When will Mississippi be competitive?

[Del Tachi]

I found an old atlas of Mississippi (from 1971) the other day at a flea market, and it's pretty interesting to see how economic/demographic changes occurring in the state at that time were discussed/mapped.

Most amusingly, the authors projected that manufacturing growth in Mississippi would bring the median household income up to the national average by 1992!  and that the state would have over 3 million residents by 1990 (MS still hasn't hit this number, 30 years later)!

Point being - current trends only last until they don't, and projecting anything about a state more than a few years into the future is mostly a fool's errand.

There as nothing about Mississippi growth rate in 1971 (1960 Census 2.18 mil 1970 2.22 mil) to suggest it was going to hit 3 million in such a time frame, so the atlas was more shameless boosterism than actual trend.

As for current trends, excluding Desoto, Mississippi is estimated to have lost about 15,000 this decade.  The birth rate has come down quite a bit and life expectancy is still pretty horrible. 

The 1960s were lame, but the year 1971 had annual population growth in MS of 2.18% (somehow?)  That rate would have put MS past 3 million as early as 1985.  Of course, that one annual rate didn't continue (it would settle back under 1% by the latter half of the 1970s) but it shows the dangers of extrapolation     

[RINO Tom]

Never. If the day comes that black votes outnumber white ones, then it won't be competitive. It'll be a consistently Democratic state even if the margins aren't exactly great.

Well it can’t go from where it is now to that, so in between it would be competitive

Despite our revisionist histories and obsession with realignment theory, contemporaries largely saw the South as a swing region, if not THE swing region, for much of the period between the mid-1960s and ~2000.  It’s only with our 20/20, post-2000 Election hindsight goggles that we envision a Democratic Solid South fleeing to the arms of the GOP and never looking back. 

There are plenty of interesting articles I’ve seen from throughout this period talking about how Democrats likely couldn’t win states like Alabama because of the combination of suburban voters being solidly GOP (as they were in most of the South), the stridently conservative Gulf Shores area AND a perceived racial divide that was driving Whites into the GOP at a faster rate but how states like Georgia or Arkansas COULD be competitive because the aforementioned trends and dynamics could be counteracted with combining Black support with enough working class voters that “didn’t have the privilege” of voting on racial lines and would favor Democrats on an economic perspective.

It’s never talked about because we like to simplify things, but pre-2004 “Jesusland Map,” there actually was often a perspective that Southern voters who prioritized “racial issues” and therefore voted Republican were your anti-busing types in suburban areas rather than our current caricature of a racist rural Trumper.  This naturally (and insidiously, if you ask me) changed as Democrats began losing more and more support from the rural South and gained more in suburban areas.  As late as 2008, you had NYT columnists (can’t remember if it was Nate Silver but someone of a similar profession) outlining Congressional and gubernatorial Democrats’ path to victory in Southern states as dependent on White rural voters, white urban voters and Black voters, with emphasis on the first believe it or not.

[Alcibiades]

Never. If the day comes that black votes outnumber white ones, then it won't be competitive. It'll be a consistently Democratic state even if the margins aren't exactly great.

Well it can’t go from where it is now to that, so in between it would be competitive

Despite our revisionist histories and obsession with realignment theory, contemporaries largely saw the South as a swing region, if not THE swing region, for much of the period between the mid-1960s and ~2000.  It’s only with our 20/20, post-2000 Election hindsight goggles that we envision a Democratic Solid South fleeing to the arms of the GOP and never looking back. 

There are plenty of interesting articles I’ve seen from throughout this period talking about how Democrats likely couldn’t win states like Alabama because of the combination of suburban voters being solidly GOP (as they were in most of the South), the stridently conservative Gulf Shores area AND a perceived racial divide that was driving Whites into the GOP at a faster rate but how states like Georgia or Arkansas COULD be competitive because the aforementioned trends and dynamics could be counteracted with combining Black support with enough working class voters that “didn’t have the privilege” of voting on racial lines and would favor Democrats on an economic perspective.

It’s never talked about because we like to simplify things, but pre-2004 “Jesusland Map,” there actually was often a perspective that Southern voters who prioritized “racial issues” and therefore voted Republican were your anti-busing types in suburban areas rather than our current caricature of a racist rural Trumper.  This naturally (and insidiously, if you ask me) changed as Democrats began losing more and more support from the rural South and gained more in suburban areas.  As late as 2008, you had NYT columnists (can’t remember if it was Nate Silver but someone of a similar profession) outlining Congressional and gubernatorial Democrats’ path to victory in Southern states as dependent on White rural voters, white urban voters and Black voters, with emphasis on the first believe it or not.

Yes - the period 1970-2000 was probably the sanest, most reasonable era of Southern politics. It seemed to finally be building a mature two-party system, and the winning Democratic formula was a combination of Africans-Americans and rural and working-class whites. You had the ‘New South’ governors, centre-left Democrats who tried to move the South past its segregationist past and develop it economically, with the aforementioned biracial coalition. This group would provide the party with its only two presidents between 1969 and 2009.

It is quite sad that the rural white South has gone back to being a one-party state, and elections are essentially a turnout contest.

[Roll Roons]

Never. If the day comes that black votes outnumber white ones, then it won't be competitive. It'll be a consistently Democratic state even if the margins aren't exactly great.

Well it can’t go from where it is now to that, so in between it would be competitive

Despite our revisionist histories and obsession with realignment theory, contemporaries largely saw the South as a swing region, if not THE swing region, for much of the period between the mid-1960s and ~2000.  It’s only with our 20/20, post-2000 Election hindsight goggles that we envision a Democratic Solid South fleeing to the arms of the GOP and never looking back. 

There are plenty of interesting articles I’ve seen from throughout this period talking about how Democrats likely couldn’t win states like Alabama because of the combination of suburban voters being solidly GOP (as they were in most of the South), the stridently conservative Gulf Shores area AND a perceived racial divide that was driving Whites into the GOP at a faster rate but how states like Georgia or Arkansas COULD be competitive because the aforementioned trends and dynamics could be counteracted with combining Black support with enough working class voters that “didn’t have the privilege” of voting on racial lines and would favor Democrats on an economic perspective.

It’s never talked about because we like to simplify things, but pre-2004 “Jesusland Map,” there actually was often a perspective that Southern voters who prioritized “racial issues” and therefore voted Republican were your anti-busing types in suburban areas rather than our current caricature of a racist rural Trumper.  This naturally (and insidiously, if you ask me) changed as Democrats began losing more and more support from the rural South and gained more in suburban areas.  As late as 2008, you had NYT columnists (can’t remember if it was Nate Silver but someone of a similar profession) outlining Congressional and gubernatorial Democrats’ path to victory in Southern states as dependent on White rural voters, white urban voters and Black voters, with emphasis on the first believe it or not.

Yes - the period 1970-2000 was probably the sanest, most reasonable era of Southern politics. It seemed to finally be building a mature two-party system, and the winning Democratic formula was a combination of Africans-Americans and rural and working-class whites. You had the ‘New South’ governors, centre-left Democrats who tried to move the South past its segregationist past and develop it economically, with the aforementioned biracial coalition. This group would provide the party with its only two presidents between 1969 and 2009.

It is quite sad that the rural white South has gone back to being a one-party state, and elections are essentially a turnout contest.

Even on the Republican side, there were people like Howard Baker, Lamar Alexander, Haley Barbour, Johnny Isakson, Richard Shelby, Thad Cochran and John Warner. Gentlemen who could get crossover appeal with black voters.

[Alcibiades]

Never. If the day comes that black votes outnumber white ones, then it won't be competitive. It'll be a consistently Democratic state even if the margins aren't exactly great.

Well it can’t go from where it is now to that, so in between it would be competitive

Despite our revisionist histories and obsession with realignment theory, contemporaries largely saw the South as a swing region, if not THE swing region, for much of the period between the mid-1960s and ~2000.  It’s only with our 20/20, post-2000 Election hindsight goggles that we envision a Democratic Solid South fleeing to the arms of the GOP and never looking back. 

There are plenty of interesting articles I’ve seen from throughout this period talking about how Democrats likely couldn’t win states like Alabama because of the combination of suburban voters being solidly GOP (as they were in most of the South), the stridently conservative Gulf Shores area AND a perceived racial divide that was driving Whites into the GOP at a faster rate but how states like Georgia or Arkansas COULD be competitive because the aforementioned trends and dynamics could be counteracted with combining Black support with enough working class voters that “didn’t have the privilege” of voting on racial lines and would favor Democrats on an economic perspective.

It’s never talked about because we like to simplify things, but pre-2004 “Jesusland Map,” there actually was often a perspective that Southern voters who prioritized “racial issues” and therefore voted Republican were your anti-busing types in suburban areas rather than our current caricature of a racist rural Trumper.  This naturally (and insidiously, if you ask me) changed as Democrats began losing more and more support from the rural South and gained more in suburban areas.  As late as 2008, you had NYT columnists (can’t remember if it was Nate Silver but someone of a similar profession) outlining Congressional and gubernatorial Democrats’ path to victory in Southern states as dependent on White rural voters, white urban voters and Black voters, with emphasis on the first believe it or not.

Yes - the period 1970-2000 was probably the sanest, most reasonable era of Southern politics. It seemed to finally be building a mature two-party system, and the winning Democratic formula was a combination of Africans-Americans and rural and working-class whites. You had the ‘New South’ governors, centre-left Democrats who tried to move the South past its segregationist past and develop it economically, with the aforementioned biracial coalition. This group would provide the party with its only two presidents between 1969 and 2009.

It is quite sad that the rural white South has gone back to being a one-party state, and elections are essentially a turnout contest.

Even on the Republican side, there were people like Howard Baker, Lamar Alexander, Haley Barbour, Johnny Isakson, Richard Shelby, Thad Cochran and John Warner. Gentlemen who could get crossover appeal with black voters.

Indeed. The Tennessee Republicans were particularly moderate, with their base in the old ancestral Unionist counties. This faction held on longer than most, but with Corker and Haslam gone and Alexander going, it seems they too have been replaced by generic Southern right-wingers

[pbrower2a]

When miscegenation makes the Mississippi electorate nearly half black.

[Samof94]

Things to look at/take into account:

1. Older generations being replaced by the younger ones. Even though the state has a brain drain, Millennials/older GenZ are voting a lot more Democratic than Boomers/Silents (partially younger voters are more likely to be Black, but also that young whites are considerably less Republican than their parents and grandparents).

2. Most of the counties experiencing population growth (i.e. DeSoto, Madison, Lafayette, etc.) also just so happen to be the counties that have been generally trending Democratic. Judging by recent election results, it doesn't seem all that clear to me that the state is attracting well-to-do white conservatives.

3. As Yankee suggested, the state's competitiveness from now on, including this year, will likely heavily depend on Black turnout.

How does voter suppression fit in?

[Common Sense Atlantan]

When Harrison and Rankin get <65%. Until then, Safe R no matter what.