As a long time proponent of a politics of strong contrast for the Democratic Party, what I have labelled
Lincoln 1860, I am always interested in discussions revolving around that topic. Recent interesting discussions were sparked by a
Democracy Corps focus group study and
reactions thereto. Now our friend
Chris Bowers does a very interesting study of how the Republican strength now lies almost entirely in the South in the Senate:
The first three Congresses following the 1994 Republican takeover featured a Republican coalition held together by a narrow non-southern majority and somewhat less narrow southern majority. However, the 2000 election witnessed a reversal of the non-southern portion of the 1994 takeover, as Democrats were able to restore their non-southern majority to its pre-1994 level. While that did not change in either the 2002 or 2004 elections, Republicans were able to restore their Senate majority to its 1995-2000 level by completing their long takeover of the conservative south.
Thus, taking the long view of the Republican takeover, the entire shift in the balance of power in the Senate has occurred within the eleven states that once formed the Confederacy. While the balance of power in non-southern seats remains essentially the same as it was from 1986-1994, the Republican takeover, which originally had a real national flavor, can now be understood as entirely a southern revolution.
Indeed, that has been my point for some time and Chris puts the numbers together to show this is so. A terrific insight from Chris. But I would ask that he also layer the Presidential results in the intervening years. The Republican stranglehold on the South at the Presidential level is also complete. Unlike the Senate, this leads to near parity because the Electoral College is more closely aligned to population than the Senate. (Note: due to gerrymandering, it is hard to make similar analysis about the House.)
Chris says that while Dems are not likely to become a majority national party in the South, we must do better. I say sure, but I say more importantly and more likely is our doing better outside of the South. That is our fertile ground. And it is most fertile when we stress the stark differences between the Party of Dobson, the GOP, and the Party of Fairness, the Democratic Party. It is why we stick by our core values, we stick by what has made us Democrats. It is a good brand name that needs some refurbishing, especially on national security, but we can win with our brand. Indeed, we can not win without it in my opinion.