Do rural Southern whites HATE Democratic party SO much (especially - DEEP Southern)?

[smoltchanov]

2 Ideology. One could say that present day Democratic party (mostly only slightly liberal on economy. but - strongly liberal on almost all social issues) is the worst possible choice for typical rural white southerner (in some case even not only "white", but for rural Blacks other reasons usually outweigh this and they mostly still support Democrats). Rural South could (and did) vote for economical liberals (from very racist Bilbo to not so racist Hill), but almost never - for social one's. That's almost absolute anathema. And evolution of Democratic party (and the very notion of liberalism) changed since FDR time from economical to social sphere (especially in the last 10 years -  not so long ago people like Bart Stupak were very well represented in Congress even from Northern districts, and now Henry Cuellar is the only one who can be called "social moderate"). In general - modern understanding of liberalism is almost opposite of initial: agrarian Jeffersonian Democratism would be considered as either "conservative" or "libertarian" now (and that's well illustrated by the fact, that one of the most segregationist AND conservative Democratic leaders of 1950th in Louisiana - state senator Willie Rainach - preferred to be called "classical liberal", not a "conservative"), "class and economy"-based FDR's liberalism is also much less popular now then in his time (after all - FDR wasn't especially active on even Civil Rights (though he, undoubtedly, supported them), and paid almost no attention to LGBT-rights (just as almost every other politician of his time): he had a Great Depression "on hand" and, among other things, needed votes of "solid South"). The main distinction between parties is on social issues now. In their time both Hill and Bilbo (very much a New Dealer) were considered much more liberal then, say, Nebraska's Harry Coffee..

And rural southerners are very sensitive to populism (and to lesser degree - economic liberalism, though in FDR time their "defence of little man" usually meant "defence of white little man"), but - to socially conservative populism only. Exactly what present day Republican party (especially - dominant Trumpist wing) likes to talk about. So, it must be said, that by choosing the socially liberal trajectory of evolution Democratic party did maximum of possible to alienate these people. As i said earlier: there is substantial element of truth in the words of many party-switchers, who left Democratic party since 1960th - "i didn't left party, party left me". "Their party" was really very different (and not only on race), and they really couldn't find a place in a new one remaining themselves.

Let's look on last 2 switches in Louisiana. Thompson was really "the last of Mohicans": the only Democrat i knew in all state legislatures, whom i could legitimately call "a conservative". His voting record was rather typical for more moderate members of REPUBLICAN caucus in his state - right-of-center to moderate conservative on economy and very conservative on almost all social issues. His district voted about 70% Trump both in 2016 and 2020, and at the same time - Republicans didn't even bothered to run a candidate against him in 2019. He has 48 years of experience in Legislature and is almost 82 years old. So, everything is rather "natural" here....

LaCombe is somewhat different. Generally centrist (again - more liberal on economy and less - on social issues). Usually he won in the past by getting very good percentage in his rural Pointe Coupee parish (almost 66% in his House campaign of 2019). But when he tried to run for state Senate - he got only 53% there, and, generally, was only "on par" in his House district (while being obliterated in other parts of the state Senate district, including rural one's) with Republican candidate. Yes. he could (probably with greater difficulties each next time) continue to serve in House, being attacked from the left in his own caucus and from the right - by Republicans, in minority, and that's - substantially all. Most likely - he will "adjust" his voting record now into conservative direction, but, again - most likely, he will be member of "moderate caucus" as a Republican, and, for such ambitious person as he is - the perspectives there seems to be much brighter: even his mostly rural and, until recently, "yellow dog Democratic" district is no more opposed to "trumpist Republican party". Party ideolgy - changed, people - much less so, and thus - changed their party preferences, but - not political one's.

[Fuzzy Bear]

One of the reasons these conservative Democrats have left the Democratic Party is that the South has shifted from a conservative Democratic orientation to a conservative Republican orientation.  After 1968, Southern conservatives lost all meaningful influence in the Democratic Party.  The McGovern-Fraser rules changes to the Presidential nomination process at a time where Southern conservative influence in the national Republican Party was growing.  At the same time, reforms in Congress made the election of Committee chairs subject to the vote of the Democratic caucus, and not a matter of mere seniority by which a Howard Smith could be a chair of the House Rules Committee.  What this meant was that Southern Democrats could no longer be extreme conservatives; they had to make some kind of accommodation with the Democratic Party.

