Dems Can't Keep Losing Dixie

[Serenity Now]

Bear in mind that voter turnout is generally lower in the South. Bush bearly won more than 30% of the electorate in many southern states in 2004, an improvement on 2000. (I can provide a map adjusted for turnout at some point...)

That's not to say that the Republicans would win had every eligable voter in the south voted, but it would be interesting to find out which sorts of people are less likely to vote, and how they could be won over.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Actually, the Democrats have been following the QuadCali strategdy somewhat (see The Real Majority) and CAN win the Presidency without carrying a single southern state.

However, this requires they carry most of the Midwest and just about all of the Northeast as well as the Pacific Coast.

[Sam Spade]

Bear in mind that voter turnout is generally lower in the South. Bush bearly won more than 30% of the electorate in many southern states in 2004, an improvement on 2000. (I can provide a map adjusted for turnout at some point...)

That's not to say that the Republicans would win had every eligable voter in the south voted, but it would be interesting to find out which sorts of people are less likely to vote, and how they could be won over.

Also remember that the "South" will always have lower voter turnout due to the dominance of Texas and Florida within the region and the high number of non-resident citizens present in both of those states. (Arizona always has the same problem).

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the voter turnout in the "South" as a whole is not lower than certain other areas of the country (upper Midwest, for instance), there are just more ineligible citizens who live in those two big states who overbalance everything else.

[Beet]

Bear in mind that voter turnout is generally lower in the South. Bush bearly won more than 30% of the electorate in many southern states in 2004, an improvement on 2000. (I can provide a map adjusted for turnout at some point...)

That's not to say that the Republicans would win had every eligable voter in the south voted, but it would be interesting to find out which sorts of people are less likely to vote, and how they could be won over.

Also remember that the "South" will always have lower voter turnout due to the dominance of Texas and Florida within the region and the high number of non-resident citizens present in both of those states. (Arizona always has the same problem).

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the voter turnout in the "South" as a whole is not lower than certain other areas of the country (upper Midwest, for instance), there are just more ineligible citizens who live in those two big states who overbalance everything else.

Yeah but turnout is low across the board in the south, not just those couple states.

[TomC]

The GOP didn't make headway in Dixie for a good 100 years and they seemed to win their fair share of Pres Elections. Dixie has more EVs now but so does California.

[Democratic Hawk]

Bear in mind that voter turnout is generally lower in the South. Bush bearly won more than 30% of the electorate in many southern states in 2004, an improvement on 2000. (I can provide a map adjusted for turnout at some point...)

That's not to say that the Republicans would win had every eligable voter in the south voted, but it would be interesting to find out which sorts of people are less likely to vote, and how they could be won over.

Also remember that the "South" will always have lower voter turnout due to the dominance of Texas and Florida within the region and the high number of non-resident citizens present in both of those states. (Arizona always has the same problem).

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the voter turnout in the "South" as a whole is not lower than certain other areas of the country (upper Midwest, for instance), there are just more ineligible citizens who live in those two big states who overbalance everything else.

Yeah but turnout is low across the board in the south, not just those couple states.

Does low turnout in the South favour the GOP? Which demographics tend to stay away from the polls? Are the socio-economic groups most likely to support the Democrats less likely to vote?

Dave

[minionofmidas]

Rich Suburbanites: Certain to vote, and to vote Republican.
Blacks: Very likely to vote, and certain to vote Democrat if they do.
Rural and poor Whites: Much less certain to vote, much less certain to vote Republican although likely to do so at the Presidential level.

In a nutshell.

[Sam Spade]

Rich Suburbanites: Certain to vote, and to vote Republican.
Blacks: Very likely to vote, and certain to vote Democrat if they do.
Rural and poor Whites: Much less certain to vote, much less certain to vote Republican although likely to do so at the Presidential level.

In a nutshell.

Those voters at the lower end of the income level have always voted less as a whole.  A countless number of studies have been done on that.

2004 was probably one of their higher turnout years ever, at least since the 1960s.

[AuH2O]

The gap is actually very, very wide... if you split income groups in half the gap is like 25% or something.

[Democratic Hawk]

To what extent has migration from the North East to the South benefitted the GOP or has it been more a case of widespread dissatisfaction among traditional (or ancestral) southern Democrats with the national Democratic Party that has swung the region in the GOP's favour?

It's just that my family (ancestral Georgia Democrats) have tended to remain pretty loyal Democrats

Dave

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Depends at what level

[minionofmidas]

Rich Suburbanites: Certain to vote, and to vote Republican.
Blacks: Very likely to vote, and certain to vote Democrat if they do.
Rural and poor Whites: Much less certain to vote, much less certain to vote Republican although likely to do so at the Presidential level.

In a nutshell.

Those voters at the lower end of the income level have always voted less as a whole.  A countless number of studies have been done on that.

2004 was probably one of their higher turnout years ever, at least since the 1960s.

True.
The gap (not speaking of 2004 so much as of earlier years) seems to be rather larger in the South, though. At least that's what I'm told.

[Soup18]

Oh yes they can.

[Democratic Hawk]

In my view, as long as the raving, looney, left wing of the Democratic Party keeps screaming about abortion and same sex marriage, they are doomed in the south, and well they should be.       

Quite

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Oh yes they can.

Best line of this entire thread, and very accurate.

Good one Soup 18!

Not necessarily.

What would happen in the South if the Democratic candidate was more socially conservative than the GOP candidate? It's a possibility; albeit an improbability

Dave

[Beet]

Bear in mind that voter turnout is generally lower in the South. Bush bearly won more than 30% of the electorate in many southern states in 2004, an improvement on 2000. (I can provide a map adjusted for turnout at some point...)

That's not to say that the Republicans would win had every eligable voter in the south voted, but it would be interesting to find out which sorts of people are less likely to vote, and how they could be won over.

Also remember that the "South" will always have lower voter turnout due to the dominance of Texas and Florida within the region and the high number of non-resident citizens present in both of those states. (Arizona always has the same problem).

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the voter turnout in the "South" as a whole is not lower than certain other areas of the country (upper Midwest, for instance), there are just more ineligible citizens who live in those two big states who overbalance everything else.

Yeah but turnout is low across the board in the south, not just those couple states.

Does low turnout in the South favour the GOP? Which demographics tend to stay away from the polls? Are the socio-economic groups most likely to support the Democrats less likely to vote?

Dave

It doesn't necessarily favor either party; it's just there. Personally I don't think it would make much difference as the people who now don't vote, if they voted would probably vote in roughly the same proportions as those who already vote. But I could be wrong, who knows.

[J. J.]

Two words:  Southern Governor

[Josh/Devilman88]

One word: Bayh

[Akno21]

One word: Bayh

One word: Senator

[phk]

One word: Kennedy

[Colin]

One word: Kennedy

One Word: Exception

[Jake]

One word: regular

[Cashcow]

One word: Duck

[phk]

One word: sex

[minionofmidas]

zero words: