A new "Solid South" ?

[memphis]

Every few decades? The South was solid Dem for a hundred years after the Civil War. It will be Republican for a long, long time.

[??????????]

Every few decades? The South was solid Dem for a hundred years after the Civil War. It will be Republican for a long, long time.

Agree, the Republican base is really starting to solidify here in the south. I see no reason why it would change as of this current time.

[Reignman]

a - The Democrats will start winning 3-4 southern states in presidential elections in the future, or

b - the party will not survive.

(migration)

[memphis]

a - The Democrats will start winning 3-4 southern states in presidential elections in the future, or

b - the party will not survive.

(migration)

Bull the Dems don't need the South just like the Reps don't need the Northeast. States to win for both parties are in the Midwest and Southwest. Given Ohio's job issues and Republican corruption, it should be a fairly easy "red" state to pick off with 20 electoral votes.

[TomC]

a - The Democrats will start winning 3-4 southern states in presidential elections in the future, or

b - the party will not survive.

(migration)

The Democrats carried the Solid South for a century and lost 15 of 25 Pres elections. It is certainly possible for a party, like the GOP during this period, to lose the entire South and still be a viable majority party.

[jokerman]

a - The Democrats will start winning 3-4 southern states in presidential elections in the future, or

b - the party will not survive.

(migration)

Bull the Dems don't need the South just like the Reps don't need the Northeast. States to win for both parties are in the Midwest and Southwest. Given Ohio's job issues and Republican corruption, it should be a fairly easy "red" state to pick off with 20 electoral votes.

The Democrats can't win in the Midwest or the Southwest if they can't win in the south.

[Frodo]

a - The Democrats will start winning 3-4 southern states in presidential elections in the future, or

b - the party will not survive.

(migration)

The Democrats carried the Solid South for a century and lost 15 of 25 Pres elections. It is certainly possible for a party, like the GOP during this period, to lose the entire South and still be a viable majority party.

Perhaps, but with most population growth occuring in the South (along with more electoral votes and congressional seats), Democrats (at least at the national level) can look forward to being a semi-permanent minority party over the long-term if they forsake the South.  Given the water situation in the west, there is a ceiling at which electoral votes cannot go beyond a certain level in that region of the country especially in those states like Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona.  Democrats can make gains in the Southwest, but with water becoming an increasingly scarce commodity in that region, those gains will necessarilly be limited. 

[TomC]

a - The Democrats will start winning 3-4 southern states in presidential elections in the future, or

b - the party will not survive.

(migration)

Bull the Dems don't need the South just like the Reps don't need the Northeast. States to win for both parties are in the Midwest and Southwest. Given Ohio's job issues and Republican corruption, it should be a fairly easy "red" state to pick off with 20 electoral votes.

The Democrats can't win in the Midwest or the Southwest if they can't win in the south.

Uhm, have you looked at electoral maps for the last four elections?

[jokerman]

a - The Democrats will start winning 3-4 southern states in presidential elections in the future, or

b - the party will not survive.

(migration)

Bull the Dems don't need the South just like the Reps don't need the Northeast. States to win for both parties are in the Midwest and Southwest. Given Ohio's job issues and Republican corruption, it should be a fairly easy "red" state to pick off with 20 electoral votes.

The Democrats can't win in the Midwest or the Southwest if they can't win in the south.

Uhm, have you looked at electoral maps for the last four elections?

What?

Yes, I have.  What's your point?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Unless we somehow go multiparty we'll see in  the next century the usual range of ideological flipflops by the parties so yes we'll eventually see the dems completely lose dixie... but then they'll gian it again and lose it again, This is presuming that the south stays a united bloc culturally. Now if Virginia becomes more urganized and florida's immigrantsp ush it to the left..

[TomC]

a - The Democrats will start winning 3-4 southern states in presidential elections in the future, or

b - the party will not survive.

(migration)

Bull the Dems don't need the South just like the Reps don't need the Northeast. States to win for both parties are in the Midwest and Southwest. Given Ohio's job issues and Republican corruption, it should be a fairly easy "red" state to pick off with 20 electoral votes.

The Democrats can't win in the Midwest or the Southwest if they can't win in the south.

Uhm, have you looked at electoral maps for the last four elections?

What?

Yes, I have.  What's your point?

The Democrats already have solid footing in the Midwest and only win a Southern state here and there. Plus, clearly NM, Nev, and Co are closer to going Dem than most any Southern state with the possible exception of Arkansas. When states in the midwest (exception: Ind and the Dakotas) and SW are closer to going Democrat than the vast majority of Southern states, how can you possibly conclude that the Dems can't win in the SW and MW if they can't win in the South? I would really like to hear what evidence you have to back up your statement.

[jokerman]

a - The Democrats will start winning 3-4 southern states in presidential elections in the future, or

b - the party will not survive.

(migration)

Bull the Dems don't need the South just like the Reps don't need the Northeast. States to win for both parties are in the Midwest and Southwest. Given Ohio's job issues and Republican corruption, it should be a fairly easy "red" state to pick off with 20 electoral votes.

