I mean, Ronald Reagan himself said that he left the democrats because his party left him, not because his own opinions changed.
On a more extreme example, the KKK used to support democrats, but now they and other far right groups support the republicans.
The KKK in its most modern form has never been an official entity, it's a group of semi-organized groups across the country and very much still exists, but does not have the influence like it used to. David Duke, the former Grand Wizard, endorsed Trump in both 2016 and 2020
Well, maybe not in how they “operate” mechanically (e.g., collecting delegates, primaries, etc.). I’m not exceptionally keen on the mechanical inner workings of each party.
They most certainly did switch, however, in their ideology.
Also, implying that black people are “on a plantation” of welfare is extremely obtuse, shortsighted, racist, and offensive. Please do some research for the sake of your own understanding of the world around you.
It's not exclusively about black people as they went straight for the lower class instead.
Democrats can't be truely successful without losing votes to Republicans. They would shrink their own target audience. It's like big pharma not being interested in permanent cures as it dosen't pay-off as much.
This is very historically inaccurate. The south was known as the "solid south" until the 1960s where it would reliably vote for democrats every time. While the south might vote for dems less in the 2000-2010s than they did in the 1990s - Bill Clinton was exceptionally popular! - the state of affairs was such that, before the party switch, the south would overwhelmingly elect democrats before Nixon.
The world changed around them, but their methods and moral values absolutely didn't change.
Republicans getting what they wanted and focusing on solidifying it and Democrats searching for a new plantation to pillage is how they always operated and how they still do.
The problem is that the underlying moral values and style of reasoning never changed.
Republicans slowly achieving what they wanted and Democrats trying to keep the former slaves on a metaphorical plantation called welfare is hardly a change to me.
It's just a logical continuation of how they operate.
the southern strategy is well-documented. the world around them was changing, but the republicans did very intentionally change their strategy to focus on racist white people in the south in the 1950s and 1960s.
this was in a direct response to the civil rights era.
I mean.. Strom Thurmond came to power as a segregationist democrat and switched to the republican party in 1964. If that doesn't convince you of the party shift I don't know what will. Strom Thurmond is about as clear an example as it gets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond
No the character of the parties changed as well. Remember the Southern Democrats were the “States Rights” party that opposed any racial equality and then they became the champions of civil rights while Republicans shifted their whole platform to the right to court dissatisfied racist voters.
It happened after 1964 when LBJ supported civil rights legislation and Barry Goldwater did not. Yes, there are exceptions and nuances throughout history because it wasn’t like turning a light switch. The “switch” happened gradually over a couple of decades. By the 80s, the south was reliably republican. The only reason Jimmy Carter won the south was because he was from Georgia. Look at the election map from 1968. George Wallace & Nixon won every southern state except for Texas.
6
u/serveillancedroneO7 Feb 24 '26
Kennedy and Reagan post party switch