WHITE AND RED: White politicians kept switching parties...

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2026

...as the South moved from D to R: During the era in question, the so-called "solid South" was solidly changing sides.  

We mainly refer to the "solid" white South, which was fitfully switching from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican. 

Senator Strom Thurmond (S.C.) switched from Democrat to Republican in 1964. In 1948, he had included a stop along the way the Dixiecrat presidential candidate. 

(Briefly it was a third party. Formally, the party was the States' Right Democratic Party.) 

Briefly, he sought the White House as a Dixiecrat. Here's the famously surprising way that famous campaign turned out

1948 presidential election  
Harry Truman (D): 24.2 million
Thomas Dewey (R): 22.0 million
Strom Thurmond: 1.2 million   

He won four states across the South (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina). Georgia took a major pass on his candidacy. We've never seen that explained.   

Thurmond switched to the Republican Party in 1964. In a fitful succession of changes, most white southern pols eventually followed suit. 

The South was moving from D to R. As an example of that progression, let us riddle you this:

In 1966, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana had xx seats in the House. Every member was a Democrat, but

One year after Thurmond switched, the original version of The Voting Rights Act passed both houses of the Congress by overwhelming margins. 

It passed the Senate, 79-18. "No" votes came from both senators in eight Southern states, even including Virginia. 

At that time, Thurmond was the only Republican among that group of 16. Eventually, though, across the white South, the deluge finally came.  The white South was moving from D to R, adopting the political profile which exists today.

In short, this was the era in which the solid South was becoming a solidly Republican region. Except, of course, for the bulk of the region's Black citizens, who were now much more able to register to vote and who were emerging as an increasingly solid Democratic voting bloc.   

There were some amusing party switches as the region moved from overwhelmingly Blue to overwhelmingly Red. Consider, for example, the evolution of Senator John Kennedy (R-La.), a familiar presence today on the Fox News Channel. 

Today, he's as folksy a white southern Republican as a fellow can possibly get. But it wasn't ever thus. We proceed with the rest of the tale:

John Kennedy (Louisiana politician)

John Neely Kennedy (born November 21, 1951) is an American politician and attorney who has served as the junior United States senator from Louisiana since 2017. ,,,[H]e served as the Louisiana State Treasurer from 2000 to 2017, as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Revenue from 1996 to 1999, and as special counsel and then cabinet member to Governor Buddy Roemer from 1988 to 1992.

Born in Centreville, Mississippi, Kennedy graduated from Vanderbilt University and the University of Virginia School of Law before attending Oxford for an additional degree in law. In 1988, Governor Buddy Roemer selected Kennedy to serve as special legal counsel and later appointed him Secretary of the Cabinet. He left Roemer's staff in 1991 to run for state attorney general as a Democrat. In 1999, he was elected state treasurer; he was reelected in 2003, 2007, 2011, and 2015. Kennedy ran for U.S. Senate in 2004 and 2008. In August 2007, he became a Republican.

Decades after Thurmond's switch, the Oxford-educated Virginia Law grad was serving Governor Roemer as a Democrat. In 2004, he even ran for the Senate as a Democrat, failing to emerge from Louisiana's "jungle primary." 

In 2008, he ran for the Senate againbut this time, he ran as a Republican, after a party switch. He had endorsed Candidate Kerry for president in 2004. Three years later, he switched his party affiliation, as was his perfect right. 

As for Governor Roemer, Kennedy's mentor, the story (in part) goes like this:

Buddy Roemer   

Charles Elson "Buddy" Roemer III (1943 – 2021) was an American politician, investor, and banker who served as the 52nd governor of Louisiana from 1988 to 1992, and as a member of the United States House of Representatives from 1981 to 1988. In March 1991, while serving as governor, Roemer switched affiliation from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.

Roemer was a candidate for the presidential nominations of the Republican Party and the Reform Party in 2012...

The Harvard-educated Roemer switched from D to R too! To show you how bad this claim-jumping became, here's what happened to (the plainly talented) Roemer, now a Republican, in 1995:

In 1995, Roemer attempted a political comeback when he again ran for governor. ...Roemer held a wide lead for much of the campaign, but faded in the days before the primary election as State Senator Mike Foster, who switched affiliation from Democratic to Republican during the campaign, took conservative votes away from him. As a result, Roemer finished fourth with 18 percent of the vote, two percentage points from making the runoff, called the general election in Louisiana.

Roemer was bumped aside by a more recent party-switcher! This general history unfolded over the course of decades as the solid South moved it on over from D to R. 

Eventually, almost every ambitious white politician in the South was sporting an R after his or her name. In the America of today, they even start out that way!

This was a long, drawn-out political process in which the Republican Party, slowly but surely, came to control the bulk of the American South. Indeed, it still does maintain that hold in the states which have been in the news in the past few years, at the center of protracted legal disputes concerning the rules which govern the creation of congressional districts. 

During this erain 1982, to be exactan important addition was made to the original Voting Rights Act. In the congressional redistricting which followed the 1990 census, that somewhat murky addition to Section 2 of the VRA led to the creation of majority Black congressional districts in various Southern states.   

As in 1965, so too in 1982! The addition to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act passed overwhelmingly in both houses of Congress. The new addition to Section 2 was heavily supported by the GOP, as was the creation of those majority Black congressional districts after the 1990 census.  

This starts to bring us up to the legal dispute which now involves those districts. Recent decisions by the Supreme Court make it seem that state legislatures will now be able to eliminate those majority Black congressional districts.

In the wake of the Republican conquest of the South, they're the only districts which have been sending Democrats to the House of Representatives from such states as Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina. With one brief exception, they're also the only districts which have been electing Black congressional reps from those states.

A historical question is lingering here. Why did the GOP support the creation of those (Democratic) districts back in the 1990s? (Also, why is the GOP hoping to eliminate those majority Black districts now?)

Back on May 10, in an overview which generated no discussion, Carl Hulse recently presented the standard historical explanation of that first question.  (Headline: "How Minority Districts Fueled the G.O.P.’s Southern Ascendancy in Congress.")

As far as we know, the explanation Hulse offers in that Congressional Memo is basically accurate. If memory serves, it was fully discussed in real time.

Tomorrow, we may finally get to Hulse's historical overview. That leaves Blue America, and Black America, trying to determine what to do in the face of those recent Supreme Court decisions.

How should Black America, but also Blue America, respond to those recent decisions? Last Wednesday, on Deadline: White House, the highly capable Rep. Sewellshe's a Democrat from Alabama!was shown making several statements about those decisions.

Sewell is a highly capable House member from Alabamaand long after the GOP took control of the South, Rep. Terri Sewell is a stone-cold Democrat!  Her district isn't being dismantled this year, but other such districts areat a time when the Democratic Party is hoping to find a way to regain control of the House.

This is the conundrum our struggling nation has chosen. We strongly agree with one of the statements Rep. Sewell made. With respect to another one of her statements, possibly not quite so much.

Tomorrow: Hulse claims to explain


33 comments:

  1. Somerby is all hat and no cattle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He has been doing serial adventures lately. Aren’t you really anticipating tomorrow’s explanations?? I didn’t think so

      Delete
    2. Ha! Well said.

      Delete
  2. Inflation soars to highest level since 2023 -
    May inflation data: Prices rise 4.2%, the hottest CPI print since 2023

    Trump: "I don't give a fuck"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The impact of Trump's ill advised tariffs are just starting to kick in and the Iran War is making it worse.

      Delete
  3. “As far as we know, the explanation Hulse offers in that Congressional Memo is basically accurate. ”

    The article is behind a paywall, therefore I cannot read it, therefore i can’t assess its accuracy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boo fucking hoo.

      Delete
    2. Somerby owes it to his readers to quote from the article. Otherwise, we just have to buy Somerby’s assertion.

      Delete
    3. I choose not to support the failing New York Times.

      Delete
    4. I choose not to support the fabulist Somerby.

      Delete
    5. I don't know what Sewell said, so I don't care whether Somerby agrees or disagrees with her. This is no way to write an article. It is the way to fill up empty space with meaningless text. That is why I think Somerby is getting paid, perhaps by the word, to write his right wing nonsense.

      We know when and why Southern Democrats became Republicans. Somerby will say something racist about it. It isn't worth anticipating what.

      Delete
    6. To be clear, Sewell is not a "stone-cold Democrat", she's a centrist at best, a former pro business finance lawyer, who is known for her bipartisanship (ie she is perfectly willing to capitulate to Republicans, more than most Dems) and she was one of the few Dems who voted YES on barring the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases and YES to the Laken Riley Act.

      Hardly stone-cold, she is one of the more right leaning Democrats in Congress.

      Delete
  4. “Why did the GOP support the creation of those (Democratic) districts back in the 1990s?”

    First of all, the districts were black majority districts, not “Democratic” districts.

    Secondly, there was a court ruling mandating such districts be drawn.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The best I could do is get an AI summary of what Hulse said:

    “By packing highly concentrated Democratic voters into a smaller number of minority-majority districts, mapmakers inadvertently drew surrounding districts to be overwhelmingly white and conservative, allowing the G.O.P. to systematically sweep surrounding suburban and rural seats.”

    This seems like a bit of a problematical assumption, because the redistricting that Somerby is talking about in Alabama took place in the 1990’s. And here’s one problem: it wasn’t until the period 2006-2010 that the Alabama legislature flipped:

    In 2006, the Alabama house sat at 62 democrats and 43 Republicans. In 2010 it went to 66 Republicans and 39 Democrats.

    In 2006, the Alabama Senate sat at 23 Democrats and 12 Republicans. In 2010 the numbers were 22 Republicans and 12 Democrats.

    That suggests something else fueled the switch, because up until that period, the majority of Alabama voters were voting for Democrats at the state level.

    But Somerby, via Hulse, wants to claim that it was the black majority districts that caused the switch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The negro is the fuel.

      Delete
    2. inadvertently

      bwahahahaha!!!

      Delete
    3. Somerby's framing seems to be: Republicans once supported these districts, therefore liberals should rethink them.

      That is a braindead analysis.

      Somerby also seems to not fully understand that congressional maps are drawn by state legislatures, so state-level political change is way more consequential on this issue.

      1982 and even 1990 was a different political environment, back then opposing voting rights protections carried substantial political risks. Today, increasingly, Republicans are openly racist.

      But there was a concerted Republican effort to pack black people in districts to gain power back then, and now that Republicans have gained that power, they want to crack those districts.

      There is no inconsistency, the primary Republican motive back then was racism, same as it is now.

      This is not difficult to understand, Somerby undoubtedly gets this yet ignores the reality because of his racial bias driving his agenda.

      That is why Somerby wants to focus on how minority-majority districts may have hurt congressional Dems in the 90s, instead of on why Republicans are trying to dismantle those districts today.

      Delete
    4. Perhaps it’s worth noting that the Alabama legislature completely flipped to Republican … when Obama was elected.

      Delete
    5. Anyone who isn't a bigot, or isn't perfectly fine with bigotry, left the Republican Party over a quarter of a century ago.

      Delete
  6. Lame-duck Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) suggested during an unhinged episode podcast that she too would have stabbed track star Austin Metcalf after Karmelo Anthony was convicted of first-degree murder in the racially charged case.

    The party of violence, faggotry, and electing candidates who are Nazis and who say they want the small children of their opponents murdered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for repeating the New York Post version of things.

      Delete
    2. Go tan your balls 12:24.

      Delete
    3. Austin Metcalf's father was swatted 6 times.

      Austin Metcalf's mother was swatted 2 times.

      They had to keep all of this under a gag order.

      The hell these people went through being terrorized by blacks was insane.

      Delete
    4. Republicans are calling for Anthony to be "lynched".

      His family has been under constant death threats and other harassment. Metcalf's dad even tried to confront the Anthonys at a private event he was not invited to. The apple did not fall far from the tree.

      The Metcalfs are unrepentant racists, and raised horrible violent and racist children. I suspect they will be uncomfortable for the rest of their miserable lives.

      From the defense perspective this case is similar and dramatically stronger than the Zimmerman self defense claim.

      Yet when Zimmerman was acquitted, Republicans cheered; the hypocrisy is stark.

      If Republicans were consistent, and not racist, they would support Anthony being found not guilty.

      Notably, Blacks were prohibited from being on the jury. The jury barely deliberated, they were chomping at the bit to throw the kid in prison.

      Personally I think Anthony can reasonably be found guilty, I do not think he was under imminent threat of death to justify the stabbing. I do think the sentencing is overly punitive and will likely be appealed.

      Delete
    5. It looks like the Republicans are trying to stir up trouble over this Metcalf-Anthony issue. Why? How is this going to help red candidates?

      Delete
    6. @3:16 what does lynched mean when you put the word in quotes?

      Delete
    7. It means I am quoting Republicans. That is the exact word they used.

      Delete
  7. Most crimes against white people are committed by white people.

    Crime is usually intraracial, most crime victims know or live near the offender.

    This is what you'd expect in a highly segregated and stratified society.

    In reality, crime is due to structural factors like concentrated poverty, racial segregation, residential segregation, unequal access to education, etc. These factors are strongly correlated with crime rates regardless of race.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bob is a poor thinker.

    At least he plays one on his vanity blog.

    The contemporary electorate is highly polarized and racially sorted.

    For decades, many White southern right wingers voted for Republicans nationally, but locally often voted for Democrats. People do not simple evaluate arguments and then choose a party. Party identity is enormously powerful, and there was a partisan realignment that has now been completed for some time.

    Bob seems to be pushing the idea that Democrats should stop relying on majority Black districts and try to appeal to more White southern voters. But there is no evidence nor logic to support this idea.

    The question is not how to win over right wing White Alabama voters who have been trending Republican for forty years. The question in contemporary electoral politics is how to maximize turnout among people who already agree with your party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Southern Rebub pols may fuck with white people lives enough that they won't see the skin color of the others as their primary problem

      Delete
    2. Southern White people's racism is deeply embedded, they will tolerate a lot of pain as long as Blacks are getting screwed.

      Delete
  9. What kind of phrase is "stone cold Democrat"? Usually the phrase is "stone cold killer" but Somerby is pretending to praise Sewell. But what kind of praise is that? We like Democrats here at this blog, where Somerby is supposedly a liberal, so why through in such a term, using the words stone cold (which never mean anything good, unless applied to ice cream) in front of a good thing -- being a Democrat, unless he is trying to dampen his readers' enthusiasm for our blue party?

    I am waiting to hear that Sewell is a good decent person, because with this build-up, it sounds like Somerby is planning to hang her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. typo correction: throw in, not through in.

      Delete