|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 03, 2020, 10:51:24 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Virginiá)
  2008 Legacy: Marginalization of the South
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: 2008 Legacy: Marginalization of the South  (Read 8766 times)
Grand Mufti of Northern Virginia
Frodo
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,147
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 10, 2008, 11:18:28 pm »

For the South, a Waning Hold on National Politics

By ADAM NOSSITER
Published: November 10, 2008


VERNON, Ala. — Fear of the politician with the unusual name and look did not end with last Tuesday’s vote in this rural red swatch where buck heads and rifles hang on the wall. This corner of the Deep South still resonates with negative feelings about the race of President-elect Barack Obama.

What may have ended on Election Day, though, is the centrality of the South to national politics. By voting so emphatically for Senator John McCain over Mr. Obama — supporting him in some areas in even greater numbers than they did President Bush — voters from Texas to South Carolina and Kentucky may have marginalized their region for some time to come, political experts say.

The region’s absence from Mr. Obama’s winning formula means it “is becoming distinctly less important,” said Wayne Parent, a political scientist at Louisiana State University. “The South has moved from being the center of the political universe to being an outside player in presidential politics.”

One reason for that is that the South is no longer a solid voting bloc. Along the Atlantic Coast, parts of the “suburban South,” notably Virginia and North Carolina, made history last week in breaking from their Confederate past and supporting Mr. Obama. Those states have experienced an influx of better educated and more prosperous voters in recent years, pointing them in a different political direction than states farther west, like Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi, and Appalachian sections of Kentucky and Tennessee.

Southern counties that voted more heavily Republican this year than in 2004 tended to be poorer, less educated and whiter, a statistical analysis by The New York Times shows. Mr. Obama won in only 44 counties in the Appalachian belt, a stretch of 410 counties that runs from New York to Mississippi. Many of those counties, rural and isolated, have been less exposed to the diversity, educational achievement and economic progress experienced by more prosperous areas.

The increased turnout in the South’s so-called Black Belt, or old plantation-country counties, was visible in the results, but it generally could not make up for the solid white support for Mr. McCain. Alabama, for example, experienced a heavy black turnout and voted slightly more Democratic than in 2004, but the state over all gave 60 percent of its vote to Mr. McCain. (Arkansas, however, doubled the margin of victory it gave to the Republican over 2004.)

Less than a third of Southern whites voted for Mr. Obama, compared with 43 percent of whites nationally. By leaving the mainstream so decisively, the Deep South and Appalachia will no longer be able to dictate that winning Democrats have Southern accents or adhere to conservative policies on issues like welfare and tax policy, experts say.

That could spell the end of the so-called Southern strategy, the doctrine that took shape under President Richard M. Nixon in which national elections were won by co-opting Southern whites on racial issues. And the Southernization of American politics — which reached its apogee in the 1990s when many Congressional leaders and President Bill Clinton were from the South — appears to have ended.

“I think that’s absolutely over,” said Thomas Schaller, a political scientist who argued prophetically that the Democrats could win national elections without the South.

The Republicans, meanwhile, have “become a Southernized party,” said Mr. Schaller, who teaches at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. “They have completely marginalized themselves to a mostly regional party,” he said, pointing out that nearly half of the current Republican House delegation is now Southern.

Merle Black, an expert on the region’s politics at Emory University in Atlanta, said the Republican Party went too far in appealing to the South, alienating voters elsewhere.

“They’ve maxed out on the South,” he said, which has “limited their appeal in the rest of the country.”

Even the Democrats made use of the Southern strategy, as the party’s two presidents in the last 40 years, Jimmy Carter and Mr. Clinton, were Southerners whose presence on the ticket served to assuage regional anxieties. Mr. Obama has now proved it is no longer necessary to include a Southerner on the national ticket — to quiet racial fears, for example — in order to win, in the view of analysts.

Several Southern states, including Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee, have voted for the winner in presidential elections for decades. No more. And Mr. Obama’s race appears to have been the critical deciding factor in pushing ever greater numbers of white Southerners away from the Democrats.
Logged
Smid
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2008, 09:18:52 am »
« Edited: November 11, 2008, 09:21:23 am by Smid »

The national mood was strongly anti-Republican. Yes, it's possible to win an election without the South, but it's certainly easier to win an election with it than without it. This is even moreso the case for the Democrats.

