Party Realignment in the South Grounded in Ideology

The Transformation of Partisan Politics in the American South:

Applying a Social Psychological Theory of Voting to

U.S. Senate and Gubernatorial Elections

Stephen D. Shaffer

Mississippi State University

Prepared for delivery at the 2008 Southern Political Science Association meeting, January 10-13, Intercontinental Hotel, New Orleans, LA.

An Introduction to the Field and the Theory

The field of Southern Politics has generated considerable research and publications since V.O. Key’s classic Southern Politics in State and Nation (1949). Political scientists and journalists, replicating Key’s state-by-state analytic approach, have periodically revisited the changing nature of party politics. William Havard’s The Changing Politics of the South (1972), Jack Bass and Walter DeVries’ The Transformation of Southern Politics (1977), and Alexander Lamis’ The Two-Party South (1990) and Southern Politics in the 1990s (1999) provide invaluable insights into how viable Republican Party candidates emerged in each southern state to challenge the Democratic Party’s historic hegemony. The V.O. Key tradition of state-level analyses is today kept alive by Charles Bullock III and Mark J. Rozell’s (2003, 2007a) The New Politics of the Old South series, with each new edition containing original and rewritten analyses of up-to-date political developments occurring in each southern state. Presidential election campaigns and voting patterns have been analyzed in Earl and Merle Blacks’s (1992) classic The Vital South, and are thoroughly studied every four years by Robert Steed, Laurence Moreland, and their colleagues, who participate in the biennial Citadel Symposium on Southern Politics (Steed and Moreland 2002; Moreland and Steed 1997). In a rare study of less visible elective offices, Joseph A. Aistrup’s (1996) The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-Down Advancement in the South provides an analytically sophisticated look at the differential transmission of Republican gains across elective offices. A capstone work for the field of southern politics is Steed and Moreland’s (2006) Writing Southern Politics, Contemporary Interpretations and Future Directions.

My paper seeks to begin to synthesize much of the interdisciplinary literature in southern politics (historical, journalistic, and political science) by applying to U.S. gubernatorial and Senate elections, a theoretical model historically applied to American presidential elections examined at the national level. This is the social-psychological model proposed in the landmark The American Voter (1964) by Angus Campbell, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes and revisited in The Changing American Voter (Nie, Verba, and Petrocik, 1979), where party identification is the long-term force and candidates and issues associated with individual election campaigns are the short-term forces (figure 1). Unless short-term forces significantly favor the candidate of the minority party, the candidate of the majority party (the party that most voters psychologically identify with) will be victorious. Everett Ladd’s (1970) American Political Parties: Social Change and Political Response and James L. Sundquist’s (1973) Dynamics of the Party System demonstrate how minority party candidates were elected President only when short-term factors overwhelmingly benefited them (the Whigs elected two Presidents who were popular war heroes during the 1828-1860 era of Democratic Party dominance), or when the majority party was split (Democrat Woodrow Wilson elected in 1912 after Republicans Taft and Roosevelt split their party’s vote, and then reelected due to his incumbency during a time of developing world war). Everett Ladd and Charles D. Hadley’s (1978) Transformations of the American Party System examines the more recent party systems with Democrats replacing Republicans as the nation’s majority party because of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s popular New Deal programs in response to the Great Depression, permitting the minority party until 1980 to be victorious only because of the short-term forces of popular candidates (war hero Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956) or salient issues that hurt the reigning majority party (“Korea, communism, corruption” in 1952, Vietnam and urban unrest in 1968, the “liberal” McGovern candidacy in 1972).

Literature on Party Change in the Modern South

From the 1930s until 1980 the Democratic Party of FDR and Andrew Jackson was the majority party in America, winning all except four presidential elections affected by short-term forces, and continually controlling both chambers of Congress except for two, 2-year periods. The South was an integral part of this Democratic governing coalition, as the great majority of southern whites retained Democratic Party identifications because of the twin pillars of defeat in the Civil War and impoverishment by the Great Depression. Southern politics scholars have explained how the national Democratic Party lost its hegemony in the closing decades of the 20^th century, as it gradually lost its hold on southern whites.

Using the National Election Studies (NES) and network exit polls, Merle Black (2004) documented how Democrats lost their advantage in party identification among southerners in 1984, and how by the mid-1990s a majority of white southerners were now identifying with the Republican party. Harold Stanley (1988) points out that dealignment as well as realignment characterized change among southern whites between 1952 and 1984, as white southerners in later years were making more comments about the attributes of the presidential candidates instead of the political parties when asked what they liked and disliked about the two parties and its presidential nominees. Bruce Campbell (1977a) concluded that changes in white partisanship were due to conversion rather than to migration into the region or generational replacement, and that partisan change among white southerners resembled the process of gradual, secular realignment. Paul Allen Beck (1977), also relying on NES data from 1952 through 1972, counters that dealignment among native whites was largely due to generational replacement, as the young favored independence more and were tending to bring their party loyalties into line with their attitudes and images of the parties on racial issues. Campbell (1977b) also adds that the 1964 presidential election was a critical election for African Americans in the South, as native black southerners showed heightened interest in that election and blacks most strongly in favor of federal civil rights measures shifted most dramatically towards the Democratic Party.

Exactly why white southerners have switched to Republican party loyalties is hotly debated, with many scholars pointing out that the more conservative values of southerners on a range of issues has led them to bring their partisan loyalties into line with their issue attitudes, as the regional memory of historic events favoring the Democrats has withered over the decades. Reviewing a host of studies, Cotter, Shaffer, and Breaux (2006) found that southerners remain somewhat more conservative than other Americans on numerous non-social welfare issues, such as race, cultural, crime, gender roles, morality, and school prayer. Using NES data, Edward G. Carmines and Harold Stanley (1990) demonstrated that Republican partisan identification grew among white southerners who labeled themselves as “conservative,” as well as among those who took conservative positions on the issues of public jobs, minority aid, defense spending, and abortion. Using 1980 and 1988 NES data, Alan Abramowitz (1994) argues that race issues were less important than national defense and social welfare issues in shaping white southerners’ partisan identifications. Using unique party image data in statewide polls of Alabama and Mississippi residents, Shaffer, Cotter, and Tucker (2000) found that different issues were important to whites and blacks, as the partisanship of whites was more affected by their perception that Republicans would be more successful in reducing crime and preserving traditional values, while blacks believed that Democrats would care more about combating poverty and protecting the interests of African Americans.

Other scholars argue that the key issue motivating white southerners to switch their partisanship from Democratic to Republican has been race. As the national Democratic Party has become associated with support for civil rights, starting with the presidencies of Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson, and as African Americans have realigned into the Democratic Party, “white flight” has taken place. Using an innovative “unobtrusive” measure, James Kuklinski and Michael Cobb (1997) find that racial prejudice is still higher in the South than in the rest of the country, particularly among southern white males. Uses NES and GSS (General Social Survey) data from the 1970s through 2000, Nicholas Valentino and David Sears (2005) found that “symbolic racism” became increasingly important to the party identifications and the presidential votes of white southerners than it did to other Americans, and that issues of affirmative action and aid to minorities were much more strongly associated with the presidential votes of southerners in the 1990s than they were to the votes of non-southerners. Stanley Watson (1996) found that in 1980 half of white southerners viewed the Democratic Party as too liberal on the issue of aid to minorities. Using NES data from 1986 through 2000, Jonathan Knuckey (2001) found a growth in Republican Party identification among white southerners who had high scores on a racial resentment scale, but little partisan change among those lacking such resentments.

Regardless of the reasons for the realignment of the white South from the Democratic to the Republican Party, the southern party system has now come to resemble that of the rest of the nation. Instead of southern whites being overwhelmingly Democratic because of Civil War memories, and therefore not showing the kind of class differences that existed in the north, where the higher socioeconomic status (SES) were more Republican than the lower SES, southern whites are finally responding to the ideological split between the two national parties as do voters in the rest of the nation. Using NES data, Richard Nadeau and Harold Stanley (1993) showed that since the mid 1970s, higher SES southern whites had become more Republican than the lower SES, resembling the type of class polarization in party identification that existed in the rest of the nation. Indeed, by 2000 class polarization, which was becoming increasingly important throughout the nation, was even stronger in the South than in the non-south (Nadeau, Niemi, Stanley, and Godbout 2004).

State Level Changes in the Long-Term Force of Party Identification

State-level polls on the party identification of adults confirm that the Democratic Party was the majority party in each southern state until the closing decades of the 20^th century. As late as 1978, Democratic party identifiers outnumbered Republicans by a two-to-one margin in every southern state except the three Rim South states of Florida, Tennessee, and Virginia, where Democrats comprised “only” a 66% share of those who identified with the two major parties (Table 1). Such Democratic dominance in the long-term force of party identification explains why the minority Republican Party after Reconstruction was unable to elect a Governor or a U.S. senator in any southern state until the 1960s, when short-term forces began to contribute to isolated electoral breakthroughs for the GOP.

The Reagan years saw the Republicans transformed into a more competitive minority party in most southern states. Using 43% as an arbitrary measure of growing competitiveness, the Rim South states of Florida, Virginia, and Tennessee reached this standard by 1982 or 1984. Two Deep South states also reached this level of GOP competitiveness in the 1980s- Alabama by 1988 and South Carolina as early as 1980. South Carolina’s role as the leader of the entire region in Republicanism is intriguing but not completely unexpected, since the state also offered the growing minority party the second of the region’s first two post-Reconstruction GOP senators (former Democratic governor and U.S. senator Strom Thurmond switched parties in 1964).

The George Herbert Walker Bush one-term presidency saw Republican breakthroughs in four other southern states. In the Rim South states of North Carolina and Texas, Republican identifiers by 1990 came to comprise a substantial 46% and 49% of two-party identifiers, respectively. By 1992 the Deep South states of Georgia and Mississippi finally reached the 43% mark of a viable minority Republican Party.

It took the turn of the century and the first term of another Bush presidency before the single most Democratic state of each sub-region finally became electorally competitive in the long-term force of party identification. Arkansas by 2002 and Louisiana by 2004 finally saw Republicans achieve very respectable shares of 46% and 49% of the electorate’s self-declared Democrats and Republicans, respectively. Democrats in both states were quite likely benefited by popular Democratic elected officials who dominated the state politically from the 1970s into the 1990s. In Louisiana, the popular Democrat was Edwin Edwards, elected to multiple terms as governor. In Arkansas, it was three political titans, multi-term governor Bill Clinton, and multi-term governors and U.S. senators Dale Bumpers and David Pryor.

