A new "Solid South" ?

[Ryan]

The "Solid South" was a term applied to the southern states (the old members of the confederacy) roughly from the 1880 to 1944. This was because in every Presidential election in those years (save 1928 and 1920[-only Tenn.]) the Democratic Party carried EVERY ONE of these states in all Presidential elections. This was a backlash to Republican leadership of the North during the Civil war and its perceived hostility to the south and (perceived) support for Civil rights of blacks.
During these years a republican party practically did not exist in the South. Most of these years, years there was not a single republican in the state legislatures. For congressional elections the democratic primary was the real contest, the general- merely a formality.

In Presidential contests, the GOP rarely bothered to contest the South and for that matter neither did the democrat (his victory there was a foregone conclusion). So complete was democratic dominance that the origin and ideology of the democratic candidate was irrelevant. Most of the democratic candidates in those years were from the North and many held views anathema to the South. (Like Al Smith of New York in 1928) it did not matter....they won anyway.

The days of the solid south started ending in 1952 and was a memory within 20 years when the GOP won every southern state in 1972. And since then the south has moved more towards the GOP every year (with a small hiatus in the 90's) till now people are beginning to talk about a "New Solid South" in the making. This time solid REPUBLICAN.

What does everyone think about this?? Being from the South myself I would love to share my views and hear those of others.

PS> I will be posting some resources which might provide background information.

[Ryan]

<This was an article which summed up the situation quite neatly. >


Like a retreating army pushed back to the sea, Democrats rallied to hold the Louisiana governorship Saturday when Lt. Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco defeated Republican Bobby Jindal.

The win will probably avert a full-scale panic among Southern Democrats unnerved when the GOP captured governorships in Kentucky and Mississippi two weeks ago.

Yet the overall trend in the region since President Bush took office still looks ominous for Democrats. In 2004, with Bush on the ballot, the Republicans appear to be poised for further Southern gains. Indeed, the GOP's solidifying hold on Dixie now looms as perhaps the most imposing obstacle to Democratic hopes of regaining control of either Congress or the White House.

Today, Republicans hold 87 of the 142 seats in the House of Representatives from the 11 states of the old Confederacy plus Oklahoma and Kentucky, and they have 17 of the 26 Senate seats from those 13 states. In each chamber, the Southern advantage provides the GOP its margin of control; Democrats hold a majority of both House and Senate seats from outside the South.

Likewise in 2000, George Bush lost 71% of the electoral votes from outside the South. He's sitting in the White House because he won all 13 Southern states.

In 2004, population growth will swell the number of Electoral College votes from those 13 Southern states to 168. That means the South alone could provide Bush with more than three-fifths of the 270 Electoral College votes he needs for reelection. Even if Florida, the most competitive Southern state, slips away from him, the South could still give Bush just over half the electoral votes he needs.

For Democrats, this picture is especially dispiriting because it represents such a rapid deterioration in their Southern prospects. Democrats were routed across the South in the chaotic opening years of Bill Clinton's first term. But through the late 1990s, as the economy prospered and Clinton pursued mostly centrist policies, Democrats enjoyed a modest Southern renaissance.

Every Southern state elected a governor between 1998 and 2001; the Democrats won seven of those races, the Republicans six. Through the late 1990s, Democrats also essentially held their ground in the House, and gained some in the Senate.

But this mini-revival now looks like a kind of Indian summer. In 2002, Democratic governors were bounced in South Carolina, Alabama and Georgia. The Republican tide last year also swept Saxby Chambliss into a Senate seat in Georgia past the incumbent, Democrat Max Cleland.

Democrats did hold a Senate seat in Louisiana last year and gained one in Arkansas (where Republican Tim Hutchinson had been weakened by controversy over his personal life). But those successes were far overshadowed by the Democrats' inability to capitalize on a once-in-a-generation opportunity: the retirements of four Republican senators, which created open seats in North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

Even with conservative icons like Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond and Phil Gramm stepping aside, the Democrats did not come close to capturing any of those seats. The four races produced virtually carbon copy results, with the Republican candidate winning each by about 10 percentage points.

For Democrats, the scariest thing is that they lost these seats (and the two governor's mansions they surrendered this fall) with generally well-funded, talented candidates who offered the mix of cultural centrism and middle-class economic populism that most party strategists have considered the key to Southern survival. Even with the Louisiana exception, the results strongly suggest that Bush's popularity across the region is igniting another Southern GOP surge.

The 2004 outlook doesn't offer Democrats much Southern comfort either. The GOP's success at engineering a more partisan redistricting map for Texas means Republicans could gain as many as seven House seats in the Lone Star State alone.

