Talk:Southern Democrats

Untitled
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

IMO. 66.82.9.104 20:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)gp

I added Robert Byrd from West Virginia to the page. I realize that West Virginia is really only a "quasi-Southern" state, but most people seem to refer to him as a "Southern Democrat," especially given the fact he grew up in North Carolina and seems to carry some southern cultural traits in his politics. Some these days are even referring to Byrd as the final "Southen Democrat" in the Senate (I wish I had the article to link to).

Feel free to remove his name if you don't think that he qualifies as "southern." (unknown user)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Maryland & Delaware
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Dumb
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)


 * 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)

Al Gore, Jr
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)

Second Paragraph - Needed?
I think the second paragraph, starting "Depending on whom is asked...", is really almost off topic. I know it's important to define "South" and "Southern", but I don't think this is the place to put the debate. Perhaps that can be confined to the article Southern United States. Actually, I think this paragraph can be removed. -RobbyPrather (talk) 05:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I removed the paragraph. Here it is:


 * Depending on whom is asked, the South starts at either the Mason-Dixon Line or the Potomac River. Starting at the Potomac would mean the South starts with the Commonwealth of Virginia or West Virginia. However, this would exclude Maryland and Delaware, two states that are still today very Democratic. So for this article's purpose, the border of the South will be the Mason-Dixon, the border between Pennsylvania and Maryland.


 * If someone thinks it should go back in the article, let's talk about it. -RobbyPrather (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Joe Manchin
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)

List of Southern Democrats
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)

Not conservative but racist connotations, which are appropriate. Southern Democrats were the holdouts against legislative recognition of civil rights, which were supported almost universally by Republicans. Eegorr (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

RE: THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS
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)


 * 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)

Arkansas?
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)

Serious POV issues.
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)

I don't want to piss anyone off by removing a few sentences, and I would like someone that is more familiar with this system (and with the article in general) to make edits, but this line shows obvious bias:

"After the Civil Rights Movement successfully challenged the Jim Crow laws and other forms of institutionalized racism, 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."

Since this is my second note, when I come back again I will just delete the sentences in question. It is simply not true that Democrats defected to the Republican party because of race politics. Again, see the article above - the main point being:

"Which is to say: The Republican rise in the South was contemporaneous with the decline of race as the most important political question and tracked the rise of middle-class voters moved mainly by economic considerations and anti-Communism."

I will reiterate that there are many logical fallacies packed into those few extremely convoluted sentences:

1. It connects conservatism with racism, betraying a sophomoric understanding of the term and also abuses the Fallacy of Equivocation.

2. It never shows that the Republican party became more "conservative," whatever that means (in this context), because it didn't.

3. Contradiction - It indicates Southern Democrats were opposed to civil rights before the challenges to institutionalized racism, then says the "form if not the content" (horrible, cliche, language that means nothing) changed and yet was still''' racist, anti-civil rights, whatever is trying to be said, to accelerate the Republican Party (note how it doesn't say Southern - I guess these Democrats changed all Republican politics?) "into a more conservative organization." Or is it trying to say that the Democrats became more "conservative" by virtue of the fact that they supposedly joined the Republican party? Or is it trying to say that the "change" was actually towards civil rights - conservative ideology?'''

4. CITATIONS!

5. It assumes leftist politics are inherently civil rights oriented, which is not true historically, and abuses the No-True-Scotsman fallacy.

People need to stop using Wikipedia as a way to push politics.

Thanks Garrett 69.114.11.47 (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)

The text in question is not worthy of an encyclopedia as it is written with a clear bias against conservatives. Nowhere in this article is it discussed that, over time, the south actually became less racist and that is what lead to defection of former Democrat voters and even some politicians to the Republican party.

It is worth remembering that the Republican party was founded as a force to fight the institution of slavery. Eegorr (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It is more worth remembering that that founding was in 1854. 192.34.130.208 (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Reagan's racism?
"similar to Reagan"

On what is this based? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.96.190 (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Southern Republicans?
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)


 * 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)

Southern Democrats ID'd as Cons
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)
 * 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)

Very badly written
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)


 * 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)

What is a Southern Democrat?
While this might be fairly self explanatory, the article doesn't really make it clear as to what makes them unique from other Democrats. This is important be cause historically we refer to Southern Democrats as the voting bloc that was opposed to desegregation. Because of this, I think it's misleading to lump all Democratic politicians from the south into that same group on the basis of geography alone. For instance, Strom Thurmond and Raphael Warnock are both listed as being Southern Democrats when it's very apparent that they represent diametrically opposed positions regarding segregation.

I think a more accurate way to go about things here would be narrow the scope of the article to focus on Southern Democrats during the period between Reconstruction and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The reality is when we refer to "Southern Democrats", people are usually referring to those who held on to racist beliefs. That is not the same as calling them conservatives; however shotgunning everyone who is a Democrat from the south into one category just isn't the right way to go about things as it's incredibly misleading. Angrysct0tsman12 (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A Southern Democrat is a Southern Democrat. I would think as long as we document the ideological changes over the years among Southern Democrats....it would be fine.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The name itself can't be its own definition. Otherwise why don't we have articles about Northern/Western/Coastal/etc Democrats?
 * The whole reason why we have a distinction in the first place was because they were the group within the Democratic Party staunchly opposed to desegregation efforts and the Civil Rights movement. This is what needs to be emphasized and I don't think the article does a very good job of that.
 * Modern "Southern Democrats" are just simply Democrats from the South; lumping everyone into one group is simply misleading. Strom Thurmond was objectively racist so it makes no sense to put Raphael Warnock, a black man, in the same category as him. Angrysct0tsman12 (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We go with what RS says. If there is RS delineating Southern Democrats from Democrats of other regions (and there appears to be)....that's what we go with. It isn't that big of a deal to track the changes in ideology. We clearly (for example) do that in the GOP article. (Since the GOP has certainly changed since (say) the 1930's.) Having Strom Thurmond & Raphael Warnock in the same article is no worse than (say) having Donald Trump and Nelson Rockefeller in the same article (as we do in the GOP article) as long as we track the changes.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying Thurmond & Raphael Warnock shouldn't be listed together if it was simply a list containing notable Democrats. However Southern Democrat carries with it distinctive characteristics in the same manner as a being member of the Republican Tea Party.
 * All Southern Democrats are Democrats however not all Democrats are Southern Democrats.
 * What makes a modern day Southern Dem unique to you? What values do they have that differ from the current Democratic platform? Angrysct0tsman12 (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We are going in circles here. RS calls current & former Southern Democrats exactly that. This piece from Politico calls Jim Clyburn (D-SC) "Congress’ most powerful Southern Democrat". (Needless to say, I don't think Clyburn holds the same views as Strom Thurmond.) Another piece from US News & World Report says this (about people like Stacey Abrams & Andrew Gillum): "The current crop of Southern Democrats is more progressive than previous incarnations of the political beast.". So whatever you think a "Southern Democrat" actually is...we go with the RS sources.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want to be dismissive of me that's fine. I just want to improve the tone of this article as it doesn't accurately capture either of those two sources you listed.
 * The first two lines are "Southern Democrats are affiliates of the U.S. Democratic Party who reside in the Southern United States. Most of them voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by holding the longest filibuster in American Senate history while Democrats in non-Southern states supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964." That second sentence heavily implies that Southern Democrats are people who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that is why they are called that thus my insistence on asking "What is a Southern Democrat". Angrysct0tsman12 (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to be dismissive of you....and all apologies if it comes across that way. I am not a fan of how the article opens. At one point, it simply said that first sentence. (I.e. "Southern Democrats are affiliates of the U.S. Democratic Party who reside in the Southern United States".) And I've thought about changing it back to that. What follows (in the LEAD paragraphs) is a pretty decent explanation of how the ideologies have shifted over time. To me it would flow better with that second sentence gone. We note that elsewhere.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and eliminated that second sentence. I also shifted some sources around to where it made sense, and I also noted where Southern Democrats stand at this point (i.e. in terms of ideology).Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)