Should Democrats try all-Southern tickets in future tickets in future elections?

[WalterWhite]

Democrats nominating an an all-Southern ticket would have numerous advantages:

- The South is weakest region for the Democratic Party. An all-Southern ticket could provide a demographic advantage.
- The South contains the two largest swing states in the country. (Texas and Florida)
- The South contains the swing states of Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, which add up to 102 electoral votes, the most of any region in the country. The Midwest contains the swing states of Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, and Iowa, which add up to 58 electoral votes (59 electoral votes including NE-II). The Northeast contains the swing states of Pennsylvania, Maine, and New Hampshire, which add up to 27 electoral votes (26 electoral votes excluding ME-I). The West contains the swing states of Arizona and Nevada, which add up to a mere 17 electoral votes.

From an electability standpoint, an all-Southern ticket would provide an immense geographic advantage for Democrats. Should they try this in future elections?

[TDAS04]

If a strong Democratic ticket happens to consist of two Southerners, there’s nothing wrong with that. It doesn’t really matter.

[Vice President Christian Man]

I think the one Southerner on the ticket is sufficient enough. Clinton won due to a combination of luck, appeal, and economic malaise not to forget that conservatives weren't thrilled about him raising taxes. You don't want to risk alienating Northern voters who tend to be more progressive.

[MarkD]

Don't think that the politics of the South can ever again be like it had been decades ago, like in 1992 and 1996, with a Clinton/Gore ticket. Conservative southern Democrats are as extinct as the dodo bird. It's a species that is never coming back to life. Even in 2000, Gore did not carry any southern states, not even his home state. Meanwhile, the Obama/Biden ticket won comfortably twice carrying only 2-3 southern states, and the Biden/Harris ticket won while carrying only two southern states.

[WalterWhite]

Don't think that the politics of the South can ever again be like it had been decades ago, like in 1992 and 1996, with a Clinton/Gore ticket. Conservative southern Democrats are as extinct as the dodo bird. It's a species that is never coming back to life. Even in 2000, Gore did not carry any southern states, not even his home state. Meanwhile, the Obama/Biden ticket won comfortably twice carrying only 2-3 southern states, and the Biden/Harris ticket won while carrying only one southern state.

Democrats are not winning Louisiana, Tennessee, or Arkansas any time soon. However, the two biggest swing states (Texas and Florida) are in the South. Surely having an all-Southern ticket could be at least somewhat appealing to these voters.

[WalterWhite]

If a Democrat just won the four largest Southern swing states (i.e. Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina), they could lose every other swing state and still win the election. They could even lose Colorado and New Mexico and still win. On top of that, they could even lose Washington and Oregon, two states that last went Republican in 1984, and still win.

Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina are already competitive; they were decided by single-digit margins in both 2016 and 2020. A Democrat with enough Southern appeal could conceivably win these states.

Such a scenario would play out as follows:



However, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, and Colorado are already solidly Democratic states; in other words, a Southern Democrat with strong Southern appeal but weak Northern appeal would likely do as follows:



No matter how you slice it, the fact that the South contains the two largest swing states (whose electoral presence is only expected to grow in the future) means that Democrats should be focusing on candidates who can appeal to these voters. The best people to appeal to Southerners are, of course, Southerners.

[TML]

If the OP means Democrats should return to appealing to white conservatives in order to make up lost ground in the South, that ship has long since sailed. The recent leftward shift in states like GA and TX is not because of Democrats making up ground with white conservatives, but rather them gaining ground in urban and/or suburban areas courtesy of white liberals and/or people of color in those areas.

[WalterWhite]

If the OP means Democrats should return to appealing to white conservatives in order to make up lost ground in the South, that ship has long since sailed. The recent leftward shift in states like GA and TX is not because of Democrats making up ground with white conservatives, but rather them gaining ground in urban and/or suburban areas courtesy of white liberals and/or people of color in those areas.

Not exactly: rural, conservative Southern states such as Mississippi are gone for the Democrats. What I am saying, however, is that nominating Southern Democrats would help sway swing voters in the South, potentially flipping Texas, North Carolina, and Florida.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Thing is, regional loyalty/voting patterns are not as strong as they were in 1992, politics is much more nationalized. A rural conservative voter in Texas today is politically closer to a rural conservative voter in Minnesota, than he is to a liberal voter in Austin, or the rural Minnesotan is to a Minneapolis liberal. If a Democratic candidate manages to flip Texas in the next few elections, they will almost certainly hold the blue wall. Conversely, if a Democrat has a 2016-esque performance in the midwestern states, there's virtually no way they can win Texas, Florida, even Georgia.