Short Term Forces Can Reinforce a Party’s Historic Majority

The Democratic Party’s historic dominance of the South was enforced not only by its advantage on the long-term force of party identification, but also by an advantage that it usually held on the short-term forces. Even when Republicans were able to find a candidate willing to run in the general election, he typically faced a popular Democratic nominee able to exploit an important issue favored by voters (Table 2). Such Democratic political “titans” included Senator John Stennis of Mississippi, whose reputation for integrity was reflected in his first campaign’s motto, “to plow a straight furrow down to the end of my row." (Johnston 1993: 90). Reflecting his personal modesty, a belief in the importance of the average Mississippian, and a recognition that he merely served their interests, Stennis during his last campaign (against future RNC Chair Haley Barbour) pointedly reminded his “professional” campaign consultants who kept telling him “this is what we have to do to win” that, “We don’t have to win” (see the website http://www.stennis.gov/senatorpage.htm of the Stennis Center for Public Service). Stennis was so respected by his senate colleagues that they named a modern nuclear-powered aircraft carrier after him, right before they named one for former President Truman.

Another Democratic titan was George Wallace, the multi-term governor of Alabama. Before his exploitation of the race issue during the civil rights era, Wallace offered a humble background that many impoverished voters of that era could identify with. He had been born in a “shotgun house” where “the roof leaked incessantly,” “there was no electricity or running water,” and “the only toilet was a ramshackle privy in the backyard” (Carter 2000: 21 quotes; Lesher 1994: 24). He arrived at the University of Alabama campus “carrying a cardboard suitcase containing two shirts” and “a few changes of underwear and socks,” and worked his way through college “with a variety of part-time jobs, waiting tables at his boardinghouse in return for room and board” (Carter 2000: 46 quotes; Lesher 1994: 37). Wallace waged a frugal “people-to-people” campaign for the state legislature in 1946, in which he sometimes “hitched rides” or “walked the four or five miles between communities and stopped at farmhouses and fields along the way” as he met numerous constituents (Carter 2000: 74). Campaigning at church meetings and school plays, he would stress his interest in “helping farmers, the elderly, and the schools,” and greeting workers at cotton mill gates he would “tell them of his interest in the working man” (Lesher 1994: 66). Constitutionally prohibited from running for reelection as governor in 1966 after one term, he ran his wife Lurleen as governor and turned his shy wife’s political inexperience and working class roots into a campaign plus, as he denounced the national media who had “made fun of my wife… because she used to be a dime-store clerk and her daddy was a shipyard worker” and reminded campaign crowds that the voters of Alabama were “just as cultured and refined as those New York reporters and editors” (Carter 2000: 283 quote, 273; Lesher 1994: 361).

Other political titans have included multi-term Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards, and governor and U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. The witty and charismatic personality of Democrat Edwin Edwards is reflected in his response in one campaign to stories about his alleged womanizing, where he quipped that the only way he could lose was if he was caught “in bed with a dead girl or a live boy” (Bridges 1994: 200). In view of his infamous association with racial segregation, less divisive and more broadly popular aspects of Thurmond’s personality are sometimes forgotten. Thurmond’s combat service in the Army during World War 2 earned him medals for bravery and favorable statewide publicity (Cohodas 1994: 82). An FDR supporter, Thurmond as governor was hailed as a “progressive” who backed measures to protect workers’ health, to establish kindergartens, and to improve educational facilities for blacks (Cohodas 1994: 84, 90, 97). In 1954 Thurmond became the only person ever elected to the U.S. senate in a write-in movement, as voters rebelled against the Democratic state party’s effort to fill a senate vacancy without a primary election (Cohodas 1994: 265). True to his campaign pledge two years earlier, Thurmond resigned from the Senate in 1956 in order to let the people decide who should be Senator without any candidate enjoying the benefit of incumbency, and was easily reelected. Upon switching to the GOP in 1964, Thurmond’s adroit attention to constituency service now served as a short-term force that benefited the Republican Party. By his 1978 campaign, he won the endorsement of the state’s black mayors after channeling federal money into black as well as white communities. Two African American constituents even related to national columnists how he had diverted an Air Force plane to transport an African American burn victim to a Cincinnati hospital (Cohodas 1994: 448-449).

Another Democratic titan of more contemporary importance is multi-term Georgia Lieutenant Governor and Governor Zell Miller. A country music fan from rural north Georgia, Zell Miller was elected to four terms as lieutenant governor, where he gained a reputation as a “moderate liberal.” Miller was elected governor in 1990 as a political “outsider” who had stood up to powerful long-time house speaker Tom Murphy. Miller’s first gubernatorial campaign urged adoption of a lottery to better fund education innovations and called for repeal of the regressive sales tax on food that hurt poor people (Binford, Baxter, Sturrock, 1999: 109-113). Miller in his first term as governor amassed an impressive, ideologically inclusive record of accomplishment, enacting the lottery-based HOPE program providing full college scholarships for high school students with B averages, and being tough on crime by backing a tough DUI law, boot camps, and a 2 strikes and you’re out law (Binford, Baxter, Sturrock, 1999: 120). He narrowly won reelection, likely weakened by his effort to have the Confederate battle emblem removed from the state flag (an effort defeated in the legislature), and by the cuts he made in state spending when faced with a national recession (Miller 2003: 47, 50-53). Another example of Miller’s racial liberalism was his appointment of African Americans Thurbert Baker and Michael Thurmond to important state offices (Baker as interim attorney general, and Thurmond as director of the state’s welfare-to-work effort), both of whom went on to be elected statewide as attorney general and secretary of labor, respectively, with significant white support (Binford, Baxter, Sturrock, 1999: 134; Bullock 2007: 64). Miller went on to blast the national Democratic Party’s move to the ideological left, thereby incurring the wrath of some Democratic Party loyalists, one of whom accused him of getting “his start with Lester Maddox,” a notorious segregationist (Shaffer, Breaux, and Patrick 2005: 94).

Three Democratic titans kept Arkansas a heavily Democratic state right until the close of the 20^th century. Multi-term governor Bill Clinton was known for his charisma and his ability to personally connect with people. He would “show up at every fish fry, at every Democratic party event, at every bake sale and shake every hand until he’d shaken them all” (Barth, Blair, and Dumas 1999: 180). He also made a special personal appeal to African Americans, attending their churches, visiting their homes, and attending their organizational dinners (Barth, Blair, and Dumas 1999: 167, 175). Multi-term U.S. senator David Pryor, a former governor, truly appeared to like people and to show a “genuine interest in whatever is on the minds of his constituents” so that voters regarded him as “one of us” and trusted him (Fenno 1996: quotes on 283; 62, 286). State reporters described him as “personable,” “folksy,” “unassuming,” and a “real nice guy,” who was decent, never made enemies, and who knew many constituents on a first name basis (Fenno 1996: quotes on 284; 286-287). Indeed, Senator Pryor was so humble and accessible that he could sometimes be found early in the morning serving as receptionist and catching the early phone calls (Fenno 1996: 288). Multi-term U.S. senator and former governor Dale Bumpers was most known for his speaking ability on the campaign trail. In his first senate campaign he employed a “drawl” that was “almost Western,” as he decried rising inflation by telling personal anecdotes in a “language that factory workers and hardscrabble farmers” could understand, and then denounced the profits of the big oil companies with such “passion in his voice” that his pleas recalled the “ancestral poverty of the hills” (Bass and DeVries 1977: 96).

Finally, Florida Democrats also benefited from powerful Democratic elected officials. Lawton Chiles and Bob Graham served multiple terms in both the governorship and the U.S. Senate, each employing effective campaign tactics or gimmicks to win their first elections. State senator Lawton Chiles gained name recognition in his first statewide campaign and an image as a “man of the people” by walking 1,033 miles across the state and talking with Floridians about their everyday concerns (Kallina 1993: 193 quote; Colburn and deHaven-Smith 1999: 133; Dauer 1972: 160). Miami businessman and lawyer Bob Graham won his first Democratic primary (for governor) despite being tagged as a liberal by appealing to “everyday voters” by working on one hundred different jobs over one hundred days, “including such positions as bellhop, waiter, hospital orderly, stable boy, and steelworker” (Colburn and deHaven-Smith 1999: 135 1^st quote; Colburn and Scher 1980: 87 2^nd quote; Lamis 1990: 188).

A Divided Majority Produces GOP Gubernatorial/Senate Breakthroughs

As the national Democratic Party began transforming itself from the economically liberal party of FDR to a more broadly liberal party, the bitter battles between liberal and conservative forces, waged within southern Democratic Party primaries, began to produce GOP breakthroughs (at least since Reconstruction) in U.S. senate and gubernatorial offices across the South. In the 1960s as liberal Democrats flexed their muscles, Republicans were sometimes benefited in the general election, either by attracting support from liberal Democrats angered over yet another primary victory by the conservative or segregationist faction of their party, or by attracting conservative Democratic supporters repelled by their party’s “takeover” by the liberals. John Tower of Texas became the first GOP U.S. senator from the South since Reconstruction, elected in 1961 to the seat vacated by Vice President Johnson and then reelected in 1966, after Democrats in both years offered candidates who were even more conservative than he was. Liberal Democrats promptly jumped ship and backed the Republican Tower in order to try to teach their party a lesson that Texas liberals would no longer be taken for granted (Tables 3 and 4). Liberal Democrats also jumped ship in Arkansas in 1966, preferring to elect the moderate Republican Winthrop Rockefeller as governor rather than a segregationist Democrat. The same year in Florida, a liberal Democrat unseated the party’s governor in the Democratic primary, prompting the governor’s supporters to help elect Republican Claude Kirk as governor. Two years later, Florida Democrats offered a liberal former governor as their senate nominee, who lost to conservative Republican congressman Ed Gurney. Meanwhile, long-time Democratic governor and U.S. senator Strom Thurmond had become so fed up with the leftward drift of the national Democratic Party that he had switched to the GOP in 1964.