Obama got about 6.5% more than McCain. If we gave the Republicans a similar swing in 2004, the map would look like:



(based on a -3.5% swing against Kerry and a 3.5% swing to Bush - although I'm too lazy to tamper with margins in states Bush actually did win).

This article's comments about the Democrats not needing the south are about as accurate as looking at that map and saying that Ohio is no longer relevant on the race because the Republicans could have lost it and still won.

The combination of states AL, AR, GA, KY, LA, MS, SC and WV = 77 ECVs.
A democrat winning CA and NY has easily compensates by gaining 86 ECVs right there. Even CA with the lesser IL still yields just one short of that combination of states - 76.

I'm rambling because I'm tired, but what I'm trying to say is that while it is technically true that Democrats (and theoretically Republicans, although it's harder for them) can win without the South, it certainly makes it a lot easier. Obama didn't win despite losing the south, he won because he picked up CO, OH, NM, NV and FL - the real swing states, plus NH, MI, PA - the somewhat swing states, and then went further to win NC, VA and IN - states that the democrats haven't won in quite a while. If he hadn't gained those states, it would have been quite difficult for him to win without the states. Yes, there are winning combinations for the Democrats that don't include southern states, but they're fewer than the winning combinations that include them.

Oh, and once again, sorry if I was rambling a bit too much and didn't make a lot of sense. I can try redoing this tomorrow if it helps Smiley
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,348
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2008, 03:02:59 pm »

The South may not be critical, but Democrats shouldn't abandon it.  Plenty of Democrats can do well in the South - Warner, Clinton, Bayh, and others can still do well in Dixie.  That Obama could win without the South doesn't mean we don't need it; Southern states are growing rapidly, while states like NY, MI, IL, etc. are shrinking.  Eventually, Democrats will need the South, and they don't want to be at any more of a disadvantage when they do than they are now.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,742


Political Matrix
E: -0.84, S: -3.04

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2008, 04:56:58 pm »

The author of this article reeks on anti-southern sentiment. I hate it when fools like him write about how the south is full of dumb racists who refuse to embrace "change." I'm sure no one talked about the south breaking the shackles of the confederacy when they voted Republican for the first time in 1972 after being solidly Democrat since the Civil War.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,153
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2008, 06:01:58 pm »

The author of this article reeks on anti-southern sentiment. I hate it when fools like him write about how the south is full of dumb racists who refuse to embrace "change." I'm sure no one talked about the south breaking the shackles of the confederacy when they voted Republican for the first time in 1972 after being solidly Democrat since the Civil War.

Cultural suicide is awesome! Lets be more like New England!
Logged
MR maverick
MR politics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 585
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2008, 04:01:28 am »

The author of this article reeks on anti-southern sentiment. I hate it when fools like him write about how the south is full of dumb racists who refuse to embrace "change." I'm sure no one talked about the south breaking the shackles of the confederacy when they voted Republican for the first time in 1972 after being solidly Democrat since the Civil War.


Because most of the folks here are low information voters.   

In my Op 9/11 did alot to regress the voters here for some odd reason,or  u could say that the proof of neoconsertivsim working would be here. 


The only reason people in the south voted republican, is because the dems ran away from the ways of Dixie.  People in the south didn't hop on the GOP wagon because they wanted change.

The Op is right.
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,397
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2008, 11:34:17 am »

This is actually pretty funny and true. The Democrats need to simply do what Obama did in 2008 in the future. They need to divide the south into "reconciliable" and "irreconciliable" parts by working hard in Virginia, North Carolina and Florida while ignoring the rest of the south. NC, VA and FL are growing while TN, KY, LA, AL, AR and MS are getting smaller. Eventually, we will need to make inroads into GA, because it is growing quickly and will soon attract a winning coalition for that state. Dividing the conservative south from the dynamic south will be important. 
Logged
Aizen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,514


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -9.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2008, 04:08:24 pm »

lol @ the south


It would be best to ignore that region.
Logged
ChrisFromNJ
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,742


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: -8.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2008, 06:20:34 pm »

Southern states are growing rapidly, while states like NY, MI, IL, etc. are shrinking. 

Deep South states are not growingly rapidly - and large states like NY, MI and IL are certainly not shrinking as large as states in the Deep South are growing.
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,397
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 13, 2008, 01:47:21 am »

The deep south isn't growing that fast. The states that Obama won, or almost won, are the fast-growers.
Logged
Workers' Friend
Bob Dole
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,294
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: 9.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2008, 04:21:18 pm »

lol @ the south


It would be best to ignore that region.


Do you have to be such an asshole because not everyone is a drone for your party?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,145
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2008, 09:26:01 pm »

The South contains the following The second and fourth(TX and FL) largest states in the nation and possibly 2nd and 3rd in a another 5 years. The largest swing state(FL). Five of the fastest growing states in the nation(TX, FL, NC, GA, and VA). Yet still has states with serious growth potential like MS and LA(set back by Katrina) and SC.  Really unimportant. Name a region with all those characteristics and I will concede the point.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,016
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2008, 09:55:42 pm »

Must we put up with piss-poor articles that fail to analyse Southern politics and the wider influence after every single election [qm].
Logged
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,969
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2008, 10:43:18 pm »

Yes, the Democrats should give up on an entire region of the country....

That kind of arrogance worked very well for the GOP, oh yes.
Logged
RIP Robert H Bork
officepark
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,031
Czech Republic


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2008, 06:33:15 pm »

The author of this article reeks on anti-southern sentiment. I hate it when fools like him write about how the south is full of dumb racists who refuse to embrace "change." I'm sure no one talked about the south breaking the shackles of the confederacy when they voted Republican for the first time in 1972 after being solidly Democrat since the Civil War.

I agree, such people are annoying.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,348
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 02, 2008, 06:59:04 pm »
« Edited: December 02, 2008, 07:01:02 pm by Mideast Governor Benconstine »



In 2012, the South will have 181 electoral votes, while New England will have only 98.  Three Southern states gained electoral votes, while two in New England lost them.  The Democrats cannot afford to give up on the South.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,670


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2008, 09:39:16 am »
« Edited: December 03, 2008, 09:48:29 am by Verily »

Yes, the Democrats should give up on an entire region of the country....

That kind of arrogance worked very well for the GOP, oh yes.

Well, it kind of did. There's a reason the GOP did just fine without paying attention to the South for decades. If the Republicans want to appeal overwhelmingly to Southerners, the Democrats should try to appeal to everyone else rather than fighting the Republicans on their strongest turf for no particular reason. (Similar, of course, could be said in reverse during the late 19th century into the early 20th century.)

It is not wise for the Democrats to compete in the South when they can compete more effectively elsewhere. The Republicans dominate or are competitive a number of other states in which it is far easier for the Democrats to make inroads. Moreover, "Southern culture" is generally speaking not appealing in such states. So, by ignoring the South while the Republicans cater towards it, the Democrats improve their chances in these areas.

Realistically, the Democrats should only make an effort in the South where things appear to be moving in their favor--North Carolina and Virginia, obviously, and in the long run Georgia and possibly South Carolina. Incidentally, these are also the Southern states which are growing. The growth in the South is not so beneficial to the South as a political bloc as it might at first appear. The growth is fragmenting the traditional voting patterns, and it has already allowed Virginia and North Carolina to vote for a black man for President. The growing states are certainly therefore somewhat more worthy of the Democrats' notice--but the key to the Democrats gaining ground in the growing states is increasingly, not appealing to traditional folksy Southern politics, but offering the same appeal they offer in the Northeast, Mountain West or Pacific, since the new voters are generally speaking more "Northern" in political culture than Southern.

Texas is an interesting case, and in the very long run is probably also worth Democratic attention. But demographic patterns that far in the future are difficult to predict, to say the least. If the United States' economy never returns to its previous dominance, Mexican immigration will probably decline substantially.
Logged
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,969
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2008, 12:37:58 am »

Well, yes, as you at least conceded in the latter part of your post the South is a lot more complex and pluralistic than some would make it out to be.  Of course the Democrats should continue to form winning coalitions out of the "new majority" of racial minorities and educated whites as in 2008, if profitable.

