Democrats, GOP Could Learn New Geography Lesson on Election Day
Take a good look at the division of states between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole as election day approaches. A new geographic pattern may be taking shape in presidential politics, with implications that could echo long beyond the result next month.
For most of the past quarter-century, so many states reliably voted Republican for president, particularly in the South and West, that GOP strategists justifiably boasted of a “lock” on the electoral college. Today, the Democrats may actually have a larger base of states that lean their way in presidential elections.
That doesn’t guarantee Democratic victories. But each era in American politics has been marked by a pattern of geographic allegiance that gives one party a natural advantage in the race for the White House. From 1932 through 1968, the White House tilted toward Democrats, who won seven of nine presidential elections; from 1968 through 1988, the current flowed toward Republicans, who won five of six.
If Clinton wins by as large an electoral vote margin as now seems possible, that could signal a nascent alignment. Few analysts would go as far as Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist, who says his party may be constructing an “electoral lock” of its own that will “last for a cycle of two or three elections.”
But the evidence suggests that at the presidential level, the GOP may be facing structural problems in the Northeast, on the West Coast and in portions of the Midwest. Ironically, these problems may flow partly from the GOP success in the South--the breakthrough that tilted the balance of power in presidential campaigns toward Republicans 2 1/2 decades ago.
The core of the Republican advantage in presidential elections from Richard Nixon’s victory in 1968 to George Bush’s triumph in 1988 was the dominance over the South and Mountain West, combined with reliable success in a handful of megastates, particularly California, Illinois and New Jersey.
Though Clinton broke through to win the White House in 1992, many Republicans viewed his election as a fluke made possible only because the giant sucking sound of Ross Perot’s independent campaign siphoned away millions of ordinarily GOP voters. And, in fact, Clinton’s 43% vote only matched the meager Democratic average from 1968 through 1988.
This year, though, Clinton is in position to expand the Democratic base. Like a sandcastle menaced by a rising tide, the Republican electoral fortress is now eroding on all sides. In the Mountain West, Clinton could snatch New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Montana (all of which he won last time too) and even Arizona. In the South, Dole is running well above his national average, but Clinton could still squeeze past him not only in Georgia and Louisiana but conceivably in Florida, Virginia and Alabama as well.
For Clinton, states like these are the icing. The cake is his upper hand in two large stretches of territory.
Unless Dole’s uphill final push turns around California, Clinton is in position to sweep all three West Coast states, just as he did in 1992. In the Northeast and Midwest, the president’s advantage at this point is even more pronounced. If the election were held today, Clinton would probably win every state north of the Mason-Dixon line and east of the Mississippi River, with the possible exception of Indiana. And even there, recent Democratic polls give Clinton the edge.
Clinton is also strong around the boundaries of this core. Just to the south of the key Midwest battlegrounds, he leads in West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee. And just to the west, he could capture the entire line of states that runs from Minnesota to Louisiana.
With two Southern Baptists on the ticