Boston Globe: Southern Democrats, meet your future: No more Republican Lite

[Never]

In an opinion piece for the Boston Globe, Bob Moser, author of "Blue Dixie", provides some commentary on how he views demographics in the South affecting the state of the Democratic party in this region. He holds the view that current Southern Democrats are actually at a disadvantage through their centrist views, arguing that demographic changes will cause full-throated liberalism to reasonate better with voters.

Looking specifically at Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia, Moser utilizes three charts (shown below) to justify his opinion:



Now, after looking at this chart, I felt that there were some shaky assumptions being made by Moser.
For one, while North Carolina and Virginia are both whiter than Georgia, they are both more Democratic in elections than Georgia, despite the substantial increase in minority turnout associated with President Obama's victories in 2008 and 2012. How exactly is a state like Georgia going to flip in the near future if historically high turnout of Democrat-friendly groups could not deliver the state in a year like 2008? Will minority turnout keep increasing from current levels that are unusually high? Moser did say that he thought minority turnout still has room to grow in the Peach State, but I have my doubts that this is the case. Overall, Moser's piece was a interesting article, but I felt like some of the predictions in it were not entirely realistic.

[GaussLaw]

This would only lower the white percentage even more, and blacks really would not vote any differently if the Dems went further to the left.  If anything, more conservative blacks just might be swayed into the GOP camp.

The bottom line is that if the Dems want to win in the South, they need to win more of the white vote, whether it be working class or upscale suburbanites.

[Del Tachi]

What Guass said.

The Democrats will play fine in the South as soon as the "upscale suburbanites" take over. 

Just imagine what Georgia and Virginia will be voting like when Tennessee and Alabama become just as cosmopolitan as Georgia is today. 

[Never]

What Guass said.

The Democrats will play fine in the South as soon as the "upscale suburbanites" take over. 

Just imagine what Georgia and Virginia will be voting like when Tennessee and Alabama become just as cosmopolitan as Georgia is today. 

It seems like it will be quite some time before Alabama is like Georgia. Tennessee could end up being a lot more cosmopolitan much sooner, but for all we know, it might end up having locales more like Salt Lake City than Atlanta at that point. Still, most of the country should be heavily Democratic by the point that you brought up, so the political habits of the South might not end up having much impact on the nation's politics by that time.

[GaussLaw]

What Guass said.

The Democrats will play fine in the South as soon as the "upscale suburbanites" take over. 

Just imagine what Georgia and Virginia will be voting like when Tennessee and Alabama become just as cosmopolitan as Georgia is today. 

I agree that as a state becomes more cosmopolitan, it will probably become more Democratic, but it seems like there are some outliers. 
Though there are upscale suburbanites that are Republican.......Forsyth County, GA, Shelby County, AL, and especially Colin County, TX are examples.  In general, more upscale suburbanites means a better environment for Dems, as shown by NoVA and the Research triangle.  Yet this same trend does not seem to be occurring in Texas, which is pretty cosmopolitan in its suburbs. 

This is why even though upscale suburbanites are the best long term hope for Southern Dems, I think they should also focus on working class whites.  Thus, if the upscale suburbanites do not change their voting patterns as much as projected in states like Alabama or Tennessee, the Dems could still win by having a broad coalition.

[King]

Georgia could definitely become like Illinois, where Atlanta elects a liberal statewide government much to the chagrin of the rest of the state.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Georgia could definitely become like Illinois, where Atlanta elects a liberal statewide government much to the chagrin of the rest of the state.

I agree with this, I do not agree with earlier posters suggesting that more affluent voters in Southern suburbs means good news for Democrats, especially if those voters aren't non-White.  Romney won a healthy portion of the most affluent voters in 2012, and an even larger portion in most Southern states. He won an even larger share of the most affluent Whites, and a very high share of the most affluent Whites in the South.

Areas like NOVA going toward the Democrats have more to do with those areas growing in size and diversity than them getting "richer."  Bottom line is that the Democrats played well in the South when they talked about kitchen table issues and started doing worse as the national party talked about those less.

