Poll: 37% of Miss. Republicans would back new Confederacy

[Rogue 9]

Source.

37 Percent Of Mississippi GOPers Would Back Confederates In Civil War

Daniel Strauss – July 15, 2014, 10:01 AM EDT

A new Public Policy Polling survey found that 37 percent of Republicans who voted in the Mississippi primary runoff election between incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) and state Sen. Chris McDaniel (R) said they would back the Confederate side if there was another Civil War.

The poll, obtained by TPM, is full of goodies for poll geeks. Of those polled, including Democrats and Republicans, 50 percent said they would support the United States while 29 percent said they would support the Confederate States of America.

Broken down by party affiliation, 82 percent of Democrats said they would support the United States while just 9 percent said they would support the Confederate States of America. Among Republicans, 37 percent said they would support the Confederate States of America while 41 percent said they would support the United States. Another 21 percent of Republicans said they weren't sure while 9 percent of Democrats said they weren't sure.

PPP's poll was conducted among 501 Republican primary voters from July 10 to 13. All those surveyed said they voted in the Republican primary runoff for U.S. Senate. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.

I just got back from the South, and somehow I'm not surprised.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm just happy the other 63% didn't.

[Maraxus]

I'm not sure if that's better or worse than the 46% of Republicans who are against or aren't sure about interracial marriage. Definitely better than the majority of GOP voters who are sure Obama is a secret muslim. Silver linings and all that.

By the by, Mississippi GOP voters are going absolutely apeshit over incumbent Senator Thad Cochran's very narrow primary victory. Cochran won in large part because Black Mississippians voted for him, both because the Other Guy was super reactionary and because Cochran will have to listen to him in his last term. And he won pretty convincingly at that. And that pushed just about every one of their buttons; you have an old long-term incumbent (hiss!) who beat his more conservative challenger (Hiss!) by promising to bring home the bacon (HISS!) and winning off the backs of Black Democrats (HISS!!!). Boy oh boy are they pissed. I'd think that secession might even be a not so remote possibility if they weren't crapping their pants about voter fraud and stuff.

Wonder what some of the board conservatives think about all this.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I think it's important to note how... extreme... those who tend to bother with the primaries often are. A sample of Republicans that didn't just include those who went to vote in primaries would likely see a lower percent that would support slavery.

[Zaune]

I wonder if you'd get different results if you included a copy of the Cornerstone Speech with the poll as a reminder of what the Civil War was really about? This is something that the South appears to have done an extremely good job of quietly burying.

[Channel72]

Whatever. The racist hick element of the GOP is going to be slowly trivialized and strangled by ever-shifting demographics.

[Elheru Aran]

Whatever. The racist hick element of the GOP is going to be slowly trivialized and strangled by ever-shifting demographics.

Absolutely. Little problem there though. Gonna take rather longer than we might fancy. Couple decades or so, I'd say. Figure another decade before the GOP leadership (the classic 'old white men') start kicking off, and then the Tea Party generation of middle-aged GOP leadership steps up. That's gonna be fun.

[Rogue 9]

I think it's important to note how... extreme... those who tend to bother with the primaries often are. A sample of Republicans that didn't just include those who went to vote in primaries would likely see a lower percent that would support slavery.

If you asked them, they would tell you they're not supporting slavery, and probably believe it. Southern leaders recognized that they'd lost hard on that issue, and did a very good job of whitewashing the motives of the Confederacy Slave Power immediately post-war. Instead, they think it's about state sovereignty.

[Raw Shark]

It was about state sovereignty. Y'know, state sovereignty to have slaves. What's the disconnect here?

[General Zod]

What surprises me the most about this is that it's not higher.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I think it's important to note how... extreme... those who tend to bother with the primaries often are. A sample of Republicans that didn't just include those who went to vote in primaries would likely see a lower percent that would support slavery.

If you asked them, they would tell you they're not supporting slavery, and probably believe it. Southern leaders recognized that they'd lost hard on that issue, and did a very good job of whitewashing the motives of the Confederacy Slave Power immediately post-war. Instead, they think it's about state sovereignty.

True, but basically everyone "knows" that the South had slaves and the north "opposed" slavery. Okay, the reality was a bit more complex than that, but slavery was kind of a big reason why the South decided to declare war.

[Raw Shark]

If you asked them, they would tell you they're not supporting slavery, and probably believe it. Southern leaders recognized that they'd lost hard on that issue, and did a very good job of whitewashing the motives of the Confederacy Slave Power immediately post-war. Instead, they think it's about state sovereignty.

True, but basically everyone "knows" that the South had slaves and the north "opposed" slavery. Okay, the reality was a bit more complex than that, but slavery was kind of a big reason why the South decided to declare war.

Good luck even getting all of them to agree with that last bit - It's still widely referred to as "The War of Northern Aggression" without ironic intent down there.

[Highlord Laan]

If you asked them, they would tell you they're not supporting slavery, and probably believe it. Southern leaders recognized that they'd lost hard on that issue, and did a very good job of whitewashing the motives of the Confederacy Slave Power immediately post-war. Instead, they think it's about state sovereignty.

True, but basically everyone "knows" that the South had slaves and the north "opposed" slavery. Okay, the reality was a bit more complex than that, but slavery was kind of a big reason why the South decided to declare war.

Good luck even getting all of them to agree with that last bit - It's still widely referred to as "The War of Northern Aggression" without ironic intent down there.

Which is why I've started referring to it as "The War of Southern Stupidity" to them. In addition to being far more accurate, it makes them get pissy and leave, which is always a bonus.

[Simon_Jester]

True, but basically everyone "knows" that the South had slaves and the north "opposed" slavery. Okay, the reality was a bit more complex than that, but slavery was kind of a big reason why the South decided to declare war.

Everyone 'knows' this fact but there's been a massive effort by the southern states to revise away the significance of this fact.

Basically they've been trying to break the "Confederacy = slavery" association by introducing a third term and hoping people won't notice on account of not really paying attention in history class:

"Confederacy = states' rights = right to own slaves"

And as a result of this, a great mass of people stop at 'Confederacy = states' rights,' because 'states' rights' is one of those political terms that sounds obscure and abstract enough that nobody really wants to dig into it and extract the meaning except the political scientists. And 'rights' sound good and lend themselves to a narrative of "my ancestors were victims of Big Government!"

[Channel72]

It's funny how "state's rights" to this very day are almost always used to bolster some kind of conservative cause. Don't like gay marriage? You don't have to hate gays - just say it's a violation of state's rights. Don't like abortion? You're not anti-woman, but it's a violation of state's rights! Blah blah etc.

Has anyone ever even heard the term "state's rights" thrown around in support of some liberal cause? Liberalism seems to have a lot better luck at the federal level in the US, most likely because Washington D.C. is on the East Coast - so "state's rights" have become the go-to rallying cry whenever conservatives don't like something the Federal government is doing.

Unless of course, we're talking about the 2nd amendment, in which case conservatives demand their Federal-level right to salivate over firearms.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, "state's rights" cuts both ways on gay marriage. On the one hand it protects certain states' refusal to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians. On the other, it protected certain states' decision to issue the licenses, even if on the federal level something like DOMA is in place that prevented the federal government from acknowledging them at that time.

Likewise, on abortion, if it weren't for a court case saying that abortion rights are mandatory, they would almost certainly be banned on a federal level... and had Roe v. Wade come up before the court ten or twenty years later it might have had a different outcome. Suddenly a federal solution looks less good.

I think there does come a point at which we have to recognize the very profound differences between different parts of the nation on social issues. Trying to force the parts of the country we think are wrong to 'get with the program' should be done sparingly. Among other things, because it insulates people in those states from having to live with the consequences of their own actions, such as underfunded public services, widespread poverty, or other crises of domestic policy.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I think an entire thread could be devoted to the various groups that believe that the North was the aggressor or in the wrong. Flabbergasting are self-described libertarians (not a No True Scotsman, as libertarian isn't the most clearly defined term) that think the South was justified. That's either willful ignorance of why the South started shooting or implicit admission that they don't think blacks are actually people...


But yeah, I don't see how anyone can be unaware that the South was where slavery was a big thing. Then again, willful ignorance. :/

[General Zod]

I think an entire thread could be devoted to the various groups that believe that the North was the aggressor or in the wrong. Flabbergasting are self-described libertarians (not a No True Scotsman, as libertarian isn't the most clearly defined term) that think the South was justified. That's either willful ignorance of why the South started shooting or implicit admission that they don't think blacks are actually people...


But yeah, I don't see how anyone can be unaware that the South was where slavery was a big thing. Then again, willful ignorance. :/

Some people think black folk were better off as slaves, so . . .

[Thanas]

We already have such a thread in history, where Rogue has done a good job in showing how slavery was the singlest biggest reason for the war.

[Zaune]

Some people think black folk were better off as slaves, so . . .

Strangely enough, I can think of at least one rather famous socialist who kind of wondered the same thing, or at least pointed out that actual chattel slaves were less expendable than the average factory labourer because they cost money to replace.

[Borgholio]

I also find it most amusing that they call it the War of NORTHERN aggression when in fact the Confederates shot first. We could probably call it the War of SOUTHERN aggression on that fact.

[Rogue 9]

I also find it most amusing that they call it the War of NORTHERN aggression when in fact the Confederates shot first. We could probably call it the War of SOUTHERN aggression on that fact.

And on many more facts besides.

[Borgholio]

I also find it most amusing that they call it the War of NORTHERN aggression when in fact the Confederates shot first. We could probably call it the War of SOUTHERN aggression on that fact.

And on many more facts besides.

Nice read. I chuckled at the part where the Southern congressman beat his opponent with a cane when he didn't get his way. Sounds like something that would happen these days if there weren't cameras in the capitol building.

[Steve]

I also find it most amusing that they call it the War of NORTHERN aggression when in fact the Confederates shot first. We could probably call it the War of SOUTHERN aggression on that fact.

I started calling it that years ago, once I read enough history to see the pattern of continued Southern threats against the Union and the freedoms and rights of the non-slave states.

[Edi]

War of Southern Treason has always been my favorite rejoinder whenever some idiot starts talking about "Northern Aggression".