The result of this, for a time, was a politics in the South that, for a while, was more responsive to the wishes and desires of black voters before or after.  For a time, Southern politics became the Democratic Party maintaining majorities through coalitions of working class white voters and black voters.  This was the coalition that swept 10 Southern states for Carter in 1976; it was the coalition that maintained the South's Democratic majorities in Congress through 1994.  It was the coalition that made the South competitive for Bill Clinton.

Over time, conservative Southern DEMOCRATS died off, and the new Southern conservative electorate was made of of voters that never voted for Democrats at any level, electing more Republicans.  Over time, the next step was these same voters only voting in Republican primaries.  What accelerated the Republican trend was that the new breed of moderate Democrats chose a course of being pro-choice, but economically more conservative; this left the Democrats vulnerable on hot-button issues.  The individual Democrats likely chose this path thinking that being a pro-life Democrat would limit their ability to run for President someday, but it ended up making it tougher for them to get re-elected in the most religious region of the country.

The rural conservative Democrats, particularly those NOT at the national level, ultimately left the Democratic Party because they wanted to retain their influence and they did not want to be in a perpetual minority.  Southern legislatures began to turn Republican in the 1990s and they went one after the other, and the thing that clinched the deal were conservative and moderate Democrats switching parties.  It's nothing personal, but it left the rural former Democrats with fewer pressures to support non-racial social issues that were unpopular with a constituency that was largely churchgoing.  And why, if you were someone who was not a flat-out liberal, put yourself in a position where you would be likely to be in a minority in your legislative body?  These folks want to be committee chairs and switching parties is a matter of going along to get along.

[smoltchanov]

Thanks a lot, Fuzzy Bear! It seems to me - there is substantial intersection between your and my reasoning. My next post will be devoted to religion and campaign money (as a vital part of electoral strategy). And i already mentioned (may be - in passing) the unenviable perspective to be in "permanent minority" on LaCombe example....

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Thanks for these most recent posts. I look forward to more of them.

[DaleCooper]

You have to understand that Southern whites are animated primarily by anti-black racism. So, yes, of course they hate a party whose core tenets include anti-racism, diversity, civil rights, etc.

There's some truth to that statement, but hardly a full explanation. Most Southern states would easily vote for black conservative (R) over a white liberal or white moderate (D).

They would likely vote for a rather liberal black Republican than a white conservative Democrat. 

[smoltchanov]

3. Religion. As everyone knows - vast majority of the South is part of Bible Belt. It's substantially more religious then other parts of US, at least - outside of metropolises. Add to this, that in small cities and towns of rural South it's church, which serves as a very important (sometimes - main) "communication center" for people, and, as a result - local pastor (or preacher) is, generally, one of the central figures in these cities/towns. Add to this, that the most popular in the South branches of Protestantism (for example - Southern Baptism and Methodism) are, as a whole, more conservative in their dogmats and practice, and "less polished", then, say, Unitarianism, and frequently treated with some irony by "egghead intellectuals" (well, i can easily assign himself to that category too))), and, finally, that Catholic church (popular in Southern and Southwestern Louisiana, for example) is also conservative on at least some social issues ("choice" is a best example, and, as a result - Louisiana is, probably, the most "pro-life" state in the nation) - and you get a situation with (usually) very conservative city/town "moral leaders", few places to hear or discuss alternative approaches, and so on. Situation is cardinally different from BIG cities and suburbs (even in the South), where there are much more sources of information and  alternative views.

4. Money. Again - common knowledge is that  cost of political campaigns in the last decades went up immensely. Especially - after famous decision on "Citizens United". Long gone times where persons like former Kentucky congressman William Natcher conducted their campaigns under slogan "i will do my duty, and my voters may vote for me, if they want", refusing to collect ANY money, and spending only few thousands of their own (BTW - it was a very successfull strategy, Natcher was easily reelected by his voters for 40 years until his death). That's almost impossible now: even well-known incumbents  in safe House districts feel obliged to spend, say, 1 million dollars  every campaign to remind voters about their existence and (may be) proactively prevent any possible primary opposition. And price of statewide campaigns in really big states may go to 100 millions or more..

