Why did Gerald Ford do better in Mississipi than in the rest of the Deep South?

[darklordoftech]

Why did Ford do better in Mississipi than in Alabama, Georgia, etc.?

[Podgy the Bear]

Participation by black voters in MS was fairly low in 1976 and increased substantially between 1976 and 1980.  This was a major reason why Carter didn't have the drops in percentages seen in other states and why he came close to winning MS again.  Carter increased his vote totals in several parts of the state and won some counties that he didn't in 1976.

[Averroës Nix]

If it doesn't already exist, someone needs to write a good history of post-Civil Rights organizing and voter recruitment drives with the specific goal of explaining county-level election patterns.

There's a lot of interesting variation in this period that sorts itself out within a few cycles. It's a demonstration of how even the most significant federal laws don't change conditions on the ground overnight.

The multiracial coalitions that allowed Democrats to win elections in the South for decades are another fascinating angle on this. The way we talk about politics today, it often seems like people forget this period between the Civil Rights Act and complete Republican dominance in the South, which is pretty incredible given that not one but two presidents emerged this way.

[Sol]

In addition to differential patterns of racial voting, you also can see on county maps that Ford won much of the Gulf Coast area, and that's proportionally a bigger part of Mississippi's population than Mobile or Pensacola, which also voted similarly.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

On top of everything others said, MS also lacked (and lacks) a natural white Democrat constituency. Northern Alabama has a more industrial/Appalachian culture that kept the Dems strong there until the 2000s, and Louisiana's Cajun country had its Democratic identity at the time.

[All Along The Watchtower]

If it doesn't already exist, someone needs to write a good history of post-Civil Rights organizing and voter recruitment drives with the specific goal of explaining county-level election patterns.

There's a lot of interesting variation in this period that sorts itself out within a few cycles. It's a demonstration of how even the most significant federal laws don't change conditions on the ground overnight.

The multiracial coalitions that allowed Democrats to win elections in the South for decades are another fascinating angle on this. The way we talk about politics today, it often seems like people forget this period between the Civil Rights Act and complete Republican dominance in the South, which is pretty incredible given that not one but two presidents emerged this way.

Bolded for emphasis. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were Governors in the post-CRA/VRA South, the latter for over a decade!

And white Southern Democrats, while obviously reduced in number, remained a force in Congress and at the state level right up until the calamity of 2010. How quickly we have forgotten the Late Bush/Early Obama-era Blue Dogs, who were disproportionately Southern. One can't help but suspect that a lot of contemporary activists don't want moderate white Southerners* in the Democratic Party's coalition, even at the expense of ever having any majority in Congress other than a narrow one.

^{*or moderate whites in general - or moderates, or in some particularly extreme cases, any white people, period.}

[lfromnj]

If it doesn't already exist, someone needs to write a good history of post-Civil Rights organizing and voter recruitment drives with the specific goal of explaining county-level election patterns.

There's a lot of interesting variation in this period that sorts itself out within a few cycles. It's a demonstration of how even the most significant federal laws don't change conditions on the ground overnight.

The multiracial coalitions that allowed Democrats to win elections in the South for decades are another fascinating angle on this. The way we talk about politics today, it often seems like people forget this period between the Civil Rights Act and complete Republican dominance in the South, which is pretty incredible given that not one but two presidents emerged this way.

NC in particular is very interesting because the coalition is still mostly there. It just went from 55% of the vote to 47% of the vote along with rural/suburban trends. However people like Cooper were there way before 2010.

Georgia too will be more interesting to see because rather than the minority Democratic party staying racially mixed it seems here African Americans control most of the state Democratic party.

[Motorcity]

If it doesn't already exist, someone needs to write a good history of post-Civil Rights organizing and voter recruitment drives with the specific goal of explaining county-level election patterns.

There's a lot of interesting variation in this period that sorts itself out within a few cycles. It's a demonstration of how even the most significant federal laws don't change conditions on the ground overnight.

The multiracial coalitions that allowed Democrats to win elections in the South for decades are another fascinating angle on this. The way we talk about politics today, it often seems like people forget this period between the Civil Rights Act and complete Republican dominance in the South, which is pretty incredible given that not one but two presidents emerged this way.

Bolded for emphasis. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were Governors in the post-CRA/VRA South, the latter for over a decade!

And white Southern Democrats, while obviously reduced in number, remained a force in Congress and at the state level right up until the calamity of 2010. How quickly we have forgotten the Late Bush/Early Obama-era Blue Dogs, who were disproportionately Southern. One can't help but suspect that a lot of contemporary activists don't want moderate white Southerners* in the Democratic Party's coalition, even at the expense of ever having any majority in Congress other than a narrow one.

^{*or moderate whites in general - or moderates, or in some particularly extreme cases, any white people, period.}

That is too bad

It wasn't that long ago that Democrats could build a strong and stable majority in congress and state houses. That got sh**t done and protected the country from the GOP.

The Democratic Party now is dominated by elites on the west and east coasts. They are too cozy with social media activists and the media.

They drew a red line on abortion and signed away large swarths of the country to the GOP.

I'm not foolish, Republicans were going to take the south at some point. But I do beliving giving Democrats more leeway on abortion would have kept some more seats blue longer. Look at John Bel Edwards in Louisana and Joe Manchin in West Virgina.