Obama vs Romney in the deep south

[old timey villain]

Predict the results of an Obama/Romney matchup in the deep south states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina.

Louisiana: Ronney 57, Obama 41. (very slight swing to Obama, but nothing major)

Mississippi: Romney 55, Obama 44. (The black population is increasing faster than the white population. I expect black turnout to remain high in 2012, while white turnout for Romney is reduced slightly due to him not being a great fit for the state)

Alabama: Romney 59, Obama 40 (Not a huge shift from 2008. Maybe Obama gets like an extra percent or two of white support)

Georgia: Romney 51, Obama 48 (Obama continues to improve in Georgia but not enough to swing the state. More minority voters in this cycle than 2008, and white support increases slightly)

South Carolina: Romney 52, Obama 47 (I think SC was one of the biggest surprises of 2008, in that it swing pretty far to Obama. Demographic trends continue to favor dems and NC as a swing state affects its southern neighbor as well)

[ajb]

Predict the results of an Obama/Romney matchup in the deep south states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina.

Louisiana: Ronney 57, Obama 41. (very slight swing to Obama, but nothing major)

Mississippi: Romney 55, Obama 44. (The black population is increasing faster than the white population. I expect black turnout to remain high in 2012, while white turnout for Romney is reduced slightly due to him not being a great fit for the state)

Alabama: Romney 59, Obama 40 (Not a huge shift from 2008. Maybe Obama gets like an extra percent or two of white support)

Georgia: Romney 51, Obama 48 (Obama continues to improve in Georgia but not enough to swing the state. More minority voters in this cycle than 2008, and white support increases slightly)

South Carolina: Romney 52, Obama 47 (I think SC was one of the biggest surprises of 2008, in that it swing pretty far to Obama. Demographic trends continue to favor dems and NC as a swing state affects its southern neighbor as well)

I'd generally agree, though I'd expect a bigger gap than that between GA and SC.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

We'll need more polls, but if GA is that close, Romney may need Isakson for VP. That's a state where inner city voter fraud could cost the GOP the race.

[Gass3268]

Lol inner city vote fraud

[old timey villain]

I just don't get the Republican obsession with voter fraud. It's almost like saying that a high inner city minority turnout must be tied to corruption, instead of people genuinely becoming engaged in the political process, which I find offensive. Shouldn't people in both parties be happy to see people becoming involved and informed? I guess for some of us, that idea is only a good one in theory.

But back to the topic at hand, I predict another D trend in SC. The state isn't growing as fast as NC and GA, but it seems like the people moving in are primarily Democratic leaning. I think SC is attracting a lot of upscale liberal types who are drawn to Charleston and other low country communities. You can see this by the swings in those coastal counties.

Georgia is attracting a huge number of minorities, who are turning the state purple, but it seems like most of the white transplants are fiscally conservative socially moderate types who like to say they escaped the high taxes and regulations of the NE.

Just look at forsyth county. I'd say that well over half of the residents are white transplants, but they still vote R in large numbers. I think Obama cracked 20% there. So clearly, immigration from blue states doesn't always equal democratic votes.

On the other hand, most of the white transplants coming into NC are highly educated, intellectual types who are moving into the research triangle. They're probably fiscally moderate, but I think they're really turned off by the rhetoric in the GOP that seems to paint intellectuals as dangerous and out of touch.

There is not much in-migration to AL, MS, and LA.

[Miles]

That's a state where inner city voter fraud could cost the GOP the race.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oavMtUWDBTM

[old timey villain]

One other thing that I think is interesting. I always wondered why Georgia has grown so much while Alabama has remained stagnant- well I found an interesting theory.

I read that 50 years ago, Birmingham and Atlanta were around the same size. Both were in the running to become the new hub of delta airlines, which was growing at the time and was looking to relocate. Birmingham's location in the center of the south made it more ideal, but Atlanta won out.

The theory is that Birmingham developed a bad reputation for racial division and violence during that time, which really turned off businesses looking to relocate there. The white and black leaders of Atlanta basically formed a gentleman's agreement to accept integration and not tolerate civil rights turmoil. City leaders like Ivan Allen Jr, the mayor, and Carl Sanders, the governor, oversaw a relatively peaceful integration of city schools and facilities.

