The first two posts in this series examined how the northern and southern states were moving in opposite electoral directions as a result of the two parties coalescing into ideological, rather than regional and ethnic, coalitions. Several astute posters pointed out how this is not entirely an even trade, for two important reasons. First, the south is slightly more solid for conservative Republican Presidential nominees than the north is for liberal and moderate Democratic nominees. Second, while the north is still slightly larger than the south, the gap is rapidly closing. After the 2000 census, the north lost ten electoral votes, dropping its total to 212 electoral votes, while the south gained five, increasing its total to 184. By the 2024 Presidential election, the two regions might be of equal electoral strength.
Where can we stem this tide? To repeat the famous cliché, go West young Democrats.
Considering its comparative size (141 electoral votes), The West is actually growing at a relatively faster rate than the South (both regions gained five electoral votes following the 2000 census). In the West, there is also a striking difference between the performance of southern and non-southern Democrats. Look at the Western partisan maps of 1976, 1996 and 2000:
1976
1996
2000
Now, look at the Western partisan index maps of 1972, 1988 and 2004:
1972
1988
2004
The differences here are striking. McGovern, Dukakis and Kerry all performed much better in the West compared to their national standing than did Carter, Clinton and Gore. Kerry improved on Gore's performance, or stayed within one point, on the partisan index of every single Western state except Hawaii. Further, with the non-southerners, only Idaho, Utah, Nebraska and Wyoming escaped the status of swing states or solid Democratic states every time. Kansas, both Dakotas, Montana and even Alaska did not.
Interestingly--and this is something that you might not have known--as a region, the west, even the dark red west, is not nearly as conservative as the south (even the swing state south):
Liberal IM Moderate VM AK -20 -18 AZ -19 +5 CA -2 +15 CO -13 +9 HI +6 +10 ID -22 -31 KS -24 -9 MT -18 -1 NE -28 -16 NV -16 +12 NM -14 +21 ND -20 -13 OR -7 +13 SD -23 +5 UT -34 -23 WA -7 +23 WY -24 -22With the exception of Utah and Nebraska, every single Western state has a smaller gap between self-identifying liberals and self-identifying conservatives than does every single southern state with the exception of Virginia and Florida. Heck, Virginia's gap of -21 is almost exactly the same as such super-red states as Alaska (-20), Idaho, (-22), Kansas (-24), North Dakota (-20), South Dakota (-23) and Wyoming (-24). In fact, every single western state except Utah has a smaller gap between liberals and conservatives than does Arkansas! While slightly more conservative than the North, the West is not a gratuitously conservative region.
I do not think the cause for the poor performance of southerners in the West is based on some sort of regional dislike for southerners among westerners. In fact, considering the vastness and diversity of the west, it is difficult to think of this region as a region at all. It includes the heavily Latino southwest, the Mormon belt, the plains states, the non-Continental states, and the Pacific coast--quite a diverse collection indeed! Instead, I think the poor performance of southern Democratic nominees in the West relative to their national popular vote points to two distinct paths that Democrats can follow when selecting a residential nominee. One of these paths has grown obsolete, and one is forward looking. This is what I will talk about in my final post in this series, which I will post in a few hours. Also, I will finally tie this all together with McGovern. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 5 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
