An interesting discussion has ensued over the role of the South in presidential elections. Karen Cox, a professor of history at UNC-Charlotte, wrote in the New York Times that “it’s tough being a Southern liberal,” especially to the chagrin of non-Southern liberals in a region that appeared (with the exception of Virginia and Florida) solidly red in this year’s election.
In a previous post, I noted that the United States is seeing a pattern of “regionalism” when it comes to presidential elections. Since 2000, both parties have dominated in two sets of regions, while one region consistently plays the “battleground” status to determining who wins the White House.
Our political history has seen rare instances where the nation, as a whole, has been consistent in terms of “red” versus “blue” states in our presidential elections. Yet, since 2000, the fact that regionalism serves as a guiding force in our electoral maps has made the past four presidential elections notable.
Join us for “the morning after”… we’ll talk about Tuesday’s Election results, from local, regional and gubernatorial to the presidential election. Who are our new leaders? What does their election mean for our region, our state and the nation? We’ll do our best to give you the answers with WFAE reporters and political scientists, when Charlotte Talks.
Along with the various congressional races that could help the GOP keep control of the U.S. House, there are many state legislative races in which districts were redrawn to benefit the party in power.
One way to classify these new districts is to use the partisan voting index system developed by Charlie Cook, of the Cook Political Report in Washington, to classify U.S. House seats.
