There has been speculation in the Blogosphere recently about whether a Democratic candidate for President needs to win the South and whether it is necessary for him to be from the South.
It is true that the South has generally voted as a block, but it has happened less often after the Civil Rights era than before. From the first Presidential election after the end of Reconstruction in 1880 to 1960, the Southern states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas voted as a block for the Democrats in all but two elections. One exception was 1948 when everyone except North Carolina and Georgia voted for the Dixiecrat Thurmond. The record has been a bit more mixed since then for Georgia (Carter in 1976 and 1980, Clinton in 1992), Louisiana and Arkansas (Clinton in 1992 and 1996) but generally the South has voted Republican in Presidential elections. This came about mainly as a result of the Civil Rights bill when white Southern Democrats abandoned Lyndon Johnson to vote for the opponent of the Civil Rights bill Barry Goldwater. (Aside: Did you know that Goldwater won only his home state of Arizona and the deep South? Also, Johnson’s win was the largest landslide in Presidential elections in terms of popular vote?)
Considering the South to be the seven states listed in the last paragraph, here is a table listing who won the electoral votes overall, in the South and in the rest of the country from 1960 to 2000.
| Year | Total | South | Rest | |||
| D | R | D | R | D | R | |
| 2000 | 266 | 271 | 0 | 66 | 266 | 205 |
| 1996 | 379 | 159 | 15 | 51 | 364 | 108 |
| 1992 | 370 | 168 | 28 | 38 | 342 | 130 |
| 1988 | 111 | 426 | 0 | 65 | 111 | 361 |
| 1984 | 13 | 525 | 0 | 65 | 13 | 460 |
| 1980 | 49 | 489 | 12 | 53 | 37 | 436 |
| 1976 | 297 | 240 | 65 | 0 | 232 | 240 |
| 1972 | 17 | 520 | 0 | 65 | 17 | 455 |
| 1968 | 191 | 301 | 0 | 20 | 191 | 281 |
| 1964 | 486 | 52 | 19 | 47 | 467 | 5 |
| 1960 | 303 | 219 | 57 | 0 | 246 | 219 |
(Data from Presidential Election Maps.)
Looking at the table, the South changed the results only in favor of Bush in 2000 and Carter in 1976. Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern and Humphrey won zero electoral votes in the South but lost convincingly in the rest of the country as well. So, the only example of a Democratic candidate who lost because of not winning anything in the South is Al Gore. And he was from Tennessee, which though not as consistent politically as the states in my list is still part of the South.
if gore had won NH, he would have won i think-so a dem like dean can win if he sweeps the northeast (plausible) and the coastal west (again, plausible, though oregon is more of a toss-up now then in used to be, i think conservative whites from california are coming here) and break-into some of the midwest/great lakes states (illinois, minnesota, etc.).
Cowbody Kahlil has some interesting commentary about Democrats and the South.
Better question, who at all needs the south?
(EEEEP! Someone is being un PC. For shame.)
razib: Yes, I think it is possible for the democrats to win without the South by that mechanism.
A-M: Thanks.
Owl: I have had that thought but then realized I go to school in the south.
Lol… I have no excuse either. Though I’m technically from the Midwest, me mum’s family is southern, complete with river-side cabins, four wheelers and lots of trucks.
Lol… I have no excuse either. Though I’m technically from the Midwest, me mum’s family is southern, complete with river-side cabins, four wheelers and lots of trucks.
Owl: I thought your mom was Mormon? And I haven’t seen any Mormons in the South.
Zack, then you haven’t been looking very hard. 🙂 There are Mormons all over the US, and all over the world for that matter as well, though they’re originally from Utah and are concentrated mainly in there as well as in the remaining Mid West.
Owl: Well technically they are not originally from Utah, but from the midwest which they had to to flee and went west to Utah. Obviously Mormons are all over the place. Come to think of it I know some in Atlanta as well, but they are not native Southerners, rather transplants from the West. I think Utah is majority Mormon but Salt Lake City is no longer. There are quite a few Mormons in eastern Washington, Oregon and Idaho as well. But you already knew that, didn’t you?
Of course. 🙂
You better believe Democrats need the South. The southern U.S. is the third largest economy in the world behind the U.S. as a whole and Japan. It is also the fastest growing region of the country with respect to population and the economy. It is much more complex and diverse than most non-southerners realize (for some reason, people like Howard Dean still picture Confederate Flags, pickups with shotgun racks, etc.) Not True! Georgia has the fastest growing hispanic population in the U.S. Metro Atlanta has on of the largest Jewish populations of any city in the nation. Our larger cities are increasingly Asian, Arab, and Hispanic. If current demographic trends continue (non-southerners and immigrants moving into the South), by 2020 the majority of Americans and American businesses will reside in the South. If Dems don’t address the South and address it soon, they will never win another national election!
You better believe Democrats need the South. The southern U.S. is the third largest economy in the world behind the U.S. as a whole and Japan. It is also the fastest growing region of the country with respect to population and the economy. It is much more complex and diverse than most non-southerners realize (for some reason, people like Howard Dean still picture Confederate Flags, pickups with shotgun racks, etc.) Not True! Georgia has the fastest growing hispanic population in the U.S. Metro Atlanta has on of the largest Jewish populations of any city in the nation. Our larger cities are increasingly Asian, Arab, and Hispanic. If current demographic trends continue (non-southerners and immigrants moving into the South), by 2020 the majority of Americans and American businesses will reside in the South. If Dems don’t address the South and address it soon, they will never win another national election!
Brandon: I actually live in Atlanta. I think Howard Dean’s statement was too stereotypical.
My analysis was not meant to say that Democrats won’t need the South ever, but just to analyze Presidential election trends in the South.
Based on current electoral college distribution, it is possible to win a Presidential election without a single southern state (something Al Gore came close to doing). I don’t think ignoring the South is a good thing though.
Being from the South and a pretty liberal democrat, i would be very worried if the national democratic party apparatus stop paying attention to the south.
Florida and Georgia for one are quite democrat leaning state, though democrats tend to be somewhat conservative. Louisiana is increasingly becoming a democrat stronghold and i think Arkansas ja North Carolina are still pretty democrat friendly.
Well, i don’t know what the hell is going on in Mississippi or Texas (and i really don’t want to) but democrats face an uphill struggle there.
Through time and migration, Virginia and Florida could become even more demfriendly.
I live in Florida, which isn’t always the best place to be a democrat, though we’re supposed to outnumber repukes on registered voters (but as always, the swingers decide), but usually i’d say it’s far from impossible for a dem to win here.
Kerry does need to carry a whole lot of other states to win, if he decides to pass the south, which could harm senate candidates. Besides Florida could be an easy target, perhaps easier than Missouri or Arizona. I’ve heard that Minnesota is increasingly becoming republican, so infact democrats should come back home again – to the south. Without the racism of course, the republicans taking over the South isn’t really a thing i take very kindly to.
hincabuu: I would be worried too if the Democrats completely wrote off the South. As you point out, a number of southern states are competitive, at least for congressional candidates if not for president. However, it is also possible for Kerry to win without winning a single southern state.