However, the idea that we should concede even the upper-south and appallachia to the GOP is absurd.  We have issues that appeal to these people.  I understand that Obama didn't have the time to carry out the long process of building trust that would have been necessary for him to make inroads there in 2008, but after 4 years of a (hopefully successful) Presidency, perhaps some of these sharply McCain-swinging areas will swing back to the Democrats.
Logged
Matt Damon™
donut4mccain
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,467
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2008, 09:52:25 am »

The east coast from Virginia to florida is trending democratic with the party as is so we can well afford to write off the southern interior. and appalachia Also, Texas is becoming more and more democratic(latin immigration plus higher latin birthrates).
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,742


Political Matrix
E: -0.84, S: -3.04

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2008, 11:24:06 am »

In 2012, the South will have 181 electoral votes, while New England will have only 98.  Three Southern states gained electoral votes, while two in New England lost them.  The Democrats cannot afford to give up on the South.

Uh...New England has 33 electoral votes on that map.

The south is not important.  Democrats are competitive naturally in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Missouri already and are making huge gains out west.  They can, have, and will win without the south.  Obviously neither party should abandon entire regions like the GOP, but it's certainly not a priority.  Democrats will retain a presence there for years to come.  But please, by all means take it back.

I think when he says New England, he's including the Mid Atlantic states as well.

But you're right. The GOP doesn't need to abandon the northeast anymore than the Democrats should abandon the south. You saw how writing off the south helped Kerry in 2004, and how McCain writing off the northeast (well, Palin) as the fake America helped in 2008.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,348
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2008, 04:14:47 pm »

In 2012, the South will have 181 electoral votes, while New England will have only 98.  Three Southern states gained electoral votes, while two in New England lost them.  The Democrats cannot afford to give up on the South.

Uh...New England has 33 electoral votes on that map.

The south is not important.  Democrats are competitive naturally in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Missouri already and are making huge gains out west.  They can, have, and will win without the south.  Obviously neither party should abandon entire regions like the GOP, but it's certainly not a priority.  Democrats will retain a presence there for years to come.  But please, by all means take it back.

I think when he says New England, he's including the Mid Atlantic states as well.

Yeah, I was.
Logged
Matt Damon™
donut4mccain
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,467
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2008, 04:19:01 pm »

IMO 2008 was a sign of demographic shifts starting to affect politics in large parts the south not the marginalization of the south itself.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,670


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 05, 2008, 02:56:17 pm »

Well, yes, as you at least conceded in the latter part of your post the South is a lot more complex and pluralistic than some would make it out to be.  Of course the Democrats should continue to form winning coalitions out of the "new majority" of racial minorities and educated whites as in 2008, if profitable.

Part of my point is that, while the latter may live in the southern region of the United States, they are not Southern, with a capital letter. The South is irrelevant; the non-Southern residents of Virginia and Florida, and increasingly North Carolina and Georgia, are not. But the Democrats don't benefit among those voters by running Baptist ministers with strong Southern accents, either.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps, but probably not. And is it worth the Democrats' effort? No; they already have a winning coalition with a substantial majority. Stretch too far and they risk the Republicans breaking into previous constituencies which the Democrats could have been spending time appeasing instead of pandering to an area that is increasingly resistant to the party. Certainly the Democrats have not run the best Presidential candidates for the South of late, but it isn't as if the local or Congressional races have looked much better for the Democrats in those areas of the South which are Southern, relative to the nation as a whole.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,489
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 05, 2008, 04:07:30 pm »

Anyone who knows me knows I am not a big fan of the South, but the Democrats shouldn't abandon it. There are several states we are competitive in and can (and did) win.
Logged
Psychic Octopus
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,958
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 05, 2008, 04:28:17 pm »
« Edited: December 05, 2008, 08:32:50 pm by NiK »

Ahh the South... Not a good place for new England liberal people in a normal election (2004)
So I've heard...
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines