>> "You would think then that the Republican party would be full of KKK members."

No, because the Republicans are a national party and the KKK barely has enough members to populate a state fair. In other words, I would not think this because I can do basic math.

>> "But the only KKK member to be elected to the Senate, Robert Byrd, was Democrat, and he retired in 2010, not 1960."

Not exactly true. Byrd dropped his membership in 1952, as he was running for the House, where he served from 1953 until 1959, when he ran for the Senate. But this is hardly relevant, since it all took place a decade or two before the great political realignment triggered by LBJ.

>> "I don't know why you call them "Dixiecrats".

Because that's what pro-segregation southern Democrats are called. And because that's exactly who we're talking about. So you know, "Dixiecrat" was the informal name used by a short-lived, pro- segregationist breakaway faction from the Democratic party. The group flamed out in 1948, but the name hung around, finally sticking to the southern, white, and openly racist Democrats who were vehemently opposed to the Civil Rights Act and who subsequently formed the core of today's predominantly Southern GOP - which is precisely who we're talking about here.

>> “There is simply no evidence there was a mass conversion from Democrats to Republicans in the South."

Um, wow. Where do I even begin? I mean, saying something this demonstrably wrong is a bit like saying "There's no evidence that the Earth is round," or "There's no evidence that the Titanic really sunk," or "There's no evidence that Boston is north of New York City."

I could go on, but you get the point. And yes, there's is lots (and lots and lots and lots) of evidence there was a mass conversion from Democrats to Republicans in the South. Chiefly, the public record of election results for the United States of America.

Here's but one summary of the shift. Scroll down for the helpful charts that document the shift on a year by year basis. The section you want to pay especially close attention to is marked "1964 Election – Regional Realignment".

http://mattsmaps.wordpress.com/2011/07/14/southern-realignme...

Again, this shift started in the Civil Rights era. It grew under Reagan, and it went ballistic in the 1990s, as you correctly note. Like I said originally, this didn't happen overnight. It took about three decades to unfold, by which time the home of southern, white voters who are generally opposed to strong civil rights legislation has completed its swing from the Democratic party to the GOP.

Today, the South is solidly Republican. In general, Democrats don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of representing these states. Indeed, this is where they face their very toughest odds. And that’s not because there’s been some sea change in the population, culture, attitudes, or beliefs commonly held by white people in the American southeast. It’s because the party that was once aligned with their interests abandoned them, and because the party that once opposed those interests was captured and radically changed by them.

I accept this change, by the way. These shifts are par for the course in American politics. What I don’t accept is present day Republicans who try to deflect well-grounded charges of racism by claiming that they’re members of “the party of Lincoln” while ignoring the near-perfect realignment in the major party’s respective bases that happened between now and then. It's like somebody who has had a sex change trying to insist that they were born in their current state. I don't object to the operation. I do object to the lying.

Seriously, if the point your making only sounds convincing to people with zero grasp of history, then what you're asserting is just straigh-up bullshit, which is like lying, except worse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit

So you know, honest, intelligent, decent people who respect the truth don't behave like that. You - apparently - are none of the above.

>> "I think the debate would be better served if you kept to policy arguments instead of attacking your opponents."

Except this isn't a debate. This you not knowing your ass from your elbow, behaving in an intellectually dishonest fashion, and getting schooled accordingly. So you know, debates revolve around opinions, ideas, and perspectives. What we're talking about here are matters of well-established (i.e. non-debatable) fact.