The Republicans' Southern Problem

[Oregreen]

At first glance, it seems like the South and its voting patterns are a problem for the Democratic Party. However, if you take a closer look at which states trended D in 2012, you will notice that many of them were Southern States (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana). Virginia (a state that was heavily targeted by Bill Clinton but voted for Bob Dole) seems to become a D-lean state, North Carolina IS already a swing state and Georgia is on the brink of becoming a swing state. Mississippi could also soon become a Rep-lean state (and maybe (!) a toss-up if the Democratic candidate wins a slightly higher percentage of white voters). All of these states (with the exception of Florida) were NEVER in play in 2004. In recent polls, Hillary Clinton is leading Republican candidates comfortably in Virginia and Florida (a state that Obama won despite losing white voters by 21 points) and is even with them in Georgia, Mississippi (she is only slightly behind there) and North Carolina (!). Is it true that the Republican grip on the South is weakening? And if that is the case and the Republicans lose their base, how can the Republican Party survive in Presidential election years? Is there a need for them to develop a "Northern Strategy" (targeting states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Iowa and Minnesota)?

[Mehmentum]

The south is bipolar.  Half of it is trending towards the Republicans (West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, etc.) while half of it is trending towards the Democrats (Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia).

This is the source of the electoral problems for the Republicans.  Over the past decade or so, the states that have been trending R were already solidly Republican, while the states that are trending D were Republican states that are now tossups.

[Oregreen]

The south is bipolar.  Half of it is trending towards the Republicans (West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, etc.) while half of it is trending towards the Democrats (Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia).

This is the source of the electoral problems for the Republicans.  Over the past decade or so, the states that have been trending R were already solidly Republican, while the states that are trending D were Republican states that are now tossups.

That's exactly my point. Contrary to wide-spread rumors that the 'whole south is becoming more and more Republican', the Deep South in fact seems to be trending Democratic (with the exception of Arkansas and Tennessee) while the Upper South (with the exception of Virginia) seems to become more and more Republican. However, if the Republicans have to concede Florida and Virginia (which probably will be the case if Hillary Clinton wins more white voters than Obama while matching his totals among Hispanics and African-Americans) with their combined 42 electoral votes, how on earth can they survive without developing a Northern/Midwest strategy that includes Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? Republicans HAVE TO make inroads in the Midwest (Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota and of course Ohio), New Hampshire and Pennsylvania in 2016 because of the strong chance that they will lose Florida and Virginia.

[Mr. Smith]

The best answer is that the same urban areas in the South that were GOP-trending in the 60's-70's against the rural Democratic areas have now gone the other way, with the aged urbanities going rural and minorities and youth moving into the urban areas.

Virginia and Florida were the first states on a presidential level to go Republican because of this factor, so it should be no surprise they are now the first to go Democratic...again.

West Virginia seems to be 50 years behind Virginia in that regard.

[Rockefeller GOP]

The best answer is that the same urban areas in the South that were GOP-trending in the 60's-70's against the rural Democratic areas have now gone the other way, with the aged urbanities going rural and minorities and youth moving into the urban areas.

Virginia and Florida were the first states on a presidential level to go Republican because of this factor, so it should be no surprise they are now the first to go Democratic...again.

West Virginia seems to be 50 years behind Virginia in that regard.

Sadly (for the GOP), this is true.  Just as Democrats were likely getting nervous about their grip on the South in the '50s and '60s and especially the '70s, Republicans are now (or at least should be) getting nervous and wondering if they must change drastically or look elsewhere for EVs.

[Frodo]

The GOP is slowly losing its grip on the Atlantic South (Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida), but they have little to fear from states further inland.  

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Republicans have always had a Southern problem.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

They have an urban Southern problem - not a rural Southern problem.

Louisville, Lexington, and Frankfort are trending Democratic. But not, say, Letcher County. How will the electoral map look once Louisville reaches a certain percentage of the state's population?

[BaconBacon96]

Southern whites are becoming more Republican, while at the same time the minority population is rising. It will become a question of demographics.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

For the record, if you add D.C. to West Virginia, Obama would have won that state. That's all it takes for one big city to carry a whole state for Democrats these days.

[Mister Mets]

The main Southern problem is that the states are so safe, the only competitive election is the Republican primary.

That can result in a very conservative bench for the party, and statewide officeholders who are poor ambassadors. McDaniel came close to winning the Senatorial election in Mississippi. The Governor of Alabama had to be told not to exclude Jews in comments about the nation's values.

[Oregreen]

The main Southern problem is that the states are so safe, the only competitive election is the Republican primary.

I don't think that's true. Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, heck even Mississippi (Obama lost it only by 11 points while losing white voters by roughly 80 points!) are trending D. Mississippi and Georgia may seem safe right now, but the fact that the Republicans had to fight for Georgia in 2014 is really bad news for them. And that is understating the case. Hillary Clinton is even with Republicans in Georgia. It won't be long (maybe 2016) until Georgia will be Virginianized (Atlanta voters will outvote the rurals). And then the GOP desperately needs to find EVs somewhere else, not that it would be easy.

The GOP is slowly losing its grip on the Atlantic South (Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida), but they have little to fear from states further inland.  

Well, the problem for them is that these states have fewer electoral votes. You can't win a Presidential Election just by winning Texas, the Upper South (with the exception of Virginia) and the Great Plains States.

Also, the Republicans' problem is kind of two-fold and ironic.

On the one hand they have a southern problem, in that they are too associated with southern culture which default makes them lose the Northeast and California... on the other hand they can't even run the table in this region.  Though perhaps that's because the parts of the region they are losing aren't really all that southern (Virginia, Florida).

That's also what I thought. It really seems like we have reached a point in history where Democrats are winning Presidential Elections and Republicans are winning Midterm elections. However, all of these Southern states will be winnable for them if African-American turnout is down or if the GOP does significantly better among Blacks (up to 25%). However, I don't see that happen in the near future, especially not in the South.

[Mr. Smith]

The GOP has Texas and will probably gain the Rust Belt and Minnesota and maybe even Pennsylvania around the same time Arizona and the coastal South switch.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

With all this said about the urban/rural split, will Tennessee soon become the next North Carolina? Tennessee actually has pretty many big cities.

[Kraxner]

The GOP has Texas and will probably gain the Rust Belt and Minnesota and maybe even Pennsylvania around the same time Arizona and the coastal South switch.

Not the same time. Arizona will become more competitive for the democrats and the rust belt states more competitive for republicans at the same time. A switch however in the lower coastal south will take much much longer to happen.

With all this said about the urban/rural split, will Tennessee soon become the next North Carolina? Tennessee actually has pretty many big cities.

No.


https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=1992&fips=47&f=0&off=0&elect=0&type=state


Romney won there by 20%.


Tennessee doesn't have the large black+Hispanic population that North Carolina did to make it competitive.  

[Bandit3 the Worker]

With all this said about the urban/rural split, will Tennessee soon become the next North Carolina? Tennessee actually has pretty many big cities.

No.


https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=1992&fips=47&f=0&off=0&elect=0&type=state


Romney won there by 20%.


Tennessee doesn't have the large black+Hispanic population that North Carolina did to make it competitive.

In 1988, the county with Columbus OH went Republican by 21 points. In 2012, it went Democratic by 23 points - a 44-point shift. That's the future America is looking at.

Nashville isn't getting any smaller.

[Kraxner]

With all this said about the urban/rural split, will Tennessee soon become the next North Carolina? Tennessee actually has pretty many big cities.

No.


https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=1992&fips=47&f=0&off=0&elect=0&type=state


Romney won there by 20%.


Tennessee doesn't have the large black+Hispanic population that North Carolina did to make it competitive.

In 1988, the county with Columbus OH went Republican by 21 points. In 2012, it went Democratic by 23 points - a 44-point shift. That's the future America is looking at.

Nashville isn't getting any smaller.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2004&fips=39&f=0&off=0&elect=0&type=state


https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2000&fips=47&f=0&off=0&elect=0&type=state

Compared to ohio, Tennessee has been trending republican since 1996.


Tennessee going democrat is a pipe dream at this point just like how Pennsylvania finally voting for a republican in the near future is a pipe dream.




Besides, the democrat party which has gone further left since Al Gore, offers nothing but contempt for rural culture, and once gun control becomes enshrined into party policy then its time for them to say goodbye to rural states.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Besides, the democrat party which has gone further left since Al Gore, offers nothing but contempt for rural culture, and once gun control becomes enshrined into party policy then its time for them to say goodbye to rural states.

It was dumb for the DLC to abandon rural populism, but on the other hand, rural areas today aren't growing.

That said, if the Democrats had continued on the course they were on in the '80s, West Virginia today might be like "Vermont south."

[Kraxner]

Besides, the democrat party which has gone further left since Al Gore, offers nothing but contempt for rural culture, and once gun control becomes enshrined into party policy then its time for them to say goodbye to rural states.

It was dumb for the DLC to abandon rural populism, but on the other hand, rural areas today aren't growing.

That said, if the Democrats had continued on the course they were on in the '80s, West Virginia today might be like "Vermont south."

The 1994 Assault weapons ban was a mistake and caused this swing to happen two years later.





If the democrats would just drop gun control and never taken it on they would of been more competitive in rural areas, not to totally winning them but they wouldn't be as resented, which would of helped in competitive states.

But its too late and it became a poison into their base and now anybody who dares to drop gun control will be branded as "Third-wayer's/Centrists/DLC'ers" as they say in democraticunderground and many other liberal blogs.


I noticed that republicans in this mid-term completely shut up about gay marriage because their stance was a losing issue, which was apparent given the lack of mention of gay marriage by GOP candidates the whole year. While democrats this year wouldn't shutup about supporting gun control.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The DLC was kind of anti-gun but more conservative on most things. If the Democrats in the '90s had done the opposite, they'd still have the rural areas.

The Democrats really should have abandoned gun control and fought against free trade.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Besides, the democrat party which has gone further left since Al Gore, offers nothing but contempt for rural culture, and once gun control becomes enshrined into party policy then its time for them to say goodbye to rural states.

It was dumb for the DLC to abandon rural populism, but on the other hand, rural areas today aren't growing.

That said, if the Democrats had continued on the course they were on in the '80s, West Virginia today might be like "Vermont south."

The 1994 Assault weapons ban was a mistake and caused this swing to happen two years later.





If the democrats would just drop gun control and never taken it on they would of been more competitive in rural areas, not to totally winning them but they wouldn't be as resented, which would of helped in competitive states.

But its too late and it became a poison into their base and now anybody who dares to drop gun control will be branded as "Third-wayer's/Centrists/DLC'ers" as they say in democraticunderground and many other liberal blogs.


I noticed that republicans in this mid-term completely shut up about gay marriage because their stance was a losing issue, which was apparent given the lack of mention of gay marriage by GOP candidates the whole year. While democrats this year wouldn't shutup about supporting gun control.

Are you suggesting that Democrats should abandon their positions on gun control because they lose votes?  I'm sorry but that's not what politics are about (or should be about).  When you know you're on the right side of an issue, you should fight for it, not lie about what you believe (or pretend there is no issue).

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Are you suggesting that Democrats should abandon their positions on gun control because they lose votes?  I'm sorry but that's not what politics are about (or should be about).  When you know you're on the right side of an issue, you should fight for it, not lie about what you believe (or pretend there is no issue).

Not because they lost votes, but because quite frankly the assault weapons ban really wasn't all that effective.

[Skill and Chance]

Besides, the democrat party which has gone further left since Al Gore, offers nothing but contempt for rural culture, and once gun control becomes enshrined into party policy then its time for them to say goodbye to rural states.

It was dumb for the DLC to abandon rural populism, but on the other hand, rural areas today aren't growing.

That said, if the Democrats had continued on the course they were on in the '80s, West Virginia today might be like "Vermont south."

The 1994 Assault weapons ban was a mistake and caused this swing to happen two years later.





If the democrats would just drop gun control and never taken it on they would of been more competitive in rural areas, not to totally winning them but they wouldn't be as resented, which would of helped in competitive states.

But its too late and it became a poison into their base and now anybody who dares to drop gun control will be branded as "Third-wayer's/Centrists/DLC'ers" as they say in democraticunderground and many other liberal blogs.


I noticed that republicans in this mid-term completely shut up about gay marriage because their stance was a losing issue, which was apparent given the lack of mention of gay marriage by GOP candidates the whole year. While democrats this year wouldn't shutup about supporting gun control.

Are you suggesting that Democrats should abandon their positions on gun control because they lose votes?  I'm sorry but that's not what politics are about (or should be about).  When you know you're on the right side of an issue, you should fight for it, not lie about what you believe (or pretend there is no issue).

Gun control looked like a 50/50 or 60/40 issue back in the mid 1990's, so what Clinton did back then probably made sense.  But now it's a 70/30 issue with the half of the 70% willing to become single issue voters if necessary.  I think it's the nationwide decline in violent crime that has made urban/suburban residents worry less about guns.  In this relatively low-crime world Democrats could get momentum on death penalty repeal or sentencing reform/decriminalization for non-violent offenses, but they seem very scared of a backlash among suburban moms at the moment.

[Kraxner]

Besides, the democrat party which has gone further left since Al Gore, offers nothing but contempt for rural culture, and once gun control becomes enshrined into party policy then its time for them to say goodbye to rural states.

It was dumb for the DLC to abandon rural populism, but on the other hand, rural areas today aren't growing.

That said, if the Democrats had continued on the course they were on in the '80s, West Virginia today might be like "Vermont south."

The 1994 Assault weapons ban was a mistake and caused this swing to happen two years later.





If the democrats would just drop gun control and never taken it on they would of been more competitive in rural areas, not to totally winning them but they wouldn't be as resented, which would of helped in competitive states.

But its too late and it became a poison into their base and now anybody who dares to drop gun control will be branded as "Third-wayer's/Centrists/DLC'ers" as they say in democraticunderground and many other liberal blogs.


I noticed that republicans in this mid-term completely shut up about gay marriage because their stance was a losing issue, which was apparent given the lack of mention of gay marriage by GOP candidates the whole year. While democrats this year wouldn't shutup about supporting gun control.

Are you suggesting that Democrats should abandon their positions on gun control because they lose votes?  I'm sorry but that's not what politics are about (or should be about).  When you know you're on the right side of an issue, you should fight for it, not lie about what you believe (or pretend there is no issue).

Gun control looked like a 50/50 or 60/40 issue back in the mid 1990's, so what Clinton did back then probably made sense.  But now it's a 70/30 issue with the half of the 70% willing to become single issue voters if necessary.  I think it's the nationwide decline in violent crime that has made urban/suburban residents worry less about guns.  In this relatively low-crime world Democrats could get momentum on death penalty repeal or sentencing reform/decriminalization for non-violent offenses, but they seem very scared of a backlash among suburban moms at the moment.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/10/23/death-penalty-support-stable-despite-lethal-injection-controversy


I doubt it.


Also the death penalty has to be treated as a state by state issue not a nationwide issue. Campaigning on a nationwide constitutional amendment against the death penalty is as useful as a amendment campaign against citizens united and a gay marriage ban, which is None to say the least.

[DS0816]

The GOP has Texas and will probably gain the Rust Belt and Minnesota and maybe even Pennsylvania around the same time Arizona and the coastal South switch.

No.

Minnesota and Pennsylania won't flip to the Republicans, as new states to that party's base, while the Deep South remains part of the Republican Party's base.