Meanwhile, Alabama politicians like Georgia Wallace fought segregation and fanned the flames of violence in the city, earning the city the nickname "Bombingham." Atlanta focused more on updating its infrastructure as well, which ultimately convinced Delta to move its hub to Atlanta. More businesses followed suit and Atlanta grew into the city it us today, while Alabama has struggled to attract people and industry.

I don't know how much of this really made an impact, but it makes a lot of sense. Despite many recent Georgia politicians, my state has historically been more forward thinking on the issues of race and economic growth. They were more interested in growing our economy than preserving segregation.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I just don't get the Republican obsession with voter fraud. It's almost like saying that a high inner city minority turnout must be tied to corruption, instead of people genuinely becoming engaged in the political process, which I find offensive. Shouldn't people in both parties be happy to see people becoming involved and informed? I guess for some of us, that idea is only a good one in theory.

But back to the topic at hand, I predict another D trend in SC. The state isn't growing as fast as NC and GA, but it seems like the people moving in are primarily Democratic leaning. I think SC is attracting a lot of upscale liberal types who are drawn to Charleston and other low country communities. You can see this by the swings in those coastal counties.

Georgia is attracting a huge number of minorities, who are turning the state purple, but it seems like most of the white transplants are fiscally conservative socially moderate types who like to say they escaped the high taxes and regulations of the NE.

Just look at forsyth county. I'd say that well over half of the residents are white transplants, but they still vote R in large numbers. I think Obama cracked 20% there. So clearly, immigration from blue states doesn't always equal democratic votes.

On the other hand, most of the white transplants coming into NC are highly educated, intellectual types who are moving into the research triangle. They're probably fiscally moderate, but I think they're really turned off by the rhetoric in the GOP that seems to paint intellectuals as dangerous and out of touch.

There is not much in-migration to AL, MS, and LA.

If it's not an issue then why does the DNC oppose voter ID?

[izixs]

If it's not an issue then why does the DNC oppose voter ID?

The DNC, like myself, oppose voter ID because it discriminates against less educated, less affluent, and less active people.

If you don't keep up on things, you might not know you need an ID of a certain type and if you don't have one because you didn't know you needed it, you're kind of sol on voting day. Some folks simply don't need a driver's license because they either don't have the money to have their own car, or live somewhere where a car might actually be useless (inner city for instance) and thus never get around to getting such as it costs money. And when you're working 60 hours a week to get by, taking time off to get a state issued non-driver's license id is not really a high priority. And finally, less active people can mean people that simply don't get out of the house much. Elderly folks being the prime example here, as for some simply moving about can be a danger to their health. Why suffer hours at the DMV to get something you only use once every couple years anyway?

So voter id laws prevent segments of the population who don't fit the ideal upwardly mobile vision of an American from voting simple as that. The result is that these laws are de facto discrimination against certain segments of the population. Which is kind of anti-democratic at its very core. And that's democratic with a small d, not the party sense. It should be easier for people to vote, not more difficult.

Turning things back to the subject of the thread then...

Given the push for voter id laws in a number of states, will Obama be able to make a viable campaign issue out of it in the deep south? Would it be enough to win any of these states? Might he be able to turn the issue on its head and convince lower class whites that such laws unfairly hurt them to any degree?

[ajb]

If it's not an issue then why does the DNC oppose voter ID?

The DNC, like myself, oppose voter ID because it discriminates against less educated, less affluent, and less active people.

If you don't keep up on things, you might not know you need an ID of a certain type and if you don't have one because you didn't know you needed it, you're kind of sol on voting day. Some folks simply don't need a driver's license because they either don't have the money to have their own car, or live somewhere where a car might actually be useless (inner city for instance) and thus never get around to getting such as it costs money. And when you're working 60 hours a week to get by, taking time off to get a state issued non-driver's license id is not really a high priority. And finally, less active people can mean people that simply don't get out of the house much. Elderly folks being the prime example here, as for some simply moving about can be a danger to their health. Why suffer hours at the DMV to get something you only use once every couple years anyway?

So voter id laws prevent segments of the population who don't fit the ideal upwardly mobile vision of an American from voting simple as that. The result is that these laws are de facto discrimination against certain segments of the population. Which is kind of anti-democratic at its very core. And that's democratic with a small d, not the party sense. It should be easier for people to vote, not more difficult.

Turning things back to the subject of the thread then...

Given the push for voter id laws in a number of states, will Obama be able to make a viable campaign issue out of it in the deep south? Would it be enough to win any of these states? Might he be able to turn the issue on its head and convince lower class whites that such laws unfairly hurt them to any degree?

I'd add that there's, obviously, a long and shameful history of voter suppression strategies in this country, of which these laws are just a newer and more sophisticated version.

[ag]

If it's not an issue then why does the DNC oppose voter ID?

Voter ID is an extremely sensible and, in fact, essential policy - if one ignores some of the bits of US history and the manner in which US elections are generally organized. The problem - and the reason many oppose it - is that it can be used, when applied with malice, to eliminate certain, hm.. visible segments of the voting population.  The local organization of US elections makes it, shall we say, not unlikely.

Dems should accept voter ID - in exchange for universal nationwide voting roll. Automatic voter registration should be the norm - with government action necessary to strike somebody off the rolls for ineligibility, not the other way around.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

South Carolina: Romney 52, Obama 47 (I think SC was one of the biggest surprises of 2008, in that it swing pretty far to Obama.

Not really.  As the first black major party nominee, Obama was able to energize Democrats that don't vote as much, because even if they did vote, it wouldn't matter.  If you think the result is a foregone conclusion, you are more likely to vote if you think you are voting for the winner than for the loser.  Voter turnout will be down this November in South Carolina.  It is not a historic election as 2008 was, and there will be few meaningful races on the ballot unless a totally unexpected national Democratic landslide occurs.  Romney will get our 9 EV.  We have no Senate or statewide races.  None of the seven Congressional races appear to competitive in the fall.  We'll have a sparse scattering of competitive races for the General Assembly (both House and Senate are up this year) but most races will be decided (if there is even any competition at all) in the primaries.  [I'll definitely be voting in the Republican primary here on June 12 as it will be the election that determines who will be representing me in the General Assembly and who gets some county offices that should probably be appointed by the county council instead of elected.]

[BaldEagle1991]

Louisiana: 63 Romney, Obama 38
Mississippi: 56 Romney, Obama 42
Alabama: 58 Romney, Obama 41
Georgia: 53 Romney, Obama 47
South Carolina: 55 Romney, Obama 44

[old timey villain]

South Carolina: Romney 52, Obama 47 (I think SC was one of the biggest surprises of 2008, in that it swing pretty far to Obama.

Not really.  As the first black major party nominee, Obama was able to energize Democrats that don't vote as much, because even if they did vote, it wouldn't matter.  If you think the result is a foregone conclusion, you are more likely to vote if you think you are voting for the winner than for the loser.  Voter turnout will be down this November in South Carolina.  It is not a historic election as 2008 was, and there will be few meaningful races on the ballot unless a totally unexpected national Democratic landslide occurs.  Romney will get our 9 EV.  We have no Senate or statewide races.  None of the seven Congressional races appear to competitive in the fall.  We'll have a sparse scattering of competitive races for the General Assembly (both House and Senate are up this year) but most races will be decided (if there is even any competition at all) in the primaries.  [I'll definitely be voting in the Republican primary here on June 12 as it will be the election that determines who will be representing me in the General Assembly and who gets some county offices that should probably be appointed by the county council instead of elected.]

Did I say that Obama would win SC? No, I said that Romney would win the state, but Obama will get a larger share of the vote than in 2008. Even if he doesn't get a larger share I am quite sure the state will still trend in his direction. The demographic changes favor Obama and much of the Charlotte media market is in SC. That part of the state will be bombarded with ads this fall.