[Skill and Chance]

I think this is all a bit presumptuous.  In NC, for example, the rural eastern and western parts of the state are much more moderate than adjacent areas in neighboring states.  If those areas give out, NC comes off the map as competitive for a long time.  In just about every other Republican Southern state, the rural influence is even stronger.  In VA, liberal Democrats have already been winning statewide since 2008, so this advice doesn't really apply there. 

The one place I could see a left turn paying dividends is in Georgia, which is also the only McCain state I could conceivably see becoming a left leaning state any time soon under the current alignment.

[eric82oslo]

A much longer essay on the same subject here, in The American Prospect: http://prospect.org/article/how-two-centrist-dems-may-herald-progressive-future-georgia

[Del Tachi]

What Guass said.

The Democrats will play fine in the South as soon as the "upscale suburbanites" take over. 

Just imagine what Georgia and Virginia will be voting like when Tennessee and Alabama become just as cosmopolitan as Georgia is today. 

I agree that as a state becomes more cosmopolitan, it will probably become more Democratic, but it seems like there are some outliers. 
Though there are upscale suburbanites that are Republican.......Forsyth County, GA, Shelby County, AL, and especially Colin County, TX are examples.  In general, more upscale suburbanites means a better environment for Dems, as shown by NoVA and the Research triangle.  Yet this same trend does not seem to be occurring in Texas, which is pretty cosmopolitan in its suburbs. 

This is why even though upscale suburbanites are the best long term hope for Southern Dems, I think they should also focus on working class whites.  Thus, if the upscale suburbanites do not change their voting patterns as much as projected in states like Alabama or Tennessee, the Dems could still win by having a broad coalition.

Its somewhat of a paradox in electoral geography that wealthy people tend to vote Republican while wealthy places tend to vote Democrat.  It will take the South becoming a wealthier place in order for the Democrats to take hold, and I think that we're well on the way to seeing that already. 

[illegaloperation]

I am not very optimistic about the rest of the South as I do about Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia.

In order for the state to me left (disregard election noise), there has to be either an influx of voters who lean left or efflux of voters that lean right.

Virginia has the D.C. suburb, North Carolina has the Research Triangle, Georgia has Atlanta. All of these attract voters who lean left.

What does the rest of the south have?

[Dixie Reborn]

I am not very optimistic about the rest of the South as I do about Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia.

In order for the state to me left (disregard election noise), there has to be either an influx of voters who lean left or efflux of voters that lean right.

Virginia has the D.C. suburb, North Carolina has the Research Triangle, Georgia has Atlanta. All of these attract voters who lean left.

What does the rest of the south have?

Tennessee has Memphis & Nashville. Louisiana has New Orleans. Kentucky has Cincinnati's suburbs.
Texas has Houston & Dallas. Oklahoma has OKC.

[GaussLaw]

What Guass said.

The Democrats will play fine in the South as soon as the "upscale suburbanites" take over. 

Just imagine what Georgia and Virginia will be voting like when Tennessee and Alabama become just as cosmopolitan as Georgia is today. 

I agree that as a state becomes more cosmopolitan, it will probably become more Democratic, but it seems like there are some outliers. 
Though there are upscale suburbanites that are Republican.......Forsyth County, GA, Shelby County, AL, and especially Colin County, TX are examples.  In general, more upscale suburbanites means a better environment for Dems, as shown by NoVA and the Research triangle.  Yet this same trend does not seem to be occurring in Texas, which is pretty cosmopolitan in its suburbs. 

This is why even though upscale suburbanites are the best long term hope for Southern Dems, I think they should also focus on working class whites.  Thus, if the upscale suburbanites do not change their voting patterns as much as projected in states like Alabama or Tennessee, the Dems could still win by having a broad coalition.

Its somewhat of a paradox in electoral geography that wealthy people tend to vote Republican while wealthy places tend to vote Democrat.  It will take the South becoming a wealthier place in order for the Democrats to take hold, and I think that we're well on the way to seeing that already. 

True, I suppose my question to you, if you could answer it, is this Del Tachi.  Why do some wealthy places, which as you pointed out tend to vote Democrat, still remain and vote Republican?  Montgomery County, TX is one of the most extreme examples I can find of this.  It votes more Republican than many rural TX counties at 79 percent Romney.  It is a swanky, wealthy Houston suburb filled with well educated people.   St. Tammany Parish is 75 percent Republican and quite wealthy.  So is it just a place becoming wealthy that makes it become more Democratic, or is this another extra factor for places like NoVa that we are forgetting? 

