For the first time in history

[Adlai Stevenson]

The majority party in Congress is the minority party in the South.  Is this evidence of a techtonic shift, a realignment from the South to the West in order of importance in American politics?  Or is it more basically the fact that Democrats have a lock on New England like the Republicans do in the South? 

[Sam Spade]

The majority party in Congress is the minority party in the South.  Is this evidence of a techtonic shift, a realignment from the South to the West in order of importance in American politics?  Or is it more basically the fact that Democrats have a lock on New England like the Republicans do in the South? 

This doesn't sound right.  Have you checked elections pre-1930?

It has to do more with the Midwest switching towards Democrats for this period of time rather than anything else, regardless.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Surely the Republicans held less seats than the Democrats in the South when the held Congress every-now-and-again after WW2?

[Sam Spade]

Surely the Republicans held less seats than the Democrats in the South when the held Congress every-now-and-again after WW2?

Yep, I kind of forgot about the whole 1950-1954 period as well.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Well OK perhaps there are individual cases but in a major takeover of the House the Democrats only won three districts in the South: NC-11, FL-16 and FL-22.  It does seem to be significant that this only represents three seats in a gain of plus 30. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well OK perhaps there are individual cases but in a major takeover of the House the Democrats only won three districts in the South: NC-11, FL-16 and FL-22.  It does seem to be significant that this only represents three seats in a gain of plus 30. 

FYI, Democrats gained 4 seats in the West.

The big gains happend in what could be thought of as a sort of Greater Rustbelt.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Well OK perhaps there are individual cases but in a major takeover of the House the Democrats only won three districts in the South: NC-11, FL-16 and FL-22.  It does seem to be significant that this only represents three seats in a gain of plus 30. 

FYI, Democrats gained 4 seats in the West.

The big gains happend in what could be thought of as a sort of Greater Rustbelt.

But the West as a whole was much closer than the South was in terms of individual races.  Republican dominated seats in Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Wyoming and Idaho were all competetive.  The same could not be said for any of the Southern states. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But the West as a whole was much closer than the South was in terms of individual races.  Republican dominated seats in Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Wyoming and Idaho were all competetive.

And yet the Democrats failed to breakthrough. In this year of all years.

Also note quite how many truely awful candidates the GOP ran out West... and in many case the Democrats failed to take advantage of these. I note that Cubin, Doolittle and Musgrave will still be in Congress come next year, while Sali is about to join it.

Face it; the West is not the future of the Democratic Party. The Greater Rustbelt is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The situation in the South is rather different to the West. The Democrats already hold a large number of seats in most Southern states and oppertunities for further expansion are (for various reasons) limited.

[jokerman]

I'm tired of the "southerners are rednecks that democrats shouldn't waste their time on" bullsh**t.

[Wakie]

I think the bigger issue for this election was that the Dems decided to make it a national election.  They tried to run everywhere (not just in targeted areas).

That being said, the West is becoming more significant.  Especially to the Dems.  In 2008 the early Presidential Primaries are in Iowa (where Vilsack is certain to win) and South Carolina (where Edwards is likely to win).  After that the first wide-open primary is Nevada.

[Mr. Morden]

That being said, the West is becoming more significant.  Especially to the Dems.  In 2008 the early Presidential Primaries are in Iowa (where Vilsack is certain to win) and South Carolina (where Edwards is likely to win).  After that the first wide-open primary is Nevada.

Uh, no.  The order is Iowa-Nevada-New Hampshire-South Carolina.  Also, I don't think Vilsack is certain to win Iowa.

[Mr. Morden]

Well OK perhaps there are individual cases but in a major takeover of the House the Democrats only won three districts in the South: NC-11, FL-16 and FL-22.  It does seem to be significant that this only represents three seats in a gain of plus 30. 

Don't Kentucky and Texas count as the South?

Also, while the Dems made more gains in the Midwest than the West in this election, I think they still have a higher percentage of the seats in the West than the Midwest, that is, if "the West" includes both the West Coast and the Rocky Mountain states....simply because they dominate in CA, OR, and WA, which collectively have a larger population than all the Rocky Mountain states combined.  Though of course, this depends on how you define the borders of each region.

[Wakie]

That being said, the West is becoming more significant.  Especially to the Dems.  In 2008 the early Presidential Primaries are in Iowa (where Vilsack is certain to win) and South Carolina (where Edwards is likely to win).  After that the first wide-open primary is Nevada.

Uh, no.  The order is Iowa-Nevada-New Hampshire-South Carolina.  Also, I don't think Vilsack is certain to win Iowa.

I'd say a reasonably popular Gov of a state is a shoe-in to win his own state.  Nevada, as 2nd becomes very important.  New Hampshire is always important.  South Carolina, as the state where John Edwards was born, is likely to go for him if he's still around.

Point remains, Nevada is important in a way that no western state has been in the Dem primaries before.

[Beet]

Well OK perhaps there are individual cases but in a major takeover of the House the Democrats only won three districts in the South: NC-11, FL-16 and FL-22.  It does seem to be significant that this only represents three seats in a gain of plus 30. 

FYI, Democrats gained 4 seats in the West.

The big gains happend in what could be thought of as a sort of Greater Rustbelt.

FL-16 and FL-22 can't really be said to be the South, they are more similiar to the Sunbelt West. Dems are gaining in these areas, which are gaining population due to growth.

[WMS]

I'm tired of the "southerners are rednecks that democrats shouldn't waste their time on" bullsh**t.

If the Dems could avoid packing their voters so much into those M-M districts, they could probably gain some seats down there.

[Sam Spade]

I'm tired of the "southerners are rednecks that democrats shouldn't waste their time on" bullsh**t.

If the Dems could avoid packing their voters so much into those M-M districts, they could probably gain some seats down there.

Get rid of the VRA of 1965.  I've suggested it many times. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's possible to create minority-majority districts and districts in which minorities are electorally powerful without resorting to the sort of extreme gerrymandering seen in the Deep South.

[Sam Spade]

I'm tired of the "southerners are rednecks that democrats shouldn't waste their time on" bullsh**t.

If the Dems could avoid packing their voters so much into those M-M districts, they could probably gain some seats down there.

Get rid of the VRA of 1965.  I've suggested it many times. 

I agree that Minority-Majority Districts do more harm then good in this era, but I overall support the VOting Rights Act. Do you just oppose it, just because most blacks vote against your party? Or do you oppose it because of racism?

I don't have a party.  The VRA is a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be, for starters.  But I'm going to avoid a generic discussion on the issue on this thread, which is not the place.

[Sam Spade]

It's possible to create minority-majority districts and districts in which minorities are electorally powerful without resorting to the sort of extreme gerrymandering seen in the Deep South.

I understand this, but do you think the coalition of Republicans and black representatives are going to let that happen any time in the future.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's possible to create minority-majority districts and districts in which minorities are electorally powerful without resorting to the sort of extreme gerrymandering seen in the Deep South.

I understand this, but do you think the coalition of Republicans and black representatives are going to let that happen any time in the future.

Of course not...

[jimrtex]

It's possible to create minority-majority districts and districts in which minorities are electorally powerful without resorting to the sort of extreme gerrymandering seen in the Deep South.

Attempting to create minority-majority districts and districts in which minorities are electorally powerful should be regarded as extremist.

[NewFederalist]

I find it quite amazing that Republicans go to bed masturbating every night...

Link? Photos?

[WMS]

I'm tired of the "southerners are rednecks that democrats shouldn't waste their time on" bullsh**t.

If the Dems could avoid packing their voters so much into those M-M districts, they could probably gain some seats down there.

Get rid of the VRA of 1965.  I've suggested it many times. 

That was pondered the last time around but then the screams of "racism!" from the truly dreadul far-lefties in the Congressional Black Caucus (and the ones who would fail to win in any district that wasn't D+50 or so ) prevented that from happening.

And both Al and jamespol make good points.

Sanford Bishop > Maxine Waters

[WMS]

I'm tired of the "southerners are rednecks that democrats shouldn't waste their time on" bullsh**t.

If the Dems could avoid packing their voters so much into those M-M districts, they could probably gain some seats down there.

Get rid of the VRA of 1965.  I've suggested it many times. 

That was pondered the last time around but then the screams of "racism!" from the truly dreadul far-lefties in the Congressional Black Caucus (and the ones who would fail to win in any district that wasn't D+50 or so ) prevented that from happening.

And both Al and jamespol make good points.

Sanford Bishop > Maxine Waters

We need to keep the VRA, just amend it a bit.

An amendment VRA could minimize the number of Cynthia McKinney's maxine waters, charlie rangels in congres, while maximize the number of well-respect black and latino congressman, who in turn would make very viable governor or senate candidates.

Or at least apply it to every state and see how many West Coast and Northern Dems get ousted for wingnuts.

Well, that would be a preferable outcome to what exists now.

[WMS]

I'm tired of the "southerners are rednecks that democrats shouldn't waste their time on" bullsh**t.

If the Dems could avoid packing their voters so much into those M-M districts, they could probably gain some seats down there.

Get rid of the VRA of 1965.  I've suggested it many times. 

That was pondered the last time around but then the screams of "racism!" from the truly dreadul far-lefties in the Congressional Black Caucus (and the ones who would fail to win in any district that wasn't D+50 or so ) prevented that from happening.

And both Al and jamespol make good points.

Sanford Bishop > Maxine Waters

We need to keep the VRA, just amend it a bit.

An amendment VRA could minimize the number of Cynthia McKinney's maxine waters, charlie rangels in congres, while maximize the number of well-respect black and latino congressman, who in turn would make very viable governor or senate candidates.

Or at least apply it to every state and see how many West Coast and Northern Dems get ousted for wingnuts.

Well, that would be a preferable outcome to what exists now.

Minority-Majority districts were good in the 70s and 80s I think, but in this modern era, I know plenty of whites who would vote for a minority candidate.

Hell, ford got 40% of the white vote, had he got that in most other southern states, he would have won, due to most southern states having high black protions. After crashing corkers press conference, and beloning to a nutty family hestill got close.  The polls were very accurate for black candidates this year, I do not think such a Black Tax exists now.

Ford ran ahead of Kerry and even gore slightly (both are white BTW)

It all depends on the candidate. Our mutual favorite, Sanford Bishop, has shown that black Southerners can win rural white voters.

Ford ran a good campaign until the closing weeks there...oh well, Corker ain't a nut, so it's not like Ford lost to Saxby Chambliss *shiver*

And Ford is more in tune with TN than Kerry or Gore.