Who's In the Party?
Last week, the Annenberg Public Policy Center released part of the results of its 2004 Election Survey, a national poll of registered voters. Last week's findings concerned party identification among registered voters, and the results may surprise those who think Democrats are dead in the South:
A few thoughts on this. First, the numbers are clear that Democrats, as a party, haven't lost their appeal to voters in the South, or at least any more so than any other region of the country.
But of course, in the states where registered Democrats are a majority, or not far behind (only in Texas and Virginia do Republicans have more than a 3% edge), Republicans have often won the big state-wide races for national offices.
This takes progressives into deeper questions about what kinds of candidates can win in Southern states, and further, what it will take in Southern states to build up progressive political strength.
But for now, it's clear that merely having the numbers in terms of party affiliation isn't enough for Southern Democrats. In other words, the question isn't whether or not Democrats have a future in the South, but what kind of Democrats -- a distinction that often gets lost.
- Maryland and West Virginia are the two most Democratic states in the country, measured by percentage of registered voters who identify as Democrats
- Six of the 13 Southern states have more registered Democrats than Republicans.
- Democrats dominate by bigger majorities in Democratic states than Republicans do in GOP states. Democrats have an average 6.2% edge over their GOP counterparts in Democratic states; Republicans only lead by an average of 3.4% in states where they are the majority.
- Independents are strong in the South. In 10 out of 13 states, at least one out of five registered voters identify as independent. In four states, it was at least a quarter.
- The heart of Republicanism is in the Midwest/West: Kansas, Nebraska and Utah are the most Republican states.
A few thoughts on this. First, the numbers are clear that Democrats, as a party, haven't lost their appeal to voters in the South, or at least any more so than any other region of the country.
But of course, in the states where registered Democrats are a majority, or not far behind (only in Texas and Virginia do Republicans have more than a 3% edge), Republicans have often won the big state-wide races for national offices.
This takes progressives into deeper questions about what kinds of candidates can win in Southern states, and further, what it will take in Southern states to build up progressive political strength.
But for now, it's clear that merely having the numbers in terms of party affiliation isn't enough for Southern Democrats. In other words, the question isn't whether or not Democrats have a future in the South, but what kind of Democrats -- a distinction that often gets lost.
5 Comments:
Let's talk about those deeper questions. I want to see progressives win in the South, but how often do they?
Well, there are local victories, to be sure. Chapel Hill, for example. But are there any state-wide elections that progressives have won in the South?
3 or 4% doesn't sound like much to overcome, but what difference does it make which Party voters are registiered with if they vote for Republicans and conservative Democrats in all state-wide elections?
Interesting, but as an import from Ohio (been southern for the last 12+ years), I notice that Democrat means something very different than it does up north. In Ohio, for example, Democrats are tied up with the legacy of an industrial sector in the north of the state, while Republicans find their basic socialization allegiances in the more corporate southern half.
This sort of cognitive affiliation isn't true in Georgia, first because union presence has never been big here, and second because Democrat is tethered historically to the Dixiecrat mentality, a populist, racially-based way of seeing party affiliation. I have no doubt that there are plenty of progressive voices in the South, but at least from my experience, it does not seem that party identification says much about current political orientations toward progressive policy solutions.
And I'm not sure I like the idea of the Dems trying to recapture the South by becoming even less progressive than they are already. Thoughts?
First of all, just so I'm clear: my post wasn't intended to show that, current elections aside, the Democratic Party is poised to take over the South. It was merely an attempt to encourage people to think in more precise terms about what they mean when they say "the Democrats are dead in the South." Clearly, by this measure, they aren't.
How deep that party affiliation runs is a good question. Although, I think that in the 40 years since Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, the racist whites who used to populate the Democratic Party have had plenty of time to move out it. In the main, I think those who are in the Dem Party now are there because they want to be, not just because of history.
This doesn't mean that Democrats in the South are hugely progressive, or at least they don't identify that way. But as Jim Hightower often points out, his dad in Texas supports "fair trade" and opposes corporations running roughshod over the environment, and he identifies as a conservative. So maybe the labels, like party ID, don't hold as much weight in the South, either.
It's also good to note that no Southern State had under 40% support for Gore.
The following states had under 40%:
Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.
I haven't analyzed the Kerry numbers yet, but I suspect it's similar.
Chris,
In your post, you said:
This takes progressives into deeper questions about what kinds of candidates can win in Southern states, and further, what it will take in Southern states to build up progressive political strength.In the comments, you said:
This doesn't mean that Democrats in the South are hugely progressive, or at least they don't identify that way. But as Jim Hightower often points out, his dad in Texas supports "fair trade" and opposes corporations running roughshod over the environment, and he identifies as a conservative. So maybe the labels, like party ID, don't hold as much weight in the South, either.So, I say again, let's talk about those deeper questions. How do progressives win in the South?
Is it as straightforward as running populist campaigns, or is that just a part of the solution?
Post a Comment
Return to Facing South's main page