In the Senate, Democrats face the daunting prospect of defending seats left open by the retirements of Ernest F. Hollings in South Carolina, John Edwards (who is stepping down to run for president) in North Carolina, Bob Graham in Florida and Zell Miller in Georgia. Except in Florida, where the two parties begin statewide races at parity, all of those races will be difficult for the Democrats.

Meanwhile, Republicans have to defend only one open seat &#8212; in Oklahoma, where Don Nickles is retiring &#8212; and that in a state where Bush romped in 2000.

And Bush looks strong again this time. In a poll last month by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, Americans overall split evenly on whether they now prefer Bush or a Democrat in 2004. But Bush led by seven points in the South, his best region. White Southerners preferred Bush by 20 percentage points. Evangelical white Southerners, the modern core of the GOP in Dixie, preferred Bush by 71% to 18%.

Those margins might widen even more if the Democrats pick either former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean or Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry &#8212; two New England social liberals &#8212; as their nominee. But the reality is that the same cultural signals that make Bush a hard sell in Northern and Midwestern suburbs &#8212; opposition to abortion and gun control, his use of religious language that evokes a born-again experience &#8212; will make him an easy fit for most white Southerners no matter who the Democrats nominate.

In that light, maybe it's time for the other Democrats to lay off Dean for allegedly alienating Southerners with his crack about the Confederate flag. Given the Republican resurgence across the region, it will be difficult for any of the Democratic contenders to seriously challenge Bush in virtually any Southern state except Florida. The best Democrats can probably hope for in the South next year is a presidential nominee competitive enough not to sink their other candidates. And even that may prove beyond their reach.

[Ryan]

This is an excellent feature from the NYT detailing the changes occuring in the South. I highly recommend it for anyone with an Interest in Southern politics.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/20021107_elex_SOUTH/index.html

[© tweed]

Us dems only have a real chance at Florida.  the south has changed so much demographically from >40 years ago.

[Demrepdan]

True. Florida is probably the only state Democrats can win anymore. Although, it may be close in some of the former "border states", like West Virginia, Kentucky, and even though it's considered more of a Mid-West state, Missouri. Those three states may be attainable by the Democrats.

[NorthernDog]

This whole topic seems to be driving Democrats crazy.   They are, in theory, locked out of the south, Rocky Mountains, and Great Plains states.  That's over 200 electoral votes in the GOP column right off the bat, under normal circumstances.  And the supply of southern bred Democrats will soon dry up. I don't see any Bill Clintons on the horizon.  Sure they can win without the south like Gore almost did-but there's no margin for error.  Gore's error was either New Hampshire or West VA (take your pick!)

[Ryan]

Lousiana has just shown that it is possible for the Dems to win in the Deep South, but I'm not sure whether "Bubba Hunting" is likely to be copied elsewhere.

Its a bad idea to generalise the La. election result to the national scenario. Unless the national democratic candidate is a conservative white native of Louisiana and the republican is not white (not fully serious here ) then you arnt going to get the same result!!

[Ryan]

I'm not generalising... I'm just pointing out that for once the Dems had a good strategy in the Deep South.

In local races they often had a good strategy.......how do you think Musgrove, Siegelman and co got elected in the first place?

Its in national elections where they dont have a prayer.

[Ryan]

Hey ppl, let me expand on my initial question a bit. I asked about a new "Solid South" because of the amazing similarities between the earlier situation and now (with actually only the parties reversed). That included the absolute divergence in voting behavior between blacks and whites with blacks perceiving one party as racist and whites considering the other anti-south etc etc.
Of course its obvious that that exact situation can never be replicated simply because in the earlier solid south, one party's base (the GOP's black base) was prevented from voting which is not the case now. Thus the absolute dominance the democrats had in the south cannot be replicated.

Even though its a lot less interesting, perhaps a better comparison can be made to the "Almost Solid North" of the time. (Late 1800's) Like the South of today it was never 100% republican. At the local level democrats won quite often and carried many of the states at least once in Presidential elections. Still till well into the 1900's most of the North was solidly republican territory with people prejudiced against the democrats.
Perhaps it is more pertinent to ask whether THIS situation (Near but not Total dominance at the national level) can be replicated for the GOP in the South. What does everyone think?

[DarthKosh]

Lousiana has just shown that it is possible for the Dems to win in the Deep South, but I'm not sure whether "Bubba Hunting" is likely to be copied elsewhere.

So the Dems have a great shot of winning the south when a non-white Rep runs nationally?

[NorthernDog]

Perhaps it is more pertinent to ask whether THIS situation (Near but not Total dominance at the national level) can be replicated for the GOP in the South. What does everyone think?

I think it's the direction everything is moving in the south.  If you are ambitious for higher up offices most white southerners will see that the GOP party label is "an advantage" (as you've pointed out) and the Democrat label is a "Disadvantage". Eventually a % of the African American voters will get tired to losing and migrate to the Republican party too, but that will take another 20 years.

[M]

Louisiana is actually a very complicated state, and not typical of the South. It's not balck-white there, it's Cajun-NewOrleans French-Creole-standard black-Shreveport style Anglo-formerly irish new englanders whose ancestors came down to diveert the course of the Mississippi-Jmaican-Northern whites who think New Orleans is the place to be. Whew! Where does someone named Piyush fit in here?
Anyway, I'd say yes,  at present a new solid south is forming, and the dems are running out of time to make a comeback. With a candidate Dean, they're giving up 3 or 4 senate seats off the bat.

What do they need to do to fix this? First, they must be clear patriots, pro-military, believe that politics stops at the ocean shore. As in, "Beggin' you' pa'don, suh, but Ah'd be much obliged if you'd leave warrin' and such to the President. Support small government, rewducing bureacracy, and cutting taxes. No fancy TV media spin; the old Texas saying, "ya cain't shine sh**t," applies here. Just be honest. Stop the clear anti-Southern Bias in party circles (Yes, I'm talking about Dean, but also many others). Figure out that Dixie is not the Deutschlandlied, nor the stars and bars the swastika (and I'm Jewish, so don't try to tell me it is.)You might be able to get away with challenging the GOP on some social issues, although not, for example, gay marriage.

Can the Dems do this? Well, yeah. It would make Southern Dems win elections. It would also mean that the party 'neath the Mason Dixon had little or nothing to do with the one above it. It's been done before; that was the solid South era. (Although during this era there were big government Southern Dems, Google the Long brothers for example.)

Will they do it? No. They see the South as racist, cowboy, and clinging to a hateful and vile part of history. They see themselves as social progressives and Southerners as living in an archaic and barbaric era. The only Southrons they'll take under their wings are people like Mistuh John Edwahds, who tawks lahk mah aunt from Sath Ca'lahna, but has a distinctly national/northern platform.

[Paul]

I think that you only have to listen to comments of folks like Howard Dean to understand why the Democrats have so much trouble in the South.  He talks about how poor white southerners vote Republican to their own detriment, and have to be shown how important economic issues are.
Translation: Dean believes southerners are too stupid to vote properly - and he doesn't realize that the Democratic party is simply too far left on social issues to win national elections in the south.
If the Democratic party won't be running any conservative to moderate candidates for president in the future, they won't be competive in most of the South.

[NorthernDog]

And a lot of people get into a habit of voting a certain way.  For the south that may mean 25 more years of voting GOP for President (unless they nominate a northern liberal too).

[dazzleman]

The Democrats are seriously out-of-step with the south, since the party is dominated by condescending northern liberals who look down on southerns as lower-level creatures that need to be housebroken.

That's why the Democrats will continue to do poorly in the south.  This attitude was very apparent in Dean's comments, right down to the assumption that "poor" southerners (I guess we can assume that all southerners are poor) vote against their economic interests (presumably because they're too stupid to know what their interests are).  The Democrats believe southerners must be convinced to abandon the issues that matter to them so they can vote Democratic.

It should be pointed out to Mr. Dean that many of his supporters also vote against their own economic interests, by his definition.  They're mostly high income people who favor higher taxes on the "rich."

Because Clinton (unlike Gore) actually came across as a southerner, he was able to do well enough in the south to win 2 elections.  I wouldn't rule out that happening in the future, but I think it will be sporadic and take a special type of candidate.  And that candidate is not Howard Dean or John Kerry.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Gephardt, Clark and Edwards would probably do very well in the Upper South(at least in comparison to 2000), Dean would do badly but not dreadfully but as for Kerry...

[DarthKosh]

Gephardt, Clark and Edwards would probably do very well in the Upper South(at least in comparison to 2000), Dean would do badly but not dreadfully but as for Kerry...

Dean will do worse then Kerry in the south.

[M]

Dean would be a flop in regions you may not even have imagined. He believes that a.) We are not at war b.) the popular wartime president with an impeccable reuptation is a fraud of the first order and, most significantly, c.) he believes the USA is just one of the nations, and not a particularly moral one at that. I am reminded of the Israelites approaching Samuel and saying they want a king, like all the other nations. Samuel says, "but you are not all the other nations. You are the chosen people!"

