Mississippi

[ElectionsGuy]

So should we expect Mississippi to go Democratic before Texas?  How about Georgia? 

I don't know, and you can't really compare the situations anyway.

Texas and Georgia are becoming more possible for Democrats because Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, etc., are becoming more cosmopolitan cities that produce lots of educated people and attract them to move in from other states.  I wish Jackson were like that, I really do, but it's not and may never be.  Texas and Georgia will probably be swing states by 2028, but I doubt they will ever be solidly Democratic states -- there's still lots of religious, conservative rural areas in those states, and I know the Republicans will put a high priority on keeping them.

Mississippi, on the other hand, will reach a demographic tipping point one day and flip from solidly red to solidly blue overnight.  It will happen before the state tips to majority black, since right now about 15-20% of whites vote Democratic compared to the 1-2% of blacks, and it may happen a little sooner, since, as the linked article points out, Mississippi whites over 65 are considerably more hyperRepublican than whites under 65.  While I reject the idea that Mississippi is the most inelastic state in the nation (Gene Taylor, Travis Childers, and Jim Hood are evidence otherwise), it is still a pretty inelastic state, and once the flip happens, that will help the Democrats.

No it will not, in fact it will probably be the opposite. Assuming Mississippi's black population keeps growing at a slow rate, it will be a slow transition into a swing state, much like Georgia. Assuming Mississippi whites will continue to vote overwhelmingly republican, and blacks will continue to vote overwhelmingly democratic, it will be a battleground for a while, and slowly drift off to a lean, and then solid democratic state (remember we're talking years into the future here).

Just because a certain age group votes much more republican, doesn't mean that once that group dies off, there will be a huge jump in the results. People tend to vote more republican over their years anyway, and younger voters voting more democratic does not indicate that the state will instantly go from republican to democratic. In fact, if there's one state that won't go instantly from republican to democratic, its Mississippi. Article is also way to friendly and optimistic for the democrats.

With the inelasticity argument, Nate Silver himself says its the most inelastic, and its backed up by facts. Just because Mississippi has elected white conservative democrats to Congress does not mean its not an inelastic state or even a somewhat elastic state. With the modern democratic coalition, Mississippi is indeed the most inelastic state.

I'm not at all denying that Mississippi would become democratic in the future, I definitely see it. But I think the arguments for it as of now are too hopeful and optimistic.

[7,052,770]

I like Nate Silver as much as anyone, but there aren't nearly enough data points to determine which state is most inelastic in presidential elections.  You can go back to 1980, and you've gone back way too far to draw any conclusions about today, and you still don't have enough data points.

So you have to look at other races too. The fact that Mississippi has elected Democrats to Congress and statewide offices this century is evidence that Mississippi at least somewhat follows the national trends -- Childers was first elected in 2008 (a very Democratic year), and both he and Taylor were thrown out in 2010 (a very Republican year).  Of course Mississippi is an inelastic state -- I'm not arguing that it isn't-- but there are lots of states that haven't done that much and are probably more inelastic.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Nate Silver's "elasticity" measure is confused. He is really just measuring the percentage of the population in lopsided demographics, which is not the same. I explain this here. (I hope the calculus-free first paragraph is clear enough, at least.)

[buritobr]

According to the 2010 census, the population of Mississippi is
58% White
37% Black
5% Other (Hispanic+Asian+Native)

If 95% of the blacks and 70% of the other vote Democratic, it is necessary that only 19,6% of the whites vote Democratic in order to have a tied election. Why wouldn't a Democratic candidate in the future have this percentage?

Much was talked about Texas and Arizona becoming swing states because of the hispanic population. But the blacks are much more loyal to the Democratic Party than the hispanic.
And in 2012, Obama was better in Mississippi than he was in Texas.

[eric82oslo]

According to the 2010 census, the population of Mississippi is
58% White
37% Black
5% Other (Hispanic+Asian+Native)

If 95% of the blacks and 70% of the other vote Democratic, it is necessary that only 19,6% of the whites vote Democratic in order to have a tied election. Why wouldn't a Democratic candidate in the future have this percentage?

Much was talked about Texas and Arizona becoming swing states because of the hispanic population. But the blacks are much more loyal to the Democratic Party than the hispanic.
And in 2012, Obama was better in Mississippi than he was in Texas.

I can totally see your arguments and partly agree with them. However, Texas is changing demographically much faster (Mississippi so far at a very slow pace). Thus it's not too surprising to me that early polls show that Texas is polling much closer in a hypothetical 2016 matchup between Hillary and Christie. Hillary is down only 4-5% in Texas so far, while she's down twice as much, 9-10% in Mississippi. This could all change of course, and as long as the Hispanic turnout level will remain at record low 2012 levels, then Texas will probably be more loopsided than only 5% difference between the two candidates. A stronger GOTV organisation including the new Battleground Hispanic team + a more competitive Governor race in 2014, has the potential to make rise the turnout level for Hispanics in the state however, perhaps permanently. I'd put my money on Texas rather than Mississippi right now if someone were offering me odds for the next few presidential elections.

[TTS1996]

According to the 2010 census, the population of Mississippi is
58% White
37% Black
5% Other (Hispanic+Asian+Native)

If 95% of the blacks and 70% of the other vote Democratic, it is necessary that only 19,6% of the whites vote Democratic in order to have a tied election. Why wouldn't a Democratic candidate in the future have this percentage?

Much was talked about Texas and Arizona becoming swing states because of the hispanic population. But the blacks are much more loyal to the Democratic Party than the hispanic.
And in 2012, Obama was better in Mississippi than he was in Texas.

37% black population =/= 37% of the electoral roll is black =/= 37% of those who turn out and vote are black

[Sol]

The issue with Texas's demographic changes is this: It's dependent on Hispanic turnout, which is usually a lot lower than Black turnout and significantly more pubbie (although of course Democratic). Also, TX has a lot of pubbies from elsewhere moving to the suburbs.

[smoltchanov]

According to the 2010 census, the population of Mississippi is
58% White
37% Black
5% Other (Hispanic+Asian+Native)

If 95% of the blacks and 70% of the other vote Democratic, it is necessary that only 19,6% of the whites vote Democratic in order to have a tied election. Why wouldn't a Democratic candidate in the future have this percentage?

Much was talked about Texas and Arizona becoming swing states because of the hispanic population. But the blacks are much more loyal to the Democratic Party than the hispanic.
And in 2012, Obama was better in Mississippi than he was in Texas.

Mississippi has an extremely polarized voting. To get even 20% of white vote for Democratic candidate is very difficult (almost impossible in most cases) task.There are some exceptions, but they are exactly that - exceptions. Even formerly "populist" (but, usually, very social conservative) NE Mississippi now votes heavily Republican on Presidential, statewide and Congressional level.