[TDAS04]

Thing is, regional loyalty/voting patterns are not as strong as they were in 1992, politics is much more nationalized. A rural conservative voter in Texas today is politically closer to a rural conservative voter in Minnesota, than he is to a liberal voter in Austin, or the rural Minnesotan is to a Minneapolis liberal. If a Democratic candidate manages to flip Texas in the next few elections, they will almost certainly hold the blue wall. Conversely, if a Democrat has a 2016-esque performance in the midwestern states, there's virtually no way they can win Texas, Florida, even Georgia.

I agree, and frankly, regional loyalty wasn’t even that significant in 1992. Clinton/Gore performed better OUTSIDE the South than in the South, and the ticket twice carried only four of the eleven ex-Confederate states.

Hailing from a certain battleground state—regardless of which part of the country that state is located—can provide a slight boost to a candidate, but even then, a lot of other factors are at play, and it rarely makes much of a difference. Voters don’t care that much about a candidate’s home region, so it shouldn’t be much of a consideration. It’s not 1976 anymore.

I do, however, wish Democrats would put more Westerners on their national tickets, but that’s nothing that would ever sway my vote.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I agree, and frankly, regional loyalty wasn’t even that significant in 1992. Clinton/Gore performed better OUTSIDE the South than in the South, and the ticket twice carried only four of the eleven ex-Confederate states.

Yes, but having an all-southern ticket probably played a huge role in flipping those states.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Additionally, continuing with the Clinton/Gore example (the only all-Southern ticket a united Democratic party has ever run, not counting the Southern Democrats in 1860, Dixiecrats in 1948, etc) - a part of why having an all-Southern ticket benefited the Dems then was that southern Democrats of that era still had a different brand of politics. Clinton played up his tough-on-crime credentials in a way a northeastern or even midwestern Democrat wouldn't have, and Gore had a history of being to the right of his party on things like gun control. There used to be more regional ideological variation even within parties, so a southern Democrat would naturally have more "southern" policies and politics.

Today, national-level Southern Democrats are ideologically the same as your average establishment Democrat. Someone like Raphael Warnock might play up his Christian credentials for the Georgia electorate for example, but his political views are hardly more "southern" than your average New England or West Coast Democrat.

[WalterWhite]

Additionally, continuing with the Clinton/Gore example (the only all-Southern ticket a united Democratic party has ever run, not counting the Southern Democrats in 1860, Dixiecrats in 1948, etc) - a part of why having an all-Southern ticket benefited the Dems then was that southern Democrats of that era still had a different brand of politics. Clinton played up his tough-on-crime credentials in a way a northeastern or even midwestern Democrat wouldn't have, and Gore had a history of being to the right of his party on things like gun control. There used to be more regional ideological variation even within parties, so a southern Democrat would naturally have more "southern" policies and politics.

Today, national-level Southern Democrats are ideologically the same as your average establishment Democrat. Someone like Raphael Warnock might play up his Christian credentials for the Georgia electorate for example, but his political views are hardly more "southern" than your average New England or West Coast Democrat.

Southern Democrats are definitely not winning back Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, or Kentucky. However, Southern Democrats have to have certain qualities that are not needed with Democrats elsewhere.

They must have strong African-American appeal and must have some religious appeal. The South has a high African-American population and is very religious. Southern Democrats are uniquely suited to get these voters. Of course, basically any Democrat would win the African-American vote, but Southern Democrats would be able to increase African-American turnout because their victories rely on these voters; no Democrat would outright win religious voters, but Southern Democrats, having to compete in this highly religious part of the country, could make inroads with this group of voters.

It only takes a small shift to turn these Southern states blue. North Carolina only requires a 2% shift; Florida only requires a 4% shift; Texas only requires a 6% shift. A Southern Democrat could bring out enough African-American voters to win these states.

[TDAS04]

I don’t know if white Southern Democrats are actually more appealing to African Americans than Northern Democrats are. Bill Clinton got only 83-84% of the AA vote in each of his elections, which is an underperformance for a Democratic candidate. Even Mondale and Dukakis got in the upper-80s.

[WalterWhite]

I don’t know if white Southern Democrats are actually more appealing to African Americans than Northern Democrats are. Bill Clinton got only 83-84% of the AA vote in each of his elections, which is an underperformance for a Democratic candidate. Even Mondale and Dukakis got in the upper-80s.

That is probably due to Perot. Perot had an economic message that could appeal to many African-Americans.