Surviving Southern Democrats If Landrieu Goes Down

[Mehmentum]

I'm proud of Virginia for pulling all of the weight for southern Democrats, we have 2/3rds of southern Democratic Senators and 100% of Southern Democrat governors.

[ElectionsGuy]

Dem reps from majority white non-hispanic areas include Graham, Cooper, Murphy, probably Frankel and Kastor, and possibly a few others from Florida. So basically in the deep south, Barrow was the last one, though I suppose you could call FL-02 the deep south.

And Price, Beyer, and Connolly. None of those are particularly culturally southern, but at least Price (NC-4, where I live) is surrounded by the South. South Fla. and No. Va. aren't totally in the cultural South, so that leaves Price, Cooper, and Graham.

BTW, where is the census (or other) link for CD data?

http://www.census.gov/mycd/#

Thanks, though that doesn't give numbers for non-Hispanic whites.

You can subtract the number of Hispanics from White to get the answer.

There are still some hispanics that when asked identify as black.

We just couldn't make this simple, could we?

But yeah, I guess we can't do that then...

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What's disingenuous about it? Are you saying that all the Democrats are carpetbaggers?

[Frodo]

Does anyone know how many white rural Democrats are left in the old Confederacy, particularly in the legislatures?  I imagine most would be concentrated in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas, as well as a few in the Virginia Senate (Creigh Deeds, John Edwards, Lynwood Lewis).  

[smoltchanov]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
And when do you expect to win at least one of them?? Comstock just won, and won convincingly. The same about MacArthur. Meehan is strong and shows no desire to retire. IMHO - wishful thinking. Of course if we talk about near future. If we are ready to wait, say, until 2032, when demography will make what it must, and (may be) another Democratic wave happens - then yes, of course.. Are you sure that Democrats will gain another Governorships in 2018 to be competitive during next redistricting? And without BIG victories in 2018 2022 easily becomes 2032...
[/quote]

those type of seats aren't easy to win, but they're easier to win than dixiecrat seats like AL 5 or AR 1. Also, the next time a republican is in the white house, the dems should win it back. A lot of people aren't as tough incumbents as you think (Mark Warner for instance).
[/quote]

We shall see. Right now i don't see ANY chances for Democrats to win House majority at least until 2022, and, if redistricting in 2021-22 will not be good - until 2032. Democrats waste a lot of votes in VRA-districts and in some urban areas, where concentration of Democratic votes reaches absurd 95% (60% would be more then enough for guaranteed win). As a result i don't see more then 180 reliably Democratic districts. And to win a majority Democrats must win (especially - because Republicans also have it's share of talented politicians, able to win in Democratic districts) at least some red and some Southern districts. it's difficult to compensate -80 in the South in other places.

This year Republicans (IMHO) played smarter. They ran not only standard ultraconservatives, but some "unusual" candidates too. That didn't helped them much in House or Senate races, but it did in governor and state legislative ones. Look at AD-16 in your California: even i had doubts that Republicans can still win in Bay Area. But they did and Baker has two years to try to solidify her position (it will be very difficult, but still possible). But Democrats became so toxic in some areas (again - the South comes to mind immediately) that even conservative ones are routinely associated with Obama (i can't remember such hate as exist to him among many southern whites, and i am 57 years old) and routinely defeated. Even those like Griffith, Barrow or Dorman, who have very little common with Obama.

So there is a sort of dilemma: to get 218 seats Democrats must win some southern districts (and not only majority-minority), but with Obama (and may be some years after) they are utterly unable to do so...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And when do you expect to win at least one of them?? Comstock just won, and won convincingly. The same about MacArthur. Meehan is strong and shows no desire to retire. IMHO - wishful thinking. Of course if we talk about near future. If we are ready to wait, say, until 2032, when demography will make what it must, and (may be) another Democratic wave happens - then yes, of course.. Are you sure that Democrats will gain another Governorships in 2018 to be competitive during next redistricting? And without BIG victories in 2018 2022 easily becomes 2032...
[/quote]

those type of seats aren't easy to win, but they're easier to win than dixiecrat seats like AL 5 or AR 1. Also, the next time a republican is in the white house, the dems should win it back. A lot of people aren't as tough incumbents as you think (Mark Warner for instance).
[/quote]

We shall see. Right now i don't see ANY chances for Democrats to win House majority at least until 2022, and, if redistricting in 2021-22 will not be good - until 2032. Democrats waste a lot of votes in VRA-districts and in some urban areas, where concentration of Democratic votes reaches absurd 95% (60% would be more then enough for guaranteed win). As a result i don't see more then 180 reliably Democratic districts. And to win a majority Democrats must win (especially - because Republicans also have it's share of talented politicians, able to win in Democratic districts) at least some red and some Southern districts. it's difficult to compensate -80 in the South in other places.

This year Republicans (IMHO) played smarter. They ran not only standard ultraconservatives, but some "unusual" candidates too. That didn't helped them much in House or Senate races, but it did in governor and state legislative ones. Look at AD-16 in your California: even i had doubts that Republicans can still win in Bay Area. But they did and Baker has two years to try to solidify her position (it will be very difficult, but still possible). But Democrats became so toxic in some areas (again - the South comes to mind immediately) that even conservative ones are routinely associated with Obama (i can't remember such hate as exist to him among many southern whites, and i am 57 years old) and routinely defeated. Even those like Griffith, Barrow or Dorman, who have very little common with Obama.

So there is a sort of dilemma: to get 218 seats Democrats must win some southern districts (and not only majority-minority), but with Obama (and may be some years after) they are utterly unable to do so...
[/quote]

I wouldn't get too excited about a one term wonder in the state assembly.

[smoltchanov]

Does anyone know how many white rural Democrats are left in the old Confederacy, particularly in the legislatures?  I imagine most would be concentrated in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas, as well as a few in the Virginia Senate (Creigh Deeds, John Edwards, Lynwood Lewis).  

Difficult to say exactly, but i can almost guarantee dozens in Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas and few scattered (2-5) in most other states except Florida and Texas, where there are almost none (1-2 at most). The problem is they are gradually replaced by Republicans (or, in some cases, switch). Right now Democratic caucus in, say, Louisiana and Mississippi legislatures is majority-black, and there are considerable chances it will be almost "Black only" rather soon.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Does anyone know how many white rural Democrats are left in the old Confederacy, particularly in the legislatures?  I imagine most would be concentrated in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas, as well as a few in the Virginia Senate (Creigh Deeds, John Edwards, Lynwood Lewis).  

Don't forget the Kentucky House, which somehow is still Democratic.

[smoltchanov]

I wouldn't get too excited about a one term wonder in the state assembly.

And i will. Republicans couldn't win anything in Bay Area legislative races since 2006. Now Democrats will need to smear Baker and prove she is a "Tom Cruz in disguise"...

P.S. But it's really an off-topic..

[Frodo]

Does anyone know how many white rural Democrats are left in the old Confederacy, particularly in the legislatures?  I imagine most would be concentrated in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas, as well as a few in the Virginia Senate (Creigh Deeds, John Edwards, Lynwood Lewis).  

Don't forget the Kentucky House, which somehow is still Democratic.

I am following JRP's definition, which excludes Kentucky.  Were it up to me, I would include (besides Kentucky) West Virginia as well as Oklahoma, in addition to the former Confederacy to compose what I would see as the South.  But this is his thread, not mine.  

[Adam Griffin]

Does anyone know how many white rural Democrats are left in the old Confederacy, particularly in the legislatures?  I imagine most would be concentrated in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas, as well as a few in the Virginia Senate (Creigh Deeds, John Edwards, Lynwood Lewis).  

Georgia: Number of rural white Democrats in the 2011-2012 session:
State House - 5/180
State Senate - 1/56

STATE HOUSE:

• 
  Sistie Hudson (D-Sparta) declined to run again in 2012 and instead ran for a County Commission Chair after they carved her district up (in full disclosure, though: she was in a very black and very safe district prior). She was first elected in 1996. She was replaced in 2012 by Mack Jackson, a black Democrat. She was a rural white Democrat who declined to run in 2012, representing a rural majority-black electorate.
   
• 
  Carol Fullerton (D-Albany) opted not to run again in 2014 upon facing a likely primary challenge. She was first elected in 2008. The guy running against her, Darrel Ealum (also white), ran unopposed. This district can only be considered "rural" in the sense that it is not one of the larger, typical metro areas in Georgia. It's also a 58% black district. She was a rural white Democrat who declined to run in 2014, representing a majority-black electorate. She was replaced by a rural white Democrat.
   
• 
  Debbie Buckner (D-Junction City) is still in office, and won with 64% of the vote in 2014. She was first elected in 2002. Her district is 51% black VAP. Based on the tendency for blacks in this part of the state to be a few points more Republican in State House contests, it appears that she won 40-45% of the white vote in 2014 (!). She is a rural white Democrat representing a majority-black district/majority-white electorate.
   
• 
  Rick Crawford (D-Cedartown) was one of only two remaining rural North Georgia Democrats as of 2012, and one of only three non-Atlanta based white Democrats in both chambers to represent a majority-white district. He served from 2006-2012. Being low-hanging fruit and after winning a nail-biter in 2008 (he had no opposition, surprisingly, in 2010), the GOP slightly altered his district in an attempt to sink him. He famously imploded in late-summer 2012, when he publicly stated that "if I win in November, I will switch to the Republican Party". In a district where he would have likely got 45%, he only won 33% against 24 year-old Republican Trey Kelley. He was a rural white Democrat who lost in 2012, representing a 80% white electorate.
   
• 
  Barbara Reece (D-Menlo) was the other of only two remaining rural North Georgia Democrats as of 2012, and also the other of only three non-Atlanta based white Democrats in both chambers to represent a majority-white district. She served from 1998-2012. She was my favorite of the five here, because she was the only "local" Democratic State House member remaining in my general area, representing Chattooga County (which the only locally-controlled Democratic county remaining in North GA) and parts of Floyd County. She won with 61% of the vote in 2008; they altered her district ever so slightly like they did Crawford's in 2011. Despite all of this, she managed to win 58% of the vote in Chattooga County in 2012 (69% Romney), which was half of the district. She got 42% of the vote in the Floyd half (75% Romney), which had slightly higher turnout. She got roughly 40% of the white vote in 2012. In the end the gerrymandering was just enough, and she lost 51-49 in an district that voted 72% Romney. She was a rural white Democrat who narrowly lost in 2012, representing a 90% white electorate.

STATE SENATE:

• 
  George Hooks (D-Americus) was the sole remaining white rural Democrat in the Georgia State Senate after 2010, serving from 1990-2012. He retired in 2012. His district as of 2010 was a 51% white VAP district. His district was dissected thoroughly in 2011, being split into four pieces. The newly-formed district in which he lived would not have re-elected him, and he had only formerly represented about 1/8 of its population. The single-largest piece of his former district to remain intact was joined with part of Columbus, becoming a 53% white district (which elected Ed Harbison, a black Democrat). He was the last rural white Democrat in the State Senate and represented a 55% white electorate.

Georgia: Number of rural white Democrats in the 2013-2014 session:
State House - 2/180
State Senate - 0/56

STATE HOUSE:

• 
  Carol Fullerton (D-Albany) opted not to run again in 2014 upon facing a likely primary challenge. She was first elected in 2008. The guy running against her, Darrel Ealum (also white), ran unopposed. This district can only be considered "rural" in the sense that it is not one of the larger, typical metro areas in Georgia. It's also a 58% black district. She was a rural white Democrat who declined to run in 2014, representing a majority-black electorate. She was replaced by a rural white Democrat.
   
• 
  Debbie Buckner (D-Junction City) is still in office, and won with 64% of the vote in 2014. She was first elected in 2002. Her district is 51% black VAP. Based on the tendency for blacks in this part of the state to be a few points more Republican in State House contests, it appears that she won 40-45% of the white vote in 2014 (!). She is a rural white Democrat representing a majority-black district/majority-white electorate.
   

Georgia: Number of rural white Democrats in the 2015-2016 session:
State House - 2/180**
State Senate - 0/56**

STATE HOUSE:

• 
  Darrel Ealum (D-Albany) is one of two remaining white rural Democrats in the entire General Assembly for the 2015-2016 session. This district can only be considered "rural" in the sense that it is not one of the larger, typical metro areas in Georgia. It's also a 58% black district. He is the sole rural white Democrat who will be newly-inaugurated in 2015, representing a majority-black electorate.
   
• 
  Debbie Buckner (D-Junction City) is still in office, and won with 64% of the vote in 2014. She was first elected in 2002. Her district is 51% black VAP. Based on the tendency for blacks in this part of the state to be a few points more Republican in State House contests, it appears that she won 40-45% of the white vote in 2014 (!). She is a rural white Democrat representing a majority-black district/majority-white electorate.
   

BONUS ROUND:

• 
  Rusty Kidd (I-Milledgeville) ran in 2010 against a Democrat and won with 58% of the vote. He hasn't faced opposition since then. He represents a 60% white electorate. I am including him because for all intents and purposes, he is very similar to John Barrow in terms of how he votes (although a bit more conservative). He has voted against items such as welfare drug testing and anti-immigration bills, and mysteriously vanishes whenever items such as abortion restrictions, unemployment cuts or assisted suicide prohibition show up for a vote. Unfortunately, he also voted to approve the "guns everywhere" law, put the Ten Commandments in the Capitol, and block Medicaid expansion. He has a 69% lifetime ACU rating.
  
  ** I haven't checked to see if any white rural Democrats managed to either unseat a Republican or beat out a black Democrat in a primary, but it's highly doubtful either of these things happened.
  
  
  There are no rural white Democrats remaining in the Georgia General Assembly as of the 2015-2016 session that represent majority-white districts.
  
  Debbie Buckner likely wins re-election with a nominally majority-white electorate, but her district is 51% black VAP.
  
  There are only two rural white Democrats remaining in both chambers combined (both in the State House).
  
  Rusty Kidd (I) is the only non-Republican representing a majority-white district/electorate in either chamber of the General Assembly.

[Brodie Hellenes]

Could you do Tennessee?

[Rockefeller GOP]

Democrats created those problems for themselves.  As much as they like to blame their civil rights stances, the South didn't really reject the party until the 1990s.  If Democrats talked about "kitchen table" issues more and stopped bringing up race and gender every chance they get, they'd be in much better shape.  I'm not a huge fan of the GOP's efforts to step up the social conservatism to try to convince these voters, but I guess Northern Democrats did just that for several decades.  They left the opportunity there, and the GOP capitalized - and much less of it was because of race than people suggest, IMO.

[IceSpear]

Democrats created those problems for themselves.  As much as they like to blame their civil rights stances, the South didn't really reject the party until the 1990s.  If Democrats talked about "kitchen table" issues more and stopped bringing up race and gender every chance they get, they'd be in much better shape.  I'm not a huge fan of the GOP's efforts to step up the social conservatism to try to convince these voters, but I guess Northern Democrats did just that for several decades.  They left the opportunity there, and the GOP capitalized - and much less of it was because of race than people suggest, IMO.

Well, at least you're now admitting these voters are abandoned the Democrats and vote almost entirely Republican now. Progress!

[smoltchanov]

Democrats created those problems for themselves.  As much as they like to blame their civil rights stances, the South didn't really reject the party until the 1990s.  If Democrats talked about "kitchen table" issues more and stopped bringing up race and gender every chance they get, they'd be in much better shape.  I'm not a huge fan of the GOP's efforts to step up the social conservatism to try to convince these voters, but I guess Northern Democrats did just that for several decades.  They left the opportunity there, and the GOP capitalized - and much less of it was because of race than people suggest, IMO.

Partially agree, but only partially. Of course - race is not the only reason for polarized voting, which we observe now (as it, essentially, was in 1940th - 1950th), but it's an important reason. Some times it seems to me that many southern whites told itself at some moment: "we are law abiding citizens, and, exhausting all legal  means (we can't after all to go against Congress AND Supreme Court), we grudgingly accept integration, but no one can force us to stay in the party, which is mostly responsible for that, and which base became all sort of minorities (racial, religious, sexual and so on). So, we will go to where there are few blacks, few gays, few radical feminists and so on. This is a Republican party? Fine, even it contradict our "glorious past")....

Of course - leftward shift of Democratic party (especially on social and foreign policy issues) played it's role too, but race played it's part. Especially - Obama's person, who, on almost all points, is a polar opposite of what "typical southerners" (white, of course) usually cherish: black, northerner, "elitist" and liberal))))). Southern Democrats could (barely, probably) tolerate Bill Clinton's liberalism, but not Obama..

[Adam Griffin]

Could you do Tennessee?

Meh, the detail I put into the one I did is something that one can really only do for their home state. I might be able to cobble together a basic list of white rural Dems who were and who are left, though.

[smoltchanov]

Democrats created those problems for themselves.  As much as they like to blame their civil rights stances, the South didn't really reject the party until the 1990s.  If Democrats talked about "kitchen table" issues more and stopped bringing up race and gender every chance they get, they'd be in much better shape.  I'm not a huge fan of the GOP's efforts to step up the social conservatism to try to convince these voters, but I guess Northern Democrats did just that for several decades.  They left the opportunity there, and the GOP capitalized - and much less of it was because of race than people suggest, IMO.

Well, at least you're now admitting these voters are abandoned the Democrats and vote almost entirely Republican now. Progress!

The problem is - with South getting bigger and bigger share of US House seats it's almost impossible for Democratic party to win a majority in House (absent very radical gerrymandering). Essentially - Democrats begin with -80 in the South, and, with Democratic votes extremely heavily concentrated (and thus - a LOT of Democratic votes simply wasted: what for do Democrats need 95-97% Democratic districts in NYC, 60-62% would be just as fine?) AND with many suburbs being NOT as liberal as Westchester in NY or Montgomery in PA - chances become simply slim.

[smoltchanov]

Could you do Tennessee?

Meh, the detail I put into the one I did is something that one can really only do for their home state. I might be able to cobble together a basic list of white rural Dems who were and who are left, though.

And that would mean a lot. I have some data too, which i could add...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Democrats created those problems for themselves.  As much as they like to blame their civil rights stances, the South didn't really reject the party until the 1990s.  If Democrats talked about "kitchen table" issues more and stopped bringing up race and gender every chance they get, they'd be in much better shape.  I'm not a huge fan of the GOP's efforts to step up the social conservatism to try to convince these voters, but I guess Northern Democrats did just that for several decades.  They left the opportunity there, and the GOP capitalized - and much less of it was because of race than people suggest, IMO.

Partially agree, but only partially. Of course - race is not the only reason for polarized voting, which we observe now (as it, essentially, was in 1940th - 1950th), but it's an important reason. Some times it seems to me that many southern whites told itself at some moment: "we are law abiding citizens, and, exhausting all legal  means (we can't after all to go against Congress AND Supreme Court), we grudgingly accept integration, but no one can force us to stay in the party, which is mostly responsible for that, and which base became all sort of minorities (racial, religious, sexual and so on). So, we will go to where there are few blacks, few gays, few radical feminists and so on. This is a Republican party? Fine, even it contradict our "glorious past")....

Of course - leftward shift of Democratic party (especially on social and foreign policy issues) played it's role too, but race played it's part. Especially - Obama's person, who, on almost all points, is a polar opposite of what "typical southerners" (white, of course) usually cherish: black, northerner, "elitist" and liberal))))). Southern Democrats could (barely, probably) tolerate Bill Clinton's liberalism, but not Obama..

Race being a factor doesn't mean it is the underlying factor or even necessarily the defining one. If culture dominates the politics, then culture will define the constraints of who is willing to vote for each party. That is the difference between Carter winning enough of the white vote in those Southern states to win them all except VA and today's Democrats.

[smoltchanov]

Race being a factor doesn't mean it is the underlying factor or even necessarily the defining one. If culture dominates the politics, then culture will define the constraints of who is willing to vote for each party. That is the difference between Carter winning enough of the white vote in those Southern states to win them all except VA and today's Democrats.

I didn't said it's defining. But it's very important. Even now. And it was even more before - after all, the reason which almost "forced" many southerners to do what they didn't for 100 years (to look with interest on Republican party) were race-connected issues..

[Beezer]

Democrats created those problems for themselves.  As much as they like to blame their civil rights stances, the South didn't really reject the party until the 1990s.  If Democrats talked about "kitchen table" issues more and stopped bringing up race and gender every chance they get, they'd be in much better shape.  I'm not a huge fan of the GOP's efforts to step up the social conservatism to try to convince these voters, but I guess Northern Democrats did just that for several decades.  They left the opportunity there, and the GOP capitalized - and much less of it was because of race than people suggest, IMO.

What exactly happened in the 1990s? We had an all-Southern Democratic presidential ticket at the top of which was someone who claimed that the era of big government had come to an end while reforming the welfare state. I'd say that the Dems lost the South in the 1990s not because of a significant shift to the left but rather because their congressional reservoir of power had finally run dry. Was race at the center of the political discourse in the 90s? Not necessarily, but after decades of implicitly using race in connection to a variety of other policy issues it's become rather difficult to figure out where race ends and economic or social concerns begin. Besides, all of this of course began with race and the partisan realignment around it.

[Adam Griffin]

Democrats created those problems for themselves.  As much as they like to blame their civil rights stances, the South didn't really reject the party until the 1990s.  If Democrats talked about "kitchen table" issues more and stopped bringing up race and gender every chance they get, they'd be in much better shape.  I'm not a huge fan of the GOP's efforts to step up the social conservatism to try to convince these voters, but I guess Northern Democrats did just that for several decades.  They left the opportunity there, and the GOP capitalized - and much less of it was because of race than people suggest, IMO.

What exactly happened in the 1990s? We had an all-Southern Democratic presidential ticket at the top of which was someone who claimed that the era of big government had come to an end while reforming the welfare state. I'd say that the Dems lost the South in the 1990s not because of a significant shift to the left but rather because their congressional reservoir of power had finally run dry. Was race at the center of the political discourse in the 90s? Not necessarily, but after decades of implicitly using race in connection to a variety of other policy issues it's become rather difficult to figure out where race ends and economic or social concerns begin. Besides, all of this of course began with race and the partisan realignment around it.

The South fell at the state/local level in the 1990s because, in order from most to least significant:

1) The national realignment. This was just unavoidable; the entire country went through a sea-shift in the 1970s and 1980s. That change happened in the South, too, but the South had such Democratic dominance that a large amount of it could be suppressed through redistricting dominance. By the time we got to the end of the 1990s, all of the Democrats' prior demographic and otherwise political capital that allowed them to continue gerrymandering their way to a majority had run out, especially when combined with...

2) A vast majority of migration to the Sun Belt being Republican carpetbaggers. Unlike the past ten to fifteen years, the 1980s and 1990s saw huge growth in the suburbs in the South, which was fueled in large part by conservative whites seeking refuge from higher taxes and colder climates in their home states. They brought their policies with them, along with (for some, anyway) their desire not to live in confined, overpriced urban areas anymore where they could be taxed for services. These were the people that begin organizing in places like Birmingham and Atlanta beginning in the 1970s, building out county parties into the suburbs in the 1980s, and finally breaking into the rural counties beginning in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

