Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (191817)	6/16/2012 9:32:37 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543855

E.g. the 1964 civil rights act vote. Hard to over generalize that vote. Well, yes and no. I suspect you would love Caro's latest volume on LBJ. He digs deeply into the various measures LBJ used to get the vote he wanted. The key was getting the Republican vote, which had been difficult up to that point because they copped out on procedural grounds. LBJ found no end of ways to box them in. So in Caro's view, what made the difference that time around was LBJ's superior knowledge of congressional rules, personalities, and political bases. And his willingness to use all of it to get the bill passed. He also had to get it discharged from the House Rules Committee. Another legislative marvel. As for the comments about "science", we aren't even close to dealing with that creature. My problem with your original comment was not the generalization, had it been couched in some sort of language befitting a generalization. I was bothered by the overgeneralization of "the south is anti-intellectual." In that form, it's wrong. Ah, another recommendation. If you don't know C. Vann Woodward's work on southern history, I recommend it highly. I particularly liked his book on Tom Watson, the Georgia populist who started his political career as a genuine populist, Tom Watson: Agrarian Rebel. It was my introduction to Woodward's work and gave me an appreciation for the complexity of southern politics, particularly deep south politics.

To: koan who wrote (191817)	6/16/2012 10:21:32 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543855

" It was like 95% correlated to the south" Which, at the time, was solidly (D). en.wikipedia.org "The term Solid South describes the electoral support of the Southern United States for Democratic Party candidates from 1877 (the end of Reconstruction) to 1964 (the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). During this time, the vast majority of local and state officeholders in the South were Democrats, as were federal politicians the region sent to Washington, D.C.. The virtual non-existence of the Republican Party in the region meant that a candidate's victory in Democratic primary elections was tantamount to election to the office itself. The first break in the "Solid South": Missouri goes for Republican Theodore Roosevelt in the 1904 election. (Cartoon by John T. McCutcheon.) The Democratic dominance of the South originated in many white Southerners' animosity towards the Republican Party's stance in favor of political rights for blacks during Reconstruction and Republican economic policies such as the high tariff and the support for continuing the gold standard, both of which were seen as benefiting Northern industrial interests at the expense of the agrarian South in the 19th century. It was maintained by the Democratic Party's willingness to back Jim Crow laws and racial segregation. [1]"