Factors for the Democratic collapse among white Southerners

[All Along The Watchtower]

So I have compiled a non-exhaustive list of factors for the collapse of support for the Democratic Party among white Southerners.

Note that this is a relatively recent historical phenomenon, that it is has been rather gradual and uneven across the South,  and that many of the following factors do overlap with each other.

Here's my list of possible or probable factors:

-Old white Democrats dying off.

-White Democrats defecting to the Republican Party in large numbers.

-The (in some ways) changing nature of race relations in the South since the mid-20th century (particularly after WWII) and the Civil Rights Movement.

-Whites who came of age in the 1950s/1960s and onward being an especially strong Republican bloc in the South.

-The shrinking in population of the rural areas and the growth of wealthier (relative to the rural areas, at least) suburbs and exurbs.

-The influence of the Religious Right in politics at every level of government.

-Many of the remaining white Democrats being a downscale, low turnout demographic (particularly in rural areas).

-The relatively recent growth of industry, business, and professional services in the South, which would provide some more Republican seed money for campaigns, organizing, etc.

-The collapse of the New Deal political tradition in the South (and elsewhere, to one extent or another) more broadly.

...

Thoughts, comments, additional insights, etc. are welcome!

[DC Al Fine]

I think you covered most of it. The only thing I'd add is a change in candidates. The Dems aren't running too many Zell Millers anymore. The same applies to the New England GOP.

[Vega]

Along with not running the right people; I agree.

[smoltchanov]

I think you covered most of it. The only thing I'd add is a change in candidates. The Dems aren't running too many Zell Millers anymore. The same applies to the New England GOP.

Regretfully, yes. On both points.... It was much more interesting when it was the opposite.

[Adam Griffin]

-Many of the remaining white Democrats being a downscale, low turnout demographic (particularly in rural areas).

This one is not so much the cause of the collapse, but is a huge part of why so many areas remain staunchly Republican and states along the Atlantic are taking longer to rebound. What's going on below is the result of a cycle that is now feeding off of itself; people aren't very interested in voting when they never have any real choices on the ballot or highly-efficient county and state parties conducting outreach.

I'm fortunate enough to have access to a public voter system in Georgia, which allows me to explore various elements of the electorate (and more broadly speaking, registered voters). In this system, there are several scoring models that rank voters' likelihoods of voting for both a party and/or a specific type of candidate, of turning out in a given election and of supporting various hot-button issues.

Awhile back, I created a map of my congressional district (GA-14), which is the 8th most Republican CD in the country according to CPVI. Since the Civil War, this area of the state has traditionally been more Republican than the rest of Georgia and the vast majority of the Deep South. An average of two different scoring models was used by me in order to make this (one that assesses a voter's likelihood of supporting a Generic Democrat, and one that was aimed at gauging support for Obama specifically), and below you can see the extent of the discrepancy that existed in 2012 (personally, I think the non-Atlas colors version does a better job at illustrating this):



Another example is breaking down these counties' estimated Democratic and Republican turnout - along with overall turnout - in 2010 (as a % of RV). Keep in mind that we don't have party registration in Georgia, so these scoring models and primary voting histories are used instead. The "Democrats/Republicans +x" on the right is just the number of points difference between D & R turnout in the 2010 general:

Pickens: D = 56%, R = 55%, TOTAL = 55%; Democrats +1
Catoosa: D = 31%, R = 44%, TOTAL = 41%; Republicans +13
Paulding: D = 36%, R = 49%, TOTAL = 46%; Republicans +13
Dade: D = 30%, R = 46%, TOTAL = 42%; Republicans +16
Gordon: D = 29%, R = 50%, TOTAL = 45%; Republicans + 16
Walker: D = 21%, R = 44%, TOTAL = 38%; Republicans +23
Floyd: D = 30%, R = 55%, TOTAL = 49%; Republicans +25
Haralson: D = 31%, R = 56%, TOTAL = 50%; Republicans +25
Murray: D = 18%, R = 43%, TOTAL = 37%; Republicans +25
Whitfield: D = 25%, R = 50%, TOTAL = 44%; Republicans +25
Polk: D = 26%, R = 54%, TOTAL = 49%; Republicans +28
Chattooga: D = 20%, R = 53%, TOTAL = 45%; Republicans +33