African Americans are moving back to the south in very large numbers, and these people are registered and politically active. Blacks were about 30% of the electorate in Georgia in 2008. That's not our ceiling anymore, that's our new floor. Even in the midterms, black turnout in GA was 28%, higher than in 2006.

Obama also has a great ground game, which I think will be repeated in 2012. It doesn't seem like Romney has a ground game- he just carpet bombs his opponents with attack ads.

[BaldEagle1991]

The Dems are the only ones that know it has the same effect as poll taxing.

[ajb]

If it's not an issue then why does the DNC oppose voter ID?

Because they take the hispanic vote espeically for granted.
[/quote]
I'm genuinely unclear what you mean here. I mean, South Carolina's Hispanic population has grown very rapidly over the last decade, but it's not like anyone thinks that's why the state tried to bring in a voter ID law...

[Indy Texas]

Obama is so unpopular with whites in the Deep South that I think if you combine that with lower turnout among blacks than in '08 (due to victory-induced inertia), you'll see LA, MS, AL, and possibly GA swing slightly to Romney.

I do think the inland Upper South states (AR, TN, KY, WV) may see Obama do slightly better because I can see a lot of rural whites who voted for McCain last time being so repulsed by choosing between Obama and Romney that they just stay home. 

[Adam Griffin]

Cope, I think your predictions are pretty spot on.

We'll need more polls, but if GA is that close, Romney may need Isakson for VP. That's a state where inner city voter fraud could cost the GOP the race.

Ask an average Georgian and they'll say "Johnny Who?". I've yet to see a Senator have as little name recognition in Georgia as Isakson. Zero effect on the race. There's also virtually zero voter fraud here due to our Voter ID law (we were one of the first states to implement it) and the simple action of scanning our IDs to see if they are legit. I doubt Georgia will be closer than 0.1%, which is about the maximum amount of voter fraud that you could expect in a state like Georgia.

South Carolina could be surprising. No way will it flip barring a national sweep for Obama, but he could easily get 47% there. Georgia's going to be interesting, too. You'll have lowered turnout here on both sides, so at that point it may come down to demographics, which have shifted dramatically in Obama's favor even in just the last four years. Depending on how galvanized the GOP is, Obama could strike 48%, perhaps even 49% if it's a particularly favorable electorate.

The AA demographic will hold, as cope pointed out. AAs in Georgia are pretty good at representing their numbers in elections without having to be coerced into going to the polls, despite the tactics and trends in other Southern states. Usually they're around at least 90% of their actual population percentage (i.e.: 30% of the population, 28% of the electorate at minimum), even in mid-terms. In some cases they've voted at 120% of their proportionate electorate. If the demographics show up in proportion and vote along similar lines, Obama wins Georgia.

AA: 30% (@ 95% D) = 28.5%
White: 56% (@ 25% D) = 14.0%
Other: 14% (@ 60% D) = 8.4%
-----------------------------------
Total D: 50.9%

[memphis]

LA Romney 8-0
MS Romney 6-0
AL Romney 9-0
GA Romney 16-0
SC Romney 9-0
Easily the least interesting region of the country. Even New England has New Hampshire, which is vaguely competitive.

[cinyc]

The demographic changes favor Obama and much of the Charlotte media market is in SC. That part of the state will be bombarded with ads this fall.

Only four South Carolina counties are in the Charlotte TV market - York, Chester, Chesterfield and Lancaster - and most of the Charlotte TV market is in North Carolina.  Most of South Carolina is in one of the four home-grown SC media markets.  Some counties near the GA border are in the Augusta or Savannah markets.

Edited to add: Of the mainly SC markets that cross into NC, I suppose you might see some ad spending in the Greenville-Spartanburg-Ashville TV market, as it extends into a fair portion of Western North Carolina.  I doubt you'd see much in the Myrtle Beach-Florence market.  The two or so NC counties in that market probably aren't worth the money.

[Sam Spade]

Threads like this are what make this board the home of the most intelligent and knowledgeable posts on this forum.

