Talk:Solid South

Southern strategy

The addition of the information that the Civil Rights Act had Republican support is valid. Nevertheless, in 1968 Nixon did pursue a "Southern strategy" aimed at winning votes from Southerners who were hostile to the Act and to civil rights in general, so I've restored that reference and link. JamesMLane 21:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sources/References

Can some of our editors add a References section with the citations for this account and maybe some general bibliographic references on this subject? --Dystopos 22:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Southern Strategy

Please keep discussion on this page. I see no difference between the subject of this article and Southern strategy. It appears that their respective contributors are simply ignorant of the other's existence. There is a large duplication of content, although both contain information that the other does not. I do not know which title should be kept. I prefer Solid South, but I could be wrong. If they are not merged, I hope that this discussion will at least lay out a clear deliniation between the subjects of the articles such that there is no overlap in content and that it will be abundantly clear in the future where new content should be added. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. These are completely different topics, I believe. Southern Strategy explores the Republican Party's attempt to wrest the south from the Democrats; it's an article about a political strategy. Solid South is a history article. There's noting wrong with what you call "duplication of content" because the articles cover similar ground.Griot 16:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the previous editor. They are two separate articles, one dealing with a recent political strategy and the other with a political history that existed from after the Civil War until the 1970s. One could state that the Southern Strategy came ended the Solid South but that doesn't mean they should be one article.--Alabamaboy 17:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merger. The Solid South article covers a much longer time period. JamesMLane t c 18:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I oppose merging to one article, but I support reducing redundant content. Solid South should point to Southern Strategy for detailed information on the organized campaign and Southern Strategy should point back to Solid South for the context and aftermath of that project. --Dystopos 20:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the content deliniation? Southern strategy starts with reconstruction and Solid South has a section for "Solid South today". I'm fine with the two articles remaining. Wikipedia is not paper so we don't have to merge slightly separate topics, but we need to redistribute some content between these articles. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge these two articles. Their topics, "Solid South" and "Southern strategy", are opposites, the first representing Democratic domination in the southern United States 1877-1964 and the second representing Republican domination 1964-present. The only similarity between the two concepts is that they are both consequences of white racism. Yes, the end of the Solid south is essentially the same as the start of the Southern strategy. Possibly Southern strategy could be shortened. Paul 04:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Last paragraph

While the last paragraph is probably largely factually correct as of October 2006, it seems to be both POV and, as far as I can determine, unreferenced. Comments? Rlquall 14:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph reads as follows:

As of pre-midterm elections, 2006, the political climate has begun to shift in the "Solid South" states. Wavering support for an unpopular war and repeated exposures of corruption and mismanagement of the Republican dominated Administration has made many staunch "Red States" not so "clearly-colored". September-October polls reveal larger support for Democratic candidates then in 2004. Much of this is attributed not so much as a shift in political ideology, but more to a growing disilluionment and resentment of the current Republican administration.

It wouldn't be hard to find citations for the proposition that most analysts expect the Republican Party to lose seats in 2006, in the South and elsewhere. Nevertheless, that point doesn't add much to the article. The preceding section (Solid South#The "Solid South" today) notes that the southern states' Congressional delegations are a mix of Democrats and Republicans. This makes it clear that the solidity of the "Solid South" is most notable in Presidential politics. The year-to-year fluctuations in the prospects of each party's House and Senate candidates don't need to be detailed. I'm removing the paragraph. JamesMLane t c 22:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Solid South" as a term for current realities in presidential elections seems rather dubious. The Democrats have won southern electoral votes in just about every election where they haven't been totally blown out, with the exception of the last two elections and 1988. It's worth noting that the "Solid South" doesn't just refer to presidential elections - other than Tennessee, the states of the Confederacy did not elect any Republican governors between 1896 and 1966, and no Republican senators for a comparable period (the first was John Tower in 1960). There is not, and has never been, a "Solid South" for Republicans, in the way that there was for the Democrats between 1880 and 1960. The situation today simply isn't comparable. john k 23:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The article draws the distinction, noting that the party mix is more balanced at the lower levels (Senator, U.S. House, governor). There certainly is a Republican predominance, though. In 1992 and 1996, the Democrats, with two Southerners on the ticket, split the South's electoral votes. In 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004, however, they were completely shut out (and virtually shut out in 1980, with Carter carrying only his native Georgia). You're correct that it's not a complete mirror image of the 1880-1960 situation, but the current Republican advantage is worth mentioning. The South certainly didn't go from being solidly Democratic to being evenly contested between the parties in Presidential elections. JamesMLane t c 23:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly true. My main issue was that I wasn't sure why the article seems so focused on presidential elections, when the Solid South was rather an across the board phenomenon. The article also focuses rather strongly on the end of the Solid South and the "Southern Strategy," which has its own article, rather than on anything else about it. Its origins with the end of Reconstruction (and the disenfranchisement of Black voters) are only discussed in the introduction, and only with respect to presidential elections. There's nothing about the Republican Party in the south before the 1960s (either in its "actually having real members" state in eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, and the border states, and in its "entirely existing to receive federal patronage" state in the rest of the South), and nothing really about the political contours of the period in the south - there ought to be some discussion of the Populist challenge to Democratic dominance in the 1890s, for instance, the way the Progressives impacted southern politics (by, for instance, creating primaries that allowed for intra-Democratic party democracy, for white people, at least), and so forth. And, as I said before, the article is entirely focused on presidential politics, when the Solid South applies more or less across the board. john k 15:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The information you refer to could indeed be usefully added to the article. I'm not sure you're right in criticizing the emphasis on Presidential politics, though. My subjective impression of the use of the phrase is that it tended to occur more often in discussions of Presidential races. (The solidity of the South was indeed top-to-bottom; I'm referring only to how this particular phrase was used.) At any rate, we don't disagree about the relevance of the other stuff -- so feel free to fix it.  :) JamesMLane t c 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As always, I'm much better at criticizing the flaws of articles than actually fixing them. I'll see about changing them. I would agree that "Solid South" is probably used somewhat more about presidential races than others, but, on the other hand, the Solid South frayed much sooner in presidential politics than it did elsewhere. Much of the South voted for a Republican presidential candidate in 1928, and the Solid South in presidential elections entirely left in 1948 and never returned, but the former Confederate states didn't elect a Republican senator until 1960 (Tower), or a Republican Governor until 1966 (Rockefeller and Kirk). Anyway, I'll see what I can do about expanding the article. john k 16:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the last paragraph, I'm not sure why the democratic party's results in the north have anything to do with an article on the Southern Strategy/Solid South. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Originated in Reconstruction?

