Chapter 15

Southern Politics in the New Century: Factors Shaping Partisan Fortunes

Southern politics has changed so dramatically over the past half century that V.O. Key would hardly recognize the region. When Key (1949) studied the region in the mid-1940s, white supremacy and the Democratic Party reigned. White southerners voted overwhelmingly Democratic, because of the legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction, both of which were prosecuted against the white South by northern Republicans. Southern whites were also Democratic loyalists because of the party’s sympathy for Populism and support for agriculture, reflected in the party’s nomination of populist William Jennings Bryan three times for the presidency, and because of the national Democratic Party’s support for the average person of modest means, as shown by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs during the Great Depression. From 1880 up through 1944 every southern state voted Democratic for President with the only exceptions being in 1920 when one state voted Republican and in 1928 when five states voted Republican after Democrats offered a Catholic for President (Table 3-1). As late as 1948 Democrats controlled all of the South’s U.S. senate seats and 103 of the region’s U.S. House seats with Republicans able to hold only 2 House seats, both in Tennessee. The same year Democrats controlled over 97% of the South’s state legislative seats with the few Republican state lawmakers normally elected from the mountainous areas of Tennessee and North Carolina (Bass and DeVries 1977: 34-37). Never in our nation’s history had one political party so dominated an entire region.

The Democratic Party of the Old South offered candidates to white southerners, a group generally moderate-to-conservative in ideology, particularly on race and social values and especially after the New Deal, who reflected their own political values (Ladd and Hadley 1978: 166). As late as 1970, the vast majority of Democratic U.S. House members cast moderate-to-conservative roll call voting records. Indeed, the single largest group of Democratic congressmen were conservatives (with 33 members), while the second largest group were moderate conservatives (with 23 members), and the third largest group were moderates (with 15 members). Only 5 Democrats were moderate liberals and only 1 a liberal (Table 15-1). A similar pattern existed in the U.S. Senate where 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 15-2). From 1880 up through 1932, the national Democratic Party showed great deference to its southern Democratic parties, even requiring that presidential nominees receive a two-thirds vote of national party convention delegates, thereby giving the South a veto power over the national party’s most prominent public official. Franklin Roosevelt’s nationwide landslide in 1932 showed that the party no longer needed southern electoral votes in order to elect a president, and in 1936 the national party jettisoned the two-thirds rule. Twelve years later the party even adopted a civil rights plank in its platform that repelled many conservative white southerners.

As the decades went by, the national Democratic Party began to nominate more liberal presidential candidates, expanding beyond the economic liberalism of an FDR and extending to the wide-ranging liberalism in 1972 of a George McGovern. National Republicans also began to move away from the moderate conservatism of an Eisenhower and a Nixon (in 1960 at least) and began in 1964 to venture into the “purist” conservatism of a Barry Goldwater. By the 1980s Republicans were nominating as president such an unapologetic conservative as Ronald Reagan, while Democrats began offering a slew of liberal northerners, such as Walter Mondale from Minnesota and Michael Dukakis from Massachusetts. The internal dynamics of the two parties also began to shift, as African Americans were fully enfranchised by the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and the vast majority of this more liberal voting group moved into the Democratic Party. Over the next three decades, more and more white conservatives would flee to what was now the more conservative party nationally, the Republican Party. Ideological divisions between the parties were further enhanced by the national Democratic Party’s 1972 reforms of the delegate selection process, which increased the numbers of liberal African Americans and feminists at the party’s national conventions. Inter-party ideological cleavages were further exacerbated by the political efforts of the 1990s to create black majority congressional districts that would elect African American lawmakers, an endeavor that left the majority white districts more heavily white and therefore even more likely to elect Republicans.

The ideological transformation of the southern parties over the last three decades of the 20^th century was truly dramatic. The ideological center of gravity of southern Democratic congress members in the 1970s was basically moderate conservative with 5 senators sharing this ideology, 7 being moderate or moderate liberal, and 5 being conservative (5 senators were Republicans). Already in the 1980s, the 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 15-2). 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. The first decade of the 21^st century witnessed a “new” South with the largest number of Republican U.S. senators in history, all of them having 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).

