The Solid North

[WhyteRain]

When I was studying the 2000 election, I noticed that it was the first time in generations that all the Southern states (defined by political geographers at that time as being the 11 states of the Old Confederacy, plus Oklahoma and Kentucky) were united for one candidate in a close election.  (I defined "close election" as one where the loser won more than 25% of all the states -- basically 13 or more for the last 100 years.)

Now in 2008, I notice that the States That Won The Civil War were united in a close election for the first time in 100 years -- since 1908.  The STWTCW are defined by me as Minnesota, Iowa, and all the states north of the Ohio River or Mason-Dixon Line.



[modify:]  Of course, because of the "flip" of the parties, the North was 100% GOP in 1908 and 100% Democratic in 2008.

[WhyteRain]

You don't include West Virginia as a "STWTCW"?

Or Kansas?

Nope, not Nevada either.

[WhyteRain]

Okeydokey then!  "100% of states in this category I'm pointing at right now fit this historical quirk, except for these handful of states that I'm going to ignore right now because."

That seems like a shallow remark.  I'm using the groups of states that I think most political geographers would agree correspond to "the South" and "the North" as those terms have been used most commonly in American history.

If you think my definitions of "the South" and "the North" are wrong, why not say why you think so or, better yet, offer your own definitions of them?

(Los Angeles, Calif., is farther south than Atlanta, Ga.  Should we therefore put Calif. in "the South"?)

[WhyteRain]

I think the OP is referring to the area of the US that is known as "Yankeeland" in the book American Nations, and to the states that comprise it. The Northeast and the Upper Midwest are part of the Yankee ethos that were influenced by a combination of reformist Puritans (New England), communitarian Quakers (Pennsylvania and the Mid-Atlantic), and Hamiltonian business interests (New York and New Jersey).

Compare that to the South, which has a political lineage stemming from wealthy coastal planters who favored a socially and economically stratified society (the Virginia Tidewater down the coast and westward to the Mississippi River), and from the Appalachian Scots-Irish who were suspicious of and hostile to the federal government (the Upland South, particularly West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and Arkansas).

Good points.

For the last time, I'll defend my use of "the STWTCW".  In addition to everything said in support of it so far, it comports almost exactly with "the States that voted for Lincoln in 1860".  Recall that I said "Minnesota, Iowa, and the other states north of the Ohio River and Mason-Dixon Line".



Note that Lincoln won California with 32% of the vote in a four-way race and Oregon with 36% of the vote in a three-way race.  Those states were not considered then and are not considered now part of "the North".

Anyway, I consider it quite interesting that "the North" has not been solid for a candidate in any close election (where the loser won more than 25% of states) between 1908 and 2008 -- and then voted all-GOP in 1908 and all-Democratic in 2008!  Those who claim "the parties didn't flip" have to explain that.

Moreover, until the 2000 race "the South" had similarly not been solid in a close election in generations (I can't recall the exact election -- maybe 1908?), and it too "flipped".

[WhyteRain]

there is a logic to this definition of the North, but there's nothing solid about it in the contemporary context.  For a while these states were solid Republican, but even then not at the percentages that the Deep South was solid Democrat.  

I recall reading one observer's comment about Texas (and maybe it applies elsewhere in the South) that "Texans don't see why there should be two major parties".  From my childhood to now, I've seen Texas go from solid Democrat to solid Republican.  Even former Democratic Party county chairmen switched over and became GOP county chairmen.  Texas has 29 statewide elected officials, and I can't recall the last time one wasn't a Republican -- but when I was a kid, the Democratic primary could get more votes than the general election.  The first time I ever saw a GOP candidate's billboard with the word "Republican" on it was 1978; the first time I ever saw a Democratic candidate's billboard without the word "Democrat" on it was 1984.

[WhyteRain]

If the south is completely behind one candidate in a close election, then by definition the other candidate will win the overwhelming majority of the other states, so this really shouldn't be surprising.

Not lately.

[WhyteRain]

The Democratic Party has virtually disappeared between the Hudson River and the Pacific Coast Range.