Until the 1980s or 1990s (or the 21^st century for Arkansas and Louisiana), Democrats remained the majority party in each southern state despite the increasing ideological realignment of the parties, as southerners continued to be significantly more likely to think of themselves as Democrats than as Republicans. Republicans elected as governors or senators during this period of Democratic dominance continued to be equally likely to be helped by disenchanted Democratic liberals as by alienated Democratic conservatives. Republicans Howard Baker in Tennessee, Thad Cochran in Mississippi, and Mack Mattingly in Georgia were elected U.S. Senators partly because of liberal Democratic dissatisfaction over Democratic nominees whom they perceived as being too conservative, the same reason that contributed to the elections of Republicans Linwood Holton of Virginia and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee as governors (Table 4). On the other hand, conservative Democratic dissatisfaction with Democratic nominees (or a Democrat running as an Independent in the first Virginia case) viewed as too liberal helped to elect Republicans Bill Brock in Tennessee and Jesse Helms in North Carolina as senators, as well as Republicans Winfield Dunn in Tennessee, Mills Godwin and John Dalton in Virginia, Bill Clements in Texas, and Dave Treen in Louisiana as governors.

Beginning in 1984 the most prominent ideological reason for Republican breakthroughs in states that remained majority Democratic in the public’s partisan identifications was the Democratic party’s nomination of candidates viewed as being liberal. Not only were conservatives consistently denied the Democratic Party’s nominations in such cases, but also it sometimes seemed that the best that white Democrats could hope for was the nomination of a “moderate.” Democratic primary contests produced a consumer advocate over a Reagan Democrat in North Carolina, a liberal over a conservative in Alabama, a liberal African American in Louisiana, and a liberal over a moderate conservative in Texas, and the results in November were the elections of Republican governors James Martin, Guy Hunt, and Mike Foster, respectively, as well as GOP senator Phil Gramm in Texas (Table 4).

Bitter divisions within the Democratic Party linked to issues other than ideology also helped to elect Republicans throughout the last half century. Democrats unseated their own U.S. senators in 1980 in Alabama and Florida, helping to elect Republicans Jeremiah Denton and Paula Hawkins. A lawsuit over the Democratic primary in South Carolina and the conviction of Arkansas’ Democratic governor produced Republican governors James Edwards and Mike Huckabee, respectively. Other divisions between Democratic candidates and their supporters helped to elect Republican Kirk Fordice governor in Mississippi and David Vitter senator in Louisiana.

Democratic Federal Officeholders Shift to the Left

The Democratic Party of the Old South offered to white southerners, voters who were generally moderate-to-conservative in ideology particularly on race and social values, candidates who reflected their own political values (Ladd and Hadley 1978: 166). As late as 1970, the vast majority of Democratic U.S. Senators and House members cast moderate-to-conservative roll call voting records. In the U.S. Senate, for instance, during the decade of the 1970s 6 Democratic Senators were moderates, 5 were moderate conservatives, and 5 were conservatives. Only one Democratic senator was a moderate liberal and none were liberals (Table 5). Only five of the U.S. senators were Republicans, all except one boasting clearly conservative voting records.

The ideological transformation of the southern parties over the last three decades of the 20^th century was truly dramatic. As soon as the 1980s, the Democratic Party’s center of gravity had shifted to the moderate to moderate liberal grouping with 11 Democratic senators falling within this ideological interval, 2 being to this interval’s left by being liberal, and 2 being to the interval’s right by being moderate conservative. Indeed, the true conservative Democrat no longer existed. Instead, all 7 “conservative” Senators were now Republicans, including the party switcher Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and the newly elected senator from Mississippi taking segregationist Jim Eastland’s seat, Thad Cochran (Table 5).

The 1990s saw the southern Democratic party move even farther to the left with the regional party’s center of gravity being moderate liberal with 3 senators in this category, 5 being liberal, and only 3 being moderate or moderate conservative. Once again, all of the region’s conservative senators were Republicans. Furthermore, as the southern Democratic Party moved to the left, the southern Republican Party grew in size. Eleven senators were now Republican, all of whom amassed “conservative” roll call records.

The first five years of the decade of the 21^st century witnessed a “new” South with the largest number of Republican U.S. senators in history, 15, all of whom once again casting roll call records rated as “conservative” over 80% of the time by ideological interest groups. Only one Democratic senator was found to the right of center, the moderate conservative Zell Miller of Georgia, who proceeded to bitterly blast his party as A National Party No More (Miller 2003). Though the party’s center of gravity in the early 2000s was only moderate liberal, the retirements of Senators Breaux and Miller eliminated any Democrat to the right of moderate liberal (Table 5). Indeed, after the 2004 elections only four southern Democrats remained in the U.S. senate- three moderate liberals and one liberal. Eighteen of the senators from the South were now Republicans, and all were conservative in voting records. Compounding Democratic problems in Dixie is that even a banner year for their party nationally like 2006 was able to produce a net gain of only five U.S. House seats and only one senator in the South.

Applying the Social Psychological Model to the State of Mississippi

To provide a more in-depth and understandable example of the operation of this social psychological theory, let us briefly turn to a case study of one state, the Deep South state of Mississippi. Historically, the governing Democratic Party was a pretty broad tent, offering conservative Delta planters as well as economically populist “Hill”-oriented candidates to voters in the first half of the 20^th century.

During the segregationist civil rights era, Democratic governors and senators mirrored the segregationist views of most whites. Ross Barnett, a member of the white Citizens’ Council, was elected in 1959 with the campaign song: “Roll with Ross… He’s for segregation one hundred percent. He’s not a mod’rate like some other gent” (Fortenberry and Abney 1972: 507). Paul Johnson was elected in 1963 after proudly pointing to newspaper pictures showing him physically opposing James Meredith’s successful effort to become the first black student to integrate Ole Miss (the University of Mississippi), and asking voters to “Stand Tall with Paul” because he had stood up for Mississippi against the federal integrationists (Nash and Taggart 2006: 22 quote; Johnston 1993: 154). The enfranchisement of African Americans finally led candidates to avoid overtly racial appeals, as gubernatorial winner John Bell Williams in the 1967 campaign stressed that he was a “conservative,” and reminded voters that he had defied the national Democratic party with his open support for Barry Goldwater and been punished by being stripped of his seniority in the U.S. House of Representatives (Fortenberry and Abney 1972: 510).

Facing an increasing electoral threat from state Republicans as well as ostracism by a national Democratic Party opposed to racial discrimination, Democratic officeholders began to offer racially inclusive campaigns and programs. William Waller, a former DA who had at least tried to prosecute civil rights leader Medgar Evers’ assassin, “appointed more blacks to state positions than any previous governor,” and also vetoed and killed the state’s segregation-era Sovereignty Commission (Johnston 1993: 234 quote, 221; Katagiri 2001: 221, 227). In 1975 Democrats elected a “working man’s” candidate as governor, Cliff Finch, whose campaign gimmick was carrying a lunch pail with his name on it, as he worked at a blue-collar job one day a week, operating a bulldozer, a drag line, or plowing a field (Nash and Taggart 2006: 32). William Winter was a genuine racial liberal who publicly denounced “white violence” directed against civil rights workers, and gained national acclaim for leading the wave of education reform with his 1982 Education Reform Act. Governor Bill Allain, publicly thanked delegates at the state NAACP convention for supporting him over the Republican, whose supporters had claimed that the divorced Democrat was gay, and proceeded to appoint the first African American to the state Supreme Court, Reuben Anderson (Lamis 1990: 61). The Democratic Party’s dominance of state politics is reflected in Table 6, where as one can see up until 1978 Democrats consistently held all three top elective positions- the governorship and both U.S. senate seats.

The minority Republican Party proceeded to score three important breakthroughs in each of these offices, thanks to divisions within the majority Democratic Party or to short-term factors that benefited the GOP (Table 6). After retiring segregationist Senator James Eastland reportedly handpicked his successor, Democratic nominee Maurice Dantin, African American Charles Evers, brother of slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers, ran as an independent, permitting Republican Thad Cochran to squeak into office in 1978 with 45% of the vote (Nash and Taggart 2006: 80). Described by political observers as having “evident braininess” and being “engaging, articulate…soft-spoken…” and “even-handed,” the popular Cochran became a state institution with his 61% reelection margin over respected former governor William Winter (Barone, Ujifusa, and Matthews 1979: 475). Republicans picked up the state’s other senate seat in 1988 when the bright and articulate conservative congressman Trent Lott beat moderate congressman Wayne Dowdy. Outspending his Democratic rival by over $1 million, Lott hired a campaign consultant whose trade name was “Dr. Feelgood,” and proceeded to launch a series of visually appealing television ads that depicted the conservative Republican as being a “leader” who supported such popular programs as Social Security, college student loans, environmental protection, and highway construction (Table 7).

The first Republican gubernatorial victory in Mississippi since Reconstruction particularly illustrates how short-term forces and a divided Democratic Party can produce GOP breakthroughs. Democratic Governor Ray Mabus had dramatically increased spending for education from kindergartens to colleges in his first two years, but recession-induced budget cuts in his remaining years angered state workers, teachers, and professors. Furthermore, Mabus’ pro-choice orientation and his backing of a state lottery angered conservatives. A bitter Democratic primary ensued between Mabus and former congressman Wayne Dowdy, who proceeded to mock the governor: “The ‘ruler’ claims to be the only farmer in the governor’s race. I guess he was president of the Future Farmers of America chapter, up there at Harvard.” (Shaffer, Sturrock, Breaux, and Minor 1999: 253). On election night Mabus crowed over his razor-thin 51% victory: “This victory shows that Mississippi doesn’t want to go backward (paraphrased).” Conservative Republican construction company owner, Kirk Fordice, who had never run for public office before, was able to capitalize on voter discontent with politics by merely running television ads that claimed that he wasn’t a “career politician” but was just “a private citizen, just like you,” who was going to “take Mississippi back from the political hacks” (Shaffer, Sturrock, Breaux, and Minor 1999: 255).

Since at least 1992 Republican identifiers have risen to comprise at least 40% of the share of the public’s identification with the two major parties, and the 21^st century has seen the two parties essential equal in terms of the party identification of all adults. Hence, short-term forces are now clearly decisive in Mississippi statewide offices, such as those for governor. Republican Fordice won reelection in 1995 thanks to a booming economy and his non-ideological television ads where he took credit for creating jobs and achieving a state budget surplus. In 1999 Democratic Lieutenant Governor Ronnie Musgrove upset Republican party switcher, Congressman Mike Parker, after Musgrove promised to raise teacher salaries to the Southeast average and caught front-runner Parker sitting on his lead and not spending all of his money (Nash and Taggart 2006: 275). Former RNC Chair Haley Barbour unseated Governor Musgrove in 2003, as the Republican challenger capitalized over voter discontent with the Democratic governor’s unsuccessful effort to change the state flag by removing its Confederate emblem, as well as over state employees’ and college professors’ anger over repeated budget cuts and nonexistent raises thanks to the diversion of state funds to pay for Musgrove’s multi-year elementary and secondary teacher pay raises. Barbour, winner of Governing magazine’s Public Official of the Year award for his leadership in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, stressed the good economy and the jobs created on his watch to easily win reelection (Table 8).

