I don’t know what to make of the article neverdem, are they saying that Jindal’s victory is a repudiation of the “Southern Strategy” or that the Republican Party has abandoned that strategy or what?
Read the last paragraph again, please.
Notice when Wikipedia changed the color scheme indicating which party in which state got the electoral votes. If you didn't know better you would think it was 1980 that the drive by media made the switch from traditional GOP blue to the red of traditional pinkos in the Cold War. The drive by media made actually made the switch in 2000. Don't trust Wikipedia on anything political.
Excepting Carter's 1976 southern win, the South has been strong GOP Presidential territory ever since.
The first bolded string means the link in the article to the 1976 electoral map in which Georgia was colored red.
The bolded GOP means the link to the 1980 electoral map in which Georgia was colored blue.
I don’t get this article at all. You can’t compare someone from India to an American negro. It’s apples and oranges, unless you see them all as “darkies.” And if anything, it seems that greater representation was a cynical byproduct of a cynical strategy. Are we supposed to celebrate this? Seems like politics at its most vile to me. Brings to mind that unfortunate scar on Reagan’s record...opening his campaign with wink and a nod to the racists.
Are Senate Offices Lying To You? - -- Some are claiming there is no Veterans Disarmament Act! Check the links in the excerpt at least. It's scary.
Health Sector Puts Its Money on Democrats
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
This article wasn’t what I expected by the title... But I will promise this: Bobby Jindal will be a very formidable presidential candidate in 8 years. If he can transform Louisiana the way I expect him to, there may be no stopping him.
“Republicans have worked to maximize black congressional representation by creating black-majority congressional districts.”
Bull. Its called gerrymandering and it was never done to “maximize black congressional representation”. Say you have 4 congressional districts with blacks comprising a large minority in each district. In order to avoid having to answer to this minority constituency in each district, the politicos redefine the districts so that they have one solid black district and 3 solid white districts. 3 votes to 1 beats 4 maybe votes in any legislature. Same goes for electoral politics. 3 solid white votes out of 4 beats 4 votes that have to appeal to black issues come election time in any election. Its not just a race based strategy though. Anytime you know the voting patterns of a given area, you can redefine the districts so you “maximize” the amount of districts that vote in your party’s favor. Both parties do this but to say that anyone has ever done this to “maximise black congressional representation” is selling you a load of crap.
A narrative has been constructed by Democrats and their media allies castigating Republicans as purveyors of a racist "Southern strategy" to explain the transition of the South from solidly Democrat to solidly Republican. If a tree can be judged by its fruit, this narrative is backwards.When the 1994 "Contract with America" approach bore fruit, Pubbies made gains in the South, including some party switchers. Before the new congress was sworn in, the Dhimmicrats began their broad attack on tobacco -- amazing that tobacco had no ill health effects for the previous 58 years, during the rickety FDR coalition.