Dems Can't Keep Losing Dixie

[Mort from NewYawk]

That the encroaching "liberal" culture disdains organized religion is not the only explanation for the failure of the national Democratic party to make any inroads in the South.

The lack of support on the left for the the men and women in uniform who serve their country, the failure by every Democratic presidential candidate to articulate when and how they would project military force to defeat our enemies (the failure to articulate that we even have enemies!), the failure to articulate when freedom from tyranny is worth fighting for - all of this lack of allegiance to the founding values of this country - sits very poorly with Southern (and Midwest) culture.

The last great "liberal" issue (as in post-Vietnam "liberal", not to be confused with Truman/JFK liberal), was the civil rights movement. In the last 40 or so years, as the movement claimed victory by becoming mainstream in America, the left has had no positive agenda to promote, only carping, whining, and wistful recollections of the "glory" years, when people could actually be persuaded to vote based on anti-war and anti-power rhetoric.

[minionofmidas]

Wow. Ain't seen you in a long time. Welcome back, man.

[Mort from NewYawk]

Wow. Ain't seen you in a long time. Welcome back, man.

Thanks. Slow day at work.

[Beet]

That the encroaching "liberal" culture disdains organized religion is not the only explanation for the failure of the national Democratic party to make any inroads in the South.

The lack of support on the left for the the men and women in uniform who serve their country, the failure by every Democratic presidential candidate to articulate when and how they would project military force to defeat our enemies (the failure to articulate that we even have enemies!), the failure to articulate when freedom from tyranny is worth fighting for - all of this lack of allegiance to the founding values of this country - sits very poorly with Southern (and Midwest) culture.

The last great "liberal" issue (as in post-Vietnam "liberal", not to be confused with Truman/JFK liberal), was the civil rights movement. In the last 40 or so years, as the movement claimed victory by becoming mainstream in America, the left has had no positive agenda to promote, only carping, whining, and wistful recollections of the "glory" years, when people could actually be persuaded to vote based on anti-war and anti-power rhetoric.

Very true. The baby boomer generation's liberalism was very different from the generation of liberalism that preceded it. But the break did not start then.

I think it was the late 1940s that the traditional Western left, associated almost exclusively with economic issues, was confronted with two problems, one deep, and one immediate, which broke it apart. The deep issue was the emergence of the welfare state as a viable alternative to communism and socialism. The immediate issue was the need to stand with national governments against the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Together these two things split the left, and then caused the withering and dying of the communist/socialist element.

The part of the left that survived (20th century liberalism, or as Mort says Truman/JFK liberalism) for a brief moment in the 1950s and early 1960s was the unchallenged consensus in Western political thought. Leftists recognized it as a way to fulfill their goals without communist strictures, and Rightists recognized it as the necessary compromise to prevent communist spread. However, two forces would combine to break apart this left as well.

The first was that liberalism's emphasis shifted towards social goals once economic victory was achieved. At first this shift was noble and had success, such as the early years of the civil rights movement and campus free speech movements under the "New Left". But in later years, with the arrival of baby boomers en mass, the self-indulgent zeitgeist of the postwar consumerist boom began to permeate this social strand with drugs, nihilism, esoteric spirituality, and even apparent dementia. If you spoke out against this, then you were a conservative, as the neoconservatives became. But if you spoke out defending it you gave yourself into its self-destruction. 20th century social liberals were caught between a rock and a hard place and quickly disappeared as a political force; they have not re-emerged to this day. Camile Pagila was referring to this when she said that liberalism was dead and "we" (baby boomers) killed it.

The second was the collapse of the economic basis of the welfare state in the 1970s. This undermined the foundation of the consensus and finished the transition rightward in political thought that the welfare state itself had helped to bridge.

From this perspective, the totality of leftist intellectual collapse, both economically and socially, by the end of the 1970s was so complete, with hindsight, that the Reagan/Thatcher/Deng/Gorbachev/Kohl revolutions are little surprise.

It is really up to present and future generations to rebuild the left from scratch. In the beginning there is nothing, my friends, but a sense that something is not right in the world, and a passion for doing something about it in an organized fashion.

[Gustaf]

If you look at how the South voted in say 1972, 1984 and 1988 and then look at how it voted in 1976, 1992 and 1996 you realize that the results in the last two elections don't necessarily mean that much. The big question is rather whether the same goes for the Northeast or not.

[The Vorlon]

A couple observations.

There has been a huge political re-alignment in thge last 20 years.  It has shifted from crushing Democratic dominance to something very close to parity.

I forget the exact numbers but there are just a shade under 20,000 state and federal elected officials in the county, and right now I think the Dems have something like 80 more positions than the GOP - out of 20,000.

The GOP Presidential average in the last 2 elections is 49.3%, the democratic average is 48.54 => Hardly a crushing advantage.

Regarding the GOP hold on Dixie... ok... so what...?