Testing the Social-Psychological Model with 2006 Senate-Gubernatorial data

The most recent competitive 2006 statewide elections for the U.S. senate and for governor provide the most recent case study to test the social-psychological model of southern politics. By this time, the long-term force of party identification was now starting to help Republican instead of Democratic candidates. By 2004 or 2006, state polls found Republicans comprising 55% or more of the two parties’ identifiers in the states of Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. In three of these cases, Republicans were victorious largely because Republicans outnumbered Democrats at the polls, while in the fourth case Democrats lost with an unfunded challenger (Table 9).

Georgia Republican Governor Sonny Perdue’s 58% popular vote victory over his challenger’s 38% ended up reflecting the 44-32% Republican-to-Democratic edge among exit poll voters and the 42-13% conservative-to-liberal advantage among voters, since Republicans and conservatives backed Perdue with 93% and 82% vote shares, respectively, and Democrats and liberals backed the Democratic challenger with 80% and 77% vote shares, respectively (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/GA/G/00/epolls.0.html; accessed December 20, 2006). Republican governor of Texas Rick Perry won reelection despite a sagging popularity that attracted not only a Democratic challenger, Chris Bell, but also two Independents, moderate Republican state comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn and comedian Kinky Friedman. With Independents splitting relatively equally among the four candidates and with about 70% of the identifiers of the two major parties backing their party’s candidates, Perry’s 39% share of the popular vote compared to Bell’s 30% mirrored the 9% edge that Republicans held over Democrats in the exit polls (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/TX/G/00/epolls.0.html). Finally, in an open senate seat in Tennessee, exit polls showed both candidates winning over 90% of the identifiers of their respective parties and splitting the Independents, so the slightly greater number of Republican than Democratic voters (38% versus 34%) proved the difference in helping Republicans keep this senate seat by a 3% vote margin (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/TN/S/01/epolls.0.html; accessed November 26, 2006). In South Carolina Republicans reelected Mark Sanford as governor, as the incumbent’s $8 million war chest paid for months of positive television ads stressing his “leadership” and his “moral courage to make change” (Thestate.com 2006). The Democratic challenger’s war chest of less than $3 million precluded television ads until October 12 and made him much less visible to voters (Sheinin 2006).

States that were apparently more evenly divided in partisanship saw short-term forces involving the issues or candidate attributes exert more influence over the election outcomes (Table 9). Indeed, in such cases attractive Democrats exploiting popular issues and Republican campaign miscues were usually victorious. Classic cases of personally attractive Democratic candidates were Arkansas gubernatorial victor Mike Beebe and Virginia senate victor Jim Webb. In the winning tradition of Arkansas’ Big Three Democratic Titans, Beebe’s compelling personal story included his birth in a “tar-paper shack,” “to a single mother” and a father whom he “never met or talked to” (Blomeley 2006). His conservative Republican opponent shot himself in the foot by advocating giving school districts flexibility from the state’s mandated 38 core courses, prompting a major state newspaper to blast the Republican for allegedly opening “the way to tear down all the educational standards that this state has finally started to make meaningful” (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 2006). Another “dream” candidate was party switcher and former Marine Jim Webb, whose Vietnam service had earned him several medals and who had served as Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration. The overconfident Republican incumbent George Allen, often mentioned as Presidential timber but unseated for senator in his own state of Virginia, shot himself in the foot by jokingly referring to a Webb staffer of Asian-Indian descent who was filming him at a campaign rally as “Macaca,” a racial slur that prompted a barrage of investigative journalism that charged Allen with being racially insensitive in his college years (Boyer 2006; Stallsmith 2006).

A good economy benefited governors of both political parties. Republican Governor Bob Riley of Alabama, touting the creation of over 100,000 new jobs by expanding existing businesses as well as attracting new businesses to Alabama, spent much of the 2006 campaign attending groundbreaking ceremonies for new businesses and being praised by mayors in the affected cities, and was easily reelected after being endorsed by all 18 of the state’s daily newspapers (Rawls 2006a, 2006b, Reeves 2006). Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee won an even more sweeping reelection victory, after being credited with turning the state’s economy around from the dark days when residents were threatened with a possible income tax, with attracting new industry such as Nissan’s North American headquarters, and with creating a new state health plan called Cover Tennessee (tennessean.com, 2006). Exit polls showed that the popular Democratic incumbent had created such a non-divisive, non-ideological image of his performance that he was able to win two-thirds of the votes of whites, half of self-identified conservatives, and even 42% backing among Republican identifiers (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/TN/G/00/epolls.0.html, accessed November 26, 2006).

Finally, the competitive state of Florida provides a contrast of how very different Republican campaign strategies and candidates can produce very different results. Republican attorney general Charlie Crist retained the governorship for his party, after being viewed as an independent thinker rather than a blind party loyalist. He broke with the national GOP and supported civil unions, stem cell research, the abortion status quo, and even the re-enfranchisement of felons (Tallahassee.com, 2006). Crist also “snubbed” President Bush by campaigning elsewhere when Bush made a campaign visit to Florida the day before the election. The Republican’s 52% of the popular vote to liberal Democratic Congressman Jim Davis’ 45% included an 18% share of the black vote and a split of Hispanics, moderates, and independents with Davis (Koszczuk and Stern 2005: 248; http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/FL/G/00/epolls.0.html). Republicans failed to unseat Democratic Senator Bill Nelson, despite his liberal voting record (Koszczuk and Stern 2005: 224), as the GOP nominated the controversial secretary of state during the disputed 2000 presidential race in Florida, Congresswoman Katherine Harris. Indeed, Republican leaders in Florida had desperately tried to find a candidate to challenge her nomination bid, fearing that her “erratic behavior and irrational tirades to the press” would spell defeat in November. Harris refused to bow out, “insisting that God wants her to be a senator” (Chait 2006: 14). Upon nomination Harris proceeded to alienate everyone except the Christian Right when she proclaimed that: "If you’re not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin" (Wheeler 2006).

Conclusions: Forecasting the Future of Southern Politics?

The social psychological model of voting behavior popularized by The American Voter authors provides a useful theory explaining southern election outcomes over the course of decades. Until the closing decades of the 20^th century, Democrats won the great majority of elections in the South because they held the overwhelming advantage on the long-term force of party identification (Table 1). Furthermore, short-term forces also benefited many Democratic officeholders, as these adroit politicians reflected the moderate-to-conservative views of most southern voters, often came from the same humble backgrounds as their constituents, and were able to relate to “common” working class voters (Tables 2, 5). The increasingly liberal direction of the national Democratic Party in the closing decades of the 20^th century was mirrored by the rising activism of progressive and liberal activists within the southern Democratic Parties, dividing the historically dominant party into ideological wings. These short-term forces of the ideological division of the majority party helped the minority Republican Party to score breakthroughs in senate and gubernatorial elections across the South (Tables 3-4).

However, like the social psychological model as applied to presidential elections, this theory by itself has limited predictive ability when it comes to forecasting the future of southern politics. Much depends on the direction of the partisan identification ties of the electorate. Do the two parties remain at virtual parity, as is the case in most southern states today? Does the Republican Party become the dominant party, as may be occurring in states like Texas and South Carolina? Or does the Democratic Party reemerge as the stronger of the two parties, as continues to be the case in Arkansas? To answer such questions, we rely on those scholars who are experts in analyzing the party politics of each of the eleven southern states, whose up-to-date research is reported in such publications as The New Politics of the Old South (Bullock and Rozell 2007a).

It is undeniable, though, that the Democratic Party has lost its hegemony over southern politics. A glance at Table 6 and any similar table created for virtually every other southern state shows the migration over the last forty years of control over U.S. senate and gubernatorial offices from the Democratic side of the table to the Republican side. One powerful short-term force that has contributed to Republican electoral gains are issues, as Democratic officeholders today, at least in such federal offices as the U.S. senate, offer liberal-to-moderate records of public service to state populations that remain somewhat to the right ideologically on some key issues (Table 5). Yet even this powerful graphic of emerging GOP dominance in the U.S. senate in the South masks a complex reality- that there are many popular bread-and-butter issues such as government spending on education, Social Security, and the environment where Democrats can stake out positions closer to southern voters than can conservative Republicans (Patrick, Shaffer, Cotter, and Fisher 2004: 124). Trend lines of one party’s increasing dominance do not always move in only one direction, as the electorally potent Republican Party of the 1920s learned when the Great Depression erupted onto the national scene.

The American Voter’s social psychological model nevertheless provides an invaluable method of classification, an important step in theory building. A careful reading of the southern politics literature mentioned at the start of this paper permits the creation of tables for every southern state that model that of Table 7 for Mississippi. One can therefore more easily visualize in a single chart how short-term factors relating to issues, attributes of the candidates, campaign events, prospective or retrospective performance, or partisan factors affected competitive elections for governor and the U.S. senate in recent decades. Some short-term forecasting can also take place. If poll data regarding the recent partisan ties of a state’s population are available, one can predict that one party is likely to be victorious, assuming that that party is the “majority” party and that short-term forces balance out. A daily review of each state’s on-line major newspaper can provide considerable information on the short-term candidate, issue, and campaign forces in each major contest. Performing that data-gathering task during the 2006 elections led me to accurately predict the outcomes of every gubernatorial and senate contest days before the votes were cast (Table 9).

Long-range forecasting is much more problematic, since so much depends on the direction of the short-term forces, not only the issues in any given campaign as well as national conditions, but also the adroitness of the candidates. Despite a long-term regional slide into what some fear is oblivion, Democrats in the South still can come up with some popular candidates. Arkansas boasts two such senators- Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln. Mark Pryor has been described as “eminently likable” with “mannerisms that looked so much like his father,” and having an ability to perform “amazingly well when talking directly to the television camera” (Blair and Barth 2005: 351). Also reflecting his father’s legendary love of people, Mark Pryor has taken the position that “People matter more than political parties” and conceded that both parties can offer some good ideas (Blair and Barth 2005: 101). Blanche Lincoln’s inclusive reputation is bolstered by her membership in two “centrist” congressional coalitions, her backing of President Bush’s education program and prescription drug plan, and her support for a balanced budget act and a constitutional amendment banning desecration of the flag (Koszczuk and Stern 2005: 53-54; Blair and Barth 2005: 338; Mikulski et al. 2000: 229). Most importantly, she fights for issues important to her state’s rural constituents, winning an extension in the deadline for farmers to purchase federal crop insurance necessitated by a private company’s halting the sales of its policy, and opposing U.S. trade sanctions on markets for agricultural exports in China and Cuba (Mikulski et al. 2000: 154-155, 157, 175-176).

Despite recent dramatic Republican gains in Louisiana, Democratic U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu’s reputation of caring more about her state than of being a blind party loyalist could help her party retain at least one senate seat. Her ideologically inclusive image is reflected in her support for the Bush tax cut, crafting a compromise that protected development of a missile defense system, and backing an early childhood development initiative that would ensure that all pre-schoolers were prepared to enter school. Serving her constituents in a non-ideologically manner, she has helped bring in federal funds for conservation projects and for school districts having many poor children, as well as fought for a farm relief bill that helped Louisiana farmers hurt by a drought (Mikulski et al., 2000: 226-228; Hawkings and Nutting 2003: 430-431). In conclusion, even with a helpful model or theory of southern election outcomes and some information on one party’s candidate attributes, any effort to provide any definitive forecasts of future electoral results nevertheless awaits developments in the long-term force of party identification and other short-term forces (such as the other major party candidates and the issues and campaign events that are exploited) that cannot easily be predicted.

Figure 1

A social-psychological model of the vote in partisan elections

LONG- SHORT

TERM TERM

FORCE FORCES

Issues

Party Presidential

Identification Vote

Candidate

Attributes

Source: Campbell, Converse, Miller, and Stokes, 1964.

Table 1

Party Identification of South States in Recent Years

YEAR RIM SOUTH STATES DEEP SOUTH STATES

State

Ark

Fla

N.C.

Tenn

Tex

Vir

Alab

Ga.

Miss

S.C.

1970

22*

26#

1972

24#

1974

1976

35*

11d

1978

34*

1980

21*

37#

40*

1982

24*

22+

1984

31*

48#

1986

25*

33+

1988

40*

41#

1990

48#

1992

1994

50*

1996

32*

50+

35+

1998

38*

2000

49+

49*

47*

55+

51+

48#

47+

41+

54+

2002

54*

49#

2004

53+

52*

57+

53+

55+

49+

57+

2006

53+

58+

Note: Cell entries are % Republican of two-party identifiers. Partisan groupings exclude independent leaners (except for 1992, 1994, and 1998 Florida poll results).

+ From exit poll of voters, not all adults.

* Pooled results from more than one poll conducted that year.

# Drawn from one or more polls from adjacent, odd-numbered years (except for 1970 North Carolina, where poll conducted two years before)

Sources: For Arkansas, see Barth, Blair, and Dumas (1999); Blair and Savage (1988), Wright, Erikson, and McIver (1985), Barth (2003), Blair and Barth (2005), Lamis (1990), Dowdle and Wekkin (2007). For Florida, see Carver and Fiedler (1999); Wright, Erikson, and McIver (1985); Parker (1988); Tenpas, Hulbary, and Bowman (1997); Florida Annual Policy Survey (Odom Institute for Research in Social Science); Scicchitano and Scher (2007); Bullock and Rozell (2007b); a 2006 CNN exit poll. For North Carolina, see Lamis (1990); Christensen and Fleer (1999); Fleer, Lowery, and Prysby (1988); Wright, Erikson, and McIver (1985); Prysby (2007); polls archived at the Odum Institute for Research in Social Science at UNC, Chapel Hill (website: http://152.2.32.107/odum/jsp/content_node.jsp?nodeid=210). For Tennessee, see Bruce, Clark, Gant, and Daugherty (2003); Mason (2003); Lamis (1990); Ashford and Locker (1999); Wright, Erikson, and McIver (1985); Swansbrough and Brodsky (1988); the MTSU Poll (2000-6), http://www.mtsusurveygroup.org/mtpoll/. For Texas, see Lamis (1990); Murray and Attlesey (1999); Vedlitz, Dyer, and Hill (1988); Feigert and McWilliams (1995); Feigert and Todd (1994); Bullock and Rozell (2007a, b); Feigert, Miller, Cunningham, and Burlage (2003). For Virginia, see Rozell (2007); Lamis (1990); Edds and Morris (1999); McGlennon (1988); Bullock and Rozell (2007b); the Commonwealth Poll (July 1988, January 1991, July 1996, May 1998) cited in Shaffer, Pierce, and Kohnke (2000). For Alabama, see Wright, Erikson, and McIver (1985), Cotter and Gordon (1999), Cotter (2002), Stanley (2003), Cotter (2007), communication from Professor Patrick R. Cotter. For Georgia, see Lamis (1990); Binford, Baxter, and Sturrock (1999); Wright, Erikson, and McIver (1985); Binford (1988); Bullock and Rozell (2007b); and website http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/GA/G/00/epolls.0.html. For Louisiana, see Lamis (1990); Renwick, Parent, and Wardlaw (1999); Parent and Perry (2007); Wright, Erikson, and McIver (1985), Parent (1988), Hadley and Knuckey (1997), Bullock and Rozell (2007b). For Mississippi, see Wright, Erikson, and McIver (1985); Bass and DeVries (1977); Breaux, Shaffer, and Gresham (2007); the Mississippi Poll project (see: http://sds17.pspa.msstate.edu/poll/poll.html). For South Carolina, see Broach and Bandy (1999), Graham (1988), Lamis (1990), Wright, Erikson, and McIver (1985), Steed and Moreland (2007), Bullock and Rozell (2007b).

Table 2

Political Titans who Dominated State Politics in Closing Decades of 20^th Century

Party	State and Years	Office and Person	Why powerful?
Dem	Miss- 1947-88	Sen John C. Stennis	Integrity, courtesy, stately, non-racist, senate power, served his state
Dem	Alab- 1962-86	Gov George C. Wallace	Commoner background, boxer, Folsom ally, segregationist, econ. progressive
Dem	La- 1971-95	Gov Edwin Edwards	Witty, charismatic, flamboyant, Cajun, progressive, biracial coalition
Dem	Ga- 1974-2004	Lieut Gov, Gov, Sen Zell Miller	Econ. liberal, pro-education, tough on crime, humble beginnings, personal camp
Dem	S.C.- 1946-64	Gov, Sen Strom Thurmond	Tillman coaching, war hero, FDR backer, progressive gov, write-in senator, conser.
Dem	Ark- 1978-92	Gov Clinton	Charisma, personal connection to people, attends all events, black churches
Dem	Ark- 1974-96	Gov, Sen David Pryor	Person-to-person camp., Arkansas 1^st, personable, folksy, empathy, “one of us”
Dem	Ark- 1970-98	Gov, Sen Dale Bumpers	Articulate, progressive, storyteller, western drawl, personal stories, passion
Dem	Fla- 1970-98	Sen, Gov Lawton Chiles	Man of people, walks across state, limits camp. donations, visits state much
Dem	Fla- 1978-2004	Gov, Sen Bob Graham	Everyday voter appeal, works 100 jobs, sincere, best politician in state

Sources: see text citations.

Table 3

Republican Electoral Breakthroughs during Democratic Eras

	Governors	Senators
1961		Tex- Tower*
1964		S.C.- Thurmond*
1966	Ark- Rockefeller* Fla- Kirk*	Tenn- Baker*
1968		Fla- Gurney*
1969	Vir- Holton*
1970	Tenn- Dunn*	Tenn- Brock
1972	N.C.- Holshouser*	N.C.- Helms* Vir- Scott*
1973	Vir- Godwin
1974	S.C.- Edwards*
1976
1977	Vir- Dalton
1978	Tex- Clements* Tenn- Alexander	Miss- Cochran* Vir- Warner
1979	La- Treen*
1980	Ark- White	Alab- Denton* Ga- Mattingly* Fla- Hawkins N.C.- East
1982
1984	N.C.- Martin	Tex- Gramm
1986	Alab- Hunt* Tex- Clements
1988		Miss- Lott
1990
1991	Miss- Fordice*
1992
1994
1995	La- Foster
1996		Ark- Hutchinson*
1998	Ark- Huckabee
2000
2002	Ga- Perdue+
2004		La- Vitter+

Note: Thurmond’s 1964 entry indicates a party switch.

* Indicates first GOP victory in that state for that office.

+ Indicates election occurred after period of Democratic dominance ended.

Table 4: Causes of Republican Electoral Breakthroughs

Year-state-office-person	Divisive Dem. Primary?	Ideology of Dem. nominee	Comments
1961- Tex- Sen Tower	Yes	Very cons.	Liberal Dems voted Rep.
1964- S.C.- Sen Thurmond	No	--	Pty switch, nat’ Dem lib.
1966- Ark- Gov Rockefeller	Yes	Segregate	Liberal Dems voted Rep
1966- Fla- Gov Kirk	Yes	Liberal	Conser Dems voted Rep
1966- Tenn- Sen Baker	Yes	Gov/org.	Org. gov. beats lib. sen.
1968- Fla- Sen Gurney	Yes	Liberal	Dem nom. lib. gov.
1969- Vir- Gov Holton	Yes	Org.	Lib Dem lost primary
1970- Tenn- Gov Dunn	Yes	Liberal	Dem loser non-endorse.
1970- Tenn- Sen Brock	Yes	Liberal	Org cand. lost primary
1972- N.C.- Gov Holshouser	Yes	--	Dem upsets lieut. gov.
1972- N.C.- Sen Helms	Yes	Liberal	Cons Dem incum defeated
1972- Vir- Sen Scott	No	Mod inc.	Lib nat’l Dems help Rep.
1973- Vir- Gov Godwin	No	Lib Indep	Dem offer no candidate
1974- S.C.- Gov Edwards	Yes	nonreform	D prim lawsuit- no endorse
1977- Vir- Gov Dalton	Yes	Liberal	Dem atty gen prim upset
1978- Tex- Gov Clements	Yes	Liberal	D gov prim loser, backs R
1978- Tenn- Gov Alexander	Yes	Banker	Rep walks across state
1978- Miss- Sen Cochran	Yes	White	Black Indep splits Dems
1978- Vir- Sen Warner	No	Moderate	Rep org, $, actress wife
1979- La- Gov Treen	Yes	Liberal	Dem losers back Rep
1980- Ark- Gov White	No	Incumbent	Dissat. with incumb. job
1980- Alab- Sen Denton	Yes	--	Inc loses D prim to gov son
1980- Ga- Sen Mattingly	Yes	Talmadge	Some blacks vote Rep
1980- Fla- Sen Hawkins	Yes	Insur com	Inc Dem sen loses primary
1980- N.C.- Sen East	No	Mod inc	Cons Rep Helms camp $
1984- N.C.- Gov Martin	Yes	Liberal	Consumer beat Reagan D.
1984- Tex- Sen Gramm	Yes	Liberal	Rep pty switcher; mod con Dem no endorsement
1986- Alab- Gov Hunt	Yes	Liberal	Technicality unseat cons D
1986- Tex- Gov Clements	Yes	Governor	Gov raised tax, cons. go R
1988- Miss- Sen Lott	No	Moderate	Progressive GOP TV ads
1991- Miss- Gov Fordice	Yes	Governor	Dem challenger backs Rep
1995- La- Gov Foster	Yes	Lib black	Dem prim loser no endorse
1996- Ark- Sen Hutchinson	Yes	Alienator	Cons cand loses D prim
1998- Ark- Gov Huckabee	No	--	Dem gov legal conviction
2002- Ga- Gov Perdue	No	Anti-flag	Dem gov hurt by flag issue
2004- La- Sen Vitter	Yes	Moderate	Four Dems vs. one Rep.

Sources: the literature cited throughout the paper.

Table 5: Recent Ideological and Partisan Transformations of U.S. Senators

Dec-ade	Liberal	Moderate Liberal	Moderate	Moderate Conservative	Conservative
1970s		Bumpers (AR)	Hollings (SC) Morgan (NC) Sasser (TN)+ Bentsen (TX) Chiles (FL) Stone (FL)	Sparkman (A) Long (LA) Johnston (LA) Talmadge (G) Nunn (GA) Baker (TN)	Eastland (MS) Stennis (MS) Allen (AL) Thurmond (SC) McClellan (AR) Helms (NC) Byrd (VA) Scott (VA) Tower (TX)
1980s	Bum- pers (AR) San- ford (NC)+	Fowler (GA)+ Pryor (AR) Sasser (TN) Gore (TN) Graham (FL)+	Johnston (LA) Breaux (LA)* Nunn (GA) Hollings (SC) Bentsen (TX) Chiles (FL)	Stennis (MS) Heflin (AL)	Cochran (MS) Denton (AL) Thurmond (SC) Helms (NC) Trible (VA) Warner (VA) Gramm (TX)
1990s	Cleland (GA)* Pryor (AR) Bum-pers (AR) Sasser (TN)+ Graham (FL)	Breaux (LA) Hollings (SC) Robb (VA)	Heflin (AL) Johnston (LA)	Shelby (AL)+	Cochran (MS) Lott (MS) Coverdell (G) Thurmond (SC) Helms (NC) Faircloth (NC) Warner (VA) Thompson (TN) Gramm (TX) Hutchison (TX) Mack (FL)
2000s	Edwards (NC) Nelson (FL)	Landrieu (LA) Lincoln (AR) M. Pryor (AR)	Breaux (LA)	Miller (GA)	Cochran (MS) Lott (MS) Shelby (AL) Sessions (AL) Chambliss (G) Graham (SC) DeMint (SC) Dole (NC) Warner (VA) Allen (VA) Frist (TN) Alexander (TN) Hutchison (TX) Cornyn (TX) Martinez (FL)

Note: Republicans are in italics. Senators are divided into five ideological groupings based on their ADA and ACU/ACA scores. Both groups rate congress members from 0 to 100. I subtracted the ADA scores from 100, and then took the averages of the result and the ACU/ACA scores, and made the computations over the period of time noted above. The resulting 101 point scale is arbitrarily divided into five even groupings so that liberals score 0-20, moderates 40-60, conservatives 80-100, etc. The two senators selected from each state for each decade are generally those who served the longest during those decades, except as noted below.

+ Fowler, Graham, Sanford, and Sasser were selected to represent these decades in order to study ideological change in Democratic senators over time. Shelby was included as a unique example of a party switcher in the face of resistance to ideological change.

* Breaux and Cleland were selected to represent these decades in order to study ideological change compared to their Democratic predecessors, Long and Nunn.

Sources: Almanac of American Politics series, and CQ’s Politics in America series. Also, see websites: http://www.adaction.org/votingrecords.htm and http://www.acuratings.org/.

Table 6

Governors and U.S. Senators and Their Parties in Modern Mississippi

	Democrats			Republicans
	Governors	Senators	Senators	Governors	Senators	Senators
1970	Williams	Stennis*	Eastland
1971	Waller*	Stennis	Eastland
1972	Waller	Stennis	Eastland*
1974	Waller	Stennis	Eastland
1975	Finch*	Stennis	Eastland
1976	Finch	Stennis*	Eastland
1978	Finch	Stennis				Cochran*
1979	Winter*	Stennis				Cochran
1980	Winter	Stennis				Cochran
1982	Winter	Stennis*				Cochran
1983	Allain*	Stennis				Cochran
1984	Allain	Stennis				Cochran*
1986	Allain	Stennis				Cochran
1987	Mabus*	Stennis				Cochran
1988	Mabus				Lott*	Cochran
1990	Mabus				Lott	Cochran*
1991				Fordice*	Lott	Cochran
1992				Fordice	Lott	Cochran
1994				Fordice	Lott*	Cochran
1995				Fordice*	Lott	Cochran
1996				Fordice	Lott	Cochran*
1998				Fordice	Lott	Cochran
1999	Musgrove*				Lott	Cochran
2000	Musgrove				Lott*	Cochran
2002	Musgrove				Lott	Cochran*
2003				Barbour*	Lott	Cochran
2004				Barbour	Lott	Cochran
2006				Barbour	Lott*	Cochran
2007				Barbour*	Lott	Cochran

Note: Cell entries indicate the governors and U.S. Senators elected in or serving during the years listed at the left. In Mississippi, governors are elected in the odd-numbered year before a presidential election, so those years are included in this table.

* Indicates that the officeholder was elected in that year.

Table 7: Factors Affecting Elections of Mississippi Governors and U.S. Senators

Officeholder (party-year 1^st elected)	Issues	Candidate Attributes	Party/Campaign Factors	Performance Factors
Governors
J.B. Williams (D-1967)	Conservative, backed Goldwater			Congressman
William Waller (D-1971)	Anti-establishment			Prosecuted Evers’ assassin
Cliff Finch (D-1975)	Workingman’s image	“Redneck” image	Works at different jobs
William Winter (D-1979)	Racial liberal, Pro-education	Articulate, thoughtful		State treasurer, lieut. gov.
Bill Allain (D-1983)	Populist, has black support		Survives gay allegations	Attorney General
Ray Mabus (D-1987)	Pro-education at all levels	Harvard educated		Anti-corruption as auditor
Kirk Fordice (R-1991/1995)	Conservative ideologue/	“Not a politician”/	GOP activist, divisive Dem. primary/	Gridlock, budget cuts/ Good economy
R. Musgrove (D-1999)	Pro-education, made black appointments			Rep. sits on lead
Haley Barbour (R-2003/2007)	State flag vote, conservative GOP leader/	Sincere, decent, “we can do better”/ A leader	Get out vote drive, RNC chair/	Dissatisfaction- hi ed. and flag supporters/ Good economy
Senators
James Eastland (D-1942, 1972)	Conservative, segregationist		/President Nixon backs Eastland
John Stennis (D-1947, 1982)		Integrity/name visibility	/majority party, youthful ads	/helped state, experience
Thad Cochran (R-1978, 1984)		Articulate, soft-spoken	Black indep. splits Dems/	Congressman/ Seniority, constituent service
Trent Lott (R-1988, 1994)		Bright, articulate	Non-divisive “progressive” TV ads/	16 years in congress/influence “helps state”

Sources: the literature cited in the text.

Table 8

Programs of Mississippi Governors and U.S. Senators

Officeholder (party-year 1^st elected)	Progressive Policies	Neutral Policies	Conservative Policies
Governors
J.B. Williams (D-1967)			Conservative, Goldwater backer
William Waller (D-1971)	Appoints blacks to state offices, kills segregationist Sovereignty Comm.
Cliff Finch (D-1975)	Appoints blacks, unifies Dem party
William Winter (D-1979)	1982 Education Reform Act	Professionalized government
Bill Allain (D-1983)	Appoints 1^st black to supreme court	Separation of powers upheld	Opposes tax increases
Ray Mabus (D-1987)	Backs education $, appoints blacks, favors lottery, pro-choice		Anti-tax hike
Kirk Fordice (R-1991)		Pro-business, promotes tourism, economic. develop.	Anti-racial quotas, establishes rainy day fund
Ronnie Musgrove (D-1999)	Teacher pay raise, CHIP expansion	Nissan plant attracted	No tax increase, state budget cuts, tort reform
Haley Barbour (R-2003)		Hurricane Katrina recovery led	Tort reform, no tax increase
Senators
James Eastland (D-1942)			Kills civil rights measures
John Stennis (D-1947)		Fights for programs helping state	Conservative, pro-military
Thad Cochran (R-1978)		Pragmatic, soft-spoken persona	Conservative roll-call record
Trent Lott (R-1988)		Aggressive, public spokesperson	Conservative roll-call record

Sources: the literature cited in the text.

Table 9

Factors Affecting Competitive 2006 Campaigns of South’s Governors and U.S. Senators

Officeholder (party-state)	Issues	Candidate Attributes	Party/Campaign Factors	Performance Factors
Governors
Bob Riley (R- Alabama)	Job creation, tax reform		Endorsed by all daily newspaper	Incumbent, Governing award
Mike Beebe (D- Arkansas)	Pro-education vs. anti-educ.	Poor Dem, consensus build	Clinton camp. for Dem.	Atty. Gen., experienced
Charlie Crist (R- Florida)	Crist social liberal	Independent thinker GOP	Rep. snubs Pres. Bush	GOP Gov. Bush successful
Sonny Perdue (R- Georgia)	Good economy	GOP folksy, leadership	Rep voter numbers	Incumbent
Mark Sanford (R- S.C.)	Fiscal conser.	“courageous” Rep leader vs unknown Dem	Rep Money advantage	Incumbent
Phil Bredesen (D- Tennessee)	Good economy, health reform	Decisive leader	Nonideological Dem. image	Popular incumbent
Rick Perry (R- Texas)		Dem. loser reputation	Rep. voters outnumber Dems.	Unpopular gov. produces three opponents
Senators
Bill Nelson (D- Florida)		GOP erratic, religious right		Incumbent, liberal
Bob Corker (R-Tennessee)	Mod. Lib. Dem	“Tenn. Values” Republican	Ad blasting “liberal” Dem/ Rep numbers.	Rep. rich mayor
Jim Webb (D- Virginia)	Pres Bush Iraq war mess	Marine Dem,. racial slur Rep	Overconfident Rep.- macaca	Dem former Republican, Reaganite

Sources: the literature cited in the text.

