Yes. Let's blame the party that ended slavery. Let's blame the party that fought for civil rights for a century. Let's blame the party that actually voted for civil rights against a filibuster led by Democrats. Why?
You start out in 1954 by saying, "N--ger, n--ger, n--ger." By 1968 you can't say "n--ger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N--ger, n--ger."
Guess you guys blew it.
Only because you are making assumptions that aren't there. Republicans realized that they could win white voters in the south without having to resort to the kind of racism that the Democrats had used to do so in the past. What's ironic is the need for those on the left to inject racism into a platform that ultimately has none. Which is how you (and to be fair a whole bunch of people) miss that Atwater was contrasting the methods used by Democrats and those used by Republicans.
But, hey, now you get to run ads about how the scary black president wants to end welfare work requirements so it's not all bad, right?
He'd be just as scary to us if he were white Joph. But the fact that you have to highlight his race kinda proves my point.