Pardon me, but I thought it best to cut through the noise (e.g., patent finger-in-ears denial akin to, "Nuh-uh!") and go straight to citing primary sources of which you curiously deflected; you see, you learn to do that with those fancy scholarships :)

To the contrary I'm pretty sure I pinned you into a corner after trying to claim it was conservatives not liberals who were the standard-bearers of the change. Here you're not trying to play games of equivocation and move the goalpost by essentially allegings, "buT LiBeRals AREn'T ReEallY LibERals!" I mean — what?

I really don't need to go any further, and it's a remarkable reality of your position that you cannot rummage up a single academic source to counter what I had already provided. However, it's a new day and I've got my coffee so let's address some bullshit:

You seem to believe that the Republicans said, “actually, we want to do racism now, let’s start the Southern Strategy!” and all the good Republicans that voted for the Civil Rights Act became Liberal Democrats

Straw-man. No, that is not what I'm saying at all. If you would've read more closely what I wrote a couple responses back, you would've recalled that I noted the transition took time and didn't complete really until the '70s or even arguably Reagan. Considering

You’re congratulating good white Liberals for passing the Civil Rights Act, when many of the major supporters would be considered conservatives and most of the opponents would be considered Liberals by most metrics.

You're just not making any sense, here. (1) All the union strength and support was in the North. (2) YOU said it was a regional differentiation, with northerners voting in greater numbers. (3) Ergo, the vast majority of support came from districts and states predominantly pro-Union. So... ??? Or what, do you think the southern state's rights anti-union confederates suddenly decided to turn out in great numbers to support the bill...? Let me again remind you what actual historians have to say:

the biggest headaches for Democratic leader Mike Mansfield often came not from Republicans but from the conservative bloc of his own party caucus

Dominating the GOP caucus, many conservatives believed the civil rights bill represented an unprecedented intrusion by the state into the daily lives of Americans.

You had a battle with the conservatives on the committee, the southern Democrats, conservative Republicans, but you had just as tough a battle with the liberals. Their position was the old story of the half loaf or three-quarters of a loaf, and [now they were saying] “we’ll settle for nothing less [than the whole loaf.]” . . . We shared their views, and we’d love to do it their way.

... But hey, why don't you go tell those scholars they're using the ideological labels incorrectly ;)

There really isn't much more to say. My original claim was: "not a single Tankie was in Congress who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, now, did they? So yes, thank a Liberal for actually getting shit done." From that:

I PROVED:

• Liberals of the time among BOTH parties — predominantly in the North — supported Civil Rights in greater numbers
• Liberals were the majority of its YES votes
• Liberals wanted a STRONGER Civil Rights bill
• Conservatives among BOTH parties — predominantly in the south — opposed the bill in greater numbers
• Conservatives sough ta WEAKER Civil Rights bill
• No Tankies passed the Civil Rights Act. (I have to note this as part of my original claim).

I REMINDED YOU:

• That because the parties were still in transition and the great realignment incomplete, there were lingering liberals and conservatives on both sides.
• But that doesn't change the fact that the majority of ardent support for the bill came from those further to the left on the political-spectrum and were ostensible liberals for the time-period. (Again, proven by quoted sources).
• Liberals of today are less conservative than then, sure.
• But Liberals of then were still more progressive than their conservative counter-parts.
• Such Liberals who would become demographically-identical to the modern-day liberals (as proven by mere geographical region alone and the fact that Civil Rights leaders of then eventually JOINED the ranks of Democrats of today (e.g., James Clyburn, John Lewis).
• You keep referencing party banners without looking at the underlying ideology, all the while admitting yourself that the parties were still in ideological realignment.

I therefore entirely reject the notion I'm, "cataclysmically wrong." Seems I'm actually right on the money.

Finally isn't it funny you quote MLK's "White Moderates" remark in 1963 who is ostensibly speaking of what we'd consider centrist liberal Dems today and those very white moderates did end up passing the bill in 1964? You still continue to deflect this amusingly.