The emerging Democratic majority in Mississippi

[bobloblaw]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why would whites vote MORE Dem??? When the trend is the other way. If whites in MS fear losing power, they will vote GOP at close to 90% not 80%.

Also in state races and for US Senate the GOP has gotten up to 35% of the black vote.

Even likeable Thad Cochran last year didn't get 35%. And Republicans maxed out with white vote. Very slowly, but more and more whites will adapt to the idea that elected Black (most likely)  Democrat as Senator (or Governor, for that matter) is far from being "apocalypsis". They already adapted to large number of Blacks not only voting, but sitting in Legislature... It will take considerable time (that's why i think about 2040-45), but it WILL happen.. If Thomas Pickens Brady would be resurrected now, only 40 years after death - he would, probably, be so amazed about what happened in his beloved Mississippi, that he wouldn't have any non-profane words for it...))))

Trent Lott use to get 35%. But the GOP doesnt need that much to win every election. 15-20% will do.

Source?

I guess if you dont like the stat you can demand the source. But people quote numbers here all the time and no one asks for a source. So your demand is arbitrary and capricious. Lott use to get 35% of the black vote and if you dont like it tough

That's usually because 9 times out of 10 said posters put it right there with their posts.  Take a look at AdamGriffin and Windjammers posts and then compare it to your hastily constructed claim.  Even if a source is not there it is patently obvious to everyone here that they had to have volumes of evidence to construct the graphs, line charts, and pie charts showing a Democratic trend.  Now, does that mean it is objective fact that Mississippi will become a D state in a few decades?  As someone who has researched the political history of this country I can only respond with "not enough evidence to convict".  They have not really proved that claim, given that we would have to wait several decades to see it come true.  However, they have at least given weight to their hypotheses with all this data, something that you so far have not.

All you have done so far is just tout a random "fact" without any backing evidence to your claim.  Now, I understand that sourcing is not necessary for a large number of facts, like "the sky is blue" or "the rent is too damn high", facts that really do not need any proving.  What isn't a near universally accepted fact is a couple of white Republican Mississippi lawmakers getting 35% of the black vote in elections.  THAT NEEDS A SOURCE.

I know that MLA formatting in the high school was a bitch.  Absolutely fucking nobody enjoys that shit.  As true as that may be, it exists for a reason on school research papers and why those teachers encouraged you when you were younger to use citations in your papers and in your presentations.  Just because other posters are not being challenged on their statistics does not excuse your refusal to back yours up.  If you can't back up your claims here when they are challenged, then you have no fuckin business talking politics on here.

I dont owe you or anyone else a source.

[smoltchanov]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why would whites vote MORE Dem??? When the trend is the other way. If whites in MS fear losing power, they will vote GOP at close to 90% not 80%.

Also in state races and for US Senate the GOP has gotten up to 35% of the black vote.

Even likeable Thad Cochran last year didn't get 35%. And Republicans maxed out with white vote. Very slowly, but more and more whites will adapt to the idea that elected Black (most likely)  Democrat as Senator (or Governor, for that matter) is far from being "apocalypsis". They already adapted to large number of Blacks not only voting, but sitting in Legislature... It will take considerable time (that's why i think about 2040-45), but it WILL happen.. If Thomas Pickens Brady would be resurrected now, only 40 years after death - he would, probably, be so amazed about what happened in his beloved Mississippi, that he wouldn't have any non-profane words for it...))))

Trent Lott use to get 35%. But the GOP doesnt need that much to win every election. 15-20% will do.

Source?

I guess if you dont like the stat you can demand the source. But people quote numbers here all the time and no one asks for a source. So your demand is arbitrary and capricious. Lott use to get 35% of the black vote and if you dont like it tough

That's usually because 9 times out of 10 said posters put it right there with their posts.  Take a look at AdamGriffin and Windjammers posts and then compare it to your hastily constructed claim.  Even if a source is not there it is patently obvious to everyone here that they had to have volumes of evidence to construct the graphs, line charts, and pie charts showing a Democratic trend.  Now, does that mean it is objective fact that Mississippi will become a D state in a few decades?  As someone who has researched the political history of this country I can only respond with "not enough evidence to convict".  They have not really proved that claim, given that we would have to wait several decades to see it come true.  However, they have at least given weight to their hypotheses with all this data, something that you so far have not.

All you have done so far is just tout a random "fact" without any backing evidence to your claim.  Now, I understand that sourcing is not necessary for a large number of facts, like "the sky is blue" or "the rent is too damn high", facts that really do not need any proving.  What isn't a near universally accepted fact is a couple of white Republican Mississippi lawmakers getting 35% of the black vote in elections.  THAT NEEDS A SOURCE.

I know that MLA formatting in the high school was a bitch.  Absolutely fucking nobody enjoys that shit.  As true as that may be, it exists for a reason on school research papers and why those teachers encouraged you when you were younger to use citations in your papers and in your presentations.  Just because other posters are not being challenged on their statistics does not excuse your refusal to back yours up.  If you can't back up your claims here when they are challenged, then you have no fuckin business talking politics on here.

I dont owe you or anyone else a source.

If you want people to believe what you say  - you do. You haven't built so good reputation here that people would believe what you state without corraboration. If you want to be an "empty suit" - then fine, be it..

[IceSpear]

Lott did win 69-31 in 1994, so it wouldn't surprise me if his claim was correct (or nearly correct.)

[smoltchanov]

Lott did win 69-31 in 1994, so it wouldn't surprise me if his claim was correct (or nearly correct.)

Given that Black vote was no more then 35% of all vote? Unlikely. Vast majority of this 31% probably came from Blacks.  But even if that would be so - good percentage against "some dude" proves nothing.

[IceSpear]

Lott did win 69-31 in 1994, so it wouldn't surprise me if his claim was correct (or nearly correct.)

Given that Black vote was no more then 35% of all vote? Unlikely. Vast majority of this 31% probably came from Blacks.  But even if that would be so - good percentage against "some dude" proves nothing.

Since I can't find an exit poll it's just a guess, but it's clear in that election Lott won a substantial amount of the black vote. Maybe not 35%, but 25-30% seems very possible. If you assume the racial breakdown was 68-32 with whites going 90-10 Republican and blacks going 75-25 Democratic, it checks out.

Yeah, I don't think it proves anything either. I'm just discussing the statistic.

[Ebsy]

I would imagine that, it being 1994, that turnout was abysmal among blacks in Mississippi.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I would imagine that, it being 1994, that turnout was abysmal among blacks in Mississippi.

^^^This.

[gespb19]

As a Mississippi resident, I don't see it happening anytime soon. Yes, Obama did well (relatively speaking) in MS the past 2 elections. But that was with very high black turnout (especially in '12). Obviously, black turnout will likely go down when Obama is off the ballot. The younger voters are more towards the middle, that is correct, but I'd guess they start trending toward the GOP as they age.

[Mechaman]

I would imagine that, it being 1994, that turnout was abysmal among blacks in Mississippi.

^^^This.

I certainly don't discount the possibility, but I'd certainly like more than "uh uh I owe you nuthin."

[smoltchanov]

As a Mississippi resident, I don't see it happening anytime soon. Yes, Obama did well (relatively speaking) in MS the past 2 elections. But that was with very high black turnout (especially in '12). Obviously, black turnout will likely go down when Obama is off the ballot. The younger voters are more towards the middle, that is correct, but I'd guess they start trending toward the GOP as they age.

We shall see. That's why i talk about 2040-2045. The present day "old generation" (very conservative) will be gone by then, the present young generation will be older and, most likely, more Republican then it's now, but substantially less so then present old, and so on. Mississippi will, most likely, move to the center as a result, but - very slowly

[SingingAnalyst]

I can see MS becoming competitive around the 2030s. Young white voters in MS today, having grown up listening to and watching Beyonce rather than listening to Merle Haggard, aren't as race conscious. Especially when it comes to flipping 6 lousy EVs, maybe not so much in a MS-only statewide race if race emerges as more than a "sleeper" issue.

[SingingAnalyst]

I can see MS becoming competitive around the 2030s. Young white voters in MS today, having grown up listening to and watching Beyonce rather than listening to Merle Haggard, aren't as race conscious. Especially when it comes to flipping 6 lousy EVs, maybe not so much in a MS-only statewide race if race emerges as more than a "sleeper" issue.

Um... you don't know much about Mississippi, do you?

I guess not. It's one of 4 states E of the Mississippi I've never been to (the other 3 are DE, VT, AL).

[Ebsy]

Beyoncé is universal.

[KingSweden]

I don't think it's unreasonable to think MS whites get less conservative over several decades - I do doubt they become less Republican, though, especially if the national Overton window moves left too.

[Mechaman]

Whites in Mississippi are a different group, my friend. Not saying none listen to her, but certainly a lesser percentage.

Hahaha yes.

And even so, you would have a lot of "BUT I HAVE BLACK FRIENDS!" voters who actually may not be racist against black people but are overall extremely conservative on virtually every other issue.  While the race dynamic should not be ignored (far from it) we also need to keep in mind that the Deep South is also an extremely religious area where people do vote on social issues more so than they do in other places.

Which is why these people are all so opposed to gay marriage and abortion more so than young voters in most other states.

[Adam Griffin]

I spent more time than I'm willing to admit looking for the answer in the 1994 Senate election conundrum. I was putting together various data points in order to calculate the results myself - assuming that black turnout would have been substantially lower in the 1990s when compared to population - but nothing I could find really suggested that. Then, I came across this.



Granted, these are Census figures and are only estimates; not exactly the best source available. What I found for 1994 in particular, independently of this, that overall black/white turnout rates nationally, in the South and in Mississippi were by and large on-par when comparing turnout among registered voters; larger discrepancies existed in terms of turnout among VAP, but not so much in Mississippi. So if you assume that Lott won 90% of whites, that would mean that Lott would have had to have won 34% of blacks. If you assume Lott won 95% of whites, then that's still 26% of blacks.

I dont owe you or anyone else a source.

Just like we don't owe you any respect, nor did you prove anything.

[SingingAnalyst]

I spent more time than I'm willing to admit looking for the answer in the 1994 Senate election conundrum. I was putting together various data points in order to calculate the results myself - assuming that black turnout would have been substantially lower in the 1990s when compared to population - but nothing I could find really suggested that. Then, I came across this.



Granted, these are Census figures and are only estimates; not exactly the best source available. What I found for 1994 in particular, independently of this, that overall black/white turnout rates nationally, in the South and in Mississippi were by and large on-par when comparing turnout among registered voters; larger discrepancies existed in terms of turnout among VAP, but not so much in Mississippi. So if you assume that Lott won 90% of whites, that would mean that Lott would have had to have won 34% of blacks. If you assume Lott won 95% of whites, then that's still 26% of blacks.

I dont owe you or anyone else a source.

Just like we don't owe you any respect, nor did you prove anything.

So perhaps Lott won 30% of the Black vote in 1994. Bush won 27% of the TX Black vote in 1998--in a statewide race, where local party idiosyncracies and personalities matter more. I see Presidential elections as more of a national referendum on policy: whereas Black voters may like a particular GOP candidate in a particular year against a particular (populist? conservative?) Dem opponent, when it comes to the GOP "running things" in Washington, most Blacks still say: No thanks.

[Ebsy]

Winning 95% seems almost impossible. More like 90%, and it seems like he did get over 30% of blacks. To be fair, that's actually a promising result for the future, by the fact remains that to get that type of showing, they would need a wave year with a good candidate- that doesn't always happen.

Not really.

[OneJ]

Well what about now? Considering this unique election, the poll from early April and other things, what do you see happening?

[Kingpoleon]

Won't Alabama probably have a similar thing happen? Their demographics are pretty similar.

[Del Tachi]

Won't Alabama probably have a similar thing happen? Their demographics are pretty similar.

Nope, its too urban.  Shelby and St. Clair counties are full of rabid, Tea Party-controlled exurbs.  No places of similar character exist in Mississippi (with the exception of maybe DeSoto, but its overall effect on state politics is not as large as Alabama's suburban counties). 

Also, another thing:  Mississippi has a severe brain-drain among college-educated White people who would be the most likely to flip Democrat.  I wouldn't be surprised if part of the reason older Mississippians are so much more conservative is because all of the liberal ones left; if that's the case, I do not see anything to correct that trend.

[Green Line]

Wow, look at this Democrat circle-jerk!  Mississippi will remain Republican for the foreseeable future.

[pbrower2a]

Won't Alabama probably have a similar thing happen? Their demographics are pretty similar.

Nope, its to urban.  Shelby and St. Clair counties are full of rabid, Tea Party-controlled exurbs.  No places of similar character exist in Mississippi (with the exception of maybe DeSoto, but its overall effect on state politics is not as large as Alabama's suburban counties). 

Also, another thing:  Mississippi has a severe brain-drain among college-educated White people who would be the most likely to flip Democrat.  I wouldn't be surprised if part of the reason older Mississippians are so much more conservative is because all of the liberal ones left; if that's the case, I do not see anything to correct that trend.

I saw a study of the various states that showed that a college degree was less valuable in Mississippi than in any other state. There just aren't many opportunities in Mississippi for using a college degree... K-12 teaching and perhaps medicine, but that looks like it. 

[BuckeyeNut]

He and I were considering doing a big write-up on this, until he stumbled across this blog post, which frankly covers every key point we were planning to make. In essence, the projections (which are a tad optimistic, but fall within the realm of what we calculated being possible) mean that MS in 2024 will be as close as GA was in 2008. Personally I'm a bit more pessimistic than windjammer about when it will flip - I say 20 years - but with some work, it could potentially happen sooner.

So you think swing Georgia happens, when?

[hopper]

Won't Alabama probably have a similar thing happen? Their demographics are pretty similar.

Well I don't think so in the near future for the following reason:

Mississippi: 57% White, 38% Black
Alabama: 66% White, 27% Black