Dems Can't Keep Losing Dixie

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

A clearer picture:

Those laws are not in force today. Marlyand and Delaware are not today Southern.

Those laws are not in force anywhere today. The fact of the matter is that Maryland and Delaware are historically Southern states.

Yes, but the concept you can't seem to grasp is that things change, and them being 'historically southern' has nothing to do with them today. They are neither geographically or culturally southern.

Listen, Maryland and Delaware are the South by pretty much any rational standard. But I don't care about this nonsensical discussion anymore. It is inconsequential. If you don't want to believe MD and DE are southern, then don't.

Unlike the other southern states, they are reliably Democratic. Maybe I wouldn't go so far as to say they are in the Northeast, but they are not really similar to Southern culture anymore. What would you say unifies them with the South today (not historically)?

I'd say they are for the most part comparable to parts of urban/suburban Virginia and the Carolinas.

Also don't forget they are very small states, so urban areas with large minority populations dominate their politics. Baltimore, MD is as black as Atlanta, GA and Richmond, VA, and it votes about as lopsidedly in favor of the Democrats as they do. And there's no large rural area attached to counter-balance that.

Look at the county maps. Outside the cities, Maryland and Delaware are voting about as Republican as rural South Carolina and Georgia are. The majority of counties in Maryland are still voting GOP. In Delaware, Bush twice carried two out of three counties, and even with Joe Biden on the ticket, John McCain still carried southern Delaware.

You base your assumptions off of election results, rather than any research or understanding of their culture. This makes perfect sense for someone with as little intelligence as yourself, and explains your idiotic statements as well.

Shadow, I told you nicely to stop the juvenile trolling and insults. Now it's getting really annoying.

You haven't presented one iota of evidence to support your wrong opinions. As I said, I'm not interested in arguing with a self-absorbed dumbass.

What evidence have you provided that the culture of rural Maryland and Delaware is similiar to the culture of the rural south? Most rural areas vote Republican, so you basing your asinine opinion off of election results means nothing.

I still cannot understand how you fail to grasp the concept of geography. I was using the four region model: the northeast, the midwest, the south, and the west. Which of these groups do MD and DE fall into geographically? The northeast. Which of these four regions do they fit into culturally? The northeast. They are nothing like MA or NH, but they are closer to the them than AL and MS.

Obviously, when people once considered those states southern, they did not mean geographically southern. This is clear to anyone with common sense. They were considered southern because their culture fit in with the rest of the region. We consider VA and NC southern, rather than just middle America, because they were part of the Confederacy and still fit in with the culture of the region.

Yes, VA and NC voted Democratic. Because they are not actually geographically southern, we will probably one day not class them in with the rest of the south. But that will occur once the culture changes. If GA becomes more like NJ, it will still be considered southern. Southern culture is unique enough to be able to define places that are not actually within the region geographically.

Anyway, I am done with explaining this. You are not worth my time, which is seen not only in your lack of intelligence, but the pure idiocy you spout on every page on various issues. You have been called out on it before, but you are one of these attention whores that simply glorifies in their blatant stupidy.

[muon2]

The four region model of the US is useful for keeping statistics, but it's not very helpful in defining political and cultural geography. A better reference is Joel Garreau's work Nine Nations of North America which goes into the details about what makes up the culture of each region and where to best draw the lines. Here's his boundary for Dixie from the Atlantic Ocean west to Louisville.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As to the DE debate, my best man lived in southern DE for twenty years, and I had many visits to the area. I agree with Garreau that southern DE and the Eastern Shore of MD fit in more with the Carolinas than they do with Long Island (where I spent much of my grad school research time).

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

The four region model of the US is useful for keeping statistics, but it's not very helpful in defining political and cultural geography. A better reference is Joel Garreau's work Nine Nations of North America which goes into the details about what makes up the culture of each region and where to best draw the lines. Here's his boundary for Dixie from the Atlantic Ocean west to Louisville.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As to the DE debate, my best man lived in southern DE for twenty years, and I had many visits to the area. I agree with Garreau that southern DE and the Eastern Shore of MD fit in more with the Carolinas than they do with Long Island (where I spent much of my grad school research time).

Of course not using the four region model, they can certainly be grouped in with rest of the coast. My point was that the majority of their population is more culturally intuned with the northeast than with the south. To use another example, DE is closer to NJ than to GA.

[muon2]

The four region model of the US is useful for keeping statistics, but it's not very helpful in defining political and cultural geography. A better reference is Joel Garreau's work Nine Nations of North America which goes into the details about what makes up the culture of each region and where to best draw the lines. Here's his boundary for Dixie from the Atlantic Ocean west to Louisville.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As to the DE debate, my best man lived in southern DE for twenty years, and I had many visits to the area. I agree with Garreau that southern DE and the Eastern Shore of MD fit in more with the Carolinas than they do with Long Island (where I spent much of my grad school research time).

Of course not using the four region model, they can certainly be grouped in with rest of the coast. My point was that the majority of their population is more culturally intuned with the northeast than with the south. To use another example, DE is closer to NJ than to GA.

I'm not merely suggesting that southern DE be grouped with the coast. I'm claiming that DE is culturally divided with Kent and Sussex counties belonging in Dixie. The chicken farms and NASCAR presence there are more like GA than NJ. However, over half the population of DE is in northern New Castle county, which is definitely not Dixie, so if one wants to assign the state as a whole to a region it is not Dixie.

Splitting states by county is often more helpful since it reveals those cultural splits. No one would put IL in Dixie, but few would not recognize that the counties south of I-70 in IL are culturally part of Dixie. At the presidential level the totality of a state's vote matters for the electoral college, but counties matter in understanding congressional elections.

[Badger]

I think Muon has the point here. Trying to divide these states as entirely northern or southern misses the regional differences of each. Yes, there are parts of rural Delaware and Maryland that are closest to southern culture (and to a lesser degree, southern politics). But the same could be said of much of SW PA south of Pittsburgh. And Ohio? A friend of mine once said it could be argued the real divide between north and south isn't the Mason-Dixon Line, but I-70.

If I had to place MD and DE in one region it would be the north based both on it's dominant politics (Baltimore and the DC suburbs are far more indicative of MD culture than the East Shore; Natch Wilmington--essentially an outlet of greater Philly--in DE vs. downstate. Ditto for historical reasons. Both fought for the Union notwithstanding a minority of Confederate sympathizers. Still, ask me about the East Shore or Sussex County and you'll rightly get a different answer--just like say Meigs County Ohio.

[nclib]

I think Muon has the point here. Trying to divide these states as entirely northern or southern misses the regional differences of each. Yes, there are parts of rural Delaware and Maryland that are closest to southern culture (and to a lesser degree, southern politics). But the same could be said of much of SW PA south of Pittsburgh. And Ohio? A friend of mine once said it could be argued the real divide between north and south isn't the Mason-Dixon Line, but I-70.

If I had to place MD and DE in one region it would be the north based both on it's dominant politics (Baltimore and the DC suburbs are far more indicative of MD culture than the East Shore; Natch Wilmington--essentially an outlet of greater Philly--in DE vs. downstate. Ditto for historical reasons. Both fought for the Union notwithstanding a minority of Confederate sympathizers. Still, ask me about the East Shore or Sussex County and you'll rightly get a different answer--just like say Meigs County Ohio.

Agreed and will add...

Politics and culture overlap, but are not one in the same. MD and DE shouldn't be considered part of the South, not just because they vote differently, but they don't really classify as culturally southern.

Fla., N.C., and Va. have pockets that are not culturally southern, but the majority of the people living in those states would be classified that way.

[Badger]

I think Muon has the point here. Trying to divide these states as entirely northern or southern misses the regional differences of each. Yes, there are parts of rural Delaware and Maryland that are closest to southern culture (and to a lesser degree, southern politics). But the same could be said of much of SW PA south of Pittsburgh. And Ohio? A friend of mine once said it could be argued the real divide between north and south isn't the Mason-Dixon Line, but I-70.

If I had to place MD and DE in one region it would be the north based both on it's dominant politics (Baltimore and the DC suburbs are far more indicative of MD culture than the East Shore; Natch Wilmington--essentially an outlet of greater Philly--in DE vs. downstate. Ditto for historical reasons. Both fought for the Union notwithstanding a minority of Confederate sympathizers. Still, ask me about the East Shore or Sussex County and you'll rightly get a different answer--just like say Meigs County Ohio.

Agreed and will add...

Politics and culture overlap, but are not one in the same. MD and DE shouldn't be considered part of the South, not just because they vote differently, but they don't really classify as culturally southern.

Fla., N.C., and Va. have pockets that are not culturally southern, but the majority of the people living in those states would be classified that way.

Also agree. Which is one reason that"playing to Dixie" is a slightly anachronistic term. Obama's platform that won voters over in Colorado won voters over in Newport News and central Florida.

[Bo]

Dems just need to concentrate on VA, NC, GA, FL, and TX. They could ignore all other Southern states (except MD & DE, which they will typically win by large margins).

[Derek]

They can afford to keep losing. In 2004 it was close without a single battleground state in the south, not even Florida. Other states are heading their way.

VA, NC, CO, OR, MI, NH, AZ, NM, and IN, however, I still put VA, NC, AZ, and IN in the GOP column.

[HAnnA MArin County]

I'm responding a little late to this, so I apologize if I repeat anyone's talking points, but can't the same be said about how Republicans can't keep losing New England (I assume we're talking about the presidential level)?

I disagree that Democrats can't keep losing Dixie. Democrats can still win the White House without Dixie - all John Kerry needed was Ohio and he would have won. It'd be nice if we could win Dixie, but the realignment of the Solid South has destroyed that hope. Depending upon your definition of Dixie, I don't see Mississippi, Alabama or Georgia voting for a Democrat at the presidential level anytime soon. Yes, Jimmy Carter won Georgia (obviously, since he was from there), but even the WASP Southerner Bill Clinton lost Georgia both times, as did he lose Mississippi and Alabama. The racial polarization of voters is just too strong in Dixie, as unfortunate as that is, you have one party that's perceived as the white man's party and the other as the black man's party. That's my definition of Dixie - the Deep South, if you will - those three states. As for what other states I'd consider Southern United States, I'd put Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana and Florida in this category. Democrats have had some success in these states at the local and state level, but federal level is another story.

That being said, Democrats have won those states since the realignment of the Solid South, so that's evidence that those states are winnable. However, as has been mentioned on here before, "big city intellectual liberals" like John Kerry and Barack Obama do not fit the "mold" of a winnable Democrat in this area (I'd call them New Democrats) as opposed to a Bill (or Hillary) Clinton or a John Edwards (minus the adulterer and scumbag that he is) - a more traditional Democrat. Given the way things are going now, I'm not sure if Obama will carry Virginia, North Carolina and Florida again in 2012, so some may speculate that the South is turning away from the Democrats again.

[Bo]

even the WASP Southerner Bill Clinton lost Georgia both times

No, he didn't. Clinton won Georgia in 1992.

[HAnnA MArin County]

even the WASP Southerner Bill Clinton lost Georgia both times

No, he didn't. Clinton won Georgia in 1992.

I was just getting ready to correct myself when I saw this, thanks. The NyQuil is malfunctioning with my brain - maybe I should just stop while I'm ahead, ha. Thanks for the correction.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I'm responding a little late to this, so I apologize if I repeat anyone's talking points, but can't the same be said about how Republicans can't keep losing New England (I assume we're talking about the presidential level)?

I disagree that Democrats can't keep losing Dixie. Democrats can still win the White House without Dixie - all John Kerry needed was Ohio and he would have won. It'd be nice if we could win Dixie, but the realignment of the Solid South has destroyed that hope. Depending upon your definition of Dixie, I don't see Mississippi, Alabama or Georgia voting for a Democrat at the presidential level anytime soon. Yes, Jimmy Carter won Georgia (obviously, since he was from there), but even the WASP Southerner Bill Clinton lost Georgia both times, as did he lose Mississippi and Alabama. The racial polarization of voters is just too strong in Dixie, as unfortunate as that is, you have one party that's perceived as the white man's party and the other as the black man's party. That's my definition of Dixie - the Deep South, if you will - those three states. As for what other states I'd consider Southern United States, I'd put Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana and Florida in this category. Democrats have had some success in these states at the local and state level, but federal level is another story.

That being said, Democrats have won those states since the realignment of the Solid South, so that's evidence that those states are winnable. However, as has been mentioned on here before, "big city intellectual liberals" like John Kerry and Barack Obama do not fit the "mold" of a winnable Democrat in this area (I'd call them New Democrats) as opposed to a Bill (or Hillary) Clinton or a John Edwards (minus the adulterer and scumbag that he is) - a more traditional Democrat. Given the way things are going now, I'm not sure if Obama will carry Virginia, North Carolina and Florida again in 2012, so some may speculate that the South is turning away from the Democrats again.

Clinton won Georgia in 92.

[Bo]

I'm responding a little late to this, so I apologize if I repeat anyone's talking points, but can't the same be said about how Republicans can't keep losing New England (I assume we're talking about the presidential level)?

I disagree that Democrats can't keep losing Dixie. Democrats can still win the White House without Dixie - all John Kerry needed was Ohio and he would have won. It'd be nice if we could win Dixie, but the realignment of the Solid South has destroyed that hope. Depending upon your definition of Dixie, I don't see Mississippi, Alabama or Georgia voting for a Democrat at the presidential level anytime soon. Yes, Jimmy Carter won Georgia (obviously, since he was from there), but even the WASP Southerner Bill Clinton lost Georgia both times, as did he lose Mississippi and Alabama. The racial polarization of voters is just too strong in Dixie, as unfortunate as that is, you have one party that's perceived as the white man's party and the other as the black man's party. That's my definition of Dixie - the Deep South, if you will - those three states. As for what other states I'd consider Southern United States, I'd put Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana and Florida in this category. Democrats have had some success in these states at the local and state level, but federal level is another story.

That being said, Democrats have won those states since the realignment of the Solid South, so that's evidence that those states are winnable. However, as has been mentioned on here before, "big city intellectual liberals" like John Kerry and Barack Obama do not fit the "mold" of a winnable Democrat in this area (I'd call them New Democrats) as opposed to a Bill (or Hillary) Clinton or a John Edwards (minus the adulterer and scumbag that he is) - a more traditional Democrat. Given the way things are going now, I'm not sure if Obama will carry Virginia, North Carolina and Florida again in 2012, so some may speculate that the South is turning away from the Democrats again.

Clinton won Georgia in 92.

I previously mentioned that.

even the WASP Southerner Bill Clinton lost Georgia both times

No, he didn't. Clinton won Georgia in 1992.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm responding a little late to this, so I apologize if I repeat anyone's talking points, but can't the same be said about how Republicans can't keep losing New England (I assume we're talking about the presidential level)?

I disagree that Democrats can't keep losing Dixie. Democrats can still win the White House without Dixie - all John Kerry needed was Ohio and he would have won. It'd be nice if we could win Dixie, but the realignment of the Solid South has destroyed that hope. Depending upon your definition of Dixie, I don't see Mississippi, Alabama or Georgia voting for a Democrat at the presidential level anytime soon. Yes, Jimmy Carter won Georgia (obviously, since he was from there), but even the WASP Southerner Bill Clinton lost Georgia both times, as did he lose Mississippi and Alabama. The racial polarization of voters is just too strong in Dixie, as unfortunate as that is, you have one party that's perceived as the white man's party and the other as the black man's party. That's my definition of Dixie - the Deep South, if you will - those three states. As for what other states I'd consider Southern United States, I'd put Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana and Florida in this category. Democrats have had some success in these states at the local and state level, but federal level is another story.

That being said, Democrats have won those states since the realignment of the Solid South, so that's evidence that those states are winnable. However, as has been mentioned on here before, "big city intellectual liberals" like John Kerry and Barack Obama do not fit the "mold" of a winnable Democrat in this area (I'd call them New Democrats) as opposed to a Bill (or Hillary) Clinton or a John Edwards (minus the adulterer and scumbag that he is) - a more traditional Democrat. Given the way things are going now, I'm not sure if Obama will carry Virginia, North Carolina and Florida again in 2012, so some may speculate that the South is turning away from the Democrats again.

Clinton won Georgia in 92.

I previously mentioned that.

even the WASP Southerner Bill Clinton lost Georgia both times

No, he didn't. Clinton won Georgia in 1992.

Clinton was not a WASP, ftr

[hcallega]

I'm responding a little late to this, so I apologize if I repeat anyone's talking points, but can't the same be said about how Republicans can't keep losing New England (I assume we're talking about the presidential level)?

I disagree that Democrats can't keep losing Dixie. Democrats can still win the White House without Dixie - all John Kerry needed was Ohio and he would have won. It'd be nice if we could win Dixie, but the realignment of the Solid South has destroyed that hope. Depending upon your definition of Dixie, I don't see Mississippi, Alabama or Georgia voting for a Democrat at the presidential level anytime soon. Yes, Jimmy Carter won Georgia (obviously, since he was from there), but even the WASP Southerner Bill Clinton lost Georgia both times, as did he lose Mississippi and Alabama. The racial polarization of voters is just too strong in Dixie, as unfortunate as that is, you have one party that's perceived as the white man's party and the other as the black man's party. That's my definition of Dixie - the Deep South, if you will - those three states. As for what other states I'd consider Southern United States, I'd put Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana and Florida in this category. Democrats have had some success in these states at the local and state level, but federal level is another story.

That being said, Democrats have won those states since the realignment of the Solid South, so that's evidence that those states are winnable. However, as has been mentioned on here before, "big city intellectual liberals" like John Kerry and Barack Obama do not fit the "mold" of a winnable Democrat in this area (I'd call them New Democrats) as opposed to a Bill (or Hillary) Clinton or a John Edwards (minus the adulterer and scumbag that he is) - a more traditional Democrat. Given the way things are going now, I'm not sure if Obama will carry Virginia, North Carolina and Florida again in 2012, so some may speculate that the South is turning away from the Democrats again.

Clinton won Georgia in 92.

I previously mentioned that.

even the WASP Southerner Bill Clinton lost Georgia both times

No, he didn't. Clinton won Georgia in 1992.

Clinton was not a WASP, ftr

He was. But anyway, Southern Maryland=SUPER DIXIE. I believe it is Charles County that has Queen Nicoretta. They love tobacco and guns, and for many years blocked restrictive legislation in both categories (one of my good friends is a left-wing lobbyist on these issues). It helps that both of the Speaker of the House and the Senate President are from South MD. The Eastern Shore is culturally very southern, and many of the counties that vote Democratic have large black populations. Ocean City is on the Atlantic Coast and a little far removed from the Eastern Shore, and therefore very culturally different (SENIOR WEEK WOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!). On the whole, the state is very northern, but the South and Eastern Shore are very much Dixie, while the Western Part of the state is quite mid-western in cultural and economic feel.

[Derek]

Not sure why my last post didn't post, but yes the dems can write off dixie and be fine for now. However, by 2024, that may not be possible. Remember Kerry was only a state away from winning and there wasn't a single close state in the south.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Depends on if the Blue Firewall expands elsewhere.

[Derek]

what do you mean?

[Jensen]

Republicans can't keep losing the North.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Republicans can't keep losing the North.

[The Age Wave]

Republicans can't keep losing the North.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Republicans can't keep losing the North.

Neither Party can afford to write off an entire Region.

[Derek]

Yea I agree with that. At least PA and NH remain close in the north. The map changes a little bit in each election too. We'll have to see which way VA continues to go. I highly doubt NC will go blue again any time soon.