Why has Tennessee become so Republican?

[pragmatic liberal]

The current politics of Tennessee are a little surprising to me. These days, Tennessee is nearly as Republican in its voting habits as Alabama and Mississippi. That was historically not the case. For much of the century, Tennessee had some of the most moderate politics of any Southern state. It had an active Republican Party throughout the Dixiecrat/Solid South period, and in the '50s and '60s elected outright liberals to the Senate like Estes Kefauver and Al Gore, Sr.

Culturally and demographically, it has never been seen as a deep-South state. It's relatively urbanized. Nashville, especially, is fairly cosmopolitan. It has a relatively large number of transplants from outside the state and outside the South in its major metro areas. It's more developed than its neighbors Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama and Kentucky.

Look - I'm not saying that Obama should have won the state. But I'm surprised that the Tennessee vote didn't look more like Georgia or even South Carolina. Why has the state become so sharply Republican? It's almost as if the state has become more conservative than it used to be.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Kentucky and Tennessee trended Republican almost identical since Bush took the oval office in 2000.  Bob Livingston and Newt Gingrich were the ones that took the Clinton/Gore states in the south that were republican but voted populist in the republican camp.  That's why you had Fred Thompson who was clearly a conservative vote for campaign finance reform.

Also, when the Brady Bill took affect in 1994 that was the turning point in the south and it took until 1998 before the south turned republican on that issue and that issue alone.  Several states: Ky, TN, WVa, and LA started to turn republican. 

This is why this issue is debated so thoughly in the Supreme Court nomination process now.

[memphis]

As much as it pains me to say it, Tennessee is very much like Kentucky and West Virginia. It is mostly a rural state, and even many of the people in the cities are recent migrants from the country. The old Dixiecrats and TVA Dems, whihc once made TN a Dem state, are mostly gone and today, people vote mostly on issues like abortion and gay marriage. I am stunned that they Dems have managed to hold onto TN-6 and TN-4. I expect them to be gone forever whenever the next GOP wave is. Tennessee is also not nearly as black as GA or SC, which explains why it didn't shift to Obama the way those states did.

[JSojourner]

I have no information to back this up -- it is pure conjecture.

But I suspect that Florida, Virginia and (to a lesser extent) the Carolinas have tilted a little closer to Democrats because many of those relocating from up north are New England or Mid-Atlantic Yankees. (Before anyone flames me, I am not suggesting South Carolina has gone Democratic...just that there are some signs the Republican margin of victory might be a tad lessened.)

On the other hand, I have a hunch that people moving to Tennessee (and Kentucky) from points north are coming from the Midwest.  And those folks stand a better chance of being politically conservative.

I share your confusion, though.  It wasn't long again that Jim Sasser and Al Gore represented the Volunteer State.  And Howard Baker was what passed for a Republican.  Now, it seems to be Zach Wamp and Bill Frist!

[hcallega]

I believe that Tennessee is more simple than complicated.

The rural areas which have always been conservative moved into the GOP camp during the Southern Wave in the 1990s. The more moderate areas likely have shifted due to the liberalism of the Democrats. Remember, Gore only narrowly lost the state, but in many ways it has gone more GOP as the party has shifted to the south. Granted you do have Phil Bresden and a strong run by Harold Ford Jr. for the Senate. I doubt that Ford would have done well at all in Georgia or the Carolinas.

[Badger]

Beyond the general southern GOP shift since the 90's:

1) Strong GOP roots in eastern TN that go back to the Civil War.

2) Smaller African-American population than most southern states.

3) The antipathy of Appalachian/Outer South voters for Obama, as has been discussed ad nauseum in numerous threads, affects TN as much or more than any other state. Think Arkansas without the PUMA effect.

[HAnnA MArin County]

I think Tennessee has swung as Republican as it's going to for a while, unless of course barring that Obama's approval ratings continue to fall and the economy gets worse (unemployment continues to rise, gas prices rise, etc.) and the GOP has a seemingly good year in 2012, I think Obama will do a little better in Tennessee in 2012 but the Republican nominee will ultimately carry the state regardless who (s)he is.