You can argue things +/- a state one way or another, but the the Dems can more or less count on the following:

D. C.                    3
Massachusetts   12
Rhode Island   4
Vermont                    3
New York                   31
Maryland                   10
Connecticut   7
California                   55
Illinois                    21
Maine                     4
Hawaii                     4
Washington   11
Delaware                    3
New Jersey   15
Total                  183

In a similar way, the GOP can more or less count on these states

Missouri                     11
Virginia                     13
Arkansas                       6
Arizona                    10
North Carolina   15
West Virginia   5
Louisiana                    9
Tennessee   11
Georgia                   15
South Carolina   8
Montana                   3
Mississippi   6
Kentucky                    8
South Dakota   3
Indiana                   11
Alaska                     3
Texas                    34
Kansas                     6
Alabama                    9
North Dakota   3
Oklahoma                   7
Nebraska                   5
Idaho                    4
Wyoming                   3
Utah                   5
Total   213

If yur a Republican, you might argue the GOP can Count on Florida and that the GOP has a real shot in Jersey and Washington.

If you a Democrat you might argue Oregon and Minnesota are base states and that Missouri, Arkansas, and Virginia are battlegrounds...

Whatever...

Neither side has a 270 anywhere close to reliable, and both sides have pretty similar EV bases to build from.

If your a Democrat, parity is a crushing disappointment, and after 40 years in the wilderness parity feels like Heaven to the GOP, but the bottom line is that it is structurally very, very close right now...

[A18]

I forget the exact numbers but there are just a shade under 20,000 state and federal elected officials in the county, and right now I think the Dems have something like 80 more positions than the GOP - out of 20,000.

I really don't see this as relevant -- at all, in fact. Some states have larger legislatures than others. Some states elect more executive positions than others.

The issue that this topic brought up was that the sunbelt is growing at a faster pace than the Democratic states in the northeast. Thus, that gives the GOP more EVs as time goes on, and more representatives.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The issue that this topic brought up was that the sunbelt is growing at a faster pace than the Democratic states in the northeast. Thus, that gives the GOP more EVs as time goes on, and more representatives.

Assuming that political conditions don't change. And they will. They always do.

[Gustaf]

Also, you have to look at WHY Republican states grow. Is it because Republican voters are having more children? B/c that's the only scenario that would make it reasonable to see the trend as indefinitely advantageous for the GOP. Much of the demographic change is actually migration and that just means redistributing the same voters. We see this happening with Colorado, Nevada, Florida, Virginia and so on. At some point this will start flipping these states.

And Vorlon, as always, raises an excellent point. Parity is probably the natural situation in the modern world.

Finally, demographic changes tend to affect policy, not the parties. Basically, if the US would shift to the right both the GOP and the Democrats would eventually shift accordingly. The GOP could in fact easily over-trend and end up to extremist and lose their hold on the country. This has happened in the UK, to give one example.

[The Vorlon]

I forget the exact numbers but there are just a shade under 20,000 state and federal elected officials in the county, and right now I think the Dems have something like 80 more positions than the GOP - out of 20,000.

I really don't see this as relevant -- at all, in fact. Some states have larger legislatures than others. Some states elect more executive positions than others.

The issue that this topic brought up was that the sunbelt is growing at a faster pace than the Democratic states in the northeast. Thus, that gives the GOP more EVs as time goes on, and more representatives.

My point, perhaps poorly expressed, is that the two parties are at a point very very close to parity right now.  The fact that they are so close, also means they will likely stay close for a while also.

An imperfect anaology to this is a college with a truly fantastic football program that is alway in the hunt for the National championship.... 

All the really great High school  football players want to go to this school when they get to college... which means they tend to STAY at the top.

The GOP and Dems are so close at all levels that they also also getting very similar shares of the :high draft choices" in terms of new faces and new organization.  This parity goes all the way down too.  The DEms have (if my memory is correct) 99xx elected state officials, while the GOP has 98xx.... parity within a % or so.

[CARLHAYDEN]

While I agree that the core party identification in the whole national electorate is essentially equal (I think I made this point about nine months ago), the Democrats have a problem in that the vote is NOT equally distributed around the country.

Even though Bush won an absolute majority across the nation, Kerry had (if memory serves me correctly) more congressional districts carried by a two to one ratio than did Bush.

The long term result is that the Republicans will have a stronger 'farm' system to develop future candidates (you'd be amazed at how many major politicians started out as state legislators).

[A18]

Your data is incorrect. Bush won a great deal more congressional districts than Kerry. Someone else here can provide the link.

Assuming that political conditions don't change. And they will. They always do.

You mean like I said earlier in this exact topic? Thanks.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Reread my post.

While Bush won more total Congressional Districts, Kerry won more districts by a two to one margin!

Look at a brief posting of 2004 for Congressional districts in 2004.

Bush                                    Kerry

District 3, UT 83.69%           District 9, CA 85.90%
District 6, AL 78.73%           District 8, CA 84.55% 
District 11, TX 78.05%         District 2, IL 83.71% 
District 2, UT 77.66%           District 7, IL 83.06% 
District 13, TX 77.22%         District 33, CA 82.82%

[A18]

Oh, I get what you mean now.

[MaC]

Looks like they had no problem losing the heart of the south, but winning the rest in 1964.  Although if they were to do a modern losing south, but winning rest it might look more like this:

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

An optimistic Reid vs. generic southern Republican map:

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's a Reid / Bayh landslide with the Mormom church stating that Reid is pretty cool.



The cry of "Give them hell, Harry" manages to have Reid break 60% in MO.

[Democratic Hawk]

Here's how I might do (were I a moderate, and immensely popular/successful Democratic governor of Georgia)



Dave

[A18]

Remember that 1964 and 1972 happened within eight years of each other.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Yes but 1972 is because McGovern was a bit too leftist to be electable in the current political climate of the time. someone like RFK if he hadn't been shot or Hum,phrey would have been more electable then.

[YoMartin]

Also, you have to look at WHY Republican states grow. Is it because Republican voters are having more children? B/c that's the only scenario that would make it reasonable to see the trend as indefinitely advantageous for the GOP. Much of the demographic change is actually migration and that just means redistributing the same voters. We see this happening with Colorado, Nevada, Florida, Virginia and so on. At some point this will start flipping these states.

And Vorlon, as always, raises an excellent point. Parity is probably the natural situation in the modern world.

Finally, demographic changes tend to affect policy, not the parties. Basically, if the US would shift to the right both the GOP and the Democrats would eventually shift accordingly. The GOP could in fact easily over-trend and end up to extremist and lose their hold on the country. This has happened in the UK, to give one example.

I think this is an excellent post. It´s not enough to say "republican states are growing demographically". It could be that blacks or latinos in those states are growing, so that growth would actually challenge the republican advantage there. Besides, demographics is not everything. If that was the case, there´d be no politics. A social divide, a social cleavage, becomes active when a politican or a party is able to work on it. Campaigning on the "war on terror" was a fine strategy for the republicans in 04, as it could for the democrats campaigning on "women´s rights" in 08 (provided the new Supreme Court limits abortion). Politicians can´t "plot" to turn a state from being strongly democratic to being republican (as some thread on Maryland said), but there´s no demographic determinism either. Furthermore, if the country becomes increasingly conservative, then democrats will do too. Politicians converge towards the median voter of that particular district they´re competing in, that´s why Maine republicans are more liberal than Georgia democrats. So both the republican and the democratic contender for the presidency always move to the center after winning their primary. The only problem is that the median voters in both primaries are located somewhat far from the general median voter, but that affects both parties, not just the democrats.

A final thought. 2000 and 2004 were decided by very slim margins. In 2004, an incumbent president in a time of war narrowly defeated a Massachussets senator that could credibly be portraited as "the most liberal senator in the country". I think Republicans should actually be asking whether they can win again without the Northeast and the West Coast.

[Gustaf]

Yay, someone called my post excellent!

I think Vorlon's point on elected officials is interesting. What is more relevant though is whether the realignement will continue down the line. That is, will Democrats lose state ligislature majorities in states like Arkansas and Alabama and will the GOP lose the NY senate, Governorships in places like RI, VT and so on.

[YoMartin]

Yay, someone called my post excellent!

And I think it´s the first time I said something like that in 204 posts...

I read many moderate democrats in this forum claiming that only a southern populist and socially conservative candidate could be electable by putting certain southern states in play. In a two party system, that´s the obvious thing to do: occupy the centre. The only problem is turnout: would such candidate mobilise the base in increasingly competitive states (like Pennsylvania)? With 15.000 of Kerry´s votes in Wisconsin going to Nader in 2004, Bush would have won the state (of course: the centrist candidate could steal some from Bush too). So I´m not totally sure if that´s the best strategy, especially regarding what a long shot most southern states are for any democrat right now. With Edwards as VP, democrats lost by 13% in North Carolina...

Going back to the realignment idea: Democrats nominate a rather conservative candidate. Republicans nominate a moderate candidate (Giuliani, or the governor of Massachussets). During the campaign, both candidates try to make inroads on the other guy´s base. I don´t know if Giuliani wins New York, but could happen. The West Wing hinted something like this last year (the republican candidate, pro-choice, almost getting the endorsment of a major women´s organization, and also carrying California; the Democrat, moderate southerner, carrying Texas). Would this be a "critical election"? It´s unlikely, of course. Candidates don´t normally leapfrog over the other. But it´s not impossible.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

All this means is that in close presidential elections, Republicans will likely win most of the time. It also means the House may not be switching hands for another generation.

Assuming the parties still stand for the same thing in another generation

[tarheel-leftist85]

I can't stand it when Democrats say all is lost in the South because they consider choosing a Southern 1-term senator at the bottom of the ticket as the litmus test for a Democrat's viability in the South.   Maybe , just maybe, though the numbers don't prove it, if we just act more libertarian, rabid, and Bush-centric we'll be able to win.  We don't need the Southeast, despite it being an already populated (unlike the SW) but fastest growing region (and not due to illegal aliens like CA, TX, AZ, and NV).  Forget Virginia, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Florida--we're too good for them.  Let's hedge all our bets on Ohio, the only state east of the Mississippi to be controlled by Republicans in every statewide elected office (of course that'll change for sure in 2006 as it did in 2004 and 2002 and 2000...).