These dramatic Republican gains in the South’s congressional delegation were preceded by isolated GOP breakthroughs in the 1960s, as bitter battles in Democratic party primaries were waged between liberals and conservatives over the direction of the party, with the losers in the nomination sweepstakes often defecting to support the other party’s candidates. 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, prompting liberal Democrats to jump ship and back the Republican Tower in order to try to teach their party a lesson that liberals should not be taken for granted (Tables 15-3 and 15-4). Liberal Democrats also jumped ship in Arkansas in 1966, preferring to elect the moderate Republican Winthrop Rockefeller as governor over a segregationist Democrat. The same year in Florida, a liberal Democrat unseated the party’s governor, 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, losing 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 were 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 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 15-4). On the other hand, conservative Democratic dissatisfaction with party nominees 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, but 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 15-4). Bitter divisions within the Democratic party linked to personal 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 in South Carolina and Mike Huckabee in Arkansas. Other divisions between Democratic candidates and their supporters helped to elect Republican Kirk Fordice governor in Mississippi and David Vitter senator in Louisiana.

The 1990s saw the southern Democratic parties continue to shift towards the ideological left, while the southern Republican parties also shifted ideologically, but in their case in the other direction. As late as 1991 southern state Democratic parties had remained politically competitive by being broad tent parties that encompassed conservatives as well as liberals. Indeed, in a 1991 study of Democratic county executive committee members across the region, 35% of party activists called themselves moderates, 37% were liberals, and 28% were conservatives (Table 15-5). By the turn of the century in 2001, the situation had changed significantly. Now, fully 57% of Democratic activists regarded themselves as liberals, only 28% were even moderates and a vanishing 15% remained conservatives. Party activists who called themselves “very” or “somewhat” liberal now comprised a majority of every southern state’s Democratic Party except in Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Tennessee. The fact that Arkansas and Louisiana were the only two southern states that as late as 2006 could still boast an unending string of Democratic party control of both state legislative chambers plus consistent control of a majority of statewide offices suggests that a winning election strategy is for Democrats to avoid moving too far to the left ideologically. Instead, Democrats in the new century were in danger of becoming a narrow tent party like the Republicans had always been. Southern Republicans over the past two decades tended to have only two factions- those who were “very” conservative and those “somewhat” conservative. Indeed, as the two parties polarized ideologically over the last decade of the 20^th century, the situation became even more extreme for every state GOP party except Florida. Indeed, by 2001 the “very conservative” faction of the GOP became the majority in every other southern state.

The growing ideological polarization of the two parties in the South has had a devastating effect on the Democratic Party. After the 2004 elections, Democrats held only 49 U.S. House seats from the South while Republicans held 82. Furthermore, the party’s center of gravity was now liberal-to-moderate liberal with 20 U.S. house members having liberal voting records and 20 having moderate liberal records, with only 4 being moderate, none being moderate conservative or conservative, and 5 being newly elected without having voting records substantial enough to evaluate (Table 15-1). Eleven of the liberal Democrats were African Americans as were 5 of the moderate liberals. The situation for Democrats appeared equally dismal in the U.S. senate. 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 15-2). 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 Republicans, and all were conservative in voting records. Compounding Democratic problems in Dixie is that even a great 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.

Since Lyndon Johnson was elected President in 1964, except for President Obama Democrats have been able to win the presidency only with candidates from the South. Jimmy Carter of Georgia and Bill Clinton of Arkansas were the only Democrats until Obama to follow Johnson as President. It is ironic, though, that the Clinton years of the 1990s are associated with dramatic Republican gains in elective offices in the South. The first two years of the Clinton presidency were known for such policy disasters as raising taxes, proposing to legalize gays in the military, and proposing a controversial and expensive national health insurance program. Republicans swept the 1994 midterm elections, gaining control of both chambers of Congress for the first time in forty years. That same election saw Republicans win a majority of U.S. house seats, U.S. senate seats, and governorships from the South, and retain that regional majority for each of the offices in every subsequent election (Tables 3-3, 3-4, 3-5).

President Clinton quickly moved to the ideological right, reforming welfare, putting more police on the streets, and becoming the first President since Lyndon Johnson to balance the federal budget. Yet other national Democrats apparently believed that the party suffered electorally by not offering more of an ideological choice to voters instead of an echo of the Republican party’s ideology. They had their chance in 2000 with presidential candidate Al Gore, who couldn’t carry any southern state, even his home state of Tennessee, and yet again in 2004 with presidential candidate John Kerry from the liberal state of Massachusetts, the only state to vote for liberal George McGovern in 1972. Republicans continued to make gains in Dixie, even in less visible state offices such as state legislatures and sub-gubernatorial statewide offices. The 1994 elections resulted in three of the region’s 22 state legislative chambers now being controlled by the GOP, up from zero in 1992. The 1996 elections saw Republicans control five state legislative chambers, increasing to seven after the 2000 elections, and to nine after the 2002 elections. The 2004 reelection of President Bush now found the GOP in control of eleven or half of the South’s state legislative chambers (Table 3-6). With few changes after the 2006 elections, Republicans now controlled both legislative chambers in the Rim South states of Florida, Texas, and Virginia, and in the Deep South states of Georgia and South Carolina, as well as control the Tennessee state senate. Texas Republicans most dramatically flexed their muscles, instituting a mid-decade redrawing of U.S. house district lines that switched party control of the state delegation from a narrow Democratic edge to a substantial GOP advantage.

