I got curious and decided to take a look at how Mitt Romney did outside of the Confederacy in the 2012 presidential election. The Confederate States of America were Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Romney carried all these states except Florida and Virginia, winning 118 of their 160 Electoral College votes. Those 118 votes represented more than half of the 206 total votes that were awarded to Romney.
Another way of looking at this is that there are 538 total votes, so 420 votes are from outside of the historical Confederacy. Romney won 88 of them.
And I think we’re being a tad generous here. After all, there were border states with divided loyalties. Romney lost some of them, like Maryland and Delaware, but he also won several of them, like Missouri, Kentucky, and West Virginia. And, of course, the territories had complicated histories during the Civil War Era. Oklahoma wasn’t a state in the 1860’s, but its sympathies definitely lay with the South. If we eliminate the border states and the territories where slavery was a hot issue at the time of the Civil War, Romney’s Electoral votes plummet to virtually nothing.
We can, of course, argue about how to precisely define this, but I have Romney with 36 votes, coming from Indiana, the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, and Alaska. If you want to give him Arizona, I suppose you can.
The point is, if a state had nothing to do with the Confederacy, its chances of supporting the Republican candidate were pretty small. Mostly, we’re talking about a few lightly-populated states in the West where there is no black population to speak of, Latinos don’t vote their weight, and Mormons have a lot of influence.
The more interesting thing is that Romney, like McCain before him, could not sweep the Confederate states. The next Republican candidate is more likely to lose North Carolina (not to mention Indiana) than he is to win anywhere outside of Romney’s base. The states closest to flipping blue are Georgia, Arizona, and Missouri (which was bluer than Michigan was red).
Of the states that Obama narrowly won, only Ohio was a Union state.
So, I think it’s pretty obvious from looking at these results that the Republican Party isn’t going to get any mileage out of tying their brand to the Confederacy. They need to break out of that culture and that mentality, and the states they need to win are not states that have any sympathy for Southern Honor.
The Democrats are chipping away at the Confederacy in any case, with Virginia and Florida going blue in the last two elections and North Carolina going blue in 2008. Georgia is on the cusp of turning blue and Mississippi could go that way, too, if a Democratic candidate could miraculously win more than 18% of the white vote there.
The conservatives can complain all they want about their culture being under assault but when the Dukes of Hazzard becomes taboo, you know that you’ve truly lost the war.
What’s really dangerous about this for the GOP is that their strength isn’t actually limited to the South or the former Confederacy. You can see this by looking at the House of Representatives or many state legislatures. But these non-southern Republicans are generally not into southern heritage or waving rebel flags. Go try that nonsense in Maine or New Hampshire and see how it goes over.
Democrats make inroads with these Republicans on women’s rights, secularism, and science. The more unrepentantly Old School-Southern the GOP seems, the more gettable these tax-averse suburban and exurban voters will be.
If you don’t believe me that this has the potential to do real harm to the GOP, maybe you’ll believe that corporate America’s reaction to the whole gay marriage and Confederate flag fiascos has been a canary in a coal mine. When the canary falls over dead it’s time to run.
You’re focusing too closely on the symbols, and not closely enough on what the symbols represent outside the historic Confederacy.
Or in Wisconsin, where the Confederate battle flag has never gotten much traction except among a small fraction of the most backward-thinking people you’ll ever want to meet. On the other hand what sells like hotcakes here is working-class resentment and sadness for the loss of assumed privileges from the days of yore. That history goes all the way back to George Wallace and is being carefully nurtured today by our own Scott Walker. That is what the CBF represents outside the Confederacy and although you won’t find many people here waving the CBF around, you won’t find many who care that it’s waved around by others elsewhere because there is broad support for what the symbol represents even though the symbol specifically is less highly regarded.
I think you’d be surprised how many confederate battle flags you’ll see in New England. They’re quite common, and no, the people aren’t displaced southerners. Just the other day I saw a pickup truck with a Fire Lieutenant front plate, and a confederate flag right above it. I saw a police officer on detail at a construction site with his personal vehicle, that had a confederate flag decal on the windshield. You see them on hats and belt buckles. And I think the intended meaning is pretty obvious.
you see these “lovers of southern heritage” in the exurbs among the six-figure income set?
Would probably be considered in bad taste, but those people already vote Republican for other reasons. The Republicans use racism precisely to get the votes of impecunious white people, and it works in Maine and New Hampshire just fine. Not sure what the point of your question is.
I’m not talking about rednecks. I’m talking about the Yankee elite. Think golfers who vacation in Europe and have a subscription to Scientific American.
Right, but they already vote Republican and they aren’t going to stop because of the confederate flag. I’m not getting your point.
Things that made golfers with subscriptions to the Scientific American stop voting Republican in my experience over the last fifteen years:
You’d be surprised what causes it. I usually scratch my head and say “that was the last straw?”
Mainly, these folks want to believe that they are good people who support good government. They just don’t want to pay taxes because they pay a lot of them. If you make them feel like Jim Crow supporting/climate change denying know-nothing Palinite/Trumpites, they are going to bolt.
I grew up with people who work on Wall Street. They have no use for Mike Huckabee or Steve King or Ted Cruz or anyone uncultured and moronic. They have college degrees from elite liberal universities and read the fucking New Yorker.
What’s wrong with a subscription to Scientific American?
Good point. I’ve had one all my life. (It doesn’t make me want to vote Republican, BTW.)
Had one most of my adult life. Had to give it up during my two year unemployment. Which, come to think of it, is an endorsement of full employment policy to keep the economy humming instead of tax cuts for the super-rich.
We already stopped voting Republican some time ago.
The six-figure set doesn’t live in the exurbs, per se. Maybe in horse country.
The true exurb is what happens a whole lot of people leave the city (actually an inner suburb) in your diesel dually and start driving out until they can afford a lot-and-modular home package…
I teach there. And yeah, in a Maine town who sent more men proportionately to fight in the Civil War than any other, there are a lot of Dixie swastikas on display — and this in a town that’s 97.8% white.
Dixie Swastikas… I like that. I’m stealing it.
We have a little one, strangely enough, in the town cemetery, along with the CSA national flag.
Somebody screwed up a hundred and fifty years ago and sent us a CSA casualty in a coffin labeled as a local man. Then the native turned up(1), and the town was a body to the good, so to speak. No one knew who the stranger was, so he was un-returnable.
(1) Turns out the Union deceased may also have been the wrong man. Armies….
but,this is their base. this is who they are.
Somewhat related, this is an interesting article about the Latino response to Trump and how it relates to the presidential election.
I hadn’t realized how pitiful the response of the other candidates was. Notable was Cruz actually more or less congratulating Trump for his comments. Hilary’s vague response was pretty weak sauce considering she has nothing to lose and everything to gain by slamming Trump and painting him as the standard bearer. If she thinks she can get hard-core anti-immigrant voters…
As the party is currently constituted, the next Republican administration will be so psychotically dumb and mean-spirited it will make the Bush administration look-not competent, that’s impossible-but like a bunch of hapless boobs.
This is what frightens me about the possibility of a Republican President governing with a Republican Congress:
What I really fear though is that their policies and laws and repeals of laws and agencies, along with appointments to the Supreme Court, will set the country back 150 years. Seriously.
Well that’s the goal. But that’s just the appetizer. We’re talking wide-spread social breakdown. Lurching from crisis to crisis. Katrina on a national scale. Maybe that’s hyperbolic, as it takes time to break down a society, even with the worst intentions. But I think shit could get really bad very rapidly. Look at the end of the Bush administration. Now imagine an even more deranged, venal, corrupt, vindictive executive, cheered on by congress and the supreme court.
And just enough voters — and non-voters — to carry mid-term elections.
Apathetic majorities get rolled by engaged, and enraged, minorities all the time. There’s a constituency for Katrina-on-a-national-scale, and it votes.
Plus since magical thinking solves everything, anything bad that is actually publicly acknowledged as such can be blamed on liberals, minorities, socialists, foreigners, etc. Fuck the WSJ is blaming CA’s drought on the snail darter or something. No consequences will ever be acknowledged.
Which makes you wonder why Clinton is running the campaign that she’s currently running.
I also find her failure to call on us to expropriate the expropriators both surprising and troubling.
Look: she’s running a ‘status-quo with tweaks’ campaign that combines social liberalism with economic centrism, not unlike Obama and Mr. Clinton. This does not attract any new voters to the current coalition and will set up the party for disaster in 2018 and 2022 — and if anything economically bad happens in 2016 and 2020. People keep saying ‘b-b-but think of the Supreme Court’ but I guess no one is going to retire between 2016-2019.
This is above and beyond the fact that the current economic indicators are all negative. Nearly all economic centrists and even most liberals are pointing to the declining deficit as if that’s something to be proud of rather than heralding disaster. Private household debt continues to be record-high. And China’s stock market just took a nosedive. Hell, our own stock market continues to race ahead of the other economic indicators, indicating a bubble. Economic liberalism is needed to avoid a repeat of the 2010 disaster, if not to get us kicked out just in time for redistricting.
You can snark all you want about puritopians and communists and whatever you want, but the fact is that Hillary Clinton and her supporters headed for disaster and what’s more she doesn’t seem to realize that she’s headed for disaster. I’m not happy with Sanders as a campaigner either nor am I with the FDL contingent, but at least they give us a chance of avoiding catastrophe. Hillary and the Establishment Dems are blithely courting it.
If economic fundamentals really determine elections, then it doesn’t actually matter who gets the nomination, does it?
People will vote for change, and that means replacing any D with any R.
Then maybe instead of gloating at all of the out-of-touch DFHs and emoprogs and mocking them for the impracticality of their agenda, the more ‘adult’ Dems should seize the initiative and take steps to shore up the economy so that it doesn’t blow up in their face in 2018 and 2020. So 15 dollars minimum wage and college debt forgiveness is impractical unicorn-wishing. Okay, then what’s your plan to reduce household debt and repair our infrastructure, pragmatists? You mock Sanders et al. for not focusing on what’s really important, locking in the USSC; how are you going to do any better than the puritopians on this score if you fuck up 2018 due to demographics and a bad economy and none of the conservative justices retire?
Myopic pragmatism is just as foolish and destructive as baseless optimism.
How did that expression go? ‘Never interrupt your enemy while they’re in the middle of making a mistake.’
I’m sure that Clinton or whoever would love it if the Republican party stayed within their anti-immigrant bubble for a few weeks and interpreted the bemused smirks/shocked silence of the crowd as passive assent. The holy grail of which would be getting Jeb! to stay something dumb.
Georgia is on the cusp of turning blue and Mississippi could go that way, too, if a Democratic candidate could miraculously win more than 18% of the white vote there.
Will Bernie have enough money to campaign in Mississippi a few times? Alabama? I’m curious what people think about his stop in Madison, WI, last night.
cannot be counted.
The dynamics in IL, IN, OH, PA, that shaped their response to the Civil War did not exist in the Dakotas. During the Civil War, there were almost no persons of non-native descent in those western states.
So they should be not be included in the count.
When they lose Texas it will be all over even if they keep LA,AL,MS,OK,AR,KY,TN,GA,FL
Last few weeks the corp stance has been astounding. Trump’s losing more sponsors/partners by the minute (to the point where he’s going to have a Limbaugh crash if he continues to bark) and then the corp ads coming out that are inclusive of gay families, not to mention the Episcopalian stance on same sex marriage. When Walmart & Amazon dumped confederate flag merchandise THAT was a wakeup call.
And that is why parts of the Republcan establishment are backing off of the Lee-Atwater style Southern strategy.
Arizona was settled as a Confederate territory.
Some of the other Western states have families and communities that descend from Confederates getting away from various aspects of Reconstruction. Some economic, some political, some legal.
As mentioned, border states, especially Missouri and Kentucky were divided for most of the war. West Virginia is a special case; it seceded from Secessionist Virginia.
West Virginia wasn’t a border state. It’s a creation of the split in VA at the time of the civil war.
There was also a split in TN, but eastern TN didn’t succeed in splitting from the confederate western TN.
The Confederate states tracked with the percent of families that owned slaves; 24% or more and they were with the rebs. At 23%, Kentucky’s story is probably interesting. Did it have anything to do with Lincoln having been born there and/or that much of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” was set in KY?