Is the Republican South Starting to Crack?

[ag]

So, actually quite interesting thread. The people who were saying that NC won't be in play of course didn't expect a 7% national margin, but, still, something notable happened. The huge swings in populous NC counties did materialize ahead of schedule   North Caroline swung 12.76% this time, but of the 8 counties that registered over 100 thousand votes, all but the smallest (New Hanover) reported larger swings. And Wake wasn't by far the biggest culprit.

Wake County (Raleigh) swung 16.57% giving Obama 63,890 vote margin
Mecklenburg (Charlotte) swung 20.73%, giving Obama 100,110 vote margin (!!)
Guilford County (Greensboro) swung 17.46% giving Obama 44,383 vote margin
Forsyth County (Winston-Salem) swung 19.07% giving Obama 17,411 vote margin
The already uber-Democratic Durham County swung further 15.54% giving Obama 71,103 margin
Cumberland (Fayetteville) swung 21.19% giving Obama 22,542 vote margin
Buncombe County (Asheville) swung 14.50% giving Obama 17,222 vote margin

Every single one of these counties gave Obama more than his statewide margin (14,177 votes)!

New Hanover (Wilmington) was the sole exception, with a "modest", but still double-digit, 10.65% swing and a meagre 1,399 vote margin for McCain.
 
Of the counties that swung to McCain none had over 25 thousand votes cast. In fact, of the 16 counties w/ the largest number of votes cast there was a double-digit swing in every single one.

[pbrower2a]

I don't think that we will see another era of moderate southerner democrats. The Carter-Clinton period is definitely ended. Finally, we will see liberal northerners taking the control of the party.
The Democratic party will be a true progressive party.

To the contrary. As Democrats win Governorships and US Senate seats in the South -- offices often perceived as one election away from the Presidency, the likes of Lloyd Bentsen, Jimmy Carter, John Edwards, and Bill Clinton will return. Democrats can win in the South, but only as moderates. The Republican Party has become increasingly reactionary in the South, and it may be a matter of time.

I might not have a very high regard for the Presidencies of Carter and Clinton, but I can't deny Clinton's success in winning two landslide elections. That wasn't so long ago. The Religious Right has been weakening as a political force, and so far it can reliably deliver votes only in the South and the Plains states.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't think that we will see another era of moderate southerner democrats. The Carter-Clinton period is definitely ended. Finally, we will see liberal northerners taking the control of the party.
The Democratic party will be a true progressive party.

To the contrary. As Democrats win Governorships and US Senate seats in the South -- offices often perceived as one election away from the Presidency, the likes of Lloyd Bentsen, Jimmy Carter, John Edwards, and Bill Clinton will return. Democrats can win in the South, but only as moderates. The Republican Party has become increasingly reactionary in the South, and it may be a matter of time.

I might not have a very high regard for the Presidencies of Carter and Clinton, but I can't deny Clinton's success in winning two landslide elections. That wasn't so long ago. The Religious Right has been weakening as a political force, and so far it can reliably deliver votes only in the South and the Plains states.

But the fact is, as I already said, that Democrats don't more need the South to win elections. The 2008 map is quite clear : excepted for East coast - which demographics are going to seem to the Northeast -, southern states are trending more and more Republican : and that didn't pevent at all Obama's victory. If we'll continue to see maps as 2008, that will mean that democrats are definitely free of southern influence and can do progressive policies.

[minionofmidas]

No, but it is shrinking as our message narrows every election.

This.
It's contracting, not imploding.

[Psychic Octopus]

Somewhat. Just the More "Atlantic" States (Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida) are becoming swing states. The Gulf States (Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, etc.) are staying GOP.  But as they lose states in the south, they gain in places like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Somewhat. Just the More "Atlantic" States (Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida) are becoming swing states. The Gulf States (Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, etc.) are staying GOP.  But as they lose states in the south, they gain in places like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania.

