GOP Has Lock on South, and Democrats Can't Find Key

Yahoo News ^ | Dec 15 | Ronald Brownstein

[GOP_1900AD]

Yup, you got it nailed there.

[Torie]

Well, the counter-trend, is that very slowly, the larger metro areas in the south (and some of the not so large) are regressing towards the mean, and the GOP margins are eroding (ya, even including those exurbs that the Pubbies are coming in their pants over). That includes metro Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Charlotte, Richmond, Charleston, Columbia, and Memphis among others (granted metro Nashville and maybe Birmingham are trending GOP, and Jackson, Louisville and San Antonio stay about even, and well, Austin is a college town). Over time, white Baptists in the south will vote more and more like white Baptists in the north (and the white Baptist percentage of whites in the south will itself decline), and with the south's large black population, I suspect that in a another generation, the south will not be more GOP than the nation as a whole.

And there you have it.

[af_vet_1981]

The reason is patriotism. People in the South still love America.

[southernnorthcarolina]

I see no trend toward the Dems in the Charlotte metro area. Perhaps you are not casting your net widely enough, geographically speaking.

In 2000, Bush took the state of North Carolina by 56-44 (I use 2-party figures, rounded to the nearest whole point, herein), and he took the Charlotte metro area (Mecklenburg, Gaston, Lincoln, Catawba, Iredell, Rowan, Cabarrus, and Union Counties in NC, plus Lancaster and York Counties in SC) by 60-40.

In 2004, Bush took NC 56-44, and Metro Charlotte 60-40. Identical in both cases, when rounded to the nearest whole percent.

The percentage of the NC vote cast by the Charlotte metro counties in NC (that is, excluding the two SC counties) crept up from 16.75% in 2000 to 16.98% in 2004.

Percentages aside, the plurality provided to President Bush by the Charlotte Metro area increased from 134,000 in 2000 to 155,000 in 2004.

It is true that Mecklenburg went from red to blue in 2004. And it may well be blue forever. But the metro area is rapidly expanding. My new home county of Union (I'm a native of Mecklenburg) went for Bush by 32,000 to 15,000 in 2000, and by 43,000 to 18,000 in 2004.

My conclusion is that metro Charlotte, center city, suburbs, and exurbs included, is holding its own for the GOP in percentage terms, and given its more rapid growth than the state as a whole, is providing an increasing Republican margin, all other things being equal. Add to that the fact that rural NC is moving to the right, and the logical conclusion is that the future of the GOP in NC (and, by extension, the South) is bright, indeed.

Some Dems cling to the hope that the continuing influx of Northern transplants will bail them out in NC. I think they'll be disappointed. Yes, we have lots of folks moving here from, for example, New Jersey. And yes, New Jersey is a Dem state. However, we're not getting a cross-section of New Jerseyites moving here; rather, we're getting corporate transplants, entrepreneurs, and (in the mountains, the Pinehurst area, and the beaches) prosperous retirees. I've said it before: those who can leave New Jersey do leave New Jersey. And most of these are Republicans.

So I would strongly disagree with your supposition that "in a another generation, the south will not be more GOP than the nation as a whole."

[Cedar]

The REAL reason: The South still believes in moral living.

The Dems will never win as long as they are the "anything goes" party.

[Torie]

I will take your word on the numbers (although they surprise me), but if metro Charlotte stayed even, while Bush widened his margin by 3% nationally, that is hardly encouraging. Just look at the percentage of metro Charlotte Bush pere got in 1988. I am quite confident I am right on this, particuarly as whites in the South slowly go upscale. But, well, in a generation we both might not be posting on FR for one of us to tell the other I told you so.

[CurlyBill]

John Kerry and his "Spitball Brigade" are going to "report for duty" and become "southern" during the next race. The Dems have completely lost the south .... I must take exception however, with the author trying to sell race as the primary motivating factor for a southern voter. Brownstein tries to implicity paint the south as a racist bunch who care only about racial issues. This is all garbage. The south's move to the GOP is about values. It is due to the Dems removal of God from our schools, gay marriage, weakness on defense issues, tax and spend policies, ridiculous political correctness, anti-Christian filth, blame America first, gun control (codeword for ban), weak on crime attitude... just to name a few. The Dems just don't get it. God bless the South!!

[CurlyBill]

Ping!! A good read!

[southernnorthcarolina]

I will take your word on the numbers (although they surprise me), but if metro Charlotte stayed even, while Bush widened his margin by 3% nationally, that is hardly encouraging.

Encouraging enough to me, in light of the fact that Senator Edwards, born in SC and elected in NC, was on the ticket. Certainly the Dems were expecting a closer result.

Just look at the percentage of metro Charlotte Bush pere got in 1988.

The first President Bush took NC in 1988 by 58-42, as compared to his son's 56-44 margins in 2000 and 2004. But in the metro Charlotte area (including the same counties previously referred to), GHWB ran a bit behind his NC numbers, winning the metro area 57-43. What's more interesting is the growth of the total metro Charlotte vote between 1988 and 2004: the major-party total in 1988 was 464,000 votes (GHWB 264,000, Clinton 200,000); by 2004, it had surged by 41%, to 652,000 votes (W 393,000, Kerry 259,000).

But, well, in a generation we both might not be posting on FR for one of us to tell the other I told you so.

I plan to be here. Just because I'm a veteran of the Youth for McKinley movement, don't assume I won't be around a while longer.

I enjoy these discussions. My best wishes to you for a very Merry Christmas.

[Torie]

Merry Christmas to you as well. It is always a pleasure chatting with you.

Here are the numbers for 1988 from the counties you mentioned, from the LEIPS site. Granted, in 1988 some may not have been in your metro list, but then if GOP rural counties disappear from the map as the metro area expands, one sort of ends up in the same place. It's spelled E-R-O-S-I-O-N. You heard it here first.

Gaston		14582	34775
Lijncoln	6444	11651
Catawba		12922	28872
Iredell		10530	21536
Rowan		12127	23192
Cabarrus	10686	22524
Union		8820	17015
Lancaster	6181	9152
York		11458	21657
Mecklenberg	71907	106236


		165657	296610

		36.11%	63.89%

		Margin	130953

[Torie]

Oh, I think you maybe mixed up 1988 with 1992, since I see Clinton's name. LOL.

[southernnorthcarolina]

Well, nuts. I had GHWB's and Dukakis's totals in Mecklenburg reversed. So my corrected rounded total for metro Charlotte is GHWB 298,000, and Dukakis 166,000, which agrees with your figures (or close enough for government work, anyway). And of course, with respect to your follow-up post, I of course meant Dukakis and not Clinton. I plead an EST defense with respect to both errors -- it's late here.

OK, GHWB took the Charlotte metro area by 64-36 in 1988, and W took it by 60-40 in both 2000 and 2004. So yes, some erosion. Still, I would point out 1) that GHWB's win in 1988 was a national rout, relatively speaking; 2) that NC's Edwards was on the Dem ticket in 2004; and 3) that W's absolute 2004 margin in metro Charlotte was 155,000, as opposed to Daddy Bush's 131,000 in 1988. All in all, not a bad trend.

Since it's 2 AM here, I'm gonna declare victory and bo to ged. Or something like that.

[Kuksool]

The DUmmies are wishing that the South would break off from the rest of the nation. As long as the DNC keeps nominating elitist snobs like Kerry, the RATS will never make any inroads with Southerners.

[Nick Danger]

Someone needs to 'splain the donks that France is not the moral compass of the free world.

[Crawdad]

The dems remind me of the last words of a redneck: "Hey ya'll, watch this. Let's run a Massuchusetts liberal and see how many votes we can get in the South"!

[HostileTerritory]

GHWB took 54% of the nationwide vote to GWB's 51% share. If GWB came in 4 points behind his father, it appears that the Charlotte metro area hasn't moved anywhere on the partisan scale in 16 years, even though it has changed dramatically in other ways.

[stand watie]

!!!!!!!

[Kuksool]

Two other counties to watch are Franklin and Wake counties. The people of these counties tend to split their votes between the parties. Easley won Franklin and Wake. Whereas, Burr narrowly carried Franklin, but lost Wake.

In fact, Burr won the Breck Girl's Senate seat by using the Jesse Helms method: Woo East Carolina Yellow Dogs by painting the RATS as Ted Kennedy clones. I wonder if this method will succeed in the long run. It seems that for every East Carolina vote the NC GOP gains, they lose support in Wake. And Raleigh Metro is where the growth in North Carolina is. So while President Bush has a lock on the South, Easley has a lock on Research Triangle. This is a lock that the NC GOP must pick if they ever wish to match the successes of their GOP neighbors in GA & SC.

[blam]

"That includes metro Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Charlotte, Richmond, Charleston, Columbia, and Memphis among others (granted metro Nashville and maybe Birmingham are trending GOP, and Jackson, Louisville and San Antonio stay about even, and well, Austin is a college town)."

Baldwin county, eastern shore of Mobile Bay, voted every Democrat out of office. There is not one publically elected Democrat in the county government...and, we elect our judges too.

[No Dems 2004]

Torie,

I've followed your assessment with interest regarding what you feel is erosion of the GOP in the South. If your argument were true, I think we would be seeing more trouble for Republicans right now than we are. I think the only 2 states where we've seen erosion for the GOP (in federal politics, at least) since 1988 are Florida and Virginia. I've compiled a state by state comparison for the performances of the 2 Bushes against the 2 MA Dems in 1988 and 2004, respectively:

Alabama:
1988: 59%-40%
2004: 62%-37%

Arkansas:
1988: 56%-42%
2004: 54%-45%

Florida:
1988: 61%-39%
2004: 52%-47%

Georgia:
1988: 60%-40%
2004: 58%-41%

Kentucky:
1988: 56%-44%
2004: 60%-40%

Louisiana:
1988: 54%-44%
2004: 57%-42%

Mississippi:
1988: 60%-39%
2004: 59%-40%

North Carolina:
1988: 58%-42%
2004: 56%-44%

Oklahoma:
1988: 58%-41%
2004: 66%-34%

South Carolina:
1988: 62%-38%
2004: 58%-41%

Tennessee:
1988: 58%-42%
2004: 57%-43%

Texas:
1988: 56%-43%
2004: 61%-38%

Virginia:
1988: 60%-39%
2004: 54%-45%

For the heck of it, I've tossed in a couple pseudo-southern states:

West Virginia:
1988: 47%-52%
2004: 56%-43%

Missouri:
1988: 52%-48%
2004: 53%-46%

Consider that, in 1988, the elder George Bush carried 40 states and won the popular vote by nearly 8 percentage points compared to under 3 points by the current President Bush. You can see that younger Bush bested older Bush in AL, KY, LA, OK, TX, WV & MO, while the elder Bush bested the younger mainly in VA and FL, 2 states we already know have experienced some big changes (don't forget that NC would have likely voted more for Bush had Edwards not been on the ballot, just like Texas would have in 1988 had Bentsen not been on the ballot). There were some fluctuations in some of the other states but nothing massive.

I fail to understand how the South is getting LESS Republican, according to you, rather than more Republican. If your theory were correct, it would pan out in the big picture. That doesn't even touch on the fact that the Dems are a dying breed all over the South in other federal races.

How do you explain percentages like these??