Republicans also began making gains in sub-gubernatorial executive offices elected statewide. The 1994 GOP tsunami produced a Republican majority of South Carolina sub-gubernatorial executive offices, and George Bush’s reelection as governor of Texas four years later swept in an all-GOP slate of executive offices (Table 3-7). Jeb Bush’s reelection as governor of Florida in 2002 also swept in an all-GOP executive office slate that was only breached after he left office. In the early years of the 21^st century, Republicans also held half or more of the sub-gubernatorial executive offices in Virginia and Alabama, and even became very competitive in Mississippi. Democrats retained a majority of executive offices in the other four states electing these positions, the Deep South states of Louisiana and Georgia and the Rim South states of Arkansas and North Carolina. Therefore, while the GOP had become the dominant party in the South in presidential and congressional elections, midway through the first decade of the 21^st century the Democratic party remained an equally strong party in most state elections, such as those for the state legislature and for statewide executive offices. Even that island of Democratic competitiveness was to suffer a blow in the 2010 midterm elections two years after Obama's election as President, as Democrats retained control of both state legislative chambers in only one southern state, Arkansas, while Republicans controlled both chambers in seven states. Indeed, even in subgubernatorial statewide offices, Republicans that year gained control of all of the positions in six southern states, as Democrats at best retained a majority of seats in one state, North Carolina, and half of the positions in Arkansas.

One advantage that southern Democrats had always had was their ability to offer attractive candidates who could maintain an ideologically inclusive electoral coalition by pragmatically adopting popular programs that were sometimes liberal and sometimes conservative depending on the type of issue. In the Deep South, John Stennis dominated Mississippi U.S. senate elections for 41 years, being most known for such non-ideological goals as serving his constituents, helping to deliver federal money to his state, and being a man of integrity who would put the interests of his state and nation before his own personal ambitions. George Wallace dominated Alabama gubernatorial politics for 24 years, as he related to average voters with his modest beginnings and lifestyle, and combined his support for such progressive programs as junior colleges, highways, and workmen’s compensation and unemployment insurance with a racially conservative posture (Table 15-6). Zell Miller, who dominated Georgia politics for 30 years as lieutenant governor, governor, and U.S. senator, also came up from humble beginnings, and he was supportive of public education and established the landmark HOPE scholarship program while also being conservative and tough on crime. Edwin Edwards dominated Louisiana gubernatorial politics for 24 years and assembled a biracial coalition with his progressive policies and his witty, flamboyant, and charismatic personality. Strom Thurmond dominated South Carolina politics as a Democrat for 18 years, as he was a progressive governor who backed FDR’s New Deal, and then served as a conservative senator. Stennis and Miller both left the senate with moderate conservative voting records and were replaced by Republicans having even more conservative voting records, while Thurmond was so conservative that he himself switched parties in 1964.

Two Rim South states also stand out in having such dominant Democratic political figures, though with an even greater focus on attractive personal traits that connected with average citizens. David Pryor served Arkansas as governor and senator for 22 years with his folksy, personable, and empathic nature that made him one of the people as he strove to always Put Arkansas First. Dale Bumpers served Arkansas in the same positions for 28 years, being an articulate, passionate storyteller sporting a western drawl (Table 15-6). Bill Clinton served Arkansas as governor for 12 years as he established a personal connection with people through his charisma and his attending of numerous public events and his visiting of black churches. Lawton Chiles and Bob Graham both served Florida as governor and as senator, with Chiles serving for 28 years as a man of the people by walking across the state and making repeated visits back home as a senator, and Graham serving for 26 years by offering a sincerity and an everyday appeal to voters while working in one hundred different jobs. All left office with voting records ranging from moderate to liberal, and some have eventually been replaced with other Democrats, such as two U.S. senators in Arkansas, including the son of former senator Pryor. Indeed, Arkansas provides a fascinating case study of how Democrats were able to continue to dominate a southern state (at least until the 2010 elections) with attractive candidates pursuing ideologically inclusive policies. Senators Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln both have moderate liberal voting records that are ideologically balanced, given Lincoln's support for some Bush programs and for an anti-flag burning measure and Pryor's position as a pro-life, deficit hawk. Until her defeat in 2010, Lincoln was also a member of two centrist coalitions in Congress, while Pryor is a personable senator who operates in a bipartisan manner as he seeks to put Arkansas' interests first.