REFERENCES

Abramowitz, Alan I. 1994. “Issue Evolution Reconsidered: Racial Attitudes and

Partisanship in the U.S. Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science 38:

1-24.

Aistrup, Joseph A. 1996. The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-Down

Advancement in the South. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. 2006. “Editorials: Our choice.” (Arkansas Democrat

Gazette, Northwest Arkansas Edition), October 29, 2006. Accessed October 29,

2006.

Ashford, Philip and Richard Locker. 1999. “Tennessee: A Partisan Big Bang Amid Quiet

Accommodation.” In Southern Politics in the 1990s, ed. Alexander P. Lamis.

Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Barone, Michael, Grant Ujifusa, and Douglas Matthews. 1979. The Almanac of American

Politics, 1980. New York: E.P. Dutton.

Barth, Jay. 2003. “Arkansas: More Signs of Momentum for Republicanism in Post-‘Big

Three’ Arkansas.” The American Review of Politics 24: 111-126.

Barth, Jay, Diane D. Blair, and Ernie Dumas. 1999. “Arkansas: Character, Crises, and

Change.” In Southern Politics in the 1990s, ed. Alexander P. Lamis. Baton

Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Bass, Jack, and Walter DeVries. 1977. The Transformation of Southern Politics: Social

Change and Political Consequence Since 1945. New York: New American

Library.

Beck, Paul Allen. 1977. “Partisan Dealignment in the Postwar South.” American Political

Science Review 71: 477-496.

Binford, Michael B. 1988. “Georgia: Political Realignment or Partisan Evolution.” In The

South’s New Politics: Realignment and Dealignment, ed. Robert H. Swansbrough

and David M. Brodsky. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Binford, Michael, Tom Baxter, and David E. Sturrock. 1999. “Georgia: Democratic

Bastion No Longer.” In Southern Politics in the 1990s, ed. Alexander P. Lamis.

Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Black, Merle. 2004. “The Transformation of the Southern Democratic Party.” Journal of

Politics 66: 1001-1017.

Black, Earl, and Merle Black. 1992. The Vital South: How Presidents are Elected.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Blair, Diane D. and Jay Barth. 2005. Arkansas Politics and Government, 2^nd ed. Lincoln:

University of Nebraska Press.

Blair, Diane D. and Robert L. Savage. 1988. “The Appearances of Realignment and

Dealignment in Arkansas.” In The South’s New Politics: Realignment and

Dealignment, ed. Robert H. Swansbrough and David M. Brodsky. Columbia:

University of South Carolina Press.

Blomeley, Seth. 2006. “At long last, Beebe is taking his big shot.”

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/170384/ (Arkansas Democrat Gazette,

Northwest Arkansas Edition), October 22, 2006. Accessed October 22, 2006.

Boyer, Peter J. 2006. “Southern Discomfort: The strangest Senate race of the year.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061030fa_fact?page=1 (The New

Yorker, magazine), October 30, 2006 issue, posted October 23.

Breaux, David A., Stephen D. Shaffer, and Hilary B. Gresham. 2007. “Mississippi:

Emergence of a Modern Two-Party State.” In The New Politics of the Old South:

An Introduction to Southern Politics, 3^rd edition, ed. Charles S. Bullock and Mark

J. Rozell. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Bridges, Tyler. 1994. The Rise of David Duke. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.

Broach, Glen T., and Lee Bandy. 1999. “South Carolina: A Decade of Rapid Republican

Ascent.” In Southern Politics in the 1990s, ed. Alexander P. Lamis. Baton Rouge:

Louisiana State University Press.

Bruce, John M., John A. Clark, Michael M. Gant, and Linda M. Daugherty. 2003.

“Tennessee: A Maturing Two-Party System.” American Review of Politics 24:

165-182.

Bullock, Charles S. 2007. “Georgia: The GOP Finally Takes Over.” In The New Politics

of the Old South: An Introduction to Southern Politics,3^rd edition, ed. Charles S.

Bullock and Mark J. Rozell. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Bullock, Charles S., and Mark J. Rozell, eds. 2003. The New Politics of the Old South:

An Introduction to Southern Politics, 2^nd edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman and

Littlefield.

Bullock, Charles S., and Mark J. Rozell, eds. 2007a. The New Politics of the Old South:

An Introduction to Southern Politics, 3^rd edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman and

Littlefield.

Bullock, Charles S., and Mark J. Rozell. 2007b. “Southern Politics in the Twenty-first

Century.” In The New Politics of the Old South: An Introduction to Southern

Politics, 3^rd edition, ed. Charles S. Bullock and Mark J. Rozell. Lanham, MD:

Rowman and Littlefield.

Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1964.

The American Voter: An Abridgment. 1964. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Campbell, Bruce A. 1977a. “Change in the Southern Electorate.” American Journal of

Political Science 21: 37-64.

Campbell, Bruce A. 1977b. “Patterns of Change in the Partisan Loyalties of Native

Southerners: 1952-1972.” Journal of Politics 39: 730-761.

Carmines, Edward G., and Harold W. Stanley. 1990. “Ideological Realignment in the

Contemporary South.” In The Disappearing South? Studies in Regional Change

and Continuity, ed. Robert P. Steed, Laurence W. Moreland, and Tod A. Baker.

Pp. 21-33. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Carter, Dan T. 2000. The Politics of Rage: George Wallace, the Origins of the New

Conservatism, and the Transformation of American Politics; 2^nd edition. Baton

Rouge: Louisiana State University.

Carver, Joan, and Tom Fiedler. 1999. “Florida: A Volatile National Microcosm.” In

Southern Politics in the 1990s, ed. Alexander P. Lamis. Baton Rouge: Louisiana

State University Press.

Chait, Jonathan. 2006. “Katherine Harris, still crazy: Makeup Call.” The New Republic

(September 11 & 18): 12-16.

Christensen, Rob, and Jack D. Fleer. 1999. “North Carolina: Between Helms and Hunt

No Majority Emerges.” In Southern Politics in the 1990s, ed. Alexander P. Lamis.

Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Cohodas, Nadine. 1994. Strom Thurmond & the Politics of Southern Change. Macon GA:

Mercer University Press, edition published in arrangement with Simon & Shuster.

Colburn, David R., and Lance deHaven-Smith. 1999. Government in the Sunshine State:

Florida Since Statehood. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Colburn, David R. and Richard K. Scher. 1980. Florida’s Gubernatorial Politics in the

Twentieth Century. Tallahassee: University Presses of Florida.

Cotter, Patrick R. 2002. “Alabama: A ‘Small Time’ Election.” In The 2000 Presidential

Election in the South: Partisanship and Southern Party Systems in the 21^st

Century, ed. Robert P. Steed, and Laurence W. Moreland. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Cotter, Patrick R. 2007. “Alabama: From One Party to Competition, and Maybe Back

Again.” In The New Politics of the Old South: An Introduction to Southern

Politics, 3^rd edition, ed. Charles S. Bullock and Mark J. Rozell. Lanham, MD:

Rowman and Littlefield.

Cotter, Patrick R., and Tom Gordon. 1999. “Alabama: The GOP Rises in the Heart of

Dixie.” In Southern Politics in the 1990s, ed. Alexander P. Lamis. Baton Rouge:

Louisiana State University Press.

Cotter, Patrick R., Stephen D. Shaffer, and David A Breaux. 2006. “Issues, Ideology, and

Political Opinions in the South.” In Writing Southern Politics, ed. Robert P. Steed

and Laurence W. Moreland. Pp. 189-218. Lexington: University Press of

Kentucky.

Dauer, Manning J. 1972. “Florida: The Different State.” In The Changing Politics of the

South, ed. William C. Havard. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Dowdle, Andrew and Gary D. Wekkin. 2007. “Arkansas: The Post-2000 Elections-

Continued GOP Growth or a Party That Has Peaked?” In The New Politics of the

Old South: An Introduction to Southern Politics, 3^rd edition, ed. Charles S.

Bullock and Mark J. Rozell. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Edds, Margaret, and Thomas R. Morris. 1999. “Virginia: Republicans Surge in the

Competitive Dominion.” In Southern Politics in the 1990s, ed. Alexander P.

Lamis. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Feigert, Frank B. and Nancy L. McWilliams. 1995. “Texas: Yeller Dogs and Yuppies.”

In Southern State Party Organizations and Activists, eds. Charles D. Hadley and

Lewis Bowman. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Feigert, Frank B., Dawn Miller, Kenda Cunningham, and Rachel Burlage. 2003.

“Texas: Incipient Polarization?” American Review of Politics 24: 183-196.

Feigert, Frank B., and John R. Todd. 1994. “Texas: Friends, Neighbors, and Native

Sons.” In The 1992 Presidential Election in the South: Current Patterns of

Southern Party and Electoral Politics, eds. Robert P. Steed, Laurence W.

Moreland, and Tod A. Baker. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Fenno, Richard F., Jr. 1996. Senators on the Campaign Trail: The Politics of

Representation. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Fleer, Jack D., Roger C. Lowery, and Charles L. Prysby. 1988. “Political Change in

North Carolina.” In The South’s New Politics: Realignment and Dealignment, ed.

Robert H. Swansbrough and David M. Brodsky. Columbia: University of South

Carolina Press.

Fortenberry, Charles N., and F. Glenn Abney. 1972. “Mississippi: Unreconstructed and

Unredeemed.” In The Changing Politics of the South, ed. William C. Havard. Pp.

472-524. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Graham, Cole Blease. 1988. “Partisan Change in South Carolina.” In The South’s New

Politics: Realignment and Dealignment, ed. Robert H. Swansbrough and David M. Brodsky. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Hadley, Charles D., and Jonathan O. Knuckey. 1997. “Louisiana: Laissez les bon temps

rouler!” In The 1996 Presidential Election in the South: Southern Party Systems

in the 1990s, eds. Laurence W. Moreland and Robert P. Steed.. Pp. 77-93.

Westport, CT: Praeger.

Havard, William C., ed. 1972. The Changing Politics of the South. Baton Rouge:

Louisiana State University Press.