I think the reason why Tennessee has become so Republican in recent years is simply just the changing images of the party. The Republican Party has become the party of the South, while the Democrats have become the party of everywhere else (save for the Inner Mountain West). Al Gore, the favorite son, just narrowly lost the state in 2000 to George W. Bush, why I'm not for sure, as this was before I took an interest in politics. The state swung even more Republican in 2004 obviously because the moral issues were highly exploited by the Republicans to mobilize their base of Bible thumping hicks and rednecks, and I suspect there must be lots of those in Tennessee. That and given the fact that John Kerry (and Barack Obama) were both bad fits for the state: two big-city intellectual liberals who had no connections to the South. I don't think Obama's race had that much to do with why the swung more Republican in 2008 - it might have been, but recall that Harold Ford Jr. came really close to winning the open U.S. Senate seat in 2006. Harold Ford has connections with Tennessee; Barack Obama didn't. But I really suspect there's a more underlying reason of why the state continues to become more and more Republican.

It is, as someone previously mentioned, a heavily rural state save for the four major metropolitan areas of Memphis, Nashville, Chattanooga and Knoxville. Eastern Tennessee has always been strongly Republican, even in the days of the Solid Democratic South. Middle Tennessee is a mystery because this is where the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) areas are, and while TN-04 and TN-06 are both held by Democrats in Congress, McCain crushed Obama in these heavily rural districts. Northwestern Tennessee is also interesting, seeing as how it's also a heavily rural part of the state that's been solidly Democrat but McCain did pretty well here too. Obviously the urban/rural divide comes into play in Tennessee. Tennessee's a lot like Arkansas in that the rural areas tend to be represented by Democrats at the local and state level but Republicans trounce Democrats at the federal level. I think this is because the state Democratic parties in Arkansas and Tennessee are considerably more conservative than the mainstream Democratic Party, particularly on social issues. They may also be a little more conservative on economic issues as well, which makes voters a little more amendable to voting Republican. A weak analysis but I'm just throwing some ideas out there.

Lastly, let's take into consideration the race factor. I found the following racial composition statistics for all the states but I'll only post the Southern/Outer South states along with the results of the election.

Mississippi (60.7% White, 36.2% Black) - McCain 56.18, Obama 43.00
Louisiana (62.5% White, 32.3% Black) - McCain 58.56, Obama 39.93
South Carolina (66.1% White, 29.4% Black) - McCain 53.87, Obama 44.90
Georgia (62.6% White, 28.5% Black) - McCain 52.10, Obama 46.90
Alabama (70.3% White, 25.9% Black) - McCain 60.32, Obama 38.74
North Carolina (70.2% White, 21.4% Black) - Obama 49.70, McCain 49.38
Virginia (70.2% White, 19.4% Black) - Obama 52.63, McCain 46.33
Tennessee (79.2% White, 16.3% Black) - McCain 56.85, Obama 41.79
Arkansas (78.6% White, 15.6% Black) - McCain 58.72, Obama 38.66
Florida (65.4% White, 14.2% Black) - Obama 50.91, McCain 48.10
Kentucky (89.3% White, 7.3% Black) - McCain 57.37, Obama 41.15
West Virginia (94.6% White, 3.1% Black) - McCain 55.60, Obama 42.51

[Tender Branson]

Also, Blacks seemed not to turn out in 2008 relative to their share in the TN population.

Blacks make up 17% of the TN population, but only 12% in the 2008 Exit Poll.

If they turned out according to their share, Obama would have got about 46% overall.

In Kentucky on the other hand, more Blacks turned out than their share in the population (11-8).

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

The primary reason is that Republicans have been practicing the politics of addition rather than subtraction or division here in Tennessee.

The areas of our state where, as Lamar Alexander puts it "still call the Democrats 'rebels'" are as Republican today as they were in 1890.

We added suburban voters in the 70's and now our strongest areas are in the Memphis and Nashville 'burbs.

In recent years, rural areas of West and Middle Tennessee have joined the team without displacing any of the other elements.

Our state GOP is one of the few southern states that - according to Mother Jones magazine anyway - hasn't been taken over by religious-right activists.  We nominate candidates like Lamar Alexander, Bob Corker, and Howard Baker - not nutjobs like in some of our neighboring states.

In other words, we're awesome.

[DariusNJ]

It's very much like Kentucky and West Virginia, in which there are a lot of DINOs. A moderate Southern Democrat could win Kentucky today.

[Rob]

The areas of our state where, as Lamar Alexander puts it "still call the Democrats 'rebels'" are as Republican today as they were in 1890.

Man, how dumb are those people? anyway, this isn't quite true- Obama ran much better in the core Union mountains than FDR ever did!

