Dems Can't Keep Losing Dixie

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Even with its upcoming increases in electoral vote count, the South as a region will still only hold around 203 electoral votes, so it is possible, if perhaps not very probable, to win without any Southern support.

However, many southern areas are already Democratic anyway. DC's 3 electoral votes are the safest Dem votes in the country, and there's not much of a contest in MD and DE either. VA and NC clearly have trended Democratic, while FL has been a swing state for several election cycles by now.

The fact that this thread was written in a different time is quite evident.

[minionofmidas]

Hilarious material here.

2005 was a bleak time.

The second post is certainly hilarious in hindsight. I never knew Philip was an oracle of campaign slogans.

[Psychic Octopus]

Oh yes they can, and let's pray they continue.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh yes they can, and let's pray they continue.

We don't need the South to win. Not anymore.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The Republicans did that for a century and remained the dominant party, eh?

The South did not comprise nearly as high a percentage of the electoral college as it does today.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The Republicans did that for a century and remained the dominant party, eh?

The South did not comprise nearly as high a percentage of the electoral college as it does today.

They're still only one fourth of it.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The Republicans did that for a century and remained the dominant party, eh?

The South did not comprise nearly as high a percentage of the electoral college as it does today.

They're still only one fourth of it.

Actually 203/538 would be about 38%. The South certainly will be, on its own, the region with the most electoral clout.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, the whole South comprises 184 EVs (34%), but IMO we should exclude FL and VA which are strongly trending dem because of other reaons than their belonging to the South.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm not sure I'd call Florida Dem-trending, but it's definitely true a few of the Republican states there are trending more in a Democratic direction. North Carolina and Virginia are good examples, and even Texas will likely become more competitive in a few more cycles. Florida is still a swing state, as always, though. As certain areas grow, so will the Democratic strength.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not sure I'd call Florida Dem-trending, but it's definitely true a few of the Republican states there are trending more in a Democratic direction. North Carolina and Virginia are good examples, and even Texas will likely become more competitive in a few more cycles. Florida is still a swing state, as always, though. As certain areas grow, so will the Democratic strength.

Well, it's true that Florida's move has been quite uncertain until now, but I guess the democratic trend will occur in the few decades. As for Texas, it seems to be trending dem too, but it will take a while befer we'll call it a swing State.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Look, population-growth in the South can be actually in favor of Democrats.

1. Texas: it going to be a longtime process, like in Arizona, but growing Latino populations may cause that one day Lone Star State will be at least competentive in presidential races
2. Florida: It's not really a Dixie, much more not state like Alabama. Florida is swing with both strong conservative and strong liberal tendentions.
3. AR, TN, KY, WV: Obama lost all because of his race

[Antonio the Sixth]

3. AR, TN, KY, WV: Obama lost all because of his race

I disagree. Outer south has a long tradition of republican trend since 1996, and even 1980 if you exclude 92, which can be easily explained.

[k-onmmunist]

The Republicans did that for a century and remained the dominant party, eh?

The South did not comprise nearly as high a percentage of the electoral college as it does today.

They're still only one fourth of it.

Quarter damnit!

[pbrower2a]

Even with its upcoming increases in electoral vote count, the South as a region will still only hold around 203 electoral votes, so it is possible, if perhaps not very probable, to win without any Southern support.

However, many southern areas are already Democratic anyway. DC's 3 electoral votes are the safest Dem votes in the country, and there's not much of a contest in MD and DE either. VA and NC clearly have trended Democratic, while FL has been a swing state for several election cycles by now.

The fact that this thread was written in a different time is quite evident.

The non-southern states in yellow aren't going to go for any Democratic nominee for a very long time. Gray indicates Nebraska, which can split its electoral votes on occasion:

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Even with its upcoming increases in electoral vote count, the South as a region will still only hold around 203 electoral votes, so it is possible, if perhaps not very probable, to win without any Southern support.

However, many southern areas are already Democratic anyway. DC's 3 electoral votes are the safest Dem votes in the country, and there's not much of a contest in MD and DE either. VA and NC clearly have trended Democratic, while FL has been a swing state for several election cycles by now.

The fact that this thread was written in a different time is quite evident.

The non-southern states in yellow aren't going to go for any Democratic nominee for a very long time. Gray indicates Nebraska, which can split its electoral votes on occasion:

And? MS, AL, and OK are probably the only southern states that absolutely won't vote for a Democrat in the near future.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Including MD, DE and DC in the South could make sense geographically, but certainly not politically.

[Scam of God]

Again I say: the Mountain West is where Democrats ought to focus their efforts, and modify their message to suit. Montana, the Dakotas, Arizona, etc. are all capable of voting Democratic, if the right Democratic coalition comes along.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Including MD, DE and DC in the South could make sense geographically, but certainly not politically.

Why not? If Mississippi suddenly started voting for liberal Democrats, it would cease to be part of the South?

[Хahar 🤔]

Including MD, DE and DC in the South could make sense geographically, but certainly not politically.

Why not? If Mississippi suddenly started voting for liberal Democrats, it would cease to be part of the South?

Mississippi wouldn't do that because the South votes similarly.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Including MD, DE and DC in the South could make sense geographically, but certainly not politically.

Why not? If Mississippi suddenly started voting for liberal Democrats, it would cease to be part of the South?

Mississippi wouldn't do that because the South votes similarly.

Your point being?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Your point being?

That MD, DC, and DE are not part of the South.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Your point being?

That MD, DC, and DE are not part of the South.

Uh, yeah, they are. The census is right on this one.

[Хahar 🤔]

Including MD, DE and DC in the South could make sense geographically, but certainly not politically.

Why not? If Mississippi suddenly started voting for liberal Democrats, it would cease to be part of the South?

Mississippi wouldn't do that because the South votes similarly.

Your point being?

My point is that the South is a cultural institution, and a major part thereof is voting patterns. There are certainly parts of Maryland in the South, but Baltimore is not. Nor is Washington. The boundaries of the South do not follow state lines; Northern Virginia is not part of the South. There are parts of Tennessee that are not Southern. This can be seen by the way they have ancestrally voted.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Including MD, DE and DC in the South could make sense geographically, but certainly not politically.

Why not? If Mississippi suddenly started voting for liberal Democrats, it would cease to be part of the South?

Mississippi wouldn't do that because the South votes similarly.

Your point being?

My point is that the South is a cultural institution, and a major part thereof is voting patterns. There are certainly parts of Maryland in the South, but Baltimore is not. Nor is Washington. The boundaries of the South do not follow state lines; Northern Virginia is not part of the South. There are parts of Tennessee that are not Southern. This can be seen by the way they have ancestrally voted.

That sort of circular non-logic makes this whole discussion meaningless. The Dems want to win over Southern votes, but Southerners who vote Dem (which includes MD, DC, NOVA) are automatically non-Southern?

Are Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah then part of the South just because they share its cultural conservatism?

NYC and Boston have very different cultures compared to parts of upstate New York and northern New England; that does not mean only one can be Northeastern and others cannot.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]