Talk Elections

Charts detailing racial trends in the US indicate a very high African-American population trend across the Southern states.  In most elections, those have been the states that elect Republicans by very healthy margins.  However, in states up north, especially the New England area, there is a very low population of non-whites.  Exit polls show that more than 90% of African-Americans vote Democratic, so how can the South be so conservative and the Northeast be so liberal?

Whites in the northeast tend to be better educated and less religious than whites in the south.

Theoretically, the South should still be somewhat more liberal than it is today because of the high African-American population.  In 2008, McCain shouldn't have carried states like Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, etc. with such large margins.

Not really. Blacks vote democrat for affirmative action and for welfare.  That doesn't make them liberal overall when it comes to social or economic attitudes. Remember, blacks are the most anti-gay group in the US.

because the south is very rural. Rural areas (except for maybe Vermont) tend to be more conservative.

ConKiller...have you ever been to Atlanta, Miami, Orlando, Charlotte, Dallas, New Orelans or Memphis.  They are much more rural than Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island arent they
?

He meant the South vs. non-South on balance (though Rhode Island is quite dense).

In addition to what's been said, Northeasterners are more likely to identify with another ancestry--i.e. Irish-American, Italian-American.

I mean also unlike the South the Northeast is historically more industrial and urbanized, which gives rise to other Democratic leaning groups like labor unions etc.

Something most Southeastern states(especially in the deep south) don't have.

Unlike blacks (which are 90% D everywhere), whites can be just about anything politically, depending on the location.

In the South, there are a lot of blacks, yes, and they are very Democratic, but that's outweighed by the conservatism of Southern whites. So, even in places where there are many liberal blacks, they're still outnumbered by whites, who are (in this case) very conservative. In the North, there aren't a lot of blacks, but the whites (who form the overwhelming majority in most places) are liberal.

Religious fundamentalism.

Unlike like most areas in the Northeast and Midwest, Evangelical church membership is higher than "Mainline" church attendance in the Southeast.   

I wouldn't say that's the main cause although it is one of many. I mean states like Idaho,  Alaska, and Montana are pretty conservative overall, but they have some of the lowest church attendance/importance of religion in daily life rates in the country.

Likewise states in the Northeast like MA and RI have large numbers of Catholic voters, but are still solidly Democratic. 

Those cities are all more Democratic than ME, NH, or RI...

Atlanta; the core of I-285 is basically a mix of democrats of both races. The outer core (Cobb, east Gwinnett, Forsyth, Cherokee, Milton et al) is the type of suburbanites you find in "The Blind Side"

Miami is very strange. Its one of those areas where the suburbs are more liberal than the city. The city is very swing due to the cubans but the suburbs (especially the jewish ones) can be liberal

Orlando is lean democrat. Its amazing how the area went from being hard-core R to Democrat in just 20 years.

Mecklenburg County is similar to Orlando in that until 10-15 years ago, it was solid R and flipped Democrat rather quickly. The counties surrounding Mecklenburg are republican although not as much as other southern suburbs.

As for Dallas, the dem areas are basically south of I-30, and in parts of Mesquite, Grand Prairie, Irving. Except for some black areas of Fort Worth and Arlington, you won't run into any democratic areas for another 200 miles in either direction.

New Orleans usually goes 75-80% democrat in most elections, but I know that Metairie and Kenner to the east often go republican

Memphis traditionally (although not so much today) was a city where race was the best predictor of your political affiliation. Germantown, and the eastern parts of the county vote republican but it never shows up in the county returns as they are outvoted by the urban core of Memphis which is a black majority city and gave Obama something like 75-80 percent.

The kind of conservatism found in the Intermountain West is awfully different that that found in the Southeast.  The “conservatism” found in the West is much more libertarian and tends to have much less emphasis on social issues.  In Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming the general attitude towards the federal government is “STAY AWAY”!

The South, on the other hand, is arguably one of the least libertarian regions in the entire nation.  People living in the South tend to be more receptive of the idea of the welfare state and put most of their conservative emphasis on social issues.  In the South people like a government, but only a government that stands up for the “Christian values” on which this nation was “founded”.

As for Catholics in the Industrial Midwest and Northeast, the experience of Catholic immigrants in the United States has been completely different form that of their WASP counterparts.  This explains the differences in voting behavior.  Also, many Americans are CINO’s (Catholic in Name Only) and, to some degree, Catholicism is nothing more than a token religion.  

Corrected.

You're right.  Even dark red Wyoming doesn't restrict abortion and gay marriage rights as much as religious southern states.  They've also had some pro-choice people for senators.  And Alaska has a libertarian streak to it, too, especially on gun rights.  On the other hand, Idaho is probably one of the most socially conservative states in the Mountain region because a fair amount of residents there are Mormons.

The South doesn't seem to like welfare or government assistance very much, unless it's for farm subsidies.  They tend to borrow huge amounts of money for that.

The South is the part of the country least receptive to the idea of a welfare state. It all goes to the coloreds anyway, right?

The South is the bastion of tradition. as well as being home to many military veterans and their families. Southerners also have a tradition to standing up for our rights from federal tyranny.


The idea that Southerners only vote for Conservatives based on social issues, and are actually very receptive to liberal programs such as socialized medicine is largely a myth. Southerners are quite fiscally conservative as well as supporters of tradition.

The South has always been resentful of establish Northern power. That goes all the way back to Jefferson vs. Hamilton, farmers vs. industrialists. It continued with Jackson and his fight to kill the national bank. Calhoun took it to a whole different level with his support for nullification, arguably forming the Tea Party of his day. Of course the issue of slavery and the Civil War exasperated this and turned the resent into warfare. Reconstruction, Northern industrialization, the Civil Rights movement, etc. have all played into this. This resent towards the North has evolved into anger towards Northern Culture, which has spread to the west coast. Basically the South has always resented the North, and by proxy, Washington D.C. Other posts about religion, a large number of veterans, and tradition are certainly correct. But IMO what makes the South different is that it has historically always been fighting against Northern influence, which today means social secularism, government intervention in the economy, and a welfare state (or so they believe).

Also, in regards to the claim that the South is somehow economically to the left, that's just not true. They are not progressive in any political areas, though they can be populist. Essentially, they want low taxes, less regulation, but also Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. There are not many union members in the South, and so there isn't a lot of support for organized labor. But if anything, the old-style populism is being pushed aside. The South isn't poor backwoods hollers any more. It is increasingly an exurban society of middle class whites who have gone to college, make a steady income, and are quite religious. Thus, you don't get many Jim Eastland's and Russell Long's any more. Now you get Richard Burr and Lindsey Graham.

Another question is why has the south become more conservative in the last 40 years?

The Southern Baptists arguably even endorsed the Roe. v. Wade decision when it happened. Now it seems like the anti-abortion position dominates the south at every level. Maybe the conventional view that the right alligned toward the views of the south isn't quite correct. Maybe the south has also alligned toward the views of the right.

Simple answer...lack of education breeds ignorance. 

Look at the states and the funding for secondary education.  The southern states are consistently the worst of the worst year after year.

Because people from the North are usually assholes and Southern culture is not as receptive to assholes.

*looks at avatar*

lol

Roe V. Wade was the bridge too far. Without it, you'd keep more of the catholic vote and at least part of white dixie voting democratic based on economics.

Cite.


()

Mind you that's from about 5 years ago and some polling has shown the country more pro choice lately (after polling 2 years ago showed the opposite) but Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, Maryland, and West Virginia still continue to be pro-choice.. (Disclaimer: I am pro life.)

()

The map above shows the abortion laws in each state prior to Roe v. Wade (from wikipedia). For some reason the key is cut off. Red is illegal, purple is legal only in case of rape, blue is legal for health reasons, green is legal only for both (blue + purple = green), and yellow is legal on demand. Heck, even Vermont had more pro-life laws than the south!

http://books.google.com/books?id=LSO5YDifWz8C&pg=PA209&vq=history+baptist+abortion&sig=KZgjPsS22v-Yl0bLPRrl6eu-Etk#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=LSO5YDifWz8C&pg=PA209&vq=history+baptist+abortion&sig=KZgjPsS22v-Yl0bLPRrl6eu-Etk#v=onepage&q&f=false)

On pg. 12 of this book it talks about the Southern Baptists (arguable) endorsement of Roe v. Wade. The Baptist Press printed that “Religious liberty, human equality, and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision [Roe v. Wade].” Former President of the Southern Baptist Convention W. A. Criswell said, “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person.”

The Southern Baptists didn’t start to really oppose abortion until 1980. I understand that not all southerners are Southern Baptists, but this has always given me the impression that the south never really was as conservative as it is today back then. I was searching for abortion polling by state for the 1970s vs. today and have been unable to find any so I am unable to quantitatively back this assertion up (at least on that issue). Perhaps there are other issues the south had moved leftward on to compensate for this, but I cannot really think of any.

this is why the south has been labeled at times as "reactionary"

Simply put, racism.

The Realignment of the Solid South transformed the area from solidly Democratic to now almost dominated by Republicans. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, passed by congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johsnon, substantially transformed the voting habits of the South as is evident today. You see some of the most racially polarized voting in the Deep South in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama where there's a white man's party and the colored folks' party. Shouldn't be that way, but that's Dixie for you.

I think it is mostly due to religious fundamentalism. Outside of Louisiana, the Bible Belt encompasses all of the South to where you can't blink without seeing a church. The Republican Party does so well in the South by playing the fear card and injecting the culture/social issues of God, guns and gays to distract their voters from the real issues. The base of the Republican Party is, after all, in the South which has the least educated populace in the nation. Stupid is as stupid does. I can't believe the traditional Confederate-flag waving pickup-driving rednecks in the South actually vote Republican because they support giving tax breaks to all 10 of the millionaires below the Mason-Dixon line. No, they vote Republican because the Democrats want to kill babies, destroy the sanctity of marriage and take away our guns and Bibles.

Agrarian slave societies are always incredibly right-wing.

If by 'southerners' you are referring primarily to white southerners, then yes, I would agree with you.  They are on average more affluent than their black counterparts who are more economically populist.

That's why they hate gay guys. That makes perfect sense!

I'm sorry. But seriously. What is to be expected from people who just a half a dozen of generations ago depended on owning people?

I dont believe it...a well throught out piece by a Democrat that did not include name calling or personal insults.  My hat goes off to you!!!

Memphis...are you a racist???

I don't know if I would use those words but what you communicate is generally true.

I'm Not a Witch...you have a lot of people tell you that you are an intolerant bigot dont you.  You seem like someone full of fear and hate towards anyone whose ideas are simply different from you.  You need sensitivity traning!!

To all those who shout: RACISM! RACISM! RACISM! or Bible Belt Ignorance, that's simply an easy way out of addressing far more deep seeded cultural and historical differences between the North and the South. As I stated earlier, the current opposition to the liberalism and progressivism embodied in the Democratic Party is simply the most recent example. But here's a deeper explanation of the cultural differences:

Southern culture is largely rooted in a common ancestry. The Scotch-Irish tradition goes back hundreds of years, since they first came off the ship and went to work in the fields and hills of the old Confederacy. By and large they were Presbyterian, hard-working, and independent. Over the centuries, they would develop a unique and vibrant culture that resisted authority from a "foreign" power. That's how they saw England, how they saw Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans, and how they saw America's enemies throughout history. In Sen. Jim Webb's "Born Fighting", he goes into more detail on this subject. This fierce independence has transitioned into an opposition to what they see as an oppressive and overbearing government and media, which calls them ignorant, racist, and religious zealots.

In contrast, Northern culture is a real melting pot of various ethnicities and immigrant groups. No one group is dominant, and many (including myself) can trace their heritage to at least several different ethnic groups. This has in turn led to a natural "liberalism"; that is to say that by and large Northerners don't often have one singular culture to cling to, and are generally more willing to adopt unique and different trends than their Southern counterparts. In general, homogenized ethnic groups, North, South, East, and West, tend to be more resistant to changes forced on them from a centralized authority. This explains one aspect of why the South is more conservative.

This is all coming from someone who is a Northerner through and through, though I do have some Southern (Cajun) ancestry.

I've noticed that the West and the South, politically speaking, are extremely different.

The westerners are much more environmentally conscience, seem to lack significant interest in social issues, and tend to be much more anti-war/anti-conflict than their predecessors. When I think of a western voter, I tend to have the images in my head of:

()
Governor Schweitzer of Montana and family

()
Skiing, trendy, new-age yuppies in Aspen, Colorado who helped flip the state

()
Seattle's public scene, looking like something out of a Batman comic book of a night in Gotham City.

In other words, you get a feeling of very progressive trends.

On the flip side, 1980 Rural Texas isn't that far from 2011 Rural Texas. Watch "Planet Terror" or "Death Proof" from Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez and they show modern day Tennessee/Texas....and it looks like it has never changed.

()
Note this movie took place in 2007 rural Tennessee.

()
This film took place in 2007 rural Texas. Note the small-town diner, dog near the counter, smoking allowed, very laid back and not trendy at all.

I think trends are what keep the south so conservative, and if anything, Barack Obama was the most trendy of all Presidents the last 20 years.

I would agree that Obama was trendy back in 2008, though Ron Paul is now the trendy candidate. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush had to been the trendy candidates in the 1980's. Clinton, Gore, and Dean before Obama were the trendy candidates. Mcgovern in 1972 and Eugene/Kennedy in 1968. Schweitzer family looks like your average working class family.

Ron Paul was the trendy candidate for libertarians and pot heads in 2008. He's not getting the same degree of media attention/reddit posts anymore.

Then who would you say is the trendy candidate of the 2012 race?

I don't think anyone mentioned this yet.  Here's another reason why the Northeast should arguably be more conservative than the South: the North is where the Puritans settled.  The Puritans were a very religious people who wanted to turn the US into a theocratic government and were somewhat successful in doing so, hence why we have so many blue laws as remnants of their attempts.  So, I'm still confused on how states with such strict laws on alcohol became the most liberal.

Yes, I realize this is the exact opposite of my original question.  Still relevant, though.

This is a very good point Frodo.

To explain a persons voting habits, his social and economical position within the whole nation is not as important as it's social and economical position within his social environment, and that's especially true in rural areas.
That's why a dirt-poor farmer in a 19th century village is immune against socialist campaigns, because dirt-poor as he may be, he is still the master over a couple of completely unpropertied servants. In his village, he is middle class. So he suits up (suit inherited from his father, he himself couldn't afford one) on election day and casts his vote for the conservatives, or whatever the party of establishment may be in this story.

A very interesting point as well.

I don't know very much about Puritan theology, but the more radical streams of Calvinism always had the potential to promote social progressive politics. Progressive, but not liberal (in the European sence).

It's like "We have to fight the Evil in this world and eliminate it, to make the world a better place" or something like that, as I said I'm not a theologian. "The Evil" may be alcohol, slavery or social injustice.

An other argument could be made that a religious tradition like Puritanism which is far less institutionalized than, let's say, Catholicism, is more susceptible to secularization. And secularization of course goes hand in hand with non-traditional political believes, be it socialism or liberalism.

Another thing to add is that many white Southerners(if not a majority) are the descendents of Scots-Irish settlers to the region from Ulster a part of modern day Northern Ireland(Not historically known as one of the most progressive places in Europe). Amongst the various ethnic groups in Europe, Scots-Irish are also regarded as one of the most conservative and religious group of people, hence some of the roots of the Northern Ireland conflict.

Well, NE was the most Puritanical (conservative, for the sake of argument) region of the country for many generations. But then the immigrants came. From the North there were the French, from the Atlntic both the Italians and Irish, as well as some Germans. They all brought their interpretations of scripture and their more liberal outlooks. Thus, the New England we have today.

Racism and religion.

DailyKos posted this a couple days ago.

()

Self-reliant?  Interesting.  And even the mountain states don't mind some government cheddar.

So much for the mountain states being the most "libertarian."

Yeah.  This pretty much disproves that entirely.  All they're libertarian on is... guns.  You learn something new every day, I guess.