What about the first Republican president's military invasion and conquering of their land? I think it's safe to say that the Solid South was solid well before Reconstruction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottJ (talk • contribs) 20:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Northeastern U.S.

Hey all. Just wanted to let you know that I made a small correction of the statement that said that in 2004, Kerry won all nine Northeastern states, from Maryland to Maine. I think whether Maryland can be considered a Northeastern state can be debated; some would class it as a Northern state, some would class it as a Southern state, and others would class it as a border state. Hence, I have changed the wording to state "from Pennsylvania to Maine" rather than from "Maryland to Maine." Also, if one does the math, Maryland plus all the Northeastern states equals ten states instead of nine. However, my correction has rectified this issue as well. Thanks.Gujuguy (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Nixon's Grand Strategy

As political grand strategy, Nixon shifted his Republican party's basis to appeal less to liberals and more to conservatives, especially the southern conservatives of the 1960's. Often, these southern conservatives were in the forefront to oppose the many civil rights legislation passed during the 1960's. Although these southern conservatives had traditionally voted as Democrats, many southern conservatives felt alienated from the Democrat Party because of the Democrats strong emphasis on civil rights and desegregation, especially the civil rights of black Amercians. When Mississippi's black delegation to the Democrat National convention was seated in place of the white delegation, Richard Nixon and members of the GOP pursued as their Republican Party's basis a value system that would appeal to southern conservatives. During the 1980's, these southern conservatives became known as "Reagan's Democrats" because these southern conservatives voted solidly for the Republican Party, thus making the Solid South the conservative basis for the Republican Party. 125.162.168.156 (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A nitpick. "Reagan Democrat" doesn't refer to Southerners who switched as a result of the civil rights era. It refers to working class people in the Northeast and Midwest who traditionally voted Democrat but went over to Reagan because the crises of the seventies had so thoroughly destroyed the credibility of their old party - inflation, gas lines et al ruined their economic cred (historically their strong point); the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Iran hostage crisis and revolution in Nicaragua were also blamed on the Democrats; and finally, there was the counterculture of the seventies (antiwar movement, sexual liberalism, rejection of traditional values and institutions) which alienated these Democrats' conservative social values.

In 1992 and 1996, Reagan and Bush's failure to fix the economy made it possible for Bill Clinton to target these voters and bring them back to the other side of the aisle. That's why they're called Reagan *Democrats* and not Republicans - they only switched for the duration of the 1980s. 216.15.41.45 (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oklahoma

Oklahoma, which Congressional Quarterly considers part of the South, belongs in the table. Inclusion of Missouri is more questionable. Recommendation: Keep Missouri in, but add Oklahoma. Rammer (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Maryland

Why is this state not included? Missouri is, but Maryland isn't? In these days of the Solid South, when being a Democrat meant conservatism, Maryland was very much a part of the Solid South, on a local and national level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.232.68 (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Maryland actually wasn't part of the Solid South and most notably didn't have to go through Reconstruction with the Confederate states. Ever since the LBJ days Maryland has remained solidly Democratic with Northeastern voting patterns, while the South has been solidly Republican up until the 2008 election (Sons of the South Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton being exceptions, especially the former). The same applies to Delaware and West Virginia. I don't know why Oklahoma isn't in the table though. Missouri is debatable, especially since its been considered solidly Midwestern since the 1900's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.224.16 (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Clinton states & LA

Has it been corrected here in Talk that Clinton carried LA twice? I think the section on what BC carried could be made clearer w/ in the Southern Strategy - End of the Solid South section.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/ http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html 1992, Clinton, WV, KY, TN, Ark, LA & GA. 1996, WV, KY, TN, Ark, LA, FL.

151.204.190.111 (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)