GA-14:
D = 29% of Democrats voted in 2010
R = 50% of Republicans voted in 2010
TOTAL = 45% of all RVs voted in 2010

Republicans +21

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The dying off of the segregationists and the Yellow Dog Democrats, coupled with the rise of religious conservatives in the GOP and the decline of moderate and conservative Dems like Clinton and Zell Miller.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

The dying off of the segregationists and the Yellow Dog Democrats, coupled with the rise of religious conservatives in the GOP and the decline of moderate and conservative Dems like Clinton and Zell Miller.

The religious conservatives and segregationists Democrats largely overlap...

[RedSLC]

-Many of the remaining white Democrats being a downscale, low turnout demographic (particularly in rural areas).

This one is not so much the cause of the collapse, but is a huge part of why so many areas remain staunchly Republican and states along the Atlantic are taking longer to rebound. What's going on below is the result of a cycle that is now feeding off of itself; people aren't very interested in voting when they never have any real choices on the ballot or highly-efficient county and state parties conducting outreach.

I'm fortunate enough to have access to a public voter system in Georgia, which allows me to explore various elements of the electorate (and more broadly speaking, registered voters). In this system, there are several scoring models that rank voters' likelihoods of voting for both a party and/or a specific type of candidate, of turning out in a given election and of supporting various hot-button issues.

Awhile back, I created a map of my congressional district (GA-14), which is the 8th most Republican CD in the country according to CPVI. Since the Civil War, this area of the state has traditionally been more Republican than the rest of Georgia and the vast majority of the Deep South. An average of two different scoring models was used by me in order to make this (one that assesses a voter's likelihood of supporting a Generic Democrat, and one that was aimed at gauging support for Obama specifically), and below you can see the extent of the discrepancy that existed in 2012 (personally, I think the non-Atlas colors version does a better job at illustrating this):



Another example is breaking down these counties' estimated Democratic and Republican turnout - along with overall turnout - in 2010 (as a % of RV). Keep in mind that we don't have party registration in Georgia, so these scoring models and primary voting histories are used instead. The "Democrats/Republicans +x" on the right is just the number of points difference between D & R turnout in the 2010 general:

Pickens: D = 56%, R = 55%, TOTAL = 55%; Democrats +1
Catoosa: D = 31%, R = 44%, TOTAL = 41%; Republicans +13
Paulding: D = 36%, R = 49%, TOTAL = 46%; Republicans +13
Dade: D = 30%, R = 46%, TOTAL = 42%; Republicans +16
Gordon: D = 29%, R = 50%, TOTAL = 45%; Republicans + 16
Walker: D = 21%, R = 44%, TOTAL = 38%; Republicans +23
Floyd: D = 30%, R = 55%, TOTAL = 49%; Republicans +25
Haralson: D = 31%, R = 56%, TOTAL = 50%; Republicans +25
Murray: D = 18%, R = 43%, TOTAL = 37%; Republicans +25
Whitfield: D = 25%, R = 50%, TOTAL = 44%; Republicans +25
Polk: D = 26%, R = 54%, TOTAL = 49%; Republicans +28
Chattooga: D = 20%, R = 53%, TOTAL = 45%; Republicans +33

GA-14:
D = 29% of Democrats voted in 2010
R = 50% of Republicans voted in 2010
TOTAL = 45% of all RVs voted in 2010

Republicans +21

So both Rome and Dalton (the two main urban centers of the district) would vote like most other cities in the US if dem turnout was comparable to R turnout? Interesting.

The state party should focus on some GOTV efforts here. It most likely won't help in this region as a whole, but it could probably improve dem prospects in some downballot races (like state legislature or mayoral races).

