Talk:Southern Democrats

message: This entire article is so rife with unsubstantiated opinion it would be a great community service for it to be deleted outright.
The history is entirely non-linear and one paragraph or statement contradicts the next.
Worst.Wiki.Article.Ever.
A conservative biased editor by the name of Rja13ww33 continues an editing war removing any cited entries relating Southern Democrats to conservatism, as well as removing discussions in this talk page.  His past editing is only based on his political opinion and not on Wikipedia rules, editing out properly cited entries that don't follow a conservative narrative.  With conservative biased Wikipedia editors like Rja13ww33 writing opinions and narratives, this entire article should be reviewed by an unbiased editor with higher privileges or completely removed as biased political propaganda.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:FF08:100:244A:858A:3E1F:1037 (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have a clue how to post here do you? I moved the last time you posted this to a new section. Also try signing your comments. Again, your edit has a lot of issues.....for starters: your source says NOTHING about modern day Southern Democrats being conservatives.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is titled Southern Democrats and the source does indeed describe Southern Democrats as conservatives.  However, that is not the narrative that a "conservative" would like it to read, which is bias.  It is only your opinion that this entry has lots of issues.   You have engaged in previous edit warring prior to and have been warned by an administrator about that.  You are also deleting entries on THIS talk page.  Although signing is proper etiquette, it is not mandatory nor is making an entry as long as it follows the guidelines and is cited by a reliable source accepted by Wikipedia.  Sorry, but you are the clueless one.  Would like to have a third-party administrator settle this, not you, or perhaps rewrite it without bias. 2600:8803:FF08:100:244A:858A:3E1F:1037 (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote from the source where it says that. The only time "conservative" is mentioned in that article is when it says: "Many Southerners have stood by traditional values on social issues as well — including guns, school prayer, abortion and same-sex marriage. And these voters have found their conservative stands more welcome in the Republican Party than in the Democratic." That does nothing to back your POV. And I have deleted NO entries in this talk page....do you still not get the fact I MOVED your original comment down to a new section? Do you not see the section entitled "Southern Democrats ID'd as Cons"? Before you weigh in on this stuff, you need to learn how to post here. Posting this in this section makes no sense.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That is only your opinion, a biased one at that.  However, your talk page indicates you have been warned multiple times by administrators about habitual edit warring with other editors who don't share your opinion or narrative or agenda?  Your grim record speaks for itself. 2600:8803:FF08:100:244A:858A:3E1F:1037 (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked for a quote from your source. Instead I get your opinion and a lot of commentary about me. If I were you, I'd read more about the rules and guidelines here: Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

text: For the early part of current Senator Bryd's Senate carrer, I would consider him a Southern Democrat; but for the past two decades or so, I'd consider him a Mid Western Democrat. Basically during the mid 70s to early 80s, Byrd's voting record moved to the left, while WV itself moved more in line with the Midwest, (particularly Ohio and Western PA). Jon 17:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Byrd actually grew up in West Virginia, not North Carolina (according to his Wiki page) from the age of ten months. The concern about including West Virginia as "Southern" is not only its latitude but the stark fact that it was created specifically out of seceding from its Confederate mother state. To the extent we define "Southern" in those Civil War terms, that seems kind of crucial. Besides which, you can't just shift somebody's region over time; local philosophies change but land does not. 192.34.130.208 (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: These two states are no longer southern; and haven't been so since at least 1950. They are much more in line with the Northeast, (particularly New York, New Jersey, and Eastern PA). Jon 17:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's undisputed, but DE and MD are south of the Mason-Dixon Line and still have much in common with the South. The article's need to consider trends keeps DE and MD together with their southern neighbors even if the trends break up on the periphery. Rammer (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, the "Mason-Dixon Line" is literally just the border between Maryland and Pennsylvania. As for the states having much in common with the South, I can assure you, they most certainly do not. BeingofUniverse (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Maryland & Delaware

message: Only word I can think of for it.
"Most Southern Democrats defected to the Republican Party at that point and helped accelerate the latter's transformation into more progressive party Republican organization."
Right .... that is why Democrats have dominated state politics in the south up this very day. Only in the last few years have republicans actually started winning state elections with any consistency in the south. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.227.109 (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that the Deep South, while Democratic for most of its existence, had become solidly Republican since the 1994 midterm elections and Gingrich's mini-revolution. Democrats "dominate state elections in the south up to this very day?" Could you elaborate? This really does interest me. 147.9.224.142 (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dumb

message: Not a Southern Senator dispite being a Senator from a Southern State; he was born in DC and attended Ivy League schools. When he was a Senator he represented Washington to Tennessee, particularly starting around 1986 when he first ran for President. Jon 17:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Al Gore, Jr

message: Isn't he a republican? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.174.188.219 (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  george allen? 

message: I think governor Joe Manchin of West Virginia should be in this list, because he is the chairman of the Southern Governors' Association. The Punk 09:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joe Manchin 

message: I think the list should be deleted altogether, since many of the more liberal democrats on the list would not call themselves "Southern Democrats" even if they are democrats from southern states, as that term carries with it many conservative connotations.
-User:Rupper (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Southern Democrats 

message: GOOD PIECE. WILL BE INTERESTING HOW THIS NEW CONGRESS PLAYS OUT AND OBAMA AS PRESIDENT? I SEE BLUE DOG OR REAGAN DEMOCRATS BLOCKING A LOT OF BILLS SUCH AS USELESS SPENDING AND TRYING TO GET RID OF SEN. LIEBERMAN FOR GOING WITH SEN. MC'CAIN FOR PRESIDENT.
-- WITH RESPECT,
ROBERT JONES —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.142.126.75 (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a forum for conversation outside the scope of the article. Please keep discussions related. WP:FORUM Justinlwilson (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS 

message: What does it mean "all statewide officials to this day are Democrats?" I thought Mike Huckabee was from there? A less Democratic figure there never has been nor ever will be... 147.9.224.142 (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arkansas? 

message: This article has some serious NPOV issues. Specifically the line:
"...and after the Democrats as a whole came to symbolize the mainstream left of the United States, the form, if not the content, of Southern Democratic politics began to change. At that point, most Southern Democrats defected to the Republican Party, and helped accelerate the latter's transformation into a more conservative organization."
A few things that are illogical/misleading about this post -
1. Conservatism is a equated with racism.
For one, there are many definitions of "conservatism" and no Conservative today would support institutionalized racism. This is an example of a Fallacy of Equivocation and is often used by the political left to tag the political right as "racist." It usually takes this form: "Conservatism by definition 'conserves' old and outdated ways of thinking, hence conservatives today still agree with the racism of the past."
2. It equates the political left as having an inherently "civil rights" oriented politics, when, historically speaking, this has not been true and political definitions change over time so that it's impossible to make such generalizations.
This often takes the form of the No-True-Scotsman fallacy and usually goes something like this: "Leftist politics are much more progressive and would never accept racism, therefore the Democrats that are racists must necessary be on the right, or must be Republicans." It also relies on ambiguity of definitions, appeal to novelty etc...
3. This is the biggest issue - No citation!
For such a whopper of a claim you would expect at least an attempt at citation. Even if there was a citation, the viewpoint is not accepted fact. See for example:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300432/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson#
Thanks,
Garrett
69.114.6.127 (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The conversion of Southern Democrats to Republicans (or the cannibalization of previously Southern Democratic districts to Republican ones) as the national Democrats lost (some may say threw away) their southern anchor caused both parties to vacate the center. Congress now has comparatively few Democrats who openly ally with Republicans or vice versa. The disappearance of Southern Democrats is a (perhaps the) major factor in the current polarization of American politics. The consequent ascendency of the right wing among the Republicans, along with the not-unrelated conversion of liberal Republicans to the Democrats, has changed the atmosphere in Washington to the point where cooperation is taken as lack of conviction. Consider as well that almost all of the states which have runoff primaries are in the South, these being a holdover from the time when the Democratic primaries were tantamount to election and the general elections were formalities. But in almost all the non-Southern states a U.S. representative, for example, needs to win just a plurality in a surgically gerrymandered district to be back in. The faction (which may be fringe, in either party) has that plurality, and the district will not vote for a more moderate nominee of the party which is not copasetic with the district.  Additionally, Democratic-appointed justices, with the benign assistance of Republicans, have determined that fairness involves careful racial gerrymandering, with the consequence that black districts and white districts having little to do with geographic interests or other considerations generate many an elected official whose political survival depends on representing strictly the constituency in that district. Gridlock becomes inexorable. I write merely to underscore the utility of this article and not to argue whether the effects are good or bad. An encyclopedia describes the way things are, not the way they should be. Rammer (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

text: It is more worth remembering that that founding was in 1854. 192.34.130.208 (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious POV issues. 

message: "similar to Reagan"
On what is this based?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.96.190 (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reagan's racism? 

message: I do not believe that the Southern Republican were racists. It was the Southern Democrats that were racists. I agree that President Johnson’s signing on the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act has angered the Southern Democrats and they joined the Republican Party in a fit of rage against Johnson. All they wanted was to divide people by race with segregation, prejudice, and discrimination because they hated black people. They also wanted to control the government, so they could continue the slavery tradition. AmericaBoy3446 (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 100% of elected Southern Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Elected Southern members of both parties were mostly racists because they were elected by Southern, Jim Crow-supporting whites (white supremacists). Noahpeaslee11 (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southern Republicans? 

message: A conservative biased editor by the name of Rja13ww33 continues an editing war removing any cited entries relating Southern Democrats to conservatism.  His editing is only based on his opinion and narratives and not on Wikipedia rules, and edits out properly cited entries that don't follow his narrative.  With conservative Wikipedia editors like Rja13ww33 writing opinions and narratives, this entire article should be reviewed by an unbiased editor with higher privileges or completely removed as political propaganda.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:FF08:100:244A:858A:3E1F:1037 (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said in one of my edits: there are clear issues here. A couple of problems. First off, this is inappropriate for the LEAD as it is not developed in the main body. Secondly what is not developed in the main body is the notion that present day Southern Dems are all conservative, and finally: the added source doesn't say that either. To say all current southern Democrats are conservative is (of course) nonsense. (On what planet could Jon Ossoff or Tim Kaine be called conservatives?) So yes, your edit is highly problematic.Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southern Democrats ID'd as Cons 

message: I am surprised at this article’s overall law quality. Southern Democrats are one of the most important groups in US political history, yet the article is riddled with generalisations and unsubstantiated opinions. Moreover, the style leaves a lot to be desired; it is written without much flow. It is really poor and could do with a comprehensive re-write. 86.176.254.78 (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I didn't get deeply into the page but did have to correct "historically known as Dixiecrats" as a blatantly erroneous definition -- Dixiecrats were a specific third-party effort in specifically 1948. The pre-existing text also contradicted itself three paragraphs later with an alternate, this time correct, definition of the same term.
 Also changed "members of a political party" to "affiliates" since no party has actual "members" and seven Southern states (if Virginia and Texas count, which is debatable) don't even register by party at all. 192.34.130.208 (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very badly written