You mean like this?
The switch is an absolute lie. Just look at this electoral college map starting in 1964:
Hey buddy, why not start your commentary with '64 when the only states to go red were 5 southern "racist" states and the GOP candidate's home state? Just like you I'll ignore the fact Goldwater ran on a state's right (to segregate) platform. LBJ did carry the majority of the south, bein' a Texas good ol' boy and all. The fact that he was actually a racist probably didn't hurt him in those parts neither (No, I'm not referring to the "200 years" quote that can't be proven but LBJ was a piece behind closed doors).
In 68, the "racist" states were mixed, with Wallace (not Nixon) running on a racist platform.
You mean the same states that voted for Goldwater? Mixed meaning Wallace won 5 of the former Confedederate Patriot states while Nixon won 4 and 'Rat faced Humphrey (the most liberal candidate) won 2. But it was mixed, y'all. '72, Nixon won pretty much everything, so it's hard to there was a "switch". Yeah, the south always goes along with the rest of the country like a tag-along little stepbrother. Pay no mind that the liberal 'Rat candidate won even fewer states in the ol' south this time around.
'76, oh look, who won the south... a DEMOCRAT!
Yes, a prominent southern 'Rat won. The south has no history of voting for its own. /s Couple that with the impact of Watergate and Ford/Dole's non-existent state's rights stance and its easy to see why favor shifted towards the local 'Rat.
The 'Rats lost the south in '68, '72, '80, '84, '88, '92, '96, 2000, '04, '08, and '12 but for some reason '76 is supposed to be a big "gotcha" that disproves a trend? Okay.
80-88, yes Republicans won the south, but again, they won everything else (thank you Reagan!).
Thank you Saint Ronald indeed! The south, once again, played tag-along. Show's over folks so take those thinkin' caps off. Reagan's (Atwater's) campaign rhetoric in the south was totally irrelevant. To be fair, Carter's Presidency was pretty disastrous but his moderate stance on state's rights didn't help in the region whereas Reagan made sure to pay it some lip service around those parts.
'84 and '88? Well, the 'Rats did run some pretty weak ass candidates but who can compete with a B rate cowboy boot wearin' actor anyhow? He used to be in the Westerns, ma!
'92 and '96 the south is split between Ds and Rs. Split meaning the 'Rats took 4 Patriot states while the R's took nearly 2/3 with 7. That's a split, y'all.
Nevermind that once again the 'Rat candidate was a pecan pie eatin' boy from Dixie. That didn't swing a single state. Not a one.
It is not until 2000, that the south generally becomes solidly Republican
Hmm, "southern" social conservative/fiscal moderate vs southern nanny-stater. Well, no matter what the south gets to vote for its own. Why go for the guy runnin' with a joo? Cowboy up! and even that regressed in 2008 with the election of a black President.
True, the Kenyan Mohamadean 'Rat did carry 3/11 Patriot states in that election. Couldn't have had anything to do with the financial meltdown and the fact that Virginia and North Carolina are burgeoning financial and STEM centers and the 'Rats were more supportive of the bailout (rhetorically).
Also ignore the huge healthcare sector in Virginia (remember- Obolacare doesn't control costs and insurance companies were mostly on board with the mandate that would surely generate new customers and increase revenues, that's /r/con[2] 101). It's definitely good to completely forget that Florida was on its way to becoming a minority infested brown cesspool drowning in it's own filth and foodstamps, too. Demographic changes are irrelevant to say the least. 2012? Only FL and VA went 'Rat. Probably because of the cess and finance/insurance companies in those two states, respectively.
The conclusion?
Democrats love to talk about a switch, in a revisionist way to excuse their abhorrent past of racism in this country, and displacing it onto their greatest opposition.
Umm, from 1968 to 2012 the 'Rats only won more than 4 Patriot states in one Prez election, which was '76 when they ran a southern moderate liberal against a northern moderate conservative with a nearly identical platform (who was also tainted by a massive scandal). They held on strong in '64, though.
A final example of Dems not changing parties, much to the chagrin of Democrat apologists is as follows.
That's right a former KKK Democrat who voted against the civil rights act in 1964, WAS STILL A SENATE DEMOCRAT until his death in 2010: (Link to Robert Byrd)
Strom Thurmond doesn't real? Why not mention him, too? Doesn't fit your partisan narrative? Okay, that makes sense. I forgive you.
Gotta love this little bit, too:
In modern politics, it is the Democrats, not the Republicans, claiming that their opposition is racist. Yeah! I've never heard a fellow conservative say libtards is racist. Not once. Oh, the whole point of your previous post was calling 'Rats racist?
If Democrats weren't always bringing up race. . .
Isn't the front page of /r/conservative, where only true conservatives gather for discussion and light-hearted banter, basically dominated by race talk, day in and day out?