Is the Republican South Starting to Crack?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.