Why does Texas support McCain? And why do the other red states support McCain?

This is when the south started to turn red.



In the summer of 1964, the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) was organized with the purpose of challenging Mississippi's all-white and anti-civil rights delegation to the Democratic National Convention of that year as not representative of all Mississippians. At the national convention in Atlantic City, New Jersey the MFDP claimed the seats for delegates for Mississippi, not on the grounds of the Party rules, but because the official Mississippi delegation had been elected by a primary conducted under Jim Crow laws in which blacks were excluded because of poll taxes, literacy tests, and even violence against black voters. The national Party’s liberal leaders supported a compromise in which the white delegation and the MFDP would have an even division of the seats; Johnson was concerned that, while the regular Democrats of Mississippi would probably vote for Goldwater anyway, if the Democratic Party rejected the regular Democrats, he would lose the Democratic Party political structure that he needed to win in the South. Eventually, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Reuther and black civil rights leaders (including Roy Wilkins, Martin Luther King, and Bayard Rustin) worked out a compromise with MFDP leaders: the MFDP would receive two non-voting seats on the floor of the Convention; the regular Mississippi delegation would be required to pledge to support the party ticket; and no future Democratic convention would accept a delegation chosen by a discriminatory poll. When the leaders took the proposal back to the 64 members who had made the bus trip to Atlantic City, they voted it down. As MFDP Vice Chair Fannie Lou Hamer said, "We didn't come all the way up here to compromise for no more than we’d gotten here. We didn't come all this way for no two seats, 'cause all of us is tired." The failure of the compromise effort allowed the rest of the Democratic Party to conclude that the MFDP was simply being unreasonable, and they lost a great deal of their liberal support. After that, the convention went smoothly for LBJ without a searing battle over civil rights.[29] Despite the landslide victory, Johnson carried the South as a whole in the election, lost the Deep South states of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina, the first time a Democratic candidate had done so since Reconstruction.



Like aghast said...These are the children of the people who were against these bills.There parents have instilled in their kids there political views that democrats are bad people and socialist,and the kids just follow.


In conjunction with the civil rights movement, Johnson overcame southern resistance and convinced Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed most forms of racial segregation. Johnson signed it into law on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that, as he put down his pen, Johnson told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation," anticipating a coming backlash from Southern whites against Johnson's Democratic Party.[30] In 1965, he achieved passage of a second civil rights bill, the Voting Rights Act, that outlawed discrimination in voting, thus allowing millions of southern blacks to vote for the first time.

In 1967, Johnson nominated civil rights attorney Thurgood Marshall to be the first African American Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. After the murder of civil rights worker Viola Liuzzo, Johnson went on television to announce the arrest of four Ku Klux Klansmen implicated in her death. He angrily denounced the Klan as a "hooded society of bigots", and warned them to "return to a decent society before it's too late." He turned the themes of Christian redemption to push for civil rights, thereby mobilizing support from churches North and South.[31]

 

I don't want to sell your point (and RF3L2's) too short, either, which I might be. Obviously, back when the shift started in the South, racism was a large element. But, I suppose I don't focus on that, because that's living in the past, a greatest-generation and baby-boomer issue. Talking about the South today, I don't think it is racism that still keeps the South hanging out with the Republicans. I think it is their ideological approach to cultural, economic, and regulatory issues. That's also why I don't agree with people who are anticipating Texas or other parts of the South becoming more liberal as the older generations are replaced by the newer ones. Because it's not a dying vestige of racism, but a robust and even progressive (with a small p) philosophy about the roles and boundaries of government.

 

That was supposed to read:

One of the perils of evaluating the history of racism in Texas/the US just-below-the-surface is that one can easily scratch too hard. I don't know; I don't think we've turned the page that quickly or easily. This is my own bias. I grew up in a small town in southeast Texas that, in ways small and large, was profoundly racist. There were sunset towns nearby. Heck, Vidor was nearby; I remember the literal firebombs hurled at efforts to integrate that town. It was below the surface, yes, and most of the people weren't themselves racist, but they allowed the atmosphere to continue. There was de facto segregation in my town. Thiat Texas is not yet dead. Know something? I'm still in my twenties.

Just stumbled across this, related.

If one can get past the swearing, Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi is one of the best political reporters around. His latest's key graphs: The Death of a Red State:

 

The problem is the Republicans in power (aka Bush) took the fiscal conservative base on a ride and only pandered to the religious side. Those fiscal conservatives don't have a party anymore and are only voting republican out of default.

I mean, if you're a fiscal conservative. who'd you rather vote for? a tax and spender who pretends to be fiscally conservative or a tax and spender who calls himself a tax and spender? (why do you think the right brought all that obama is a marxist talk this week?)

Its a far stretch to say the fiscal conservs should vote for obama believing he's lying about his beliefs on income redistribution.

 

The problem is the Republicans in power (aka Bush) took the fiscal conservative base on a ride and only pandered to the religious side. Those fiscal conservatives don't have a party anymore and are only voting republican out of default.

I mean, if you're a fiscal conservative. who'd you rather vote for? a tax and spender who pretends to be fiscally conservative or a tax and spender who calls himself a tax and spender? (why do you think the right brought all that obama is a marxist talk this week?)

Its a far stretch to say the fiscal conservs should vote for obama believing he's lying about his beliefs on income redistribution.

 

Present !!!

I am a fiscal conservative....I am PRAYING that Obama is more of a centrist.

DD

 

True. The Norquists were there first, and they want their party back. However, fiscal conservatives have been getting their tax breaks and deregulations in spades. Spades, just without the promised spending cuts to accompany them. Mixed bag.

[Amended.]

To each according to his need; from each according to his ability.

McCain plans to give less to those in need; he takes from the most able at most roughly 35%.
Obama plans to give slightly more to those in need; he takes from the most able at most roughly 39%.

In other words, both fail severely the Marxist or "income redistribution" tag.

And in the last thirty years, the most fiscally conservative/responsible president has been Bill Clinton (D). But at least in stated ideology rather than practical results, I agree.

 

If Obama can flip some red states in the south, I would LMAO.

 

Me too.

McCain had to start putting money in West Virginia to defend it. West Virginia!

Virginia looks blue. North Carolina has a shot. Florida is likely (though it's never been truly South). Even Georgia has an outside shot of going Obama; it's only "lean" Republican currently.

swing states

 

blind faith that contradicts everything seen. Interesting. How very Vspan fan of you

 

Have you ever lived anywhere else? You are right that I don't have any idea how other administrations will use the Patriot Act. The problem is that the Democrats will continue to increase spending. I'm in favor of cutting spending and increasing taxes. Something not popular with either party. I hate the government trying to bailout us, when it is us that needs to bail them out of the mess they have gotten themselves into. No more bailouts, no more stimulus packages. I want to start over. Lets even things out. Lets make it fair.

Lesser of two evils. God how I hate that saying. I actually think this country is best suited for a democrat as president and a republican congress. There is no doubt that the democrats will control congress.

 

He has made many speaches about being more conservative fiscally and cutting back on spending, and slowing the implementation of some of the programs he wants....

I believe Obama is a realist. He knows we can not continue to spiral into deeper debt.

He is smarter than the right gives him credit for.....and there are still too many uneducated people voting...but hey, they get a vote too.....everyone gets to vote....whether they understand the issues or not.

I know a lot of people that believe all the Ayers garbage etc....and I ask them if they researched it.....nope is the answer.....not surprising....

DD

 

Yeah, cause mccain is such a fiscal miser....

Oh wait - his projected defecit increase is almost 50% larger than Obama's.

Linky linky to 2018 estimates. McCain: 5 Trillion. Obama: 3.4 Trillion.

Neither is a fiscal conservative by any means. McCain, however, is definitely worse off in that category.

FAIL again, magical ass. Now go *POOF* as usual...

 

I've seen where harris county will be democratic this yr for the 1st time ever I think.

 

i stopped reading.. let me ask everyone that supports obama.. why do you support obama?? why why why? he is a socialist and wants to take money from people who earned it. His tax code only affects the poor and middle class too.. What people dont understand is that taxing the rich never works!! THe only thing they are giong to do is raise prices which is just passed back down to the middle class... think about it people.. raising taxes on the rich has never affected them.. never worked before and never will... and i do not like mccain.. .just not much of a choice between these two.

 

you've never taken economics have you? and you've been listening to Rush Limbaugh quite often haven't you?

the economy, my friend (like McCain), is a cycle.. it's basically a circle, and the money goes around this circle.. the job of the government in regards to this circle is what most of the people disgaree about.. now, the government can "create money" if you will, which is achieved by putting money into this circle so that the circle is nice and healthy.. there are 2 major "openings" in this circle to put this money into, the rich people and the poor people. The government doesn't really "Give money" to these groups, but it taxes them less, which means they have MORE money. the two scenarios:

1. you tax the rich people less (aka: tax the rich people as much as you tax the poor people), they'll have more money, but since they're extremely rich, they tend to be greedy, and they never seem to get enough, so those rich people basically take this money into their pockets, which means the became richer. They, of course, don't take ALL of the money to their pockets, instead, they pass a small portion of this money to the poor people by employing them, but the majority of that money goes to THEIR PERSONAL BENEFIT.. now, if you keep doing that, they keep getting richer and richer, and the poor people stay poor, so you have a widening gap between the 2 classes (which is what we've had for the past few years), and the poor people can't take it anymore so they steal, meaning that, among other complications, the crime rate increases, and society gets filled with hatred and envy..

2. you tax the rich people more, and the poor people less: The poor people now have MORE money, so they save a SMALL BIT of it, and they spend the majority of it.. what do they spend it on? products that RICH people make.. this means that Rich people get more money too because poor people have more money now, and their using this extra money to buy stuff from the rich people (e.g: I'm poor, I get a tax cut, I buy an HP laptop with this extra money, Hewlett Packard/Bill Gates get money from me.. )

the people who fall under the "category 1" comprise less than 10% of our nation, not even 5%, and what these people are doing is: they're using their wealth and influence to make "republicans" (see: Joe the Plumber) think that Obama is gonna take their money to "spread the wealth around", while, in reality, he's taking a tiny bit of money from those greedy top 5% and giving it to the other 95 percent, who, in turn, buy stuff from the top 5%, and thus make them richer...

if anyone has the tiniest of grasps on the basic concepts I discussed above, you wouldn't vote McCain ever, not only because he won't help you, but because he's been LYING to you..

 

Wow. Of all the guilt-by-association arguments, I'm surprised McCain hasn't used this.

Ayers? Meh
Wright? Whatever

But... Obama is supported by someone who thought V-Span could be a significant NBA player. Lucky I haven't cast my ballot early!

j/k, DD!

 

I can see the fox news headline right now: "Obama supports employing Europeans instead of Americans?"
O'Reilly:
-One of the most active Obama supporter and a huge contributor to the campaign by the name of DaDakota has been fervently supporting the replacement of American employees such as Rafer Alston, John Lucas III, Aaron Brooks, Luther head, and several others by an evil less-qualified Greek named Vasilis Spanoulis (wildly mispronounces both his first and his last name, as he usually does with anyone not named "John Smith" ) .. goes on to show you how unamerican and unpatriotic this terrorist socialist is!

 

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.

 

You've just outed yourself as an extremely uninformed voter.

Please look up the words 'progressive taxation' and US historical tax rates. Throw in not just Obama's tax plan, but McCain's plan as well. You might be surprised to see how they all compare to *your* (McCain talking points?) definition of socialism.