[Adam Griffin]

So both Rome and Dalton (the two main urban centers of the district) would vote like most other cities in the US if dem turnout was comparable to R turnout? Interesting.

They probably look more Democratic on the map than they are, because of the vast discrepancies in voting turnout among the precincts. Dalton encompasses about a dozen of those precincts, with 6 being more or less wholly within city limits, and another 6 that only a sliver of each is in the city limits. Dalton under the scenario outlined above would still be roughly 59% Republican and Rome would be around 53% Democratic (and its city limits/precincts match up perfectly).

Dalton is only 36% white at this point, but because it is a majority-latino city, it has a fairly large contingency of undocumented citizens. Effectively, Dalton is still close to 50% white in terms of US citizens and make up over 65% of RV.

Rome is also around 50% white, but its (smaller) latino population still has enough of an effect to make the citizen population around 55% white. It's more Democratic because it has a much larger black population than Dalton (28% versus 6%).

If everyone in the city who could register to vote did vote, however, Dalton would be about 50/50 and Rome a bit above 55% Democratic.

[Del Tachi]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While this is happening its not a reason for the shift in voter behavior.  Generational changes in voting behavior and partisan identification are a good indicator of a political "realignment" of sorts, but the factors in play in the South are much more extensive than that.  Sure, old white Democrats are dying-off but why aren't they being replaced with other, younger White Democrats?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, symptom not a cause.  Why is this happening?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Change in what sorts of ways?  The most obvious change, I believe, is that African-American voters in the South have become a monolithically Democratic voting group.  This might have had a "push" effect on White Southern Democrats.  Good point, but I had to feed it to you

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Baby boomers tipping the balance?  Sounds like a good enough reason but it still does not answer the "why" question.  What made this voters more inclined to the GOP?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Up until the 1980s and 1990s, however, much of this suburban and exurban growth was "intra-Southern" in that it originated from within the South.  Urban politics may have a role here though; however, its impact is probably relatively small considering that the South is still largely comprised of small towns and rural areas. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The marriage of religion and politics in this country is nothing new.  Southern Democrats of the 1940s and 1950s had just as much fundamentalist-flair to them as the Republicans of the 1980s and 1990s.  However, let us not forget that the first Republicans to make inroads into the South - people like Jesse Helms and Thad Cochran - were modernizers not traditionalists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Doesn't seem to help the GOP in places like the Northeast.  The Northeast is saturated with industry and professional services yet are overwhelmingly Democratic. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While perhaps the most difficult to discuss, this is certainly the best argument to be made as to why this switch occurred.  Good job here, so I'm not going to discuss it any further. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Doesn't seem to help the GOP in places like the Northeast.  The Northeast is saturated with industry and professional services yet are overwhelmingly Democratic. 

Go back 40 years and you see the effect there as well. Since then you had culture come to play a larger roll and GOP white collar dominance has ebbed. It is also the case that the recession of 1992 hit those professions hard whereras previously they had been shielded from such, one of many reasons a Southern Democrat from a rural state did so well amongst formerly GOP suburban tracts in the NE along with all the other commonly acknowledged reasons as well.

The pattern was delayed in the Sotuh by several decades and it therefore is lagging in the trend. Religion and culture also help to keep some of them locked in place as well.

The first Republican success into the South occured amongst urban and surburban white collar voters and thus why Dallas, Charlotte, Pinellas and so forth were Republican whilst the rest of the states in question were not. White flight has helped to drive the heavily Republican outer surburban and exurban areas of the south whilst the older ones and former Republican areas of those cities are becoming more Democratic. This occured in the North as well.

[Beezer]

I'd also mention the liberalizing impact African Americans and their increasing mobilization have had. As whites slowly but surely moved over to the Republican side, the African American element of the biracial coalition became far more crucial and candidates had to increasingly adopt more liberal positions.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Thanks for the responses guys, interesting stuff!