(no title)
ChristianBundy | 5 years ago
This is a blatant misrepresentation. The tweet talked about "race riots" and Democrat election results. Many people would argue that the point of direct action is not to sway electoral votes toward the Democratic party.
monocasa|5 years ago
zeveb|5 years ago
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law on the second of July 1964, had been in the works since before Mr. Kennedy's (unrelated) assassination in 1963; it passed the House 290–130 and the Senate 73–27: I really doubt that six days' rioting can be credited with passing it.
burfog|5 years ago
Had there been an actual switch, you'd expect to see numerous members of congress switching sides.
The "party switch" narrative is a lie. It's to cover for the fact that the republicans kept voting for civil rights until they were finally able to pass it. Today, being the party in opposition to civil rights wouldn't be seen as OK, so a false version of history is pushed to cover up the truth.
A better explanation for the change in voting is that party preferences changed once the issue of civil rights was no longer under consideration. With that gone, other political goals were able to determine party preference.