Of course - cost of campaign for, say, state legislative district, in rural South is considerably less. But even it may easily go to hundreds of thousands, and, with few exceptions, few people can afford it. Even with friends assistance. So, the old style of "friends and neighbours" campaigning is both impractical and, practically - impossible. Where would necessary money come from? In most cases - from national sources (federal party) or, most likely - PACs. PACS are very frequently "ideologically driven": in fact - there is a lot of very conservative or very liberal PACs, and rather few - "in between" (i really don't know whether, say, "Bipartisan PAC" exist now, but even if it does - it's money resources are, probably, incomparable with those of "ideological PACs"). And one must not forget old saying: "he, who pays the fiddler, calls the tune". Big donors and big ideological PACs always ask their "price" for their support, and that price includes "absolute (or near absolute) loyalty". Otherwise one risks to see his/her coffers dry in the next campaign and well-financed ideologically "pure" opponent in the next primary. General election electability in such situation becomes a "second tier criterion" (after all - you can't win general if you can't win primary). General polarization of political parties, and dependence on caucus support in order to get a good congressional or state legislative assignment (which some people mentioned above) only aggravates situation and leads to illogical campaigns in which Democrats run very liberal (and absolutely unelectable) candidates in rural conservative districts, and Republicans do essentially the same in urban and suburban ones. The problem for Democrats is that the states like Alabama, Mississippi and even Louisiana, unlike, say, California, where you theoretically may win almost all statewide posts and solid majority in legislature without getting single vote in rural areas, or even Georgia (where Atlanta and it's close suburbs began to outvote almost everything else) doesn't have really big cities, or liberally inclined suburbs, and, correspondingly, rural areas are much more important there then in California or Georgia. With "moneyless" and "out of sink" candidates you are unlikely to achieve a lot...

There are other reasons why rural South tends to side with Republicans ("hawkish" tradition in foreign politics is one of them), but i think those i mentioned above are of most importance..

P. S. Next (and last) part will be devoted to perspectives of both parties in this area as i see it... Of course - everything there will be even greater IMHO, then in other parts of my analysis, but may be - it will still be of some interest)))

[Ragnaroni]

3 recent party switches from Democratic to Republican party (especially two in Louisiana - Thompson's and LaCombe's) in the South pushed me to ask this question. I have a very long and detailed opinion about that (the short answer would be "now - almost always "yes""), But first i would like to read SERIOUS opinions (not one-liners) of US citizens, especially - denizens of the region.

Its a simple equation, does the Democratic party benefit and represent them more than the Republican party? In the case of the rural white South, the answer's no.

[smoltchanov]

3 recent party switches from Democratic to Republican party (especially two in Louisiana - Thompson's and LaCombe's) in the South pushed me to ask this question. I have a very long and detailed opinion about that (the short answer would be "now - almost always "yes""), But first i would like to read SERIOUS opinions (not one-liners) of US citizens, especially - denizens of the region.

Its a simple equation, does the Democratic party benefit and represent them more than the Republican party? In the case of the rural white South, the answer's no.

True, but "too general". I try to give more details))))

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Just remember what happened to Gore and Kerry 2000/2004 Clinton accelerated the transition for the S to go R he sued Tobacco lobby it was no accident Edwards didn't win his home state Tobacco in NC but VA elected Mark Warner and 2008 Recession that forced the S to go D
Same thing happened in 2016 Hillary 20 Pandemic Great Recession 2:forced S to go D OH is trending D again, it's not gonna be easy to defeat Gallego, Brown and Kunce and we are overperform in WI, PA and MI 51)47 and we only won them by 50 K VOTE in 20 you don't need polls

[Del Tachi]

Racism is certainly a part of the answer, but not the full picture. The South generally is and always has been more religious on average, even African Americans. The Democratic Party meanwhile has become increasingly secular over the last few decades.

Here's an interesting video I found a while ago (although it's somewhat with a conservative bias):

prager u is not just biased, but so biased that most of their videos leave you less informed after watching than before. It cannot be trusted on anything.

This one is bad even by prager standards. One of her "facts" is that Nixon lost the deep south in 1968, implying that Humphrey won. It might fool ignorants who dont know about Dixiecrat candidates. Please tell me this tenured professor wasnt like this in her younger days.

She didn't imply Humphrey won.  But that Nixon couldn't win the Deep South in 1968 is a relevant fact to point out in dispelling the "Southern Strategy" myth.

[oldtimer]

I thought this tweet from Stu Rothenberg was relevant in light of the news in Tennessee:

https://twitter.com/StuPolitics/status/1645534092702744583

Relevant. But it's hardly explains everything...

I view it as irrelevant.

The explanation of the merger of northern and the southern working class is different and more simple.

The class interests of northern and southern working class whites overcame their regional distaste for each other once the pre-civil rights period was forgotten.

Once everyone had the right to vote there was nothing to divide them, so they are gradually merging.

On the specifics about the South, it was always poor-whites vs poor-blacks for scarce money and jobs, the southern white elite played those divisions to keep power for it's self.

Some southern states where majority black back then, if they gave them the vote the southern White elite would have been voted out.

Once Democrats flipped sides, they also flipped sides.

[GALeftist]

I think an underrated part of this stuff is just simple generational turnover. My great grandmother was white and Louisianan, but she was a very partisan Democrat who particularly hated Nixon for reasons that might not be entirely unfamiliar to a modern liberal: she thought he was out of touch with everyday Americans like herself, mostly represented the interests of wealthy conservatives while simply pandering to communities like hers, etc. She was probably more liberal than the average white Louisianan, and racism has certainly always played a large role in Southern politics, but there also used to be a real sense that the government ought to be concerned with the welfare of its least fortunate citizens, at least for some people. None of my living Louisiana family (with one exception) has voted for a Democrat federally since Clinton, though, to my knowledge, and I think part of the reason is a real cultural shift. A lot of younger Southerners simply don't remember when the Republican Party was far more explicitly a party for wealthy Northern businessmen, plus they're likely better off than their parents or grandparents, so the culture-war issues of the post-Bush GOP have really taken center stage.

[jojoju1998]

Racism is certainly a part of the answer, but not the full picture. The South generally is and always has been more religious on average, even African Americans. The Democratic Party meanwhile has become increasingly secular over the last few decades.

Here's an interesting video I found a while ago (although it's somewhat with a conservative bias):

prager u is not just biased, but so biased that most of their videos leave you less informed after watching than before. It cannot be trusted on anything.

This one is bad even by prager standards. One of her "facts" is that Nixon lost the deep south in 1968, implying that Humphrey won. It might fool ignorants who dont know about Dixiecrat candidates. Please tell me this tenured professor wasnt like this in her younger days.

She didn't imply Humphrey won.  But that Nixon couldn't win the Deep South in 1968 is a relevant fact to point out in dispelling the "Southern Strategy" myth.

If Wallace didn’t run, Nixon would have won in the Deep South. Remember, Humphrey did very poorly there.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

She didn't imply Humphrey won.  But that Nixon couldn't win the Deep South in 1968 is a relevant fact to point out in dispelling the "Southern Strategy" myth.

That's only because of George Wallace; without him, Nixon would've easily won those states.

The only election post-1968 in which a Democrat won most Southern states was in 1976 (Jimmy Carter). The Southern Strategy is not a myth.

Coincidentally, Jimmy Carter was the only Democratic president from 1969-1993. Democrats losing the South at the presidential level was a major factor in that.

[TDAS04]

She didn't imply Humphrey won.  But that Nixon couldn't win the Deep South in 1968 is a relevant fact to point out in dispelling the "Southern Strategy" myth.

Alabama and Mississippi were never going to vote for Humphrey.  They hated LBJ, they certainly weren't about to back his "bright sunshine of human rights" VP.

Nixon ran well ahead of Humphrey among Southern whites.

[jojoju1998]

She didn't imply Humphrey won.  But that Nixon couldn't win the Deep South in 1968 is a relevant fact to point out in dispelling the "Southern Strategy" myth.

That's only because of George Wallace; without him, Nixon would've easily won those states.

The only election post-1968 in which a Democrat won most Southern states was in 1976 (Jimmy Carter). The Southern Strategy is not a myth.

Coincidentally, Jimmy Carter was the only Democratic president from 1969-1993. Democrats losing the South at the presidential level was a major factor in that.

The South was already leaning Republican for some time though. We can look at 1952 and 1956 as prime examples. Eisenhower won Texas and Florida in 1952 and almost won South Carolina as well.  And in 1956, he was able to pick off Lousiana. Indeed; there's new scholarship that shows that there was a Southern Strategy, but it wasn't based off explicit racial bias. Instead; a very implicit de facto white segregation through the growing suburbs ( thanks to the low taxes, less regulation, and anti unionism that the South had basically; prime territory for Republicans ).

This trend however was nationwide. Suburbs. Suburbs. Suburbs.

[Del Tachi]

Racism is certainly a part of the answer, but not the full picture. The South generally is and always has been more religious on average, even African Americans. The Democratic Party meanwhile has become increasingly secular over the last few decades.

Here's an interesting video I found a while ago (although it's somewhat with a conservative bias):

prager u is not just biased, but so biased that most of their videos leave you less informed after watching than before. It cannot be trusted on anything.

This one is bad even by prager standards. One of her "facts" is that Nixon lost the deep south in 1968, implying that Humphrey won. It might fool ignorants who dont know about Dixiecrat candidates. Please tell me this tenured professor wasnt like this in her younger days.

She didn't imply Humphrey won.  But that Nixon couldn't win the Deep South in 1968 is a relevant fact to point out in dispelling the "Southern Strategy" myth.

If Wallace didn’t run, Nixon would have won in the Deep South. Remember, Humphrey did very poorly there.

The fact that Wallace ran and won those states in the first place suggests Nixon wasn't sufficiently pro-segregation enough for the Deep South, and that calls into question exactly what "the Southern Strategy" was in the first place and how Nixon and his contemporaries in the GOP supposedly employed it.  Republicans had been able to win the Upper South (i.e., Virginia, Tennessee, etc.) going back to Hoover, and won those states again with Eisenhower.   

[jojoju1998]

Racism is certainly a part of the answer, but not the full picture. The South generally is and always has been more religious on average, even African Americans. The Democratic Party meanwhile has become increasingly secular over the last few decades.

Here's an interesting video I found a while ago (although it's somewhat with a conservative bias):

prager u is not just biased, but so biased that most of their videos leave you less informed after watching than before. It cannot be trusted on anything.

This one is bad even by prager standards. One of her "facts" is that Nixon lost the deep south in 1968, implying that Humphrey won. It might fool ignorants who dont know about Dixiecrat candidates. Please tell me this tenured professor wasnt like this in her younger days.

She didn't imply Humphrey won.  But that Nixon couldn't win the Deep South in 1968 is a relevant fact to point out in dispelling the "Southern Strategy" myth.

If Wallace didn’t run, Nixon would have won in the Deep South. Remember, Humphrey did very poorly there.

The fact that Wallace ran and won those states in the first place suggests Nixon wasn't sufficiently pro-segregation enough for the Deep South, and that calls into question exactly what "the Southern Strategy" was in the first place and how Nixon and his contemporaries in the GOP supposedly employed it.  Republicans had been able to win the Upper South (i.e., Virginia, Tennessee, etc.) going back to Hoover, and won those states again with Eisenhower.   

It wasn't about Segregation though per se.


I think People misunderstood Wallace's candidacy. Wallace was a populist. Socially Conservative ( in all areas ), but economically to the left. His second highest performance was guess what ? In the Big Cities; with white ethnic voters. The Irish. Italians. Polish.

So Wallace appealed to working class whites from all over the place. Big Cities and the South( The big cities especially had the biggest tensions with the African American Community ).


Nixon was never going to appeal to these voters. In fact; his strongest performances in the South was in the.... Suburbs. ( Those pesky suburbs show up again ). These voters were driven by a different type of racial politics. White Suburbs. They won't necessarily oppose the civil rights act; but it was natural segregation based on post World war 2 demographics. Mostly Northern Transplants. Business People.

[smoltchanov]

5. Perspectives. In one phrase: "Right now: Democratic - almost none, Republican - excellent". The reasons were given above, and, barring unlikely titanic changes in main two parties ideology and politics, they must stand at least in this decade. But, in order not to be "too general" i want to turn to this year elections, especially - as there are plenty of contests for not only statewide offices, but for legislatures (with it's different districts) as well in Mississippi and Louisiana - 2 quintessentially Deep South states.

Statewide - the only "Democratic hope" i see is Presley campaign in Mississippi. Popular (in the past) not too liberal on social issues white Democrat running against not especially popular and bland conservative white Republican. Even in 2015 that could possibly being enough. But, as Hood campaign in 2019 has shown - Democrats (even such somewhat "nonstandard" Democrats) cratered among white voters in Mississippi, especially - in rural areas. Look at Hood percentages as Attorney general candidate in 2015 and as Governor candidate in 2019 (of course - different opponents, incumbency in 2015 and open seat in 2019, and so on, but - still) in rural North-Eastern Mississippi: Tishomingo: 48,5% (2015) and 24% (2019); Itawamba: 54% and 21% correspondingly; Alcorn: 51% and 23%;Prentiss: 54% and 34%. Even in "not absolutely rural" (Tupelo) Lee county we see lesser, but sizable, decline: 50% and 41%, but general tendency is "the more rural and white given county is - the bigger decline we see". That's why i easily see Pressley getting 44-45% of vote this year, but still don't see him winning.

Mississippi state legislature: Looking at list of present Mississippi legislators (with photos) i see 2 white Democratic state senators and 3 white Democratic state representatives. David Blount's state senate district is not rural (by Mississippi standards) but mix of the city, suburbs and rural areas, and in addition - majority Black (about 56%). So, he, probably, has nothing to fear in general, but he has black Bishop as a primary opponent (not sure - how serious) and must first  win a primary, where most of the voters will surely be Black. With his "somewhat-left-of-center" voting record - possible, but not guaranteed.

Hob Bryan's district is much more rural, though it includes at least part of Tupelo, and about 40% Black. He has no opposition in primary (with his similar voting record and a lot of experience), but has Republican opponent. In the past it wasn't a problem for him to win at least 1/3 of white vote and thus - win convincingly, but Hood's numbers show that it may be substantially more difficult this time.

Which other rural state Senate districts are winnable for white Democrats? Not many. By my criterion, such district, in addition to being rural, must be substantially (30+%), but not overwhelmingly (<=40%) Black (by obvious reasons: "too white" are unwinnable for Democrats now because of racial polarization of vote, "too Black" - it's highly likely that a winner of Democratic primary will be Black, and he/she will not especially need "white vote" at all). Preferably - there must be at least some other minorities in district, so that non-Hispanic white population is no more then 60%. There are about 6-7 districts with approximately such percentages of Black and white population, though not all of them are completely rural (23th is Vicksburg and vicinity's, 48th is Gulfport and area around, 2nd - is mostly suburban), and Democrats run candidates only in 2nd and 10th (who lost rather convincingly last time). so, almost no chances for change and new freshmen.

The similar autopsy of Mississippi state house gives even worse results: only one (and relatively liberal) white house member (Bob Evans) runs for reelection. His district is 54.5% Black, he is experienced (though no one can compete with Walter Sillers or Buddy Newman of the past...), has no opposition in primary, and, most likely, nothing to fear in general. But there are few other such districts, and in most of that, which still exist (84th, 90th) Democrats run no candidates. Only one, 86th, may elect someone along the lines we discuss here. And Democrats will most likely lose in new 33th (old district was essentially dismantled) and new 75th (which was made slightly more suburban). Quite possibly - Evans will remain the only one white Democrat in Mississippi House caucus, and though, of course, there is substantial number of rural Black legislators (whose districts are, mostly, defended by VRA) the present situation, where almost all Democratic legislators are Black, almost all Republican - are white, and Republicans are in solid majority (and that diminishes an initiative for white candidates to run as Democrats even more, while Black candidates are not always welcome as Republican candidates) will either perpetuate itself or become even worse.

I will not go into such details in Louisiana (even more so because there is no, and will not be until August, the final list of the candidates there), except saying, that Wilson will surely get into runoff, but almost as surely - will be crushed there, and Democrats will win no statewide offices there this year, but generally situation is similar: 2 incumbent white state senators (one of which must retire because of term limits, and his only 28.5% Black district may be difficult to defend, while the other, in majority Black district, is safe in general election, but must look for possible Black candidates in primary), only 2 white Democrats (more-or-less centrist type) outside of New Orleans orbit in House, and very few good targets.

One could say (as Mr. Bakari Sellers wrote at thread's beginning) that "we don't need them" (rural white voters), but i repeat - Mississipi, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina and many other Southern states are NOT California or New York (or even Virginia or Texas). Rural voters are much bigger presence there, and that influences statewide, legislative, and Congressional campaigns in a very serious way. As long as Democrats are so intensively "hated" by present day rural whites (unlike their predecessors 20-30 years ago, who had moderate or "slightly conservative" voting record, and easily combined vast majority of Black vote with 30-40% of white vote for winning combination) to win something outside of majority Black and some urban and (in best case) some suburban districts will be very problematic for Democrats, and will create lot of problems on state and federal levels. There is no one recipe here, though may be Democrats in this area must do at least partial return to FDR politics, and stress more economic issues, not "choice" or "LGBT rights" in ther campaigns - i don't know. But - something must be done. Demographic changes may do their work after all, but they will do it very slowly.

P.S. Thanks to all those, who participated. I hope - there was at least something useful for us during that discussion.

P.S. 2 Initially i planned a second thread about second region i have special interest in: New England, with it's (almost vanished now as well) old moderate-to-liberal Republican tradition. But i can't avoid a thought that argumentation there will be almost complete "mirror image" of what we discussed here, so, i will delay that for some time.

Thanks one more time!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Thank you very much for the thorough posts. They were fascinating.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Tobacco was sued by the Clinton industry that's why Doug Wilder won but he lost VA until 2001 with Warner which accelerated the S to R trends and it was only until 2006 when we won both H of Congress and now that both Recession have caused the S which includes OH, MO, FL, VA , NC and SC and GA to flip back D they were forced

It's no coincidence that Edwards lost OH and NC in 2004 but Kerry liked Elizabeth Edwards but she could of been Cabinet HHS anyways Mark Warner would have gotten Kerry to 270

[Fuzzy Bear]

Racism is certainly a part of the answer, but not the full picture. The South generally is and always has been more religious on average, even African Americans. The Democratic Party meanwhile has become increasingly secular over the last few decades.

Here's an interesting video I found a while ago (although it's somewhat with a conservative bias):

prager u is not just biased, but so biased that most of their videos leave you less informed after watching than before. It cannot be trusted on anything.

This one is bad even by prager standards. One of her "facts" is that Nixon lost the deep south in 1968, implying that Humphrey won. It might fool ignorants who dont know about Dixiecrat candidates. Please tell me this tenured professor wasnt like this in her younger days.

She didn't imply Humphrey won.  But that Nixon couldn't win the Deep South in 1968 is a relevant fact to point out in dispelling the "Southern Strategy" myth.

If Wallace didn’t run, Nixon would have won in the Deep South. Remember, Humphrey did very poorly there.

The fact that Wallace ran and won those states in the first place suggests Nixon wasn't sufficiently pro-segregation enough for the Deep South, and that calls into question exactly what "the Southern Strategy" was in the first place and how Nixon and his contemporaries in the GOP supposedly employed it.  Republicans had been able to win the Upper South (i.e., Virginia, Tennessee, etc.) going back to Hoover, and won those states again with Eisenhower.   

It wasn't about Segregation though per se.


I think People misunderstood Wallace's candidacy. Wallace was a populist. Socially Conservative ( in all areas ), but economically to the left. His second highest performance was guess what ? In the Big Cities; with white ethnic voters. The Irish. Italians. Polish.

So Wallace appealed to working class whites from all over the place. Big Cities and the South( The big cities especially had the biggest tensions with the African American Community ).


Nixon was never going to appeal to these voters. In fact; his strongest performances in the South was in the.... Suburbs. ( Those pesky suburbs show up again ). These voters were driven by a different type of racial politics. White Suburbs. They won't necessarily oppose the civil rights act; but it was natural segregation based on post World war 2 demographics. Mostly Northern Transplants. Business People.

One of the forgotten stories of the inner wheels of politics in 1968 is that HHH did not enter a single primary.  He was nominated at the convention by a coalition whose three (3) main elements were Labor Unions, Big City delegations led by Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago, and delegates from the Southern delegations (who were largely controlled by their Governors who were led by Texas Gov. John Connally.  In The Vital South:  How Presidents Are Elected, Earle and Merle Black present HHH not as the 1948 Civil Rights advocate, but as LBJ's personally approved candidate who would not repudiate LBJ on the Vietnam War issue.  (Black and Black pointed out that LBJ may have been a lame-duck President but he was certainly not a lame-duck Democratic Party Leader.)  Connally made a strong pitch for a Southerner on the ticket (and he certainly hoped he would be that Southerner).  Humphrey (who was the most CONSERVATIVE Democrat that year, believe it or not), but Humphrey let Connally know that he had already decided on Sen. Ed Muskie (D-ME). 

Humphrey told the Southern Governors and the leaders of Southern delegations that Muskie "wasn't a Southerner, but he's someone you're going to like" in announcing him.  Why, however, WOULD a Southern Governor "like" Ed Muskie?  He came from a region that normally opposed the South.  His state only had 4 EV.  That Humphrey was the candidate of the Southern Democratic political establishment at the convention did not mean that they liked him, and it certainly did not mean that they viewed him as strong in their states.  A Southern running mate would help them not get creamed and would enable Southern Democrats to at least nominally endorse the national ticket without a ton of blowback.  How helpful Connally would have been in the South would have been questionable, but there were other Southerners that could have filled the bill.  Gov. Dan K. Moore (D-NC) was nominated for President at the convention and had visibility and was term-limited, so he'd be available to campaign.  Gov. Mills Godwin (D-VA), Gov. Robert McNair (D-SC), and Gov. John McKeithen (D-LA) were available.  As for Senators, Sen. George Smathers (D-FL) Sen. Albert Gore (D-TN), and Sen. William Spong (D-VA) all were available and all would likely have been acceptable, given the circumstances and given what the HHH forces were trying to accomplish.

In hindsight, the task of the Democrats that year was to find a way to carry VA, NC, TN, AR, TX, and FL.  Smathers had a conservative record, but if Smathers had been on the ticket, the Democrats would have carried FL as well as TX, and that would have been 13 more EV.  Had a Governor been chosen, the ticket may well have been more competitive in AR, NC, possibly VA, FL, and even SC. 

On the other hand, HHH would have had to take 32 EV from Nixon simply to throw the race to the House of Representatives.  Doing that would have required more than shifting Southern states, and I am not sure that "a Southerner for VP" could have shifted that many Southern States.  What HHH needed to do was flip two (2) Border South states (NC was the best bet, with TN possibly being 2nd best) and then flipping MO and WI.  The benefit for a stronger Democratic showing in the South would have been that it would have kept wavering Democratic Reps in the House from voting against the Democrat simply because the Democrat carried their district.  Democrats who held major chairmanships could be kept in line, but those with little seniority had little to gain from supporting a Presidential candidate whose constituents likely did not support.  Moving the 1968 needle was a tough task.  (And tough for some Southern Republicans, some of whom actively supported George Wallace, and with Gerald Ford's knowledge and tacit approval of their actions.)

So when you look at Southern Democratic officeholders, the problem was obvious; they were in a party which their constituents were wedded to by tradition, but whose policies they could not stand.  The best way to describe the average Southern Democratic voter in Presidential politics from 1968 on is that they stayed married to the Democratic Party but pretty much slept with their more attractive side lovers in the GOP at the Presidential level.  Today, of course, they're divorced from the Democrats and married to the Republicans.  And it's simple to understand why; the "marriage" makes more sense.

[smoltchanov]

So when you look at Southern Democratic officeholders, the problem was obvious; they were in a party which their constituents were wedded to by tradition, but whose policies they could not stand.  The best way to describe the average Southern Democratic voter in Presidential politics from 1968 on is that they stayed married to the Democratic Party but pretty much slept with their more attractive side lovers in the GOP at the Presidential level.  Today, of course, they're divorced from the Democrats and married to the Republicans.  And it's simple to understand why; the "marriage" makes more sense.

And "divorce" took more then 50 years (including local level of government), and was finalized only recently))))). Even 15 years ago Democrats elected considerable number of rural white legislators in Deep South and won majority of most county offices...

[Fuzzy Bear]

So when you look at Southern Democratic officeholders, the problem was obvious; they were in a party which their constituents were wedded to by tradition, but whose policies they could not stand.  The best way to describe the average Southern Democratic voter in Presidential politics from 1968 on is that they stayed married to the Democratic Party but pretty much slept with their more attractive side lovers in the GOP at the Presidential level.  Today, of course, they're divorced from the Democrats and married to the Republicans.  And it's simple to understand why; the "marriage" makes more sense.

And "divorce" took more then 50 years (including local level of government), and was finalized only recently))))). Even 15 years ago Democrats elected considerable number of rural white legislators in Deep South and won majority of most county offices...

Oddly enough, the "divorce" took the longest time in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.  Tennessee, for a brief moment, controlled its Lower Legislative House as early as 1971, but that fizzled with Watergate.

Nixon did not, for the most part, attempt to win converts to the GOP in 1972 as Reagan did in 1984.  Nixon saw a reelection of a Democratic Congress as inevitable because the Southerners were the most vested Democrats in the Seniority System.  The Republicans won OPEN seats in the South.  Lott and Cochran were part of the House Class of 1972.  They won an open seat in Louisiana, but their bigger gains were in Virginia, the Carolinas, Tennessee, Florida, and Texas, where they won open seats. 

The pattern has always been the same; the Deep South ultimately became the most vehemently opposed to the National Democratic Party, but it was the Peripheral South that always went first in bolting.  The Hoovercrats of 1928.  The GOP breakthrough with Eisenhower.  The first states to elect GOP Governors, and control state houses.