In our timeline, the Northern united states was long Republican and switched to the Democrats, and the opposite happened in the South. What needs to happen to prevent this? How will the change effect the nation and the world?
In our timeline, the Northern united states was long Republican and switched to the Democrats, and the opposite happened in the South. What needs to happen to prevent this? How will the change effect the nation and the world?
It hasn't that the regions switched parties, it was that the parties switched platforms. So you'd probably have to get the parties to keep their platforms.
They didn't. Nixon just took advantage of the South's anger at civil rights.How exactly did their platforms change?
They didn't. Nixon just took advantage of the South's anger at civil rights.
Maybe have Rockefeller, and not Goldwater, win the nomination in 1964. That might spark a segregationist, but still Democratic, third party run in the South. Afterwards, Nixon loses the nomination in 1968 to someone like, say, Romney, who wins without using a Southern Strategy, and goes against Democratic opponent George Wallace in 1972. If the Democratic Party keeps nominating Southerns, they might be able to keep at least part of the South (see Carter, Clinton).
You can probably keep at least Kentucky and West Virginia as blue states if you keep the Democrats from going after coal and staying centrist on social issues.
I know plenty of people from those areas who vote Democrat on state tickets and Republican in federal elections, mostly because they resent the national Democratic party but approve of the policies of the state party.
I think if we avoid Hubert Humphrey from making his speech at the 1948 DNC, the Dixiecrats do not make their third party run (and prove that the Democrats do not need the South to win elections). Truman wins in 1948 by a larger margin and into the 1950s and 60s Democrats still believe the South is necessary to win elections. As a result, the Democrats do not hold a strong stance on civil rights. This could mean LBJ is nominated in 1960 and wins, further establishing the party as having a Southern wing. Johnson also hides his social liberalism and does not pass any Civil Rights Act.
He tried in 1957. It wasn't as strong as the 1964 Act, but LBJ himself watered it down a lot.Can we get Ike to pass Civil Rights, or is it too early?
So do the Republicans take up the banner of Civil Rights in this scenario, or does the movement get a big setback?
It's been debunked time and time again. It wasn't a sudden flip, the GOP had been increasing it's share of southern votes throughout the 20th Century. If not for the Great Depression and FDR it probably would have flipped sooner:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...standing_the_southern_realignment_107084.html
Read the article. Don't buy in to the myth that has been spun for the last 30+ years!
He tried in 1957. It wasn't as strong as the 1964 Act, but LBJ himself watered it down a lot.
They didn't. Nixon just took advantage of the South's anger at civil rights.