The Democrats can't win in the Midwest or the Southwest if they can't win in the south.

Uhm, have you looked at electoral maps for the last four elections?

What?

Yes, I have.  What's your point?

The Democrats already have solid footing in the Midwest and only win a Southern state here and there. Plus, clearly NM, Nev, and Co are closer to going Dem than most any Southern state with the possible exception of Arkansas. When states in the midwest (exception: Ind and the Dakotas) and SW are closer to going Democrat than the vast majority of Southern states, how can you possibly conclude that the Dems can't win in the SW and MW if they can't win in the South? I would really like to hear what evidence you have to back up your statement.

The political nature of the midwest, first off, is certainly communitarian leaning.  When I say "win in the midwest," I mean to have a strategy that would have a clear electoral victory partly resulting from the midwest.  Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota don't gaurentee that.  We also need to hold onto Wisconsin, and gain Ohio, Missouri, West Virginia and Iowa.  Wisconsin has a natural communitarian lean, and don't forget Kerry's razor thin margin in 2004 there.  Ohio can't be won by sending in gobs of money and hoping Cuyahoga county turns out big, it's going to be won by someone who has a natural appeal in towns and the rural areas in the southeast, both of which will be carried by the same kind of candidate who would do well in the South.  Iowa also has a natural, slight communitarian lean, and will be won by, again, the kind of candidate who can appeal to rural voters and middle class families in the towns and cities.  Missouri and West Virginia are self-explanatory.

And for the Southwest?  Did Kerry win a single state there last election?  Yes, it is trending Democrat, primarily because of increasing hispanic population.  But the underlying trends show the solid Democratic support among these voters to be faltering, and will continue to do so if we can't get a candidate who can appeal to the average American, relate to religion, focus on economics, the same kind of candidate who does well in the south.  Sure, we could keep working, keep building a strong local base in these states (which really aren't particularly libertarian leaning, as the dailykos status quo qould have us believe; look at Ritter, Salazar, Schweitzer, Richardson, or Tester.) and try to pour in tons of money and tip Nevada and New Mexico over the scales every election, and maybe even Colorado.  But would it help us win elections?  Not by much, and with that kind of narrow stratgey it would be very easy for the Republicans to derail us.  And, the increasing hispanic population will only augment the connection between southern support and western support.

So you see, a candidate who isn't reasonably competitive in Florida, Arkansas, and Virginia, and doesn't even have a chance at all in Louisiana, Tennesee, Georgia or Kentucky isn't likely going to do well enough in the Midwest or Southwest to make up for that.  On the other hand, a candidate like Clinton does do well in those states is going to have a good chance at sweeping the midwest except for Indiana and carrying New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and possibly Montana.

[TomC]

You have "proved" it's more likely that someone with appeal in areas that the Dems haven't been winning will make it more likely to win. You have not proved that the Dems can't win in the midwest and southwest if they can't win in the south. I don't disagree about the type of candidate you are talking about, but I still maintain that the states which the Dems have been closer to winning in recent elections in the MW and SW are more likely to turn Dem than the Southern states. The margins of victory or loss in the last four to five elections back that up. The South is solidly Republican. The SW and MW are swing regions.

[jokerman]

You have "proved" it's more likely that someone with appeal in areas that the Dems haven't been winning will make it more likely to win. You have not proved that the Dems can't win in the midwest and southwest if they can't win in the south. I don't disagree about the type of candidate you are talking about, but I still maintain that the states which the Dems have been closer to winning in recent elections in the MW and SW are more likely to turn Dem than the Southern states. The margins of victory or loss in the last four to five elections back that up. The South is solidly Republican. The SW and MW are swing regions.

Right, but margin of victory is simply no real way of proving one thing or another.  With a good candidate 4 or so southern states would swing towards the Democrat as easily as several, several midwestern states would.

Yeah, John Kerry lost Colorado by a lesser margin than he lost Arkansas.  But you know what?  He still lost both.  It's going to take a candidate who is viable in all areas in the country to do well.  We cannot under any circumstances abandon the south.

Listen, we are not going to get a George W. Bush every election.  In 2004, we should have destroyed Bush with over 350 EC votes.  A good candidate would have crushed him.  The Democratic strategy is currently bankrupt, and a western/midwestern strategy really would only be further going in the direction in the status quo, because it's not even really a western/midwestern strategy, it's a "pour money into urban areas in Ohio and middle class service industry voters in Nevada and Colorado."  That's 3 states, and that's all we have without a new, renewed committment new, progressive economic ideals and dropping of the old social wedge issues, the same kind of policy that will allow us to do well in the south.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The GOP is already moving into the populist niche so the dems won't suceed if theydo. The result would be either the GOP/dems falling and a new party that's anti-populist, anti-social justice, anti-poor emerging.

[Gustaf]

Unless we somehow go multiparty we'll see in  the next century the usual range of ideological flipflops by the parties so yes we'll eventually see the dems completely lose dixie... but then they'll gian it again and lose it again, This is presuming that the south stays a united bloc culturally. Now if Virginia becomes more urganized and florida's immigrantsp ush it to the left..

