When will our GE regional strength change again?

[Kathleen04]

I've been looking at some of the past election result maps at presidentelect.org and we used to do well in completely different states than we do today. In '76, Carter won all the states in the Southeast which are now more difficult for us to do well in. Alot of us are strategizing to win the Gore states and pick up a couple more key swing states for a win. But when will our regional strengths shift again and could it be this election cycle?

[Kathleen04]

1. kick

:kick:

[dusty64]

2. Interesting question.

I'm certain it won't change much this cycle, however Democratic strength should increase in the Great Lakes, Midwest, and Southwest in the future as well as pockets of the South.

[spooky3]

3. Gore basically wrote off Ohio and shouldn't have

despite this, he didn't lose by much there. It's a big state with a lot of votes. Also, WVa is nearby, so campaigning there is efficient. The Dems ought to be able to hold every state Gore won, and pick up OH, WV, and maybe, Florida.

[Jackson Smith]

4. Interesting that you brought up Carter '76

Because he basically won by winning all the states we HAVE NO CHANCE in now. He had Texas, Georgia, MS, AL, FL, the Carolinas etc. He won because he was able to take the whole South plus Texas and I think NY.

[mot78]

6. Also, look at California

From 1964-1992 Califorina went Repuke in every election. IN 1976, they still voted for Ford.

[leyton]

8. Yup, California was a must have

I think up until Dubya California was to Republicans as the South is now to Democrats. Democrats must carry southern states, Republicans had to carry California. (No Republican had won an election in modern times without carrying California, but it wasn't a sure ticket to victory). Of course, Nixon and Reagan were both from California, and one of them was on the ticket every four years from 1952 to 1984, except 1964 and 1976 (when they were doomed to failure anyway), so that may have something to do with it.

[Kathleen04]

9. How has our

appeal in the South changed from 1960-1976 to what it is now? From '80 up until '92, we were pretty much defeated by landslides, so it's hard to tell how things changed slowly over time..

How have the Democrats changed or how has the South changed?

[leyton]

11. We are losing

congressional seats, I think. Three or four of the five Southern Senators - Graham, Miller, Hollings, and Breaux - are centrist and often fixtures in the politics of their states, and that may be keeping them in office.

[auburnblu]

13. I think the south is more progressive but

I think the south still has a lot of racial challenges no doubt about it. There are still some counties that have not adopted an MLK day. But in my life I've seen a tremdous change forward and a lot of progress concerning race. I think the south is still fairly conservative, both black and white, Black Southern Baptists don't run around chanting I love Civil Unions and third-term abortions. They still vote heavily for Democrats though. White religious voters in the south are just as turned off by some parts of the Democrat's platform, but unlike African-Americans they don't have the same loyalty to the Democratic party. A few older white Democrats do, the old Yellow Dog Democrats.

If somehow conservative blacks begin to turn away from Democrats based on platform items, the Dems are doomed forever in the South. Right now with the right candidate Democrats can still compete in the region, the right candidates in this election that could appeal to many southern voters I think are Edwards, Joe L and Clark.

[leyton]

5. Good question

Edit: Gosh, this turned out to be long. Sorry. I'm adding headers so you can skip what you don't want to read, because I know I never read posts this long. :)

I. Historical Trends: Northeast and Southeast and the Role of the Federal Government

First a little historical background... and I'm going to reduce party platforms to loose-construction and strict-construction here for simplicity's sake and because I can't be bothered to remember details like which party is for which issue :)

It's interesting to look at the elections that occured in the nineteenth century. Early on, the Federalists (John Adams) would carry New England and the Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, etc.) would carry the South. And of course if you boil it down, the North was at it is now for a strong Federal government, and the South was for state's rights. After Adams lost in 1800, the Democratic Republicans carried every national election for twenty four years. (The horror!)

During the 1820's and the 1830's regional tensions increased... and the South became more states-rights and the North became more federal government. And of course slavery intensified things. Around the 1850's the Republicans emerged in the North (party of Lincoln) with a pro-federal government platform but they carried the election of 1860 only because Democrats were split over the slavery issue. Much like when Strom Thurmond broke with his party, the Democrats broke in half, North vs. South (can't remember which broke from which) and Lincoln was elected because of it, and with a slim plurality at that.

Ironically, the parties have switched their most basic ideas and have switched bases. The Republican party is now more states-rights oriented and hence are in the South. THe Democratic party is now more federal-oriented and hence has its base in the North.

This makes me think that there will not be a geographical realignment along the lines of government theory (states rights vs. federal government) because the country has been similarly divided since the 1790's.

II. Possible Changes: Foreign Policy and Healthcare

So I think regional strength will change when either the parties switch ideologies or when the debate can no longer boil down to states rights vs. strong federal government. Of course, the issues are really complicated, but looking at taxes or education or gun rights it usually can tie back to the role of the federal government in society.

I think a major factor will be the increasing role that foreign policy will play. Unstable regions of the globe - such as the Middle East, Africa, China/Taiwan - could have an effect if the parties adopt firm ideologies. Right now, I don't think differences about foreign policy are really stark. There's the Iraq war, of course, but that's more likely to be a major issue ten years down the road if it turns into another Vietnam. And perhaps by that point the two parties will have firm stances about the United States and its role in international politics - stances that move beyond just "were there weapons in Iraq" or "is Bush a bumbling idiot or a stupid bumbling idiot." If the two political parties do move further apart on foreign policy, and if foreign policy continues to be as important as it is at the moment, then that might shift the focus of the general political debate somewhat away from the strict/loose construction ideas that are so basic to party platforms at the moment.

Also you might look at the health care issue. I'm not at all an expert on Social Security or Medicare - I barely understand this issue. But from what I understand the Republican bill passed earlier this year is a step away from the Republican party's adherence to "small government" (and I understand this worries the party's long term strategists). I think the healthcare issue will probably grow in importance, since America's population is becoming older on average, and if the Republican party in particular strays from its strict-construction ideas, that could also affect where the parties have their bases.

On the flipside, there's the increasing centrist movement in the Democratic party - we're moving further right. So this could move our base Southward.

III. The Southwest: A Possible Democratic Base

Finally, there's the West (which I forgot about). Population trends show that people are moving south (for the weather, I assume): states from California down through Texas and up through North Carolina are growing in population at a much faster rate than states up north. So states in the Southeast and the Southwest are gaining electoral votes while states in the north are losing them. But part of the trend is increasing immigration, particularly of Hispanics. Hispanics tend to vote Democratic, so our strength may increase in the Southwest. I suspect Arizona and New Mexico may become firm Democratic states, and I don't think California is going anywhere. And then there's the flipside, which is this: the Hispanic population is for the most part blue-collar, but over the next few decades I think there will be a natural "upward" migration into the white-collar workforce. That means that there will be more Hispanic Republicans.

So I guess it could change. I think the Southwest will become an area of strength for Democrats, but as for the Northeast and the Southeast, it depends on the healthcare issue, foreign policy, and how the parties treat the strict/loose construction dichotomy.

Just my opinion, of course.

[mot78]

7. ONe thing

Repugs are trying to appeal to Hispanics on social issues. Issues like God and gays could hurt us with Hispanics in the long run.

[Kathleen04]

10. Great post, leyton..

very informative. :) I agree with your analysis on the Southwest, it will be interesting to see how that develops.

[arewethereyet]

12. it can, look at other parallels to Carter. its obvious enough.