Will The Republicans ever figure out why they lost?

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@iiandyiiii

Exactly- the Republicans made a strategic choice to try and appeal to southern white racists. They knew they were alienating black people, but they thought the electoral advantage was worth it. And it was, for decades- but not any more- now it’s backfiring.

Holy shit.

Why don’t you click on the link in my previous post? Start at the 86th Congress and look at the makeup of the Senate and House by state. You will see just how absurdly false your statement is. It’s like you guys are impervious to facts or something. Democrats continued to maintain a hold over the South well into the early 90’s, when you start to see a shift. Assuming that those “racist Democrats” became “racist Republicans”, then why does this not show up in the years immediately following 1964? Why does it take near 30 years for there to be a shift? Surely, those “racists” have better things to do than to wait around for near 30 years and then decide to start voting Republican?

[GIGObuster]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Revisionist history at it’s finest.

Republicans did not bring up abortion; that was Democrats.
They did not bring up birth control; that was Democrats again.

The Democrats continued on with the “war on women” meme, even though it was rated as false so many times. It’s a wonder they were able to continue on with it. But that’s what happens when you have a populace who will lap up anything.

This is a really silly point, the revisionism is coming from the republicans and it is even more silly when the Republicans are the ones who **continue **to push for restrictions.

WASHINGTON June 18, 2013– The House of Representatives passed legislation to enact stringent restrictions on abortion Tuesday, acting on an issue championed by social conservatives in the Republican majority and inviting a possible new challenge to constitutional abortion rights.

The bill approved largely along party lines would prohibit abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy, with limited exceptions to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest, so long as they have been reported to law enforcement.

The final vote was 228 to 196. Six Republicans voted against the measure, while as many Democrats voted for it.

The 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision allowed abortions until a fetus is viable outside the womb, generally considered to be at 24 weeks. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last month struck down an Arizona law that also would have banned abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Other states with Republican-led legislatures have also pushed new abortion restrictions.

House Democrats protested the measure as unconstitutional and a new assault by the GOP on women’s reproductive rights in what they call a “war on women.”

Jobs? Better spent the time voting against health care reform and more restrictions to abortion.

[iiandyiiii]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Holy shit.

Why don’t you click on the link in my previous post? Start at the 86th Congress and look at the makeup of the Senate and House by state. You will see just how absurdly false your statement is. It’s like you guys are impervious to facts or something. Democrats continued to maintain a hold over the South well into the early 90’s, when you start to see a shift. Assuming that those “racist Democrats” became “racist Republicans”, then why does this not show up in the years immediately following 1964? Why does it take near 30 years for there to be a shift? Surely, those “racists” have better things to do than to wait around for near 30 years and then decide to start voting Republican?

You continue the comedy. Even prominent Republicans don’t deny what the Southern strategy was meant to do. Sure, it was all about politics- including the politics of coded language. And the difference before and after the '60s is striking- the Southern Strategy was more about presidential elections than state and local elections- and it’s pretty clear when looking at presidential election results. Before '68, the Democrats pretty much always swept the South. From '68 to today, the Democrats swept the South once- in '76, and were only competitive in Southern states in a few other elections. The difference is striking, and it’s because of the Southern Strategy.

And the cost of the Southern Strategy was a perception that was built among the public that connected the Republican party to racism- especially white, southern racism against black people.

[iiandyiiii]

The Democratic party and liberal America has its share of wierdos, but no prominent Democrats are at the crazy and falsehood-telling levels of folks such as Bachmann, Steve King, et al. It’s comical when a supporter of the party of creationism tries to attack anyone else as anti-science.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

Number one, that wasn’t a spin. At all. Romney did not bring up abortion. Obama did, running ad after ad about the alleged war on women (which were consistently rated as false) and giving Cecille Richards a prominent speaking position at the DNC (I must have missed, say, Marjorie Dannenfelser at the RNC). Seriously. Revisionist history here at its finest, but given how you guys can’t even get what happened with the Southern Strategy right, that doesn’t surprise me. Number two, tell me again how many bills Harry Reid refuses to bring to a vote that the House has passed? Exactly.

So anything else you want to throw out?

[iiandyiiii]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Revisionist history here at its finest, but given how you guys can’t even get what happened with the Southern Strategy right, that doesn’t surprise me.

This from the guy who thinks that pre-60s voting statistics show an accurate representation of the preference of black voters. Pure comedy.

[Lamar_Mundane]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Holy shit.

Why don’t you click on the link in my previous post? Start at the 86th Congress and look at the makeup of the Senate and House by state. You will see just how absurdly false your statement is. It’s like you guys are impervious to facts or something. Democrats continued to maintain a hold over the South well into the early 90’s, when you start to see a shift. Assuming that those “racist Democrats” became “racist Republicans”, then why does this not show up in the years immediately following 1964? Why does it take near 30 years for there to be a shift? Surely, those “racists” have better things to do than to wait around for near 30 years and then decide to start voting Republican?

You’re only looking at Congress. Many of those people were long-term incumbents who’s attitudes toward segregation were well known. The people weren’t going to throw them all out just because of their party affiliation - they knew what they had and were fine with it.

It’s the presidential voting where it shows up - when it’s not their local guy who they’ve known for years running. In 1960 the South was solidly blue - only Florida didn’t vote for Kennedy. In 1964, after the Civil Rights Act had been passed, only six states in the country voted for Goldwater - his home state of Arizona, and LA, MS, AL, GA, and SC. In 1968, the South was all red except for five Southern states that voted for George Wallace. In 1972 it was 100% red. 1976 was an outlier due to Watergate and Jimmy Carter was a Southerner.

It’s been more or less 100% red ever since 1964 although Southerner Bill Clinton flipped a couple of his neighboring states in 1992 and 1996.

Presidential Election of 1960 - 270toWin

[GIGObuster]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Seriously. Revisionist history here at its finest, but given how you guys can’t even get what happened with the Southern Strategy right, that doesn’t surprise me. Number two, tell me again how many bills Harry Reid refuses to bring to a vote that the House has passed? Exactly.

And that means…

That unenforced errors are done with gusto by the Republicans. But we knew that already in this context the Republicans continue to dig, but in any case they just demonstrated how wrong you are, Republicans still bring it forward.

[GIGObuster]

As for the Southern Strategy, the revisionism is still coming from your sources.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2013/04/17/why-rand-paul-ignored-the-southern-strategy-at-howard-university

Nevertheless, his evolving account of the civil rights movement and black politics portrays someone learning on the fly. Last week at Howard, for example, he said that “from the Civil War to the civil rights movement, for a century, most black Americans voted Republican.” He flatly contradicted that assertion this morning. “I was completely blasted by some on the left wing for being out of touch and knowing nothing about the Southern strategy and that’s why African-Americans became Democrats, which is just flat out wrong,” he said, going on to cite estimates that blacks voted two-thirds for Herbert Hoover in 1928 but then flipped to vote in the same numbers for Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 and subsequently stayed with Democrats. “For people to tell me the reason Republicans are hated by the African-American community is because of the Southern strategy, it may have cemented the change, but the change did happen in the Great Depression,” he said.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Southern strategy is probably exactly why blacks “hate” the GOP – they might have switched allegiance under FDR, but the Southern strategy made things personal. In any case, this week’s Rand Paul might want to discuss with last week’s Rand Paul whether African-Americans supported the GOP “for a century.”

And while last week Paul portrayed Democrats as a party of relentless civil rights obstructionism, this morning he was able to list a series of reasons blacks moved to the Democratic Party. They voted for FDR along with everyone else in 1932 and 1936, then “when Truman endorses civil rights in 1948, the Dixiecrats break off, but the vote becomes overwhelmingly [an] African-American vote for Truman. He also integrated the armed services. So you get to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, you got 90 percent of the people, African-Americans, voting for LBJ.”

That’s a somewhat different history than he gave last week. And what he fails to note is that starting in the mid-1960s conservative whites start leaving the Democratic Party in droves while blacks stay put. Why? The Southern strategy. If it cemented an existing change, it did so with intent and it did so enduringly.

And it’s a bit much to sweep aside nearly 50 years of history as merely “cementing” an underlying trend. I’d venture to say that unwavering contemporary black support for Democrats is more informed by experience with the Southern strategy than lingering loyalty to FDR. Remember that the Southern strategy isn’t ancient history – you could see it in Newt Gingrich’s dismissal of President Obama as the “food stamp president” and you could see it in the Romney campaign’s specious assertion that President Obama wanted to “gut” welfare reform.

If anything is getting in the way of 21st century African-Americans embracing the GOP’s civil rights heritage, it’s the 21st century Republican Party. Rand Paul might want to keep that in mind the next time he tries to deliver a history lecture.

[Little_Nemo]

@adaher

There are many paths to victory when you’re only a couple points behind in Presidential races. They could do better among women. They could do a little better among African-Americans. They could do better among Hispanics or Asians. They could even do better among white males.

As a matter of fact, there’s no particular reason that the GOP can’t just get whites voting as a bloc the way African-Americans do. If they succeeded in that, they’d be the dominant party for a very long time.

Okay, so once again, what’s the plan? How would you recommend the Republican party accomplish one of the options you suggested?

“Keep doing what they’ve been doing” isn’t an acceptable answer. What they’ve been doing isn’t working. The Republicans need to do something different than what they’ve been doing. Now’s the time to make suggestions.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@iiandyiiii

You continue the comedy. Even prominent Republicans don’t deny what the Southern strategy was meant to do. Sure, it was all about politics- including the politics of coded language. And the difference before and after the '60s is striking- the Southern Strategy was more about presidential elections than state and local elections- and it’s pretty clear when looking at presidential election results. Before '68, the Democrats pretty much always swept the South. From '68 to today, the Democrats swept the South once- in '76, and were only competitive in Southern states in a few other elections. The difference is striking, and it’s because of the Southern Strategy.

You’re not even trying. You made a statement. One, mind you, which was blatantly false, patently absurd and easily proven as false. I’m still waiting for you to show me proof that “racist Democrats” became “racist Republicans”. A political map, voting patterns, a study, anything. No more bullshit, which is all I’ve gotten thus far. Apparently, it’s okay for you guys to make wild assertions absence any evidence, but the rest of us have to cite that we live on planet Earth. Of course, you don’t have any evidence, but I guess that’s just a mild nitpick, huh?

As it is, this is what we call telling half the story. From 1968 - 1988, there was one competitive presidential race out of six-- in 1976, where, as you so kindly pointed out, Democrats swept the Southern states. That, oddly enough, was also the best year Democrats had nationally, not just in the South, between 1968 and 1988. Furthermore, in 1968, Wallace (Independent) won five Southern states, further hurting your own argument that the Southern Strategy was some kind of gain for the Republicans. 1992 marked the first “competitive” race, with a clear demographic split between the two parties. Even then, Clinton was able to win six (depending on how you want to define the South) southern states in 1992and 1996. It wasn’t until 2000 when Bush II won did the South decisively break for one candidate as when compared to the rest of the U.S., more specifically the west and east coasts.

In fact, the fact that you attribute the Democrats doing so poorly between that period as a result of the Southern Strategy is laughable. It would require you to not only ignore the fact that Democrats continued to perform well in Congress in the South well into the 1990’s, but also ignore the economic and political reasons behind each candidate’s win or loss. I’m sure Nixon winning in 1968 had nothing to do with the Vietnam War or that his win in 1972 had nothing to do with the fact that his opponent was unknown and disliked by his own party. I’m sure Carter winning in 1976 had nothing to do with Nixon resigning in disgrace. I’m sure the Reagan’s win in the 1980 election had nothing to do with the fact that Carter was mired in a long economic slump, nor did his win in 1984 have anything to do with the economic recovery he touted. I’m sure Bush winning in 1988 had nothing to do with him riding out Reagan’s coattails, and I’m sure Clinton winning in 1992 had nothing to do with the fact that Bush raised taxes or that the U.S. was in a recessionary period. Nope. It’s all about the Southern Strategy!

I really can’t take your posts seriously. Have you even looked at a map of each presidential elections? I don’t think you have.

And the cost of the Southern Strategy was a perception that was built among the public that connected the Republican party to racism- especially white, southern racism against black people.

Yeah, I’m still waiting for that proof where you show me that those “racist Democrats” became “racist Republicans”. I’ll wait anxiously.

[iiandyiiii]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

You’re not even trying.

Well, that’s just 'cause it’s not that hard

You made a statement. One, mind you, which was blatantly false, patently absurd and easily proven as false. I’m still waiting for you to show me proof that “racist Democrats” became “racist Republicans”.

For elected officials, Thurmond and Helms come to mind. Trent Lott changed parties a bit later. As far as the electorate, prominent Republicans like Atwater and Ken Mehlman have admitted many times that the purpose of the Southern Strategy was to appeal to southern white racists (those racist Democratic voters who, because of the Southern Strategy, became racist Republican voters).

This is basic 20th century history. It’s not surprising that you buy the party line from know-nothings like Rand Paul and Michelle Bachmann (of the “founding fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery” infamy), but it’s unfortunate.

[GIGObuster]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

You’re not even trying. You made a statement. One, mind you, which was blatantly false, patently absurd and easily proven as false. I’m still waiting for you to show me proof that “racist Democrats” became “racist Republicans”. A political map, voting patterns, a study, anything. No more bullshit, which is all I’ve gotten thus far. Apparently, it’s okay for you guys to make wild assertions absence any evidence, but the rest of us have to cite that we live on planet Earth. Of course, you don’t have any evidence, but I guess that’s just a mild nitpick, huh?

That doesn’t mean that all Southern whites vote GOP only because of race. But when I checked in with the careful historian of Nixon’s Southern Strategy, Rick Perlstein, author of books on the Goldwater and Nixon phenomena, he suggested that recent research has demonstrated that racial attitudes—as opposed to mere conservatism on other policy issues—determine Republican votes in the South.

He referred me to a book by Thomas Schaller, called Whistling Past Dixie, in which Schaller cites sophisticated polling studies of Southern voters. Perlstein has explained his regard for Schaller’s book:

**Schaller builds this conclusion on one of the most impressive papers in recent political science, “Old Times There Are Not Forgotten: Race and Partisan Realignment in the Contemporary South,” by Nicholas Valentino and David Sears. **Running regressions on a massive data set of ideological opinions, Sears and Valentino demonstrate with precision that for example, a white Southern man who calls himself a “conservative,” controlling for racial attitudes, is no less likely to chance a vote for a Democratic presidential candidate than a Northerner who calls himself a conservative. Likewise, a pro-life or hawkish Southern white man is no less likely—again controlling for racial attitudes—than a pro-life or hawkish Northerner to vote for the Democrat. But, on the other hand, when the relevant identifier is anti-black answers to survey questions (such as whether one agrees “If blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites,” or choosing whether blacks are “lazy” or “hardworking”), an untoward result jumps out: white Southerners are twice as likely than white Northerners to refuse to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate. Schaller writes: “Despite the best efforts of Republican spinmeisters … the partisan impact of racial attitudes in the South is stronger today than in the past.”

At the very least these patterns make Southern voters susceptible to what some observers have called “dog whistle” appeals to racism, such as Mitt Romney’s false claim in campaign ads that Obama had “gutted” welfare reform work requirements, reminding many of Reagan-era attacks on “welfare queens” in Cadillacs.

Link to the study:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00136.x/abstract

So, I take it then that by your own words then we have evidence that we should not take you seriously?

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@GIGObuster

As for the Southern Strategy, the revisionism is still coming from your sources.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2013/04/17/why-rand-paul-ignored-the-southern-strategy-at-howard-university

Oh, I see. So your proof is an opinion piece.

Well, I’m convinced.

[GIGObuster]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Oh, I see. So your proof is an opinion piece.

Well, I’m convinced.

I linked to the study, so yes, I’m convinced you are wrong and no one should take you seriously. But hey, as long as you are nitpicking…

[Little_Nemo]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Romney did not bring up abortion. Obama did, running ad after ad about the alleged war on women (which were consistently rated as false) and giving Cecille Richards a prominent speaking position at the DNC (I must have missed, say, Marjorie Dannenfelser at the RNC). Seriously.

You seem to think you’ve said something profound. All you’ve done is state the obvious.

Romney didn’t bring up abortion because it was a vulnerability in his platform - some of his supporters were strongly pro-choice and some of his supporters were strongly pro-life. Which is why Obama brought the issue up. He wanted to put pressure on Romney. No matter what Romney did - take a pro-choice position, take a pro-life position, or avoid taking either position - he would offend some of his supporters and weaken their support.

All you’re apparently doing is accusing Obama of being a smart campaigner as if there’s something wrong with that.

Why didn’t Romney do the same thing? Why didn’t he exploit some wedge issue to divide Obama’s supporters?

[computergeek]

How can the Republicans win again and still stay conservative? For one thing, by not offending people with crap facts on rape when they’re trying to defend their position on abortion. Just be straight and say you are against abortion in all cases because you believe the life of the fetus is paramount. You will still offend some and some will be against you, but you won’t look like an anti-science lunatic when you are appealing to the heart instead of BS science information.

What else? Stop with the anti-science BS and realize your religious views are not science. Certain right winger blowhards have got to stop attacking women (like Sandra Fluke) in the most offensive ways just because they disagree with their views. Stop trying to claim climate change isn’t happening and argue the merits of what to do about it. Stop giving in to the extreme right wing and stand up to them. Stop finding ways to offend Hispanics (on immigration for example) and Blacks (like restricting voting). And for God sakes, if you say you are about economic issues, stop bringing up social issues and letting them take over the agenda.

Republicans can make a contrast with the Democrats without looking incredibly stupid. There are so many points on economic issues where you can present a sensible conservative case to appeal to people to join your party. It shouldn’t be that hard, but it seems to be for so many in the party.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@iiandyiiii

Well, that’s just 'cause it’s not that hard

Then why are you having so much difficulty here?

For elected officials, Thurmond and Helms come to mind. Trent Lott changed parties a bit later. As far as the electorate, prominent Republicans like Atwater and Ken Mehlman have admitted many times that the purpose of the Southern Strategy was to appeal to southern white racists (those racist Democratic voters who, because of the Southern Strategy, became racist Republican voters).

I’m tempted to mock you for assuming the few equals the many, but I won’t. That would be counterproductive.

This is basic 20th century history.

Then why don’t you understand history?

To further explore the reasons for this shift, we need to examine Congress. Consider the following maps. This first map shows all Congressional districts in 1930 by the Poole-Rosenthal First Dimension DW-NOMINATE scores of these districts’ members. I won’t get into too much detail (unless you want a lecture on matrices and vector mathematics), but these scores are basically the result of a program that looks at all votes in Congress, and filters out the ones related to racial or social issues, leaving us with votes cast on purely economic issues. A dark blue district has a relatively liberal member, while a dark red district has a relatively conservative member.

In 1930, the Southern Democrats are pretty solidly aligned against Northern Republicans. But as more liberal Northern Democrats began to pervade the Democratic caucus in the 1930s, and as FDR embraced increasingly strong state interventions in the economy, these Southern Democrats became increasingly uncomfortable with the national Democrats. As my former colleague Jay Cost wrote in a piece addressing the same pair of articles, this was the result of “an intra-party economic cleavage centered around issues of labor and wages . . . it has to do with race - just as many things in the South do - but race was not the central point of this particular conflict.”

By 1942 we see this:

Look at how much the South has changed! By now its members have voting records that are almost completely purple, and some areas in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi are more red than blue. These latter Congressmen were already voting more with Republicans than with Democrats, six years before the Democrats became intertwined with Civil Rights. And remember, we’re purely looking at economic votes here.

By 1962, the Republicans were pretty routinely winning Southern states in Presidential elections, and there were twelve Republicans from the South: two in Texas, two in Virginia, four in Tennessee, two in North Carolina, and two in Florida. But that doesn’t explain the “redness” of many of the Southern districts. At this point, a near-majority of Southern Democrats had voting records that placed them on the right side of the ideological spectrum, even excluding civil rights votes.

In other words, by 1964, most Democrats were already voting like Republicans on non-racial issues. On a blank slate, these Democrats would be Republicans; they were true DINOs. But three things kept these Democrats from actually calling themselves Republicans: Jim Crow, seniority and Herbert Hoover.

This is why we see such little change from the general trend post-1964, even with the end of Jim Crow’s strange career. Republicans picked up a few Congressional seats. J. Strom Thurmond became a Republican, and a few other prominent Democrats followed suit. But the Southern Congressional delegations continued to be dominated by Democrats. Almost all of the signatories to the Southern Manifesto remained Democrats until they left Congress. Some, like Russell Long and John Stennis served as Democrats into the 1980s. When Haley Barbour ran against Stennis in 1982, he lost by a nearly 2:1 margin. George Wallace was elected Governor of Alabama as a Democrat in 1982.

Richard Nixon walloped George McGovern in the South, but this was hardly exclusively about race – McGovern was to the left of you average Southern voters on just about every issue imaginable. Four years later, Jimmy Carter was still able to carry every Southern state except for Virginia in 1976. As late as 1988, the South was still considered something of a swing region (the reason that Lloyd Bentsen was included on the ticket). Bill Clinton carried four Southern states in 1992, and came within five points of carrying four others. Republicans didn’t make real progress in the Congressional delegations until the 1990s; even then the transformation continued into the 2000s.

Linked for the pictures

As I said, adaher was, and is, right. You can simply look at voting patterns to see this. But, oh. I totally await whatever half hearted response you will come up with.

It’s not surprising that you buy the party line from know-nothings like Rand Paul and Michelle Bachmann (of the “founding fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery” infamy), but it’s unfortunate.

Right. We’ve already established that you don’t look shit up. So again, what do you have?

@GIGObuster

Link to the study:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00136.x/abstract

So, I take it then that by your own words then we have evidence that we should not take you seriously?

I swear you’ve posted this exact same thing before, or some derivative of it, and I said the exact same thing then I said now. You cannot objectively measure racism without a manner of subjectivity. I always get a kick out of all of these “Hey, look! Those Republicans/conservatives/Southerners/etc. are some damn racist!” studies. It’s akin to giving groups IQ tests and then determining that one group is “smarter” than the other.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Little_Nemo

You seem to think you’ve said something profound. All you’ve done is state the obvious.

Romney didn’t bring up abortion because it was a vulnerability in his platform - some of his supporters were strongly pro-choice and some of his supporters were strongly pro-life. Which is why Obama brought the issue up. He wanted to put pressure on Romney. No matter what Romney did - take a pro-choice position, take a pro-life position, or avoid taking either position - he would offend some of his supporters and weaken their support.

All you’re apparently doing is accusing Obama of being a smart campaigner as if there’s something wrong with that.

Why didn’t Romney do the same thing? Why didn’t he exploit some wedge issue to divide Obama’s supporters?

Wrong.

Democrats are more likely to be single issue voters when it comes to abortion than are Republicans, meaning a Republican is more likely to vote for someone regardless of their stance on abortion than are Democrats. All Obama was doing is throwing a bone to those who would cared about it the most, as he knew it wouldn’t hurt him in the long run.

This has nothing to do with him being a smart campaigner; it has to do with the fact that the Democratic coalition is comprised of marginally attached, low-information and otherwise single issue voters.

[GIGObuster]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

I swear you’ve posted this exact same thing before, or some derivative of it, and I said the exact same thing then I said now. You cannot objectively measure racism without a manner of subjectivity. I always get a kick out of all of these “Hey, look! Those Republicans/conservatives/Southerners/etc. are some damn racist!” studies. It’s akin to giving groups IQ tests and then determining that one group is “smarter” than the other.

A weasel point, you claimed you were not getting any studies, they exist, they investigate voting patterns and interviewed their subjects, the racism was obtained from the misrepresentations and prejudices they reported, and BTW the USNews article I linked regarding the Southern Strategy was made by a Historian and teacher of political reporting.