The fact that Dean not only believes these things but believes them so loudly locks him out of the entire South (likely including W Va), the Great Plains, parts of the Midwest, and the Heartland out of hand. THEN Bush goes on the offensive.

The outcome? It's not pretty. Dave has a nice map of it on the site under the name 1972.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I repeat:

Do you know what "wishfull thinking" means?

[JNB]

  Nov 2004 is a lopng way away, and no one knows how the campiagns will turn out or what will happen between now and then, but here is what could come down.

   Howard Dean right now has the momentum and the only canidate that has the energised base and the rest of the feild is badly split up. If he gets the nomination, this is how things may turn out. For one, Dean will be easy to paint as a liberal elitist who does not understand the working class and traditional values. He will play well in areas that are allready Democratic, such as the major metro areas on the West Coast, and North Eastren corridors, but that will not play well in any of the South or the Midwest outside of the Chicago area and some university towns. Will the 04 election be a replay of 72? Dean will probably do a little better than McGovern did mainly because the major metro areas in the West Coast and NorthEast have far fewer residents who are conservative leaning now than they did in 72, but a replay of the 88 election where Dukakis was solidly defeated is a possibility. The main concern for the Dems is their ability to hold on to states such as IA, WI, MN, PA, and even to a extent MI, NM and OR in the face of a Dean vs. Bush election.

  As for the South, Deans numbers in 2004 could very well be worse than the numbers Dukakis had in 88.

[M]

And except for ego, the GOP gets no real advantage for winnig nearly every state. But what Dean is risking is significant losses in congress.

The party establishment- bith the Clinton center and the older, more lefty establishment- realize this and are trying hard to stop it. But, so far anyway, without great success.

I do think Bush has several aces in the hole in New York. They are: a.)September 11th b.) The GOP convention c.) Rudi d.) Wall Street with the economy revving up again

Would this pull it off? I'm not positive, but I think there's a good chance.

While overall there are fewer conservatives in big city areas than in '72, it is not quite as one-sided as it looks since suburbs generally lean GOP.

[JNB]

   There are a few factors in play now that were not in play in 72 that would make a 72 style sweep a bit more difficult. For one, the suburbs you mentioned that lean GOP have had one of the biggest political changes in the 90s. The NYC suburbs at least on the presidential level lean Democratic, and even accounting for Gore overperformance in the 2000 election, the results in the NYC suburbs were not even close considering the history of them. The Philadelphia suburbs on paper have a slight GOP lean, and if the GOP get out the vote(GOTV) efforts are sucessful, they may get 52-55% in the surrounding congressional districts that Gave Bush only 47-49% in 2000, and this still will not counterbalence Philadelphias 80% vote for Gore. As for Chicago, its suburbs also have a GOP lean, but reduced by about 15% from how they voted in the 80s(50-55% now vs. 65-70% in the 80s), again a good campaign and solid GOTV efforts may boost the performance of Bush up to 5%, but that still would not erease the masive advantage Democrats will h ave in the City of Chicago, around 80%.

   That said, even if Dean does as well as Dukakis did in 88, winning around 46% of the vote and 10 states, the risks to Democrats down the ballot are far greater now than they were in the 70s and 80s. Unlike then, the GOP is far better funded and has far better local organisations to take advantage of such a opening.

[NorthernDog]

If the south is solidly behind Bush at least this frees him up to campaign heavily in the Midwest.
The Democrats are making a mistake if they are writing off nearly 170 Electoral Votes in Dixie plus the great plains and rocky mt states.  They pretty much have to sweep the heartland-not likely.
PS-I heard Bush has a 20 point lead against any named Democrat challenger in Florida.  If Florida is that far out of reach already, where is Bush trailing? Only Vermont and Mass?

[DarthKosh]

You have to factor in the undecided who will spilt about 75% against an incumbent.

Also note that Florida is not typical of the rest of the South at all, in theory it should be one of the most GOP states in the South.

Your assuming the undecided will split that way.

[Ryan]

You have to factor in the undecided who will spilt about 75% against an incumbent.

Also note that Florida is not typical of the rest of the South at all, in theory it should be one of the most GOP states in the South.

Lemme guess.....cause ov the ol "Rich should vote Republican" theory??

The same one that suggests Mississippi should be heavily democratic???

Well what the heck.... in this case it benefits my party. Realpolitik I'll be partisan and agree with you here. Florida should be SOLIDLY REPUBLICAN!!!