[pbrower2a]

Lastly, let's take into consideration the race factor. I found the following racial composition statistics for all the states but I'll only post the Southern/Outer South states along with the results of the election.

Mississippi (60.7% White, 36.2% Black) - McCain 56.18, Obama 43.00
Louisiana (62.5% White, 32.3% Black) - McCain 58.56, Obama 39.93
South Carolina (66.1% White, 29.4% Black) - McCain 53.87, Obama 44.90
Georgia (62.6% White, 28.5% Black) - McCain 52.10, Obama 46.90
Alabama (70.3% White, 25.9% Black) - McCain 60.32, Obama 38.74
North Carolina (70.2% White, 21.4% Black) - Obama 49.70, McCain 49.38
Virginia (70.2% White, 19.4% Black) - Obama 52.63, McCain 46.33
Tennessee (79.2% White, 16.3% Black) - McCain 56.85, Obama 41.79
Arkansas (78.6% White, 15.6% Black) - McCain 58.72, Obama 38.66
Florida (65.4% White, 14.2% Black) - Obama 50.91, McCain 48.10
Kentucky (89.3% White, 7.3% Black) - McCain 57.37, Obama 41.15
West Virginia (94.6% White, 3.1% Black) - McCain 55.60, Obama 42.51

One way to look at it: subtract the percentage of the black population from the  Obama vote and you see some interesting results:

NON-POLARIZATION OF THE ELECTORATE, 2008 PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION


Mississippi             6.8%
Louisiana               7.4%
Alabama              12.8%
South Carolina    14.5%
Georgia               17.6%
Arkansas             22.9%
Tennessee          25.4%
North Carolina     28.3%
Virginia                33.2%
West Virginia       33.8%
Kentucky             33.8%
Florida                 36.7%

Basically that is the percentage of the total vote that went to Obama in the 2008 election that came from non-blacks. (Of course that assumes that blacks voted monolithically for Obama, which is a good estimate). Low percentages suggest either few  Hispanic voters or an unwillingness of whites to vote for a black candidate.

Mississippi seems to be the most racially-polarized state in its voting pattern, followed by Louisiana and then Alabama.  Maybe Alabama has lots of unionized workers in the iron and steel industry, which would make a difference -- but only enough to make it the third-most electorally-polarized state in the South. Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida voted for Obama with about 33 to 37% of the vote coming from non-blacks. Kentucky and  West Virginia didn't have much polarization along racial lines -- but they also have few blacks, so for Obama to win either state in 2012, he will have to get a near-majority of the white vote. South Carolina is much more polarized than its northern neighbor North Carolina and decidedly more polarized than its neighbor (Georgia) to the south and west. The difference between the polarization in Georgia and North Carolina is enough that had non-blacks voted like non-blacks in North Carolina, then Obama would have won Georgia handily.

Obama got more votes from non-blacks than from blacks in Arkansas, Tennessee,  North Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Florida -- but less in the other states.

In 2008, Obama lost every Southern state in which he got 26% or less of his vote from non-blacks, won North Carolina by a razor-thin margin, lost the two southern states with the smallest proportions of black people in the South, and won Virginia and Florida. Much of the non-black vote in Florida was Hispanic, of course. 

It wouldn't take much of a change in the voting patterns of non-blacks in several states (MS, LA, AL, SC, or GA) to swing them to Obama in 2012 --  but it would take a huge swing in either KY or WV.

[Tender Branson]

Lastly, let's take into consideration the race factor. I found the following racial composition statistics for all the states but I'll only post the Southern/Outer South states along with the results of the election.

Mississippi (60.7% White, 36.2% Black) - McCain 56.18, Obama 43.00
Louisiana (62.5% White, 32.3% Black) - McCain 58.56, Obama 39.93
South Carolina (66.1% White, 29.4% Black) - McCain 53.87, Obama 44.90
Georgia (62.6% White, 28.5% Black) - McCain 52.10, Obama 46.90
Alabama (70.3% White, 25.9% Black) - McCain 60.32, Obama 38.74
North Carolina (70.2% White, 21.4% Black) - Obama 49.70, McCain 49.38
Virginia (70.2% White, 19.4% Black) - Obama 52.63, McCain 46.33
Tennessee (79.2% White, 16.3% Black) - McCain 56.85, Obama 41.79
Arkansas (78.6% White, 15.6% Black) - McCain 58.72, Obama 38.66
Florida (65.4% White, 14.2% Black) - Obama 50.91, McCain 48.10
Kentucky (89.3% White, 7.3% Black) - McCain 57.37, Obama 41.15
West Virginia (94.6% White, 3.1% Black) - McCain 55.60, Obama 42.51

One way to look at it: subtract the percentage of the black population from the  Obama vote and you see some interesting results:

NON-POLARIZATION OF THE ELECTORATE, 2008 PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION


Mississippi             6.8%
Louisiana               7.4%
Alabama              12.8%
South Carolina    14.5%
Georgia               17.6%
Arkansas             22.9%
Tennessee          25.4%
North Carolina     28.3%
Virginia                33.2%
West Virginia       33.8%
Kentucky             33.8%
Florida                 36.7%

Basically that is the percentage of the total vote that went to Obama in the 2008 election that came from non-blacks. (Of course that assumes that blacks voted monolithically for Obama, which is a good estimate). Low percentages suggest either few  Hispanic voters or an unwillingness of whites to vote for a black candidate.

Mississippi seems to be the most racially-polarized state in its voting pattern, followed by Louisiana and then Alabama.  Maybe Alabama has lots of unionized workers in the iron and steel industry, which would make a difference -- but only enough to make it the third-most electorally-polarized state in the South. Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida voted for Obama with about 33 to 37% of the vote coming from non-blacks. Kentucky and  West Virginia didn't have much polarization along racial lines -- but they also have few blacks, so for Obama to win either state in 2012, he will have to get a near-majority of the white vote. South Carolina is much more polarized than its northern neighbor North Carolina and decidedly more polarized than its neighbor (Georgia) to the south and west. The difference between the polarization in Georgia and North Carolina is enough that had non-blacks voted like non-blacks in North Carolina, then Obama would have won Georgia handily.

Obama got more votes from non-blacks than from blacks in Arkansas, Tennessee,  North Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Florida -- but less in the other states.

In 2008, Obama lost every Southern state in which he got 26% or less of his vote from non-blacks, won North Carolina by a razor-thin margin, lost the two southern states with the smallest proportions of black people in the South, and won Virginia and Florida. Much of the non-black vote in Florida was Hispanic, of course. 

It wouldn't take much of a change in the voting patterns of non-blacks in several states (MS, LA, AL, SC, or GA) to swing them to Obama in 2012 --  but it would take a huge swing in either KY or WV.

This would also assume that the people turned out according to their share in the population, which was not accurate in many southern states.

For example 38% of MS residents are Black (according to the newest 2007 ACS), but only 33% of those who actually voted last year were Black. This could either be margin of error movement in the exit poll, because the ACS has a MoE of about 0.2% and the exit poll roughly 3-4%. But it could also mean higher turnout among Whites and lower turnout among Blacks. MS wasn't really a state that Obama targeted, so it's probably because of that. But then there are other states like KY, were more Blacks turned out relative to their share in the population, and it wasn't a state that Obama targeted either. Maybe KY Blacks were just more eager to turn out and vote for Obama than let's say MS Blacks, or more White people just stayed home in KY and AL than in MS. *who knows*

[pbrower2a]

This would also assume that the people turned out according to their share in the population, which was not accurate in many southern states.

For example 38% of MS residents are Black (according to the newest 2007 ACS), but only 33% of those who actually voted last year were Black. This could either be margin of error movement in the exit poll, because the ACS has a MoE of about 0.2% and the exit poll roughly 3-4%. But it could also mean higher turnout among Whites and lower turnout among Blacks. MS wasn't really a state that Obama targeted, so it's probably because of that. But then there are other states like KY, were more Blacks turned out relative to their share in the population, and it wasn't a state that Obama targeted either. Maybe KY Blacks were just more eager to turn out and vote for Obama than let's say MS Blacks, or more White people just stayed home in KY and AL than in MS. *who knows*

Mississippi, I understand, disenfranchises people for misdemeanor convictions, so someone convicted of possession of marijuana for use or a piddling violation of alcohol laws would be disenfranchised. Most states that disenfranchise offenders disenfranchise people only for felony convictions. Such could make a big difference in a state whose law enforcement is swifter to bust black people than white people.

(Reasonable solution: disenfranchise convicted felons only from voting in races involving the judiciary and law enforcement or from all elections if convicted for a violation of laws involving elections, like selling or buying a vote or attempted tampering with voting devices while the ex-offender is not incarcerated after a felony conviction). Most people don't vote in judicial and sheriff's races, anyway, and I don't want offenders voting for those offices. Those could be on a separate ballot.

But even so, white Mississippians did not vote in numbers similar to those in... neighboring Arkansas or Tennessee... for Obama. Could that reflect the fact that the Republicans have become the de facto White People's Party in Mississippi and the Democrats have become the de facto Black People's Party in Mississippi? Maybe local experiences (machine-boss politics at the local level) themselves create polarization due to bad government.

One way of looking at Mississippi is to say that  Obama did not challenge the political status quo in Mississippi. Such is far too difficult from Chicago -- and likely Washington D.C. -- and an effort to do so would have jeopardized his chances to win a state more in reach and more valuable in amassing 270+ electoral votes, like Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, or Georgia.

It is not safe to assume that southern whites will reject every possible black who runs in a federal or state election. Whether one considers Virginia Southern or not is moot; it elected Douglas Wilder as Governor. Tennessee may have been one of the worst-performing states for Obama -- but it came close to electing Harold Ford to the US Senate.  Florida has demographics more like those of Texas than of any other Southern state, and the non-black vote included many non-black Hispanics who voted heavily for Obama. 

I don't know about white people "staying home" in any state. Maybe the Bradley effect operated in such a state as Arkansas as it didn't in Michigan. White Michigan voters consider Detroit politics a sick joke -- and one can lambaste  Kwame "Crookpatrick" (disgraced former Mayor of Detroit) and vote for Barack Obama. It's quite clear that white voters in Kentucky and West Virginia vote very differently from white voters in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. The vast majority of voters for Obama in either Kentucky or West Virginia were white. Of course, Obama would have to get 48% of the white vote in West Virginia to win West Virginia, which is unlikely to happen in 2012. He would have to win "only" about 22% of the non-black vote in 2012 in Mississippi to win Mississippi, but unless Mississippi voting patterns change drastically by 2012, that is also unlikely to happen. Both Mississippi and West Virginia are highly unlikely to flip for Obama in 2012 -- but Georgia is far more likely.

(Is West Virginia really a Southern State? I look at the history and the demographics and see a resounding NO. It has been voting for Republican nominees for President since 2000 for reasons completely unconnected to any racial polarization. The state literally seceded from Virginia in during the Civil War and has very few blacks. West Virginia has a culture more like northwestern Arkansas or southern Missouri than like Vermont or New Hampshire).

If white Georgians voted like White Arkansans in 2008 for Obama, then Obama would have won Georgia.

We shall see in 2012 whether anything changes.

[pbrower2a]

I think that I now have a better title for the table:

NON-BLACK CONTINGENT OF THE OBAMA VOTE

[DS0816]

I'm not buying into the notion that Tennessee is the Republicans'. Nor with Kentucky. Both have voted the same in presidential contests since 1956. Tenn. nailed voting for the winner 19 of 20 elections, between 1928 to 2004, and made just one "mistake"—in 1960, when [Tenn. and Ky.] said no to John F. Kennedy and yes to Richard Nixon.

According to Chuck Todd's and Sheldon Gawiser's How Barack Obama Won, in 2008 Tenn. the 18-29 vote was won by Obama by 12 points. In Election 2004, the same group sided with George W. Bush by 7 points—a swing of 19 points. The 45-64 group also swung to Obama. Bush won them by 19 points; McCain by 12 points—a 7-points swing. It's the 65 and over group that chiefly contributed to McCain overperforming Bush's numbers: Bush lost them by 2 points while McCain won them by 23 points—a 25-point swing. We'll see about 2012.

In 2008 Kentucky, Obama swung the 2004 male vote by 5 points and the female vote by 3 points. Every age group swung in Obama's direction: Bush won 18-29 group by 9 points. Obama won them by 3 points—a 12-point swing. The 30-44 group swung to Obama by 4 points. The 45-64 group swung by 1 point. The 65-andover group swung by 9 points.

With Ky.'s junior U.S. Senator, Jim Bunning, looking ripe to be picked off in the 2010 midterms (while Bush won 2004 by roughly 20 points, Bunning held on between 1 and 2 points!), and with a Democrat for governor, I'm not inclined to assume Ky. is in the GOP's pocket any less or more than Tenn. And when considering that many, including myself, believe Election 2008 to be a realigning election, Ky. and Tenn. are less than a sure thing for the GOP.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Tennessee and Kentucky aren't going Democratic unless it is a blowout in presidential terms

Tennessee is trending republican because in 2006 and 2008 Corker won and it added republican legislators when the country went Democrat.

KY and TN are much more conservative leaning than it once was in 1976.

As far as KY is concerning Covington has become more reliable conservative than it once was due to the 1998 gun rights thing.  State Democratic legislators like Beashear have been able to win republicans because they support the second amendment. That's why Bunning's seat is vulnerable.

Ford lost because he was only conservative on the gun issue thing but everything else he was secular.

[Derek]

Tennesse reflects the southern trends well historically. It was a haven for the southern democrats between the civil war and WWII. After that the democrats went from being about states' rights to being made up of unions, minorities, and hippies, none of which are conservative or would be likely to support notions such as states' rights or traditional values OVER THEIR CAUSES. Clinton and Carter were from the south so it was different for them. Clinton would've likely lost TN both times without Perot running though. So as social conservatives trended more and more Republican, Tennessee became more Republican.

[Bo]

Primarily, because Democrats have begun making a larger and larger emphasis on social issues. Also, because the Democrats don't field as much Southern candidates as before.

[memphis]

Primarily, because Democrats Republicans have begun making a larger and larger emphasis on social issues.

Fixed to reflect reality.

[Bo]

Primarily, because Democrats Republicans have begun making a larger and larger emphasis on social issues.

Fixed to reflect reality.

Both parties began making a bigger deal out of social issues in the last 3+ decades. I don't think the Democrats were nearly as vocal about support for abortion and gay rights in 1980 as they are today.

[memphis]

Primarily, because Democrats Republicans have begun making a larger and larger emphasis on social issues.

Fixed to reflect reality.

Both parties began making a bigger deal out of social issues in the last 3+ decades. I don't think the Democrats were nearly as vocal about support for abortion and gay rights in 1980 as they are today.

How many Democrats are "vocal" about abortion and gay rights (to use your example) are there, especially in Tennessee? Conversely, how many Republicans are "vocal?" When's the last time you had a Democratic president calling for a constutional amendment to protect gay marriage?

[Bo]

Primarily, because Democrats Republicans have begun making a larger and larger emphasis on social issues.

Fixed to reflect reality.

Both parties began making a bigger deal out of social issues in the last 3+ decades. I don't think the Democrats were nearly as vocal about support for abortion and gay rights in 1980 as they are today.

How many Democrats are "vocal" about abortion and gay rights (to use your example) are there, especially in Tennessee? Conversely, how many Republicans are "vocal?" When's the last time you had a Democratic president calling for a constutional amendment to protect gay marriage?

Not very many Democrats are vocal about those issues in Tennessee, but a lot of them (and not just the politicians) are very vocal about it nationwide and in other states. Many people in TN associate their own Democratic candidates with the national Democrats, regardless of whether or not that is actually the case. A lot of Republicans are vocal about those issues as well. As for gay marriage, Obama campaigned against Prop 8 despite officially being against gay marriage.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Tennesse reflects the southern trends well historically. It was a haven for the southern democrats between the civil war and WWII. After that the democrats went from being about states' rights to being made up of unions, minorities, and hippies, none of which are conservative or would be likely to support notions such as states' rights or traditional values OVER THEIR CAUSES. Clinton and Carter were from the south so it was different for them. Clinton would've likely lost TN both times without Perot running though. So as social conservatives trended more and more Republican, Tennessee became more Republican.

Tennessee is traditionally more Republican than the rest of its Southern neighbors, especially in the GOP's base in eastern Tennessee, which has voted Republican since the Civil War.

Tennessee voted for Harding, Hoover, Eisenhower, and Nixon at times when the Democratic Party still dominated most of the South.

[Mr.Phips]

The problem for Democrats here is that the state has become increasingly suburban.  Rural areas in the center and Northwest of the state that used to give Democrats big margins are growing more and more suburban and voting heavily Republican. 

Look at Williamson county just South of Nashville.  In 1976, it cast 16,000 votes and went for Carter 51%-49%.  In 2008, it cast 94,000 votes and went 69%-30% for McCain.

Another county is Wilson county just to the East of Nashville.  In 1976, it cast 15,000 votes and went 69%-31% for Carter.  In 2008, it cast 51,000 votes and went 68%-31% for McCain.

Democrats have been able to compensate somewhat by increasing their margins in urban Shelby and only lose a little bit of ground in Davidson county, but these areas have not grown as fast as the suburban counties.