Dems Can't Keep Losing Dixie

[politicalchick20]

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.

Having grown up in Southern Maryland, I can honestly say the region now is easily divided between suburban and southern culture; it's growing so much due to the Pax River Naval Base (not to mention some DC commuters as well--Charles County, despite some rural pockets here and there, is DC metroland nowadays with PG County). I personally never felt like I was growing up in the South, maybe because I have family in Arkansas and that always feels like the REAL South to me, but at the same time, I think grouping a state into one region simply doesn't work all the time, with Maryland as the prime example. This is why it is probably easier to say that we are neither Northern nor Southern, we are Mid-Atlantic lol.

And yes, Western Maryland does make me think of the Rust Belt at times (it too, however, has Southern influences as well).

I'm kinda surprised no one has mentioned the Upland South areas of Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio on this thread. It's just proves even more that grouping states into one region doesn't always work.

[Derek]

That's true. What it really comes down to is that rural areas are conservative and urban areas are liberal. There are more urban areas in the north and more rural areas in the south. Florida is a perfect example of this. It has a perfect combination of conservative farm lands and urban cities that are democrat like Miami. It's also usually a close state at the Presidential level.

[Dancing with Myself]

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.

The way the trends are going in NC is heavily Republican.

If the economy would have been in great shape, McCain would have won NC.

[Derek]

Right that's what I mean I don't see NC going democrat any time soon.

[pbrower2a]

Blank map apparently applicable to 2012:

In 1976, Jimmy Carter won all former-Confederate states except Virginia. Color those states green -- aqua if Carter, Clinton (at least once), and Obama won the state [Florida], light green if Carter and Obama (but not Clinton) won it [North Carolina] , medium if Clinton won it but Obama lost it by 10% or larger margins (AR,  LA, TN) -- and add Kentucky (which had a secessionist government in one part of the state for a time) and West Virginia even if it isn't particularly  "southern" because it follows the pattern.  Color Georgia and Missouri (southern Missouri really is Southern) -- Carter won these states, Clinton won them both at least once, and Obama wasn't far from winning them both.

Carter is the last Democrat to have ever carried Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, or South Carolina. Color those pine-green. Now color Virginia yellow -- neither Carter nor Clinton ever carried the state, but Obama did. Dubya won ever one of these states.

Now color in deep blue all of the states that President Obama has no reasonable chance of winning outside of the South in 2012. That includes only three of five electoral votes of Nebraska, but you get the idea:  

Add the Dakotas, NE-01,  and Arizona  as "unlikely", Indiana and NE-02 as freakish circumstances in 2008, and Montana because its three electoral votes are unlikely to make a difference, in medium blue, and you get

With all Southern and near-Southern states blocked off from the Democratic nominee, the Democratic nominee of 2012 must win the entire block of states that neither Gore lost in 2000 nor Kerry lost in 2004 (deep red), states that one or the other lost once (IA, NH, NM -- medium blue)  and either Ohio or a combination of Nevada and Colorado.

Kerry would have won in 2004 had he also won Iowa and New Mexico and picked off Ohio or Colorado; in 2008, Barack Obama could have done so too  -- while winning nothing even arguably Southern. There's just not much wiggle room

(Obama was not going to win Indiana without winning Ohio as well, and in 2012 he will not be able to win Arizona without winning both Colorado and Nevada).

  

[Derek]

How do we get or create that map? I want to do it. Also, FL and AZ should be 29 and 12. New York should be 29. FL will be passing up NY in a year.

[DS0816]

How do we get or create that map? I want to do it. Also, FL and AZ should be 29 and 12. New York should be 29. FL will be passing up NY in a year.

270toWin.com and Wikipedia.org have projections that Florida will get 28 electoral votes in Elections 2012, 2016, and 2020; and Arizona will get 11.

To do the map, just quote pbrower2a. I'd recommend you copy that image into your own mail. Then you can proceed from that point.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

How do we get or create that map? I want to do it. Also, FL and AZ should be 29 and 12. New York should be 29. FL will be passing up NY in a year.

Your information is indeed outdated.

This is the most recent projection of the 2012 reapportionment:

[Derek]

I'm still ok with that map. Republicans gain votes in NC, SC, GA, FL, AZ, UT, 3 in TX, and possibly one in NV. Notice how ppl are moving TO the redder states.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I'm still ok with that map. Republicans gain votes in NC, SC, GA, FL, AZ, UT, 3 in TX, and possibly one in NV. Notice how ppl are moving TO the redder states.

But in many cases, they're making those states less red...

[Derek]

That may be but the point is that they are still red states. Whether you win Texas by one vote or 65-35, that's still 37 electoral votes in the GOP column. Plus states change throughout each decade usually. Numbers come and go.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

That may be but the point is that they are still red states. Whether you win Texas by one vote or 65-35, that's still 37 electoral votes in the GOP column. Plus states change throughout each decade usually. Numbers come and go.

And what happens when the Dem votes coming in start outnumbering the Rep votes, as was the case in Virginia and North Carolina in 2008?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I'm still ok with that map. Republicans gain votes in NC, SC, GA, FL, AZ, UT, 3 in TX, and possibly one in NV. Notice how ppl are moving TO the redder states.

Republicans are not gaining AZ, NC or FL. Those states aren't solid red at all. Although considering the jackass we have in office now I'll be surpised if we're going to be able to hold that much of the blue in 2012, let alone the purple.

[Derek]

That may be but the point is that they are still red states. Whether you win Texas by one vote or 65-35, that's still 37 electoral votes in the GOP column. Plus states change throughout each decade usually. Numbers come and go.

And what happens when the Dem votes coming in start outnumbering the Rep votes, as was the case in Virginia and North Carolina in 2008?

If dems start outnumbering the GOP in VA and NC which won't happen as long as there are the issues of abortion and guns, then the GOP will start outnumbering them in Minnesota and Pennsylvania. As for FL, I've lived there and it's not going anywhere near reliably blue.