Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Topic: U.S. political party realignments Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 16:54 |
The republican party was originally founded as a northern party opposed
to the kansas-nebraska act. Lincoln was its first president, and during
his election, his name did not appear in 10 of the southern states, I
believe.
(Republican in blue), Democrats in Green and Orange
1920 Election:
As you can see, the republican party dominated the north
There were many elections where one party totally swept the country,
such as Roosevelt and Nixon's elections. This one, in 1968, showed that
Democrats won many northern states.
Republicans won most elections for a while, until the 90s.
2000
So what do you think caused the two parties to switch locations?
Edited by Imperator Invictus
|
|
cattus
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1803
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 17:03 |
one thing that has to be taken into consideration is that the party themselves have changed just as they have geographically. Positions on issues have changed within the parties themselves.
|
|
cattus
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1803
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 17:06 |
..hmm, i bet California goes blue this year.
|
|
Roughneck
Pretorian
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 192
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 21:37 |
Civil Rights Act of 1964. After that all the old guard of the Democratic Party, the Dixiecrats, switched to the Republican Party. It's more complex than that, of course, but that's one reason.
|
[IMG]http://img160.exs.cx/img160/7417/14678932fstore0pc.jpg">
|
|
JanusRook
Sultan
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Sep-2004 at 20:27 |
Since lincoln's time hasn't the party structure reversed where a republican issue in 1860 is now a democratic issue and vice-versa?
|
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.
Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
|
|
JanusRook
Sultan
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Sep-2004 at 20:30 |
BTW Democrat=Red Republican = Blue...........big no-no.
|
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.
Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
|
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Sep-2004 at 20:49 |
another reason is the south is usually a generation behind in industrial devlopment, so now industrial concerns are more an issure now and less so in the north which has moved to a more service economy. Especially since agriculture became coportate dominated, therefore bringing the south into a more corporate place then the past.
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
|
Kubrat
Consul
Joined: 28-Aug-2004
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 339
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2004 at 22:08 |
California will stay democratic with the huge latino population there.
I think the switch was caused mostly by the industrialization of the
United States. North was the more industrialized, therefore poor
and middle classes were larger there and more aware of the country,
their role in it, and the world.
The South seems to be heavily influenced by the mentality that the
Democrats can't protect America and don't know how to rule the country.
|
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare
|
|
cattus
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1803
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2004 at 22:24 |
the Democrats can't protect America and don't know how to rule the country.
| is that not true?
|
|
Kubrat
Consul
Joined: 28-Aug-2004
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 339
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2004 at 22:28 |
Of course it's not true!
Did 9/11 happen during a Democrats watch?
And did you, if you live in the USA, feel safer with Bush or with Clinton?
|
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare
|
|
cattus
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1803
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Sep-2004 at 03:30 |
yes i live in the US, im a southerner
As far as feeling safer under one president more than another,no why should i. Americans are just hated by these people. Under Clinton, the WTC was bombed in '93 hoping to bring it down , Americans at Khobar Towars killed,Oklahoma(who knows),'98 our embassies bombed, USS Cole bombed. Sept.11 happened right after Bush got in office and no more attacks on us.
Im not a Bushy, just being honest that i dont fall for scare tactics infact he might,no "must" be doing a good job on terrorism regardless if despised on his foreign policy.
|
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Sep-2004 at 12:54 |
Bush has aided the terrorists more than Osama has. Mubarak said invading Iraq would create a 100 more Bin Ladens, I think it made more like a million new ones. And for what? 20% of US deaths according to a pentagon report could have been prevented if they had armor, some troops have to buy the equipent themselves! And what are these people dying for? Theres no WMD's there no being greeted as liberators, and we reoved a secular guy and open ed up a whole country to the terrorosts, effectively shooting ourselves in teh foot.
I would feel safer with a basset hound as president
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
|