Politically disfavored regions for statewide candidates

[TML]

Some people have posted that candidates from certain geographic regions of specific states have seldom manage to win statewide races in those states in recent elections. The specific examples I can think of off the top of my head are Philadelphia for PA Democrats and Milwaukee for WI Democrats. Are there any other states with similar politically disfavored regions for statewide candidates? Additionally, what are some politically disfavored regions for Republican statewide candidates, if any such regions exist?

[Roll Roons]

The Huntsville area for Alabama. Brooks was definitely handicapped in both of his Senate primaries by the fact that he’s from there.

California Democrats also seem to almost always prefer candidates from the Bay Area to ones from SoCal.

[pikachu]

It'd make sense that in swing states, winning candidates aren't from the deep red/blue regions of the state. E.g. if you look at Pennsylvania's governors/senators in the 21st century, the only Dem from Philly or Pittsburgh proper is Rendell and I don't think any of the Republicans have been from deep Pennsyltucky.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

California Democrats also seem to almost always prefer candidates from the Bay Area to ones from SoCal.

It's less preference and more regional cohesion

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Atleast for governor SC voters seems to disfavor candidates from the Greenville area.

I remember looking this up once and there’s only been one or two senators from the PeeDee/Grand Strand region of the state. Beasley in fact may be the only governor ever from here.

If I had to make a ranking it’d go Charleston Area -> Columbia Area -> the rest of the state -> Spantarburg/Greenville area -> PeeDee/Grand Strand Area

[Orser67]

It'd make sense that in swing states, winning candidates aren't from the deep red/blue regions of the state. E.g. if you look at Pennsylvania's governors/senators in the 21st century, the only Dem from Philly or Pittsburgh proper is Rendell and I don't think any of the Republicans have been from deep Pennsyltucky.

Yeah and in Rendell's case, I think he was always really popular in the Philadelphia suburbs; he certainly crushed Casey in the 2002 Democratic gubernatorial primary. Maybe he's an example of how someone from a "disfavored" region can win if they are able to broaden their appeal.

[kwabbit]

CA might be an artifact of SoCal formerly being Republican. For awhile the Dem bench in SoCal was legitimately thin. Tom Bradley had his shot and failed twice. So for a while the Bay Area did deservedly dominate the state party.

It’s certainly due to wealth as well. In the previous era, the only Democrats in SoCal were those in Black and Latino areas. There were no Katie Porters. Wealthy areas vote in primaries and wealthy areas have the disposable income to donate to campaigns. It’s easy to see how the Bay Area would punch above its weight in primaries.

This dynamic continues to this day. The Dem base in SoCal is still predominantly Latino and downscale versus the now extremely wealthy Bay Area. Not as stark as it was previously, but the Bay Area still punches above its weight. 2024 Senate will be interesting. Porter seems very likely to run and she’ll have tons of money. SoCal could defeat the SF machine’s choice.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

In Tennessee, Middle Tennessee has become increasingly favored for statewide candidates.  Historically, there was an (often fairly moderate) East Tennessee Republican Machine.  That collapsed in the 2010s.  Bill Haslam, Bob Corker, and Lamar Alexander were all replaced by Middle Tennessee Republicans when they retired.  Middle Tennessee Republican politicians tend to be a little less parochial and a little more ideological than East Tennessee ones.

Democratic nominations are often competitive between the Middle Tennessee candidate and the West Tennessee candidate.  The Middle TN option tends to want to try to win over moderates in places like Belle Meade, while the West TN candidate likes to try to turn out West Tennessee Democrats.  Trump won West Tennessee by less than a point in 2020.  But, sometimes the Middle Tennessee Democrat hemorrhages in West Tennessee.  That happened to Jason Martin this year to the point that Shelby County was nearly a single-digit margin.

[Oryxslayer]

CA might be an artifact of SoCal formerly being Republican. For awhile the Dem bench in SoCal was legitimately thin. Tom Bradley had his shot and failed twice. So for a while the Bay Area did deservedly dominate the state party.

It’s certainly due to wealth as well. In the previous era, the only Democrats in SoCal were those in Black and Latino areas. There were no Katie Porters. Wealthy areas vote in primaries and wealthy areas have the disposable income to donate to campaigns. It’s easy to see how the Bay Area would punch above its weight in primaries.

This dynamic continues to this day. The Dem base in SoCal is still predominantly Latino and downscale versus the now extremely wealthy Bay Area. Not as stark as it was previously, but the Bay Area still punches above its weight. 2024 Senate will be interesting. Porter seems very likely to run and she’ll have tons of money. SoCal could defeat the SF machine’s choice.

The interesting thing right now is that for a brief moment, the Bay Area is lacking in clearly rising politicians. This is the product of half the crop already getting advancements in state and national positions, and the other half being 70 years old or so cause they got elected in that 90s era. The three names currently on the list are Khanna, who seemingly lacks any friends beyond his donors and district voters; Breed, who is getting sucked into the morass of local politics thanks to Housing policy; and Swalwell, who is kinda a has-been thanks to 2020. The most impressive candidates are all from SoCal. So we might have an unusual situation where the Bay Area Liberal Block lines up like normal, but this time behind the SoCal candidate they have the most affinity for.

[Хahar 🤔]

CA might be an artifact of SoCal formerly being Republican. For awhile the Dem bench in SoCal was legitimately thin. Tom Bradley had his shot and failed twice. So for a while the Bay Area did deservedly dominate the state party.

It’s certainly due to wealth as well. In the previous era, the only Democrats in SoCal were those in Black and Latino areas. There were no Katie Porters. Wealthy areas vote in primaries and wealthy areas have the disposable income to donate to campaigns. It’s easy to see how the Bay Area would punch above its weight in primaries.

This dynamic continues to this day. The Dem base in SoCal is still predominantly Latino and downscale versus the now extremely wealthy Bay Area. Not as stark as it was previously, but the Bay Area still punches above its weight. 2024 Senate will be interesting. Porter seems very likely to run and she’ll have tons of money. SoCal could defeat the SF machine’s choice.

The interesting thing right now is that for a brief moment, the Bay Area is lacking in clearly rising politicians. This is the product of half the crop already getting advancements in state and national positions, and the other half being 70 years old or so cause they got elected in that 90s era. The three names currently on the list are Khanna, who seemingly lacks any friends beyond his donors and district voters; Breed, who is getting sucked into the morass of local politics thanks to Housing policy; and Swalwell, who is kinda a has-been thanks to 2020. The most impressive candidates are all from SoCal. So we might have an unusual situation where the Bay Area Liberal Block lines up like normal, but this time behind the SoCal candidate they have the most affinity for.

Which impressive candidates are you talking about in Southern California? I can't think of any other than Katie Porter. Every southerner in statewide elective office is there because they were appointed by Gavin Newsom and I'm not aware of any of them having any political identity apart from him.