NationStates Jolt Archive

Has anyone else noticed that until the 1980 US Presidential election, in which Reagan carried 43 states and Carter only 7, the south and midwest had always been the strongest base of support for the Democratic party and the northeast and west had always been the center of Republican support? What changed? If you go back through Presidential election history and make the red-state blue state maps that are so popular these days rwally until 1984 they looked exatly opposite from the way they have looked in the past two elections. Why?

Has anyone else noticed that until the 1980 US Presidential election, in which Reagan carried 43 states and Carter only 7, the south and midwest had always been the strongest base of support for the Democratic party and the northeast and west had always been the center of Republican support? What changed? If you go back through Presidential election history and make the red-state blue state maps that are so popular these days rwally until 1984 they looked exatly opposite from the way they have looked in the past two elections. Why?
Dixiecrats, Nixon's appeal to them and the increasing unionization of the Democratic party. Dixiecrats were Southerners who refused to vote for the party of Lincoln, so they were Democrats. Nixon started the appeal to the reformed southerners, and Reagan secured it, converting Dixiecrats to Republicans. It's a pretty well studied phenomena, if you want to look it up google "dixiecrat" and see what comes up.

In short, the liberals went from the Republican Party to the Democrat Party, and the conservatives went from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party. This was due in large part to two things: the progressives of the early 1900s and the civil rights movement of the mid 1900s.

The Republican Party split into the conservatives and Progressives (this happened around the time of Teddy Roosevelt), and the Democrat Party split into the Dixiecrats (segregationists) and welfare liberals (around the time of Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson).

The Dixiecrats joined with the conservatives in the modern Republican Party, and the Progressives joined with the welfare liberals in the modern Democrat Party.

The Northeast has always been liberal, and the south has always been conservative, but the parties move around some.

I thought Republicans were blue and Democrats were red. What's up with the blue/red situation?

Has anyone else noticed that until the 1980 US Presidential election, in which Reagan carried 43 states and Carter only 7, the south and midwest had always been the strongest base of support for the Democratic party and the northeast and west had always been the center of Republican support? What changed? If you go back through Presidential election history and make the red-state blue state maps that are so popular these days rwally until 1984 they looked exatly opposite from the way they have looked in the past two elections. Why?

This started in 1964, actually. Lyndon Johnson angered white Southern racists with his support for civil rights, so the deep South (plus Arizona) was the only region to support Barry Goldwater amid what was otherwise a Johnson landslide. Nixon split the South in 1968 with segregationist candidate George Wallace. Nixon won the South and almost everything else in 1972. The South went back to the Democrats in 1976, but that was largely because Jimmy Carter was a proud Southerner. But the trend was irreversible, and the South has been Republican ever since.

So the change had a lot to do with the two parties' views on racial issues and segregation. Another interesting comparison is to look at a map of the slave states and free states. Most of the free states vote Democratic now, and most of the slave states and territories vote Republican.

In light of the explanations that you have given for this trend, how do you explain the fact that the Democratic party is competitive if not in some cases dominant, in given years, in the state and municipal elections in the Southeast?

In light of the explanations that you have given for this trend, how do you explain the fact that the Democratic party is competitive if not in some cases dominant, in given years, in the state and municipal elections in the Southeast?

I would offer two explanations for this:

1.) Blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Thus, in any area with a significant black population, Democrats will remain competitive.

2.) Some Democrats have managed to hold on to power by remaining sufficiently conservative to keep getting reelected. This might be changing. Republicans picked up Senate seats in five Southern states this year. Similarly, Republicans do well in the North when they are liberal enough, and there are signs that this might be changing too.

Being born & raised in the south and now living amongst you Yanks has given me some insight on voter stragedies. Many Southern Republicans will often vote Democrat, but Democrats never vote Republican.

Being born & raised in the south and now living amongst you Yanks has given me some insight on voter stragedies. Many Southern Republicans will often vote Democrat, but Democrats never vote Republican.
LOL! That's true. I had never thought of it, but as a Southerner who generally votes Rebpublican, I have also voted Democratic on occasion. Interesting. :)