Michigan : Obama +16%, democratic 2004-2008 trend
Wisconsin : Obama +13%, democratic 2004-2008 trend
Pennsylvania : Obama +10%

Actually, they have more chances to win Minnesota.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Somewhat. Just the More "Atlantic" States (Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida) are becoming swing states. The Gulf States (Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, etc.) are staying GOP.  But as they lose states in the south, they gain in places like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania.

Michigan : Obama +16%, democratic 2004-2008 trend
Wisconsin : Obama +13%, democratic 2004-2008 trend
Pennsylvania : Obama +10%

Actually, they have more chances to win Minnesota.

Actually, MI, WI and PA were trending Republican until this year. Obama was just the right kind of candidate for MI and WI.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Somewhat. Just the More "Atlantic" States (Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida) are becoming swing states. The Gulf States (Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, etc.) are staying GOP.  But as they lose states in the south, they gain in places like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania.

Michigan : Obama +16%, democratic 2004-2008 trend
Wisconsin : Obama +13%, democratic 2004-2008 trend
Pennsylvania : Obama +10%

Actually, they have more chances to win Minnesota.

Actually, MI, WI and PA were trending Republican until this year. Obama was just the right kind of candidate for MI and WI.

You should look better at the trend maps. The only year when MI and WI trended Republican was 2000 : in 1996, 2004 and 2008, they were both trending democrat. About PA, it trended democrat in 2000 and 2004 elections.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I don't think that we will see another era of moderate southerner democrats. The Carter-Clinton period is definitely ended. Finally, we will see liberal northerners taking the control of the party.
The Democratic party will be a true progressive party.

I disagree.  While the era of Southern moderates may be ending, the era of Southerners will not end for a long time.  We may see more Southern populists, though, while the moderates in the mold of Carter/Clinton begin to lose influence.  Many of the rising stars in the Party are Southern, and that will continue, as Southern states elect Democratic Governors.

In terms of Obama not needing Southern states, that's been true of every election victory on either side since 1972 except for 2004, 2000, 1988, and 1976.  The Democrats cannot afford to give up on the South, because eventually an election will come when, without the South, they won't be able to win on their current base.  If the Democrats turn away Southerners, and become the Party of New England, then they will not be able to win elections anymore. 

New England (the states from Maine to Maryland) hold 114 electoral votes, a number which will go down in 2010.  The South (Old Confederacy + WV, KY, MO, and OK) holds 184 electoral votes, a number which will go up.  If the Democrats want to forsake the South, they will need to focus increasingly on the Midwestern states from Ohio to Nevada, and it will be more difficult to win elections than if they would spend money on places like VA, NC, FL, and GA.  To abandon the South is to give the GOP a major chunk of electoral votes for free, rather than making them fight for it.  It's different than giving up the UT, ID, MT, etc., area; that bloc contains only 20-30 electoral votes, and is not growing at nearly the rate the South is.

It is easier, then, for the Democrats to spend money in a couple of Southern states, and spread extra money in other places, than to abandon the South and be forced to have an all-or-nothing campaign in the West.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Actually, democrats are more likely to win West and Midwest than the South. Obama's margin in Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado are more high than countrywide.
The new democratic coalition durably doesn't need south to win elections. With democrats gaining ground in western states and some states like Indiana, South is the place where they haven't to go. Excepted the east coast, who is getting more and more blue, and Texas, where hispanics could make it a swing state, South will become the main republican region, maybe more than places like Idaho and Utah. Look at the 2008 trend map : western trends are the more democrats, whereas the only states who Obama did worse than Kerry are in the South.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Actually, democrats are more likely to win West and Midwest than the South. Obama's margin in Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado are more high than countrywide.
The new democratic coalition durably doesn't need south to win elections. With democrats gaining ground in western states and some states like Indiana, South is the place where they haven't to go. Excepted the east coast, who is getting more and more blue, and Texas, where hispanics could make it a swing state, South will become the main republican region, maybe more than places like Idaho and Utah. Look at the 2008 trend map : western trends are the more democrats, whereas the only states who Obama did worse than Kerry are in the South.

Yes, but those states aren't anywhere near the size of the South, and what if the GOP nominates a candidate who fits well with those states?  The Democrats should not abandon the South in any way.  To suggest that they abandon any part of the country with more than 7 electoral votes per state is not a good way to win elections.  I'm not saying they should focus on winning MS at the expense of winning AZ, but to give up on that entire region is foolish.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Actually, democrats are more likely to win West and Midwest than the South. Obama's margin in Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado are more high than countrywide.
The new democratic coalition durably doesn't need south to win elections. With democrats gaining ground in western states and some states like Indiana, South is the place where they haven't to go. Excepted the east coast, who is getting more and more blue, and Texas, where hispanics could make it a swing state, South will become the main republican region, maybe more than places like Idaho and Utah. Look at the 2008 trend map : western trends are the more democrats, whereas the only states who Obama did worse than Kerry are in the South.

Yes, but those states aren't anywhere near the size of the South, and what if the GOP nominates a candidate who fits well with those states?  The Democrats should not abandon the South in any way.  To suggest that they abandon any part of the country with more than 7 electoral votes per state is not a good way to win elections.  I'm not saying they should focus on winning MS at the expense of winning AZ, but to give up on that entire region is foolish.

Obviously, but htat's true for every region. A party who gives up in a region automatically reduces his chances to win. That means republicans should not give up in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania as democrats should not give up in North Carolina or Kentucky. But, anyway, the present democrat coalition is very strong without the south.

[pbrower2a]

The "upper inland South" -- Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia -- has no giant prizes, but they seem to vote in tandem. In 2008 they accounted for 42 electoral votes, which is more than any state except for California.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Actually, democrats are more likely to win West and Midwest than the South. Obama's margin in Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado are more high than countrywide.
The new democratic coalition durably doesn't need south to win elections. With democrats gaining ground in western states and some states like Indiana, South is the place where they haven't to go. Excepted the east coast, who is getting more and more blue, and Texas, where hispanics could make it a swing state, South will become the main republican region, maybe more than places like Idaho and Utah. Look at the 2008 trend map : western trends are the more democrats, whereas the only states who Obama did worse than Kerry are in the South.

Yes, but those states aren't anywhere near the size of the South, and what if the GOP nominates a candidate who fits well with those states?  The Democrats should not abandon the South in any way.  To suggest that they abandon any part of the country with more than 7 electoral votes per state is not a good way to win elections.  I'm not saying they should focus on winning MS at the expense of winning AZ, but to give up on that entire region is foolish.

Obviously, but htat's true for every region. A party who gives up in a region automatically reduces his chances to win. That means republicans should not give up in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania as democrats should not give up in North Carolina or Kentucky. But, anyway, the present democrat coalition is very strong without the south.

Very true; I'm just saying that just because the coalition was strong this year without the South, it included some outliers.  We shouldn't depend on the non-Southern states to pull us through.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Actually, democrats are more likely to win West and Midwest than the South. Obama's margin in Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado are more high than countrywide.
The new democratic coalition durably doesn't need south to win elections. With democrats gaining ground in western states and some states like Indiana, South is the place where they haven't to go. Excepted the east coast, who is getting more and more blue, and Texas, where hispanics could make it a swing state, South will become the main republican region, maybe more than places like Idaho and Utah. Look at the 2008 trend map : western trends are the more democrats, whereas the only states who Obama did worse than Kerry are in the South.

Yes, but those states aren't anywhere near the size of the South, and what if the GOP nominates a candidate who fits well with those states?  The Democrats should not abandon the South in any way.  To suggest that they abandon any part of the country with more than 7 electoral votes per state is not a good way to win elections.  I'm not saying they should focus on winning MS at the expense of winning AZ, but to give up on that entire region is foolish.

Obviously, but htat's true for every region. A party who gives up in a region automatically reduces his chances to win. That means republicans should not give up in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania as democrats should not give up in North Carolina or Kentucky. But, anyway, the present democrat coalition is very strong without the south.

Very true; I'm just saying that just because the coalition was strong this year without the South, it included some outliers.  We shouldn't depend on the non-Southern states to pull us through.

I agree, but my feeling is that we will not depend on states like Kentucky or West Virginia to win elections. Obviously we will continue to campaign here, but think they will be less and less battleground states, whereas states like Indiana, Montana, Colorado or Arizona will become more and more so.

[nclib]

So, actually quite interesting thread. The people who were saying that NC won't be in play of course didn't expect a 7% national margin, but, still, something notable happened. The huge swings in populous NC counties did materialize ahead of schedule   North Caroline swung 12.76% this time, but of the 8 counties that registered over 100 thousand votes, all but the smallest (New Hanover) reported larger swings. And Wake wasn't by far the biggest culprit.

Wake County (Raleigh) swung 16.57% giving Obama 63,890 vote margin
Mecklenburg (Charlotte) swung 20.73%, giving Obama 100,110 vote margin (!!)
Guilford County (Greensboro) swung 17.46% giving Obama 44,383 vote margin
Forsyth County (Winston-Salem) swung 19.07% giving Obama 17,411 vote margin
The already uber-Democratic Durham County swung further 15.54% giving Obama 71,103 margin
Cumberland (Fayetteville) swung 21.19% giving Obama 22,542 vote margin
Buncombe County (Asheville) swung 14.50% giving Obama 17,222 vote margin

Every single one of these counties gave Obama more than his statewide margin (14,177 votes)!

New Hanover (Wilmington) was the sole exception, with a "modest", but still double-digit, 10.65% swing and a meagre 1,399 vote margin for McCain.
 
Of the counties that swung to McCain none had over 25 thousand votes cast. In fact, of the 16 counties w/ the largest number of votes cast there was a double-digit swing in every single one.

What's interesting about the swings here is that while the largest swings were mainly in metro counties that don't typify a Southern community, overall 91/100 counties here swung Obama even though most of non-metro NC is quite culturally Southern and Edwards was on the ballot in 2004.

Virginia has a similar pattern, I don't know the actual numbers but all rural counties in VA aside from the southwest swung to Obama.

SC surprised me by having only two counties swing Republican, even the the state overall swung by less than the national average.

This is in contrast to other parts of the South (OK, AR, east TX, LA, TN, northern FL, even some ultra-Republican white counties in MS and AL still swung GOP) where most counties had GOP swings or small swings towards Obama.

[pbrower2a]

Obama could make political headway in the South if he can successfully address poverty. Democrats used to rely upon poor people (at least until 1996) in the South -- white and black alike -- to win elections. Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 both treated poverty as a political third rail because Americans apparently wanted to hear nothing of it. The poverty that Obama addressed in 2008 was the threat of poverty to people who had never been poor -- the middle class in fear of destitution from mass layoffs, mass cutbacks, and deterioration of asset values. He addressed that successfully in his campaign -- but he ignored the long-term Third World poverty heavily concentrated in the South (including Appalachia). Will he need to? Maybe not. Will he? If he must, of course.

Are poor Southern whites that much different from poor Southern blacks that they can't vote alike? Most poor people are still white people.  Look at southeastern Kentucky.

[??????????]

Third world poverty? no.

[pbrower2a]

Third world poverty? no.

Southeastern Kentucky. The Black Belt of Mississippi and Alabama.  Some counties along the Mississippi River.

[??????????]

Third world poverty? no.

Southeastern Kentucky. The Black Belt of Mississippi and Alabama.  Some counties along the Mississippi River.

Second world, yes. When my grandfather lived in Appalachia, yes, it was third world.

[Devilman88]

Third world poverty? no.

Southeastern Kentucky. The Black Belt of Mississippi and Alabama.  Some counties along the Mississippi River.

Second world, yes. When my grandfather lived in Appalachia, yes, it was third world.

I have been to the places in Southeastern KY and Southwestern VA. It is very sad how them people live. Most don't have running water or power. They have dirt floor, very very little to no money. It is very sad.

[??????????]

My great grandparents lived just fine w/out a telephone and electricity well up into the 1960's, in the part of VA you're referring to.