[pbrower2a]

I just don't get the Republican obsession with voter fraud. It's almost like saying that a high inner city minority turnout must be tied to corruption, instead of people genuinely becoming engaged in the political process, which I find offensive. Shouldn't people in both parties be happy to see people becoming involved and informed? I guess for some of us, that idea is only a good one in theory.

I figure that any election that Republicans lose because of high turnout in urban, majority-minority districts must be fraudulent because, as we all know, honest people vote for right-wingers. (The dirty secret about electoral fraud is that it is almost always done by administrators of election in registration, providing machines as needed, or tampering with either devices or results. Right-wingers see Katharine Harris  to have saved America from the "horror" of a President Al Gore.)   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But do their kids so vote?
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suspect that Forsyth County, Georgia has drawn lots of transplants from the American South to what Southerners consider an exurban paradise in contrast to the Sodom and Gomorrah of Atlanta. 
   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...GOP anti-intellectualism promises schools more adept at teaching superstition as truth than at teaching English, math, and science. GOP anti-intellectualism attacks one of the largest occupational groups -- school-teachers. You may not think of school teachers as intellectuals, but the core constituencies of the GOP seem to think of such people as dangerous challengers to the Religious Right.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Could it be because of perceptions about them?

Louisiana has little giant business except for Big Oil, retail chains, and the like. Mississippi is much the same, except with little oil activity. Alabama might have a little more. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Did I say that Obama would win SC? No, I said that Romney would win the state, but Obama will get a larger share of the vote than in 2008. Even if he doesn't get a larger share I am quite sure the state will still trend in his direction. The demographic changes favor Obama and much of the Charlotte media market is in SC. That part of the state will be bombarded with ads this fall.

The only way Obama improves on his SC numbers in 2012 is if he improves nationally by at least 2 points or Republican disaffection with Romney is considerably higher than I expect it to be.  Electing the first black president is a much more energizing proposition than reelecting said president.  Obama won't be wasting money on a big ground game here.  It'll be just enough to siphon off volunteers and dollars for an effort elsewhere.

[old timey villain]

Did I say that Obama would win SC? No, I said that Romney would win the state, but Obama will get a larger share of the vote than in 2008. Even if he doesn't get a larger share I am quite sure the state will still trend in his direction. The demographic changes favor Obama and much of the Charlotte media market is in SC. That part of the state will be bombarded with ads this fall.

The only way Obama improves on his SC numbers in 2012 is if he improves nationally by at least 2 points or Republican disaffection with Romney is considerably higher than I expect it to be.  Electing the first black president is a much more energizing proposition than reelecting said president.  Obama won't be wasting money on a big ground game here.  It'll be just enough to siphon off volunteers and dollars for an effort elsewhere.

Ok, just to be clear, are you basically saying that SC swung towards Obama mainly because of higher black turnout? Because on a 2008 swing map for SC, it looks like some of his biggest county swings are counties that are very white. He didn't swing much in counties with a larger AA percentage. The results there were very similar to 2004, which seems to say that black turnout wasn't dramatically higher there in '08 than '04.

Also, trending is different from swinging. Even if Romney wins the election this year and swings every single state toward him, SC could still trend towards Obama. If the R candidate improves his popular vote percentage by, lets say, 6 points, but SC only swings to that candidate by only 2 points, then SC is still trending towards the democrats. I hope this doesn't read like I'm trying to explain this to you, I'm just laying out my view of things.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ok, just to be clear, are you basically saying that SC swung towards Obama mainly because of higher black turnout?

No, higher Democratic turnout. We still have some white Democrats here, but they are dispirited.

I'm aware of the difference between swing and trend.  Trendwise, only 8 of 46 counties trended Democratic in 2008 and the state as a whole trended Republican.  I expect that to continue in 2012 which is why I expect Romney to do at least as well as McCain did (to the nearest percentage point) unless Obama can manage a 2% or higher national swing, and I don't think he can.  Indeed, I expect the national swing will be to the GOP, but not by enough to get Romney into the White House..  The SCDP remains as dysfunctional as ever and Obama won't be making much of an effort here.