at the expense of the refugees which is the exact opposite of what lincoln did.

Keep posting old quotes, fucking everyone was racist at the time it's not even relevant.

But Chicago was never Rust Belt so why even bring it up? It got big and rich thanks to railroad networks and deep water ports on Lake Michigan. In other words, it's a trade hub.

>2016 Republicans: votes from wite areas
>2016 Democrats: votes from shitskin areas
Literally the best pattern you can draw up is racial.

Those refugees aren't Americans and aren't coming from America, favoring them over the Americans would actually constitute treason.

Urban and racial bruv.

It used to be union vs. non union but unions are dead now.

Nah, not really. Some people come up with this weird definition of rural vs urban where everything smaller than a 10 million megalopolis is "rural", which is absurd. Some analysts are acting like the entire area between California and the East Coast is nothing but hovels and fields of manure.

Some analysts essentially think that this is n fact the case. But we're wandering into a /pol/ thread (of the good kind, but still, modern politics seems OT a bit), so I'm out..

washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/urban-rural-vote-swing/

But even Houston swung for Hillary.

Houston is only 20% white and crammed to the brim with Mexicans who have illegals in their families, that is why.

That's most cities in the US though.

>According to the U.S. Census 2000, the racial makeup of the city was 49.3% White (including Hispanic or Latino), 25.3% Black or African American, 0.4% Native American, 5.3% Asian, 0.18% Pacific Islander, 16.5% from other races, and 3.2% from two or more races. 37% of the population was Hispanic or Latino of any race.

That's pretty par for the course.

This topic has been beaten to death. "White Hispanics" are basically non-existent in the United States and are basically limited to some Cubans in southern Florida and whatever tiny ethnically Spanish population there is. In the case of cities in the American Southwest, "White Hispanics" are just full blown beaners claiming to be white for whatever reason.

Pic related is the actual white demographic in that city - 25.6%.

It's a myth used by democrats to distance themselves from the KKK.

>Hold election
>Be upset that the President elect didn't win your state
>be extra upset because he's taken a hard line against importing underpaid colored farm workers
>claim that these workers are essential to your agriculture
>claim that paying them fair wages would make your crops less competitive
>insist that the american economy would collapse without you
>have highest disparity of standards of living in the country
>threaten to secede
>claim you'd be entitled to Federal property in your territory

Pic unrelated, I'm talking about California. I guess the Republicans really are the party of Lincoln.

Well played m8 I kek'd

the slaves were american and it was the duty of the goverrnment that ruled ovrr them to protect them, even if it didn't realize it at the time. modern refugees though are not american, so america has no duty to protect them unless you think america should run the entire world which makes you imperialist scum.

>Pic related, I'm talking about California.

Saved for future funposting

LBJ turned blacks into Democrats. Nixon turned Southern Whites into Republicans.

The parties haven't changed much since the Republicans were Federalists and the Democrats were Democratic-Republicans.

>having a social safety net is the same as slavery.

>my jobless urban shitholes are better because they are white.

In case you didn't know, humans are not immortal. There's no such thing as a truly continuous political party. Policies changed because the people changed, dynamics changed, and priorities changed. Calling the GOP the "Party of Lincoln" doesn't mean anything. Neither does calling the Dems the "Party of FDR" for that matter.

The best way to keep a slave from rebelling is to make him completely reliant on you for survival.

Dixiecrats didn't go away until like 50 years ago

Most of the southern states still had democratic governors for a long time

there was no switch

>HONEST Abe

The so-called "switch" was a complete myth.

They exchanged some voters via disingenuous campaign pandering, but the Republican Party remains largely unchanged at its core. Only the Democrats changed a bit and moved somewhat closer to the Republicans.

The "Southern Strategy" has always been purely a campaign strategy, but never actually legislated when Republicans are in office.

A safety net is fine, so long as it works. If your safety net is shit, then it's more of a hindrance than a safety net. For example, the VA hospital system, which is pretty much like the UK NHS for American vets, is mired in scandals for being so utterly shit. Trump said he wants to turn it into something more like medicare (an elderly safety net that works, and would work better if CMS could deal with pharm companies) so veterans don't have to deal with the VA, with notable popular support.

Social safety nets designed to safeguard single moms is preventing them from giving their kids up for adoption or finding a dad. This is creating havoc in the black community, where 80% of black boys are growing up without a father. 70% of juvenile delinquents come from single mother homes. To be fair, abortion is a working safety net that reduces the number of black children born, and republicans are pants on head retarded for opposing this.

Also, the thread pretty much ended here.

>Wallace ran as an independent

and he rejoined the Democratic party and was winning the Primary before he was shot and paralyzed.

>state boundaries arbitrarily dictate political beliefs

only white men could vote in 1860 and if it was the same now the GOP would win the north as well.