Hawkings, David, and Brian Nutting. 2003. Politics in America 2004: The 108^th

Congress. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. Johnston, Erle. 1993. Politics:

Mississippi Style. Forest, MS: Lake Harbor Publishers.

Kallina, Edmund F., Jr. 1993. Claude Kirk and the Politics of Confrontation. Gainesville:

University Press of Florida.

Katagiri, Yasuhiro. 2001. The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission: Civil Rights

and States’ Rights. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.

Key, V.O., Jr. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: Vintage, division

of Random House.

Knuckey, Jonathan. 2001. “Racial Resentment and Southern Republican Voting in the

1990s.” American Review of Politics 22: 257-277.

Koszczuk, Jackie and H. Amy Stern, eds. 2005. CQ’s Politics in America 2006: The 109^th

Congress. Washington D.C.: CQ Press.

Kuklinski, James H., and Michael D. Cobb. 1997. “Racial Attitudes and the ‘New

South.’” The Journal of Politics 59: 323-349.

Ladd, Everett Carll, Jr. 1970. American Political Parties: Social Change and Political

Response. New York: W.W. Norton and Co.

Ladd, Everett Carll, Jr., with Charles D. Hadley. 1978. Transformations of the American

Party System: Political Coalitions from the New Deal to the 1970s, 2^nd edition.

New York: W.W. Norton and Co.

Lamis, Alexander P. 1990. The Two-Party South, 2^nd expanded edition. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Lamis, Alexander P., ed. 1999. Southern Politics in the 1990s. Baton Rouge: Louisiana

State University Press.

Lesher, Stephen. 1994. George Wallace: American Populist. Reading Mass: Addison-

Wesley.

Mason, John Lyman. 2003. “Tennessee: Politics and Politicians That Matter beyond State

Borders.” In The New Politics of the Old South: An Introduction to Southern

Politics, 2^nd Edition, ed. Charles S. Bullock and Mark J. Rozell Lanham, MD:

Rowman and Littlefield.

McGlennon, John J. 1988. “Virginia’s Changing Party Politics, 1976-1986.” In The

South’s New Politics: Realignment and Dealignment, ed. Robert H. Swansbrough

and David M. Brodsky. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Mikulski, Barbara, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Patty

Murray, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, and

Catherine Whitney. 2000. Nine and Counting: The Women of the Senate. New

York: HarperCollins.

Miller, Zell. 2003. A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative

Democrat. Atlanta: Stroud & Hall Publishing.

Moreland, Laurence W., and Robert P. Steed, eds. 1997. The 1996 Presidential Election

in the South: Southern Party Systems in the 1990s. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Murray, Richard, and Sam Attlesey. 1999. “Texas: Republicans Gallop Ahead.” In

Southern Politics in the 1990s, ed. Alexander P. Lamis. Baton Rouge: Louisiana

State University Press.

Nadeau, Richard, Richard G. Niemi, Harold W. Stanley, and Jean-François Godbout.

2004. “Class, Party, and South/Non-South Differences: An Update.” American

Politics Research 32: 52-67.

Nadeau, Richard, and Harold W. Stanley. 1993. “Class Polarization in Partisanship

among Native Southern Whites, 1952-90.” American Journal of Political Science

37: 900-919.

Nash, Jere and Andy Taggart. 2006. Mississippi Politics: The Struggle for Power, 1976-

2006. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.

Nie, Norman H., Sidney Verba, and John R. Petrocik. 1979. The Changing American

Voter: Enlarged Edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Parent, Wayne. 1988. “The Rise and Stall of Republican Ascendancy in Louisiana

Politics.” In The South’s New Politics: Realignment and Dealignment, ed. Robert H. Swansbrough and David M. Brodsky. Pp. 204-217. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Parent, Wayne, and Huey Perry. 2007. “Louisiana: African Americans, Republicans, and

Party Competition.” In The New Politics of the Old South: An Introduction to

Southern Politics, 3^rd edition, ed. Charles S. Bullock and Mark J. Rozell. Lanham,

MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Parker, Suzanne L. 1988. “Shifting Party Tides in Florida: Where Have All the

Democrats Gone?” In The South’s New Politics: Realignment and Dealignment,

ed. Robert H. Swansbrough and David M. Brodsky. Columbia: University of

South Carolina Press.

Patrick, Barbara A., Stephen D. Shaffer, Patrick R. Cotter, and Samuel H. Fisher III.

2004. “Mass-Elite Linkages and Partisan Change in the South.” In Southern

Political Party Activists: Patterns of Conflict and Change, 1991-2001, ed.

John A. Clark and Charles L. Prysby. Lexington: The University Press of

Kentucky.

Prysby, Charles. 2007. “North Carolina: Two-Party Competition Continues into the

Twenty-first Century.” In The New Politics of the Old South: An Introduction to

Southern Politics, 3^rd edition, ed. Charles S. Bullock and Mark J. Rozell.

Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Rawls, Phillip. 2006a. “Riley makes shovel, scissors into tools for re-election.” The

Commercial Dispatch (October 24), p. 7A.

Rawls, Phillip. 2006b. “GOP Gov. Riley sweeps all Alabama daily newspaper

endorsements.” Accessmontgomery.com (Montgomery Advertiser). On-line,

November 6, 2006, accessed same day.

Reeves, Jay. 2006. “Two Alabama business groups endorse Riley for re-election.” The

Commercial Dispatch (October 6), p. 12A.

Renwick, Edward F., T. Wayne Parent, and Jack Wardlaw. 1999. “Louisiana: Still Sui

Generis Like Huey.” In Southern Politics in the 1990s, ed. Alexander P. Lamis.

Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Rozell, Mark J. 2007. “Virginia: The New Politics of the Old Dominion.” In The New

Politics of the Old South: An Introduction to Southern Politics, 3^rd edition, ed.

Charles S. Bullock and Mark J. Rozell. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Scicchitano, Michael J., and Richard K. Scher. 2007. “Florida: Political Change, 1950-

2004.” In The New Politics of the Old South: An Introduction to Southern

Politics, 3^rd edition, ed. Charles S. Bullock and Mark J. Rozell. Lanham, MD:

Rowman and Littlefield.

Shaffer, Stephen D., David A. Breaux, and Barbara Patrick. 2005. “Mississippi:

Republicans Surge Forward in a Two-Party State.” The American Review of

Politics 26: 85-107.

Shaffer, Stephen D., Patrick R. Cotter, and Ronnie B. Tucker. 2000. “Racism or

Conservatism: Explaining Rising Republicanism in the Deep South.”

Southeastern Political Review 28: 133-148.

Shaffer, Stephen D., Stacie Berry Pierce, and Steven A. Kohnke. 2000. “Party

Realignment in the South: A Multi-Level Analysis.” The American Review of

Politics 21: 129-54.

Shaffer, Stephen D., David E. Sturrock, David A. Breaux, and Bill Minor. 1999.

“Mississippi: From Pariah to Pacesetter?” In Southern Politics in the 1990s, ed.

Alexander P. Lamis. Pp. 249-279. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Sheinin, Aaron Gould. 2006. “Sanford rolls to second term: Governor easily wins

re-election bid.” Thestate.com (The State), November 8, 2006. Accessed

December 19, 2006.

Stallsmith, Pamela. 2006. “Allen denies racial epithet: Senator disputes claims of 3 ex-

U.Va. teammaters reported in online story.” (Richmond Times-Dispatch),

September 26, 2006, accessed on-line same day.

Stanley, Harold W. 1988. “Southern Partisan Changes: Dealignment, Realignment, or

Both?” Journal of Politics 50: 64-88.

Stanley, Harold W. 2003. “Alabama: Republicans Winning the Heart of Dixie.” In The

New Politics of the Old South: An Introduction to Southern Politics, 2^nd

Edition, ed. Charles S. Bullock and Mark J. Rozell Lanham, MD: Rowman and

Littlefield.

Steed, Robert P., and Laurence W. Moreland, ed. 2002. The 2000 Presidential Election in

the South: Partisanship and Southern Party Systems in the 21^st Century.

Westport, CT: Praeger.

Steed, Robert P., and Laurence W. Moreland, ed. 2006. Writing Southern Politics:

Contemporary Interpretations and Future Directions. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Steed, Robert P., and Laurence W. Moreland. 2007. “South Carolina: Change and

Continuity in the Palmetto State.” In The New Politics of the Old South: An

Introduction to Southern Politics, 3^rd edition, ed. Charles S. Bullock and Mark J.

Rozell. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Sundquist, James L. 1973. Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of

Political Parties in the United States. Washington: The Brookings Institution.

Swansbrough, Robert H., and David M. Brodsky. 1988. The South’s New Politics:

Realignment and Dealignment. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Tallahassee.com, 2006. “Charlie Crist: A governor for all of Florida.” (The Tallahassee

Democrat, tallahassee.com), October 29, 2006. Accessed December 16, 2006.

Tennessean.com, 2006. “Endorsement: Re-elect Bredesen, keep state on track.”

(The Tennessean, tennessean.com), October 15, 2006. Accessed November 26,

2006.

Tenpas, Kathryn Dunn, William E. Hulbary, and Lewis Bowman. 1997. “Florida: An

Election with Something for Everyone.” In The 1996 Presidential Election in the

South: Southern Party Systems in the 1990s, eds. Laurence W. Moreland and

Robert P. Steed. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Thestate.com. 2006. “Ad Watch.” Thestate.com (The State), September 25, 2006.

Accessed December 19, 2006.

Valentino, Nicholas A., and David O. Sears. 2005. “Old Times There are Not Forgotten:

Race and Partisan Realignment in the Contemporary South.” American Journal of

Political Science 49: 672-688.

Vedlitz, Arnold, James A. Dyer, and David B. Hill. 1988. “The Changing Texas Voter.”

In The South’s New Politics: Realignment and Dealignment, ed. Robert H.

Swansbrough and David M. Brodsky. Columbia: University of South Carolina

Press.

Watson, Stanley J. 1996. “Race and Alignment Reconsidered: Issues Evolution in the

South Since 1972.” American Review of Politics 17: 145-170.

Wheeler, Larry. 2006. “Harris tried to mend ties with non-christians: Media barred from

attending.” Tallahassee.com (Tallahassee Democrat), October 11, 2006. Accessed

October 12, 2006.

Wright, Gerald C., Robert S. Erikson, and John P. McIver. 1985. “Measuring State

Partisanship and Ideology with Survey Data.” Journal of Politics 47: 469-489.