This is actually a good point. I think the gap between North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Florida on the one hand, and states like Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana on the other is constantly growing, which might eventually break the South up as a political entity.

[memphis]

The South has never been a monolith.  Hoover and Ike carried the Upper South. The Deep South has always been one party and anti-democratic (small d). The Upper South is conservative but is a whole different ball of wax. Always has been. Let's not forget that Maryland, one of the most Democratic states in the nation is traditionally a Southern state.

[Gustaf]

The South has never been a monolith.  Hoover and Ike carried the Upper South. The Deep South has always been one party and anti-democratic (small d). The Upper South is conservative but is a whole different ball of wax. Always has been. Let's not forget that Maryland, one of the most Democratic states in the nation is traditionally a Southern state.

That isn't really accurate. The South has been a monolith since the Civil War. That doesn't mean that there hasn't been internal variation. The Upper South has been less Southern than the Deep South, but it's still been markedly Southern. When Hoover carried the Upper South he simply did a lot better in the SOuth overall than Republicans traditionally did. In the 50s the Upper South was actually beginning to move away.

An example of this would be New Hampshire which is definitely Northeastern, just not as typical of the Northeast as other such states.

Maryland is a good example of a state that has already ceased to be Southern (Delaware would be another). Kentucky seems to have become MORE Southern.

[memphis]

The South has never been a monolith.  Hoover and Ike carried the Upper South. The Deep South has always been one party and anti-democratic (small d). The Upper South is conservative but is a whole different ball of wax. Always has been. Let's not forget that Maryland, one of the most Democratic states in the nation is traditionally a Southern state.

That isn't really accurate. The South has been a monolith since the Civil War. That doesn't mean that there hasn't been internal variation. The Upper South has been less Southern than the Deep South, but it's still been markedly Southern. When Hoover carried the Upper South he simply did a lot better in the SOuth overall than Republicans traditionally did. In the 50s the Upper South was actually beginning to move away.

An example of this would be New Hampshire which is definitely Northeastern, just not as typical of the Northeast as other such states.

Maryland is a good example of a state that has already ceased to be Southern (Delaware would be another). Kentucky seems to have become MORE Southern.

No, the Deep South was a monolith. The Electoral College just gives you the impression that the whole South is and used to be. East Tennessee, for example, has been Republican forever. Most extreme example is Johnson County, which voted 84% for Landon in 1936, which I believe was Landon's best county in the nation! Dems have strongholds in the South today (I live in one), just not enough to carry whole states.

[Gustaf]

The South has never been a monolith.  Hoover and Ike carried the Upper South. The Deep South has always been one party and anti-democratic (small d). The Upper South is conservative but is a whole different ball of wax. Always has been. Let's not forget that Maryland, one of the most Democratic states in the nation is traditionally a Southern state.

That isn't really accurate. The South has been a monolith since the Civil War. That doesn't mean that there hasn't been internal variation. The Upper South has been less Southern than the Deep South, but it's still been markedly Southern. When Hoover carried the Upper South he simply did a lot better in the SOuth overall than Republicans traditionally did. In the 50s the Upper South was actually beginning to move away.

An example of this would be New Hampshire which is definitely Northeastern, just not as typical of the Northeast as other such states.

Maryland is a good example of a state that has already ceased to be Southern (Delaware would be another). Kentucky seems to have become MORE Southern.

No, the Deep South was a monolith. The Electoral College just gives you the impression that the whole South is and used to be. East Tennessee, for example, has been Republican forever. Most extreme example is Johnson County, which voted 84% for Landon in 1936, which I believe was Landon's best county in the nation! Dems have strongholds in the South today (I live in one), just not enough to carry whole states.

OK, fair enough. The Blue Ridge is an exception which was Republican. But given that is was a major factor only in Eastern Tennessee (the Blue Ridge would give the GOP consistent victories only in 2 CDs in Eastern Tennessee) it doesn't really change the broad picture. The Upper South was Southern in its voting patterns, just not AS Southern as the Deep South. What this means is that they will move around in a similar fashion (a candidate who does well in the Upper South will also do well in the Deep South, for instance). Because of the gap between them doing well in the Upper South for a Republican could mean winning states, while it couldn't in the Deep South.

Nowadays, it is concievable that a strategy designed to reel in states like Virginia and Florida could actually alienate states like Alabama and Mississippi.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida Georgia to an extent(because of metro alabama) are all de-southernizing each decade so after 2012 kiss any ideas for a solid south goodbye.

[nclib]

Georgia to an extent(because of metro alabama) are all de-southernizing

Metro Atlanta?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Georgia to an extent(because of metro alabama) are all de-southernizing

Metro Atlanta?

Yes. IT comprises a good part of the state's population and the numbers of minorities/other traditional groups are moving there. Its not yet as mucho f an effect as Florida or Virginia or even north Caorlina but irs an effect.