[illegaloperation]

Looking at this map, I don't see much of a comeback for Southern Democrats outside the obvious places.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Looking at this map, I don't see much of a comeback for Southern Democrats outside the obvious places.

Unless Democrats make a play at regaining the votes of working class Whites, then yes it seems GA and TX are their only pickups in the near future.  The suburbs of other Southern areas (and in GA and TX for that matter) are very Republican.

[illegaloperation]

Looking at this map, I don't see much of a comeback for Southern Democrats outside the obvious places.

Unless Democrats make a play at regaining the votes of working class Whites, then yes it seems GA and TX are their only pickups in the near future.  The suburbs of other Southern areas (and in GA and TX for that matter) are very Republican.

Indeed.

[Adam Griffin]

Don't underestimate South Carolina's potential in the future. There's an argument to be made that it could be flipped sooner and easier than Texas.

And wow, what time period is that map for? You go, Nashville.

[illegaloperation]

The problem with South Carolina is that a lot of the people moving in are actually old white retirees.

[Sol]

MS is the only southern state besides NC, VA, and GA which could plausibly flip.

[ElectionsGuy]

MS is the only southern state besides NC, VA, and GA which could plausibly flip.

You don't think South Carolina could flip easier? Sure Mississippi is 37% black, but whites vote 9-1 for republicans, whereas in South Carolina they vote 3-1 for republicans. Its also a fast growing state (unlike MS), especially on the coast, with the potential of more liberal whites immigrating into the state.

[Rockefeller GOP]

You know, not everyone making these Southern states grow is a "White liberal."  There are plenty of retiring wealthy Republicans from all over the country moving South.

[illegaloperation]

You know, not everyone making these Southern states grow is a "White liberal."  There are plenty of retiring wealthy Republicans from all over the country moving South.

That's true. I was born in Northern Florida and went back a couple of times.

There's a lot of 300 years old white retirees moving there. They were there when the Declaration of Independence was signed and know exactly how out founding fathers wanted this country to be run.

[Adam Griffin]

You know, not everyone making these Southern states grow is a "White liberal."  There are plenty of retiring wealthy Republicans from all over the country moving South.

That's true. I was born in Northern Florida and went back a couple of times.

There's a lot of 300 years old white retirees moving there. They were there when the Declaration of Independence was signed and know exactly how out founding fathers wanted this country to be run.

MS is the only southern state besides NC, VA, and GA which could plausibly flip.

You don't think South Carolina could flip easier? Sure Mississippi is 37% black, but whites vote 9-1 for republicans, whereas in South Carolina they vote 3-1 for republicans. Its also a fast growing state (unlike MS), especially on the coast, with the potential of more liberal whites immigrating into the state.

There are also a lot of white Yankee Republicans moving to Georgia; it's not a matter of whether they are or not, but rather a matter of which one constitutes a higher percentage. A good part of the reason that NE GA has swung so incredibly Republican in recent elections is due to carpetbagging tax evaders. Overall, though, they are a fairly small percentage of growth in my state.

Mississippi in my opinion could flip - in about 20 or 30 years. There's just not a lot of change going on there. South Carolina is growing more rapidly and while yes, I'm not sure if that growth is strong enough in our direction to make a positive impact, South Carolina in the past 5 presidential elections has never been more than 2 points behind Georgia. We may see a separation of sorts as GA continues to diversify, but eyeing GA without even glancing at SC seems strange to me. Hell, look at the 2010 gubernatorial race and compare that to GA, to get an idea of what I mean.

[ElectionsGuy]

You know, not everyone making these Southern states grow is a "White liberal."  There are plenty of retiring wealthy Republicans from all over the country moving South.

I never implied that, I said it has a potential, at least a potential much better than Mississippi.

[cbannon5]

Shouldn't the departure of Obama from the Presidency result in improved performance by Democrats in the South, at least among whites.  It woud be hard for Hillary, or whoever receives the Democratic nomination, to perform as poorly among Southern whites as President Obama did.