Цифры и факты (старые)

[cema]

A spring 1938 Gallup Poll asked: "Do you think the persecution of Jews in Europe has been their own fault?

FDR voters: 12.1% entirely; 51.9% partly; and 36.0% not at all.
Landon voters: 9.7% entirely; 57.5% partly; and 32.8% not at all.

Dem voters for Congress: 11.5% entirely; 52.1% partly; and 36.4% not at all.
Repub voters for Congress: 9.7% entirely; 56.8% partly; and 33.5% not at all.

The poll also asked: "Would you support" "a widespread campaign against the Jews in this country"?

FDR voters: 13.0% yes.
Landon voters: 9.5% yes.

Dem voters for Congress: 14.7% yes.
Repub voters for Congress: 9.8% yes.

Update.

The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. [...]

In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

Comments

[capka3m.livejournal.com]

Ah! The Good Ole Days when the Republicans were Republicans... :)

[turgutmakbak.livejournal.com]

I guess that was the decade when the party identities were changing.

[cema.livejournal.com]

Maybe. How long did it take? Are they still changing, and if so, which way?

For example, what were Democrats like and what were Republicans like in the 1960s? I have a feeling the situation was similar (contrary to what I used to think).

[ex-ilyavinar899.livejournal.com]

Это в связи с новым романом Рота?

[turgutmakbak.livejournal.com]

I think the major change happened during the Great Depression. Definitely, the geographical base. There are several sites with Electoral College maps for every election since 1789, I just don't remember the addresses. The principal change in the 20th century seems to be from 1928 to 1932. Of course, I'm not an expert, so I can be wrong.

[cema.livejournal.com]

Перепрыгивал с блога на блог и наткнулся.

[cema.livejournal.com]

This used to be my impression also, but now I am confused. See eg the history and adoption of the Civil Rights Act.

[email-animal.livejournal.com]

Yes, they are changing.

Democrats have 2:1 voter advantage over Republicans in Kentucky, a state that will vote 60-40 in favor of Bush this year. This is a standard situation throughout the entire South - "old" Democrats have very little to do with "new" Democrats.

The issue is that in the South party affiliation has little to do with ideology. Old Southern Democrats are conservative and can be quite bigoted. This does not prevent them from being more populist than Republicans - see Zell Miller as an example.

My question is, what are they trying to prove? If the line of the argument is that because Democrats in 1930s and 1960s were more bigoted than Republicans, therefore - they are more bigoted now, then, clearly it is wrong. In 1960s big cities voted Republican and South voted Democtatic. Now it's the exact inverse. Bigoted Democrats might not have changed their party affilitation, but they are no longer voting Democratic outside of local elections where good ole boys still get to run on occasion.

To get back to your question. West Virginia was the last bastion of pure old Democratic hegemony until 2000. Well, not anymore. The reason why South turned Republican is NOT because denizens of Gadsden, Alabama were thankful to Republicans for passing the Civil Rights Act. It was because they were disgusted with Johnson for signing it.

Similar thing in the inverse direction is happening in the North East. Republicans there are much more liberal than their party in general, and are getting marginalized in their own party.

[email-animal.livejournal.com]

There were two really, 1960s was the second change. Before than, South was still predominantly Democratic.

[turgutmakbak.livejournal.com]

I guess you're right. 1932 and 1960.

[cema.livejournal.com]

I agree that the regional differences are important almost as much as the party affiliation itself, though not exactly as much.

I do not agree that the South was universally anti-CRA (you are not saying this), and it turns out that Goldwater voted against it mostly on technical points. Still, the fact that he voted against it, and then became the presidentail candidate, was the undoing of the Republican party.

I used to have a different impression of this. Of course, if I read more, my impression is likely to change once more, and more than once.

[anonimo-cobarde.livejournal.com]

A huge change happened in the mid-sixties with the passage of the Voting Act/Civil Rights Act during Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Democrats lost the South over that because of racial sentments. From the Civil War until mid sixties South was out of reach for Republican for exactly the same reason since it was the party of Lincoln and what followed from it. So, back in 1938 Democratic party was the party of the more racist south states.

[anonimo-cobarde.livejournal.com]

southern states, of course.

[lestp.livejournal.com]

As correctly pointed out above, Democrats and Southern Democrats are two different things entirely. Republicans used to be the yankee party, and no self-respecting southerner would vote for them. They had their own special breed of Democrat, who were more right-wing than Pat Buchanan.
See also yellow dog democrats and "Dixiecrats" (Ultimately, the Dixiecrat movement paved the way for the rise of the modern Republican Party in the South. Many former Dixiecrat supporters eventually became Republicans, as was highlighted by Strom Thurmond's conversion in the 1960s).