3) A conflict of conscience on economics. Southern Democrats dealt with the moral conflicts in the party through the 1970s and 1980s with little to no issue, in large part because Southern working whites felt and knew that their local and state Democratic Parties (and even the national party to a large degree) had their backs when it came to their bottom line. Once national Democrats embraced neoliberalism and concepts like NAFTA, though, it was the last straw. Although probably not consciously, Southern white working Democrats came to a collective conclusion: "I didn't agree with Democrats on the moral issues, but I agreed with them on the economics. But today, they're acting like immoral heathens on social issues AND now like Republicans on economics? There's no difference between the two when it comes to my bottom line, so I'll vote my morals from here on out". Running to the right on economics had the opposite effect that was intended; Democrats keep thinking they'll win the South back by acting like Republicans on economics; what the working South really wants, deep down, is a populist (dare I say socialist) approach to governance, but they think they don't because that is part of the uniform message that is sold with the Republicans' relatively new "moral argument" ("God hates socialism").

4) The small but steady erosion of Democrats' electoral advantages due to Civil Rights Era sentiment and other small-scale, racially-charged issues (removing Confederate flags, for instance). This obviously had an effect, but more of an initial "shock and awe" (that destroyed non-Southern Democrats' chances of carrying the South in presidential elections forever), but the muscle memory that kept the region in its long-standing political climate long after this occurred. Bit-by-bit, though, this continued to erode when combined with everything else, and as more minorities began to vote, be represented in party affairs and get elected to office, it put a lot of strain on the traditional working white-working black coalition. Race wasn't an issue prior because one race controlled Southern politics; the other race just went along for the ride, and Southern whites were happy to have them - so long as they didn't get uppity or start any trouble. Once the "trouble" began, it fell apart quickly.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Democrats created those problems for themselves.  As much as they like to blame their civil rights stances, the South didn't really reject the party until the 1990s.  If Democrats talked about "kitchen table" issues more and stopped bringing up race and gender every chance they get, they'd be in much better shape.  I'm not a huge fan of the GOP's efforts to step up the social conservatism to try to convince these voters, but I guess Northern Democrats did just that for several decades.  They left the opportunity there, and the GOP capitalized - and much less of it was because of race than people suggest, IMO.

Well, at least you're now admitting these voters are abandoned the Democrats and vote almost entirely Republican now. Progress!

I don't think I've ever disputed that as much as I have taken issue with the notion that these Southern Whites are this "extension" of the Dixiecrats.  They're not, and they're much more conservative than their grandparents were.  As King famously put it in one thread, these Southerners grew up with Reagan being their man and had little to no loyalty to the Party of FDR as their parents and grandparents had.

[IceSpear]

Running to the right on economics had the opposite effect that was intended; Democrats keep thinking they'll win the South back by acting like Republicans on economics; what the working South really wants, deep down, is a populist (dare I say socialist) approach to governance, but they think they don't because that is part of the uniform message that is sold with the Republicans' relatively new "moral argument" ("God hates socialism").

You hit the nail on the head here. If the Republicans are moral and holy on abortion and gay marriage, well golly gee, they must be moral and holy on the economy too. Therefore, "socialist" is thrown in the same pit as "homosexual" or "black". It's not that these voters prioritize social issues over economic issues, it's that they are now intertwined. Since they've now bought into the "God hates socialism" mantra, it would be near impossible to win them back no matter what Democrats do.

[free my dawg]

Running to the right on economics had the opposite effect that was intended; Democrats keep thinking they'll win the South back by acting like Republicans on economics; what the working South really wants, deep down, is a populist (dare I say socialist) approach to governance, but they think they don't because that is part of the uniform message that is sold with the Republicans' relatively new "moral argument" ("God hates socialism").

You hit the nail on the head here. If the Republicans are moral and holy on abortion and gay marriage, well golly gee, they must be moral and holy on the economy too. Therefore, "socialist" is thrown in the same pit as "homosexual" or "black". It's not that these voters prioritize social issues over economic issues, it's that they are now intertwined. Since they've now bought into the "God hates socialism" mantra, it would be near impossible to win them back no matter what Democrats do.

That's where I take what I like to call the Scott Approach, after our most famous liberal Christian theologist. That is - use the Bible to promote economic populism and re-instill the old New Deal values in the South.