My book has focused primarily on southern politics in the last three decades of the 20^th century and the first decade of the 21^st century. The tremendous gains that Republicans have made in Dixie over this period may lead a reader to conclude that the South is well on its way to returning to its one party tradition, only this time wedded to the GOP. Such a conclusion would be premature. One merely needs to review the list of Democratic officeholders who dominated their southern states even during this period and even into the 21^st century. One must also ask which southern party today can offer a similar brand of charismatic leadership for the 21^st century. While southern Republicans seem to differ only in terms of how conservative they are, Democrats (at least party activists and state officials) still have a broad coalition that includes some moderates and conservatives, though a diminishing number as the party’s left wing has grown significantly over the years. In other words, rather than the South returning to a one party system, we may be witnessing over the next century a more enduring two-party system taking root in the states of the old Confederacy, though one with an increasingly dominant Republican Party.

Table 15-1

Ideological Transformation of Democratic State Party Congressional Delegations

State and Year of Election	Liberal	Mod Liberal	Moderate	Mod Conser	Conser-vative	No. of Republicans
Miss, 1970	0	0	0	0	5	0
Miss, 2004	1*	0	1	0	0	2
Alab, 1970	0	0	1	1	3	3
Alab, 2004	0	1*	1	0	0	5
La, 1970	0	1	0	2	5	0
La, 2004	0	1*	0	0	0	5+
Ga, 1970	0	0	0	4	3	2+
Ga, 2004	2*	3 ^(2*)	0	0	0	7+
S.C., 1970	0	0	0	2	2	1+
S.C., 2004	1*	1	0	0	0	4
Ark, 1970	0	0	1	2	0	1
Ark, 2004	1	2	0	0	0	1
N.C., 1970	0	0	1	2	4	4
N.C., 2004	3 ^(1*)	2	1	0	0	7
Vir, 1970	0	0	0	0	4	6
Vir, 2004	2 ^(1*)	1	0	0	0	8
Tenn, 1970	0	0	4	1	0	4
Tenn, 2004	0	4 ^(1*)	1	0	0	4
Tex, 1970	1	1	8	7	3	3
Tex, 2004	5 ^(2*)	4	0	0	0	21+
Fla, 1970	0	3	0	2	4	3
Fla, 2004	5 ^(3*)	1	0	0	0	18+
11 southern states, 1970	1	5	15	23	33	27
11 southern states, 2004	20	20	4	0	0	82

Note: entries are for congress members elected in the years of 1970 and 2004.

* Indicates that member is an African American. For Georgia, 2 of the three moderate liberals are African American, one is white; both liberals are black. For North Carolina, one of the three liberals is African American. For Virginia, one of the two liberals is black. For Tennessee, one of the moderate liberals is black. For Texas, 2 of the five liberals is black. For Florida, three of the five liberals is black.

+ Omitted from the row is one newly elected Democrat in Georgia (both years), Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida, and two newly elected Democrats from Texas (one of whom was black).

Sources: Barone, Ujifusa, and Matthews (1972); Koszczuk and Stern (2005); Nutting and Stern (2001: 267) for Cong. McKinney’s record.

Table 15-1a

Ideological Polarization of State Party Congressional Delegations (2015-16)

State and Party	Liberal	Mod Liberal	Moderate	Mod Conser	Conser-vative	No. of Congressmen
Miss, Dems	1*	0	0	0	0	1
Miss, Reps	0	0	0	0	3	3
Alab, Dems	1*	0	0	0	0	1
Alab, Reps	0	0	0	0	6	6
La, Dems	1*	0	0	0	0	1
La, Reps	0	0	0	0	5	5
Ga, Dems	4*	0	0	0	0	4
Ga, Reps	0	0	0	0	10	10
S.C., Dems	1*	0	0	0	0	1
S.C., Reps	0	0	0	0	6	6
Ark, Dems	0	0	0	0	0	0
Ark, Reps	0	0	0	0	4	4
N.C., Dems	3+	0	0	0	0	3
N.C., Reps	0	0	0	1-	9	10
Vir, Dem	3+	0	0	0	0	3
Vir, Reps	0	0	0	1-	7	8
Tenn, Dems	1+	1+	0	0	0	2
Tenn, Rep	0	0	0	0	7	7
Tex, Dem	10+	1+	0	0	0	11
Tex, Reps	0	0	0	0	25	25
Fla, Dems	9+	1+	0	0	0	10
Fla, Reps	0	0	1-	3-	13	17
11 southern states, Dems	34	3	0	0	0	37
11 southern states, Reps	0	0	1	5	95	101

Note: entries are for congress members serving in the years of 2015 and 2016. Congress members ideological scores use the liberal ADA and conservative ACU ratings for the two years; the ADA scores are subtracted from 100 so that both groups range from 0 for most liberal to 100 for most conservative. The 5 ideological categories listed at the top divide this 100 point scale into 5 equal categories (0 to 20 is liberal, 80 to 100 is conservative, for example).

* Indicates that all members in this party-ideological grouping are African American.

+ Democrats in 5 Rim South states have mixed heritages:
North Carolina has 2 black Democrats, 1 white Democratic professor.
Virginia has 1 black Democrat, 2 white Democrats.
Tennessee has 1 white liberal Jewish Democrat, and 1 white moderate liberal.
Texas has 4 black liberals, 3 Mexican liberals, and 3 white liberals; Texas also has 1 Mexican moderate liberal.
Florida has 3 black liberals, 3 Jewish liberals, and 3 white liberals; Florida also has 1 moderate liberal white, the daughter of former Governor Graham.

- Republicans in 3 Rim South states have less conservative voting records:
North Carolina has 1 moderate conservative Republican, a former Democrat whose father was a Democrat.
Virginia has 1 woman moderate conservative Republican.
Florida has 1 moderate Cuban Republican; Florida also has 2 moderate conservative Cubans, and 1 white moderate conservative Republican.

Note on Heritage by Ideology and Party:
Of 34 liberal Democrats, 18 are black, 3 are Mexican, 4 Jews, 9 whites.
Of 3 moderate liberal Democrats, 1 is Mexican, 2 are whites.
Of 1 moderate Republican, he is Cuban.
Of 5 moderate conservative Republicans, 1 is a woman, 2 are Cubans, 2 are whites.
Of 95 conservative Republicans, none are African American.

Sources: ACU website is http://conservative.org/; ADA website is https://adaction.org/

Table 15-2: 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)
2010s	Kaine (VA)	M. Warner (VA) Nelson (FL)			Cochran (MS) Wicker (MS) Shelby (AL) Sessions (AL) Vitter (LA) Cassidy (LA) Isakson (G) Perdue (G) Graham (SC) Scott (SC) Boozman (AR) Cotton (AR) Burr (NC) Tillis (NC) Alexander (TN) Corker (TN) Cornyn (TX) Cruz (TX) Rubio (FL)

Note: Republicans are in italics. Throughout this book, congress members and senators are divided into five ideological groupings based on their ADA and ACU/ACA scores. Both groups rate congress members from 0 to 100. We 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 15-3

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 15-4

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.

Table 15-5

Recent Ideological Transformation of Democratic State Party Activists

State and Year	Very Liberal	Some-what Liberal	Moderate	Somewhat Conser-vative	Very Conser-vative	% of Republicans who are very conservative
Miss, 1991	13	21	35	25	6	37
Miss, 2001	15	35	24	19	7	54
Alab, 1991	10	20	32	30	8	38
Alab, 2001	16	37	28	13	6	52
La, 1991	8	20	39	26	7	41
La, 2001	13	28	36	17	6	51
Ga, 1991	8	25	33	27	7	38
Ga, 2001	7	32	38	19	4	61
S.C., 1991	9	31	32	22	6	43
S.C., 2001	23	36	24	12	5	61
Ark, 1991	7	24	33	28	8	40
Ark, 2001	12	32	31	20	5	68
N.C., 1991	10	30	37	21	2	42
N.C., 2001	18	39	31	9	3	53
Vir, 1991	12	36	37	13	2	25
Vir, 2001	33	32	28	5	2	55
Ten, 1991	8	22	44	21	5	32
Tenn, 2001	14	35	34	15	2	50
Tex, 1991	10	33	31	19	7	40
Tex, 2001	22	38	24	12	4	53
Fla, 1991	17	30	35	15	3	32
Fla, 2001	28	36	27	8	1	32
11 state average, 1991	10	27	35	22	6	38
11 state average, 2001	21	36	28	12	3	51

Note: Georgia Democrats in 2001 include only county chairs.

Source: Southern Grassroots Party Activists Project, funded by NSF Grant SES- 9009846, Charles D. Hadley and Lewis Bowman principal investigators, 1991 data. Southern Grassroots Party Activists Project, funded by NSF Grant SES- 9986501, John A. Clark and Charles Prysby principal investigators, 2001 data. See Hadley and Bowman (1995) and Clark and Prysby (2003).

Table 15-6

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