Why did economically progressive politicians stop winning in the South?

[Vice President Christian Man]

I'm not sure if this is the wrong place to post this but I was thinking about some politicians including Huey Long and Jim Hightower who had very progressive stances on economics wouldn't be elected in their states today. Considering that many Southerners are lower-class, it would make sense that someone of that mindset would represent them better but instead they are represented by the likes of Rick Scott and Mitch McConnell. It could be because social conservatism is a bigger player but I feel like it goes beyond that.

[smoltchanov]

They win sometimes even now (JBE is a good, if rare, example), but generally cultural issues now trump (sorry)))) economic ones in BOTH parties. Huey Long was an economic populist, but, most likely - would be a social conservative now, and that would create at least some problems for him in Democratic primaries.

In addition - as Democratic party in the South became not only "Black inclusive", but "Black dominant" - racial polarization increased considerably (for many whites such Democratic party became "too uncomfortable", though, theoretically, they were "for equality" or, at least, reconciled themselves with it). And when republicans finally got a majority (say, in state Legislature) another factor appeared: it's usually "better" to be in majority, then in minority, so even some moderates and moderate conservatives (who, until then, voted or even ran as Democrats) began to consider Republican party as "career vehicle" (just as conservative Democrats stayed in the party during New Deal and Fair Deal, which they mostly hated, because of the same reason).

The next factor - cost of campaigns went quickly up, and that means, that national party and PACs (and in Democratic case most PACs are liberal) began to play much greater role in political campaigns. And "he, who pays the fiddler, calls the tune...". In Democratic case national party and PACs demanded more and more liberal voting from supported candidates (even in the South), and, in any case - such candidates were much better financed and had better chances to win (primary, not general). So, typical for 1970-1995 years coalition of "somewhat moderate whites" and "Blacks, ready for compromise" exist no more - both groups became much more assertive in their demands.

All taken together led to present situation, where in most Southern districts (big metropolian areas excluded)  all you need to predict a result is to look on Black-white ratio in district population (yes, there are some exceptions, but - fewer and fewer with every passing yesr).

P.S. As usual - everything written is my personal IMHO. I, naturally, am an "Internet observer of US politics" now, but, following US politics for 50+ years,  still vividly remeber different times with quite different political coalitions)))))

[OSR stands with Israel]

Multiple reasons :

1. The South is significantly more affluent today than it was in those days , even by relative standards.  I like to use this example and that is the median income in Mississippi is higher than the median income in the UK. So economic progressivism isn’t just as appealing these days as it was then

2. The south is far more urban and suburban these days then it was then

3. Even back then the south wasn’t that economically progressive. The conservative anti new deal democrats and democrats who would form a conservative coalition with republicans who would block many economically progressive ideas were mainly Southerners

[Agonized-Statism]

Race to the bottom. They owe a lot of their economic gains to the deregulation and low taxes that attract big business.

[Skill and Chance]

100 years ago, the South was 5X poorer than the Northeast and did not have access to technologies widely adopted 20-30 years earlier in the rest of the country.  This level of inequality is hard to comprehend today.  Imagine several states still didn't have any internet access.  That's what it was like to be in the South circa 1920.