Submitted to a Candid World

Hillary Clinton just won West Virginia, by at least thirty percentage points.

Now, Clinton claims that no Democrat has won the presidency, since 1916, without the help of West Virginia. While her claim is technically true, she seems to be arguing that West Virginia is (1) a Democratic stronghold and (2) a key to victory. Both are incorrect. Anyone who argues that West Virginia is a “Democratic stronghold,” which any Democratic candidate can expect to win, hasn’t been paying attention to politics since 2000.

First, five electoral votes?  Seriously?  Come on.

Second, West Virginia went 56% for Bush in 2004. In 2000, it split 52% for Bush, 46% for Gore, and 2% for Nader – and thank you again, Mr. Nader. And polls that show a Democrat winning in the state are erroneous, merely reflecting numbers that will change once the general starts. In short, it’s a Democratic loser, not a stronghold. But to understand why, we’re going to have to do a little political history.

In the 1980s, the South underwent what political science professors Earl and Merle Black (they’re twins – I took a class with Earl) have termed the “Reagan Realignment” (read about it here). In it, Reagan made the (obvious) move of pitching religion, religious morality, and conservatism to the Southern states – which were historically Democratic strongholds – winning them firmly to the Republican Party.

By doing so, Reagan merely consummated a political trend, in which the Democrats had completely alienated the South. The Democratic Party’s previous success in the South had been made possible only by virtue of its connections with segregationist hatemongerers like Strom Thurmond (late of D-S.C., then R-S.C.), and its historic support for the causes of white Southerners, against black Southerners. These factions were largely jetissoned from the party, first by the Dixiecrat revolt of 1948, and then utterly by President Lyndon B. Johnson, when he supported and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By becoming the party of equal rights, the Democrats had lost the south…

…and Reagan and the Republicans had gained them.

But not completely. West Virginia remained blue in 1992 and 1996, when thinking like Hillary’s still prevailed. It was Karl Rove who suggested that Bush push his evangelical views on West Virginia, to “realign” the state to the Republican column. It worked, and thus fell West Virginia.

While the state may be considered a “late” result of the enduring legacy of the Reagan realignment, it is a loss, especially if the Democrats nominate a black candidate (is that really what Hillary’s saying?). Resources are better spent in real battleground states, where there is a hope of victory. Hillary’s fanciful musings of regaining West Virginia in 2008 are optimistic. I’m an optimist, but to paraphrase Scalia, I’m not a nut.

However.

There may be cause to be a little more than optimistic. Even a bit nutty. A Democrat just won a House seat in Mississippi, in what was previously considered one of the “safest” seats for the Republican party nationwide. Congratulations Travis Childers (D-Miss.)!

The Democratic Party sacrificed its political health for the cause of civil rights, and rightfully so. President Johnson knew the sacrifice he was making when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to legend, when he put down the pen, he said, “we have lost the South for a generation.” Could that generation be over?

Good post.

As a Republican the MS-1 loss was just a total embarassment. No way to spin it.

Comment by Ben K May 14, 2008 @ 2:38 am

Reply

Obama’s campaign is just going to spin this as the result of having too many white, racist voters. It will be no different in KY. If he does though, I hope he is prepared to lose their votes.

Comment by Progressive Conservative May 14, 2008 @ 1:58 pm

Reply

I think Dems have understood those voting blocs as a loss for a while :-). But, maybe black voters will counteract it: Mississippi seems to indicate they might.

And thanks Ben!!

Comment by Ames May 14, 2008 @ 2:32 pm

Reply

What I find amusing, is that they usually say things like…West Virginia always picks out the nominee that wins in November.

Which is true…but because for the most part the primaries have been down to one candidate by the time West Virginia votes: http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/05/13/why-the-nominee-almost-always-wins-west-virginia.aspx

Comment by oneiroi May 14, 2008 @ 3:06 pm

Reply

Strom Thurmond was right. Desegregation has been a disaster. http://www.goodoleboybumperstickers.com

Comment by Brad May 16, 2008 @ 6:35 pm

Reply

I’d say, “you can’t be serious,” but from your site, it looks like you are. I can’t imagine why you’d think desegregation is bad. I’m sorry for you.

Comment by Ames May 16, 2008 @ 11:26 pm

Reply

[...] this trend of overreaching goes beyond the judiciary. In the same time period, liberal politicians sacrificed political efficacy for a just society, but also overextended themselves, losing touch with the American base in the process. We’ve [...]

Pingback by The Conservative Overreach « Submitted to a Candid World June 25, 2008 @ 11:18 am

Reply

Electoral college.com has west virginia as 50 Obama, 42 Mcain, what do you have to say about that MR smart pant’s.

Comment by jake October 10, 2008 @ 8:52 am

Reply

[...] conflict of interest, and as I’ve said, The [Republican] Party’s greatest trick – the Reagan Realignment (although it’s fair to say it was begun by Nixon) – came about when the Republican Party adopted [...]

Pingback by Value Voters: Redefining “Priorities Fail” October 30, 2008 @ 11:46 am

Reply

[...] a risk. After all, Georgia is a very conservative state, part of the “Deep South” that Reagan successfully “realigned” to the Republican column. Against that backdrop, praising a Democrat in Georgia starts to look [...]

Pingback by The Devil Went Down to Georgia… November 26, 2008 @ 6:38 am

Reply