USA North stays Republican, South stays Democrat

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.
 
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).
 

TinyTartar

Banned
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.
 
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).

Can we get Ike to pass Civil Rights, or is it too early?
 
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 didn't know something like that could happen. Cool
 
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.
 
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.

So do the Republicans take up the banner of Civil Rights in this scenario, or does the movement get a big setback?
 
So do the Republicans take up the banner of Civil Rights in this scenario, or does the movement get a big setback?

The movement gets a big setback.

I think if the Democrats are silent on the issue of civil rights, the Republicans led by leaders such as George Romney will be more prominent as the alt-New Left helps the Republican Party. Civil rights is somewhat delayed, but the Republicans do take up the banner of civil rights (as they did IOTL).
 
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!

This is the real issue. Nixon was really a one-time thing. A look at Congressional elections shows that the democrats controlled the south into the eighties and the republicans only truly took over in the nineties. Carter swept the south in 1976 and almost won most of the south in 1980.

And now, migration from the north has turned Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia into swing states.
 
They didn't. Nixon just took advantage of the South's anger at civil rights.

Their platforms definitely did change. This of course occurred over decades, but it surely happened. Originally the Republicans were the more liberal, the pro government, etc. party. Whilst the Democrats were courting the farmers and the little man. Also remember that Progressive Party emerged out of the Republican Party. These two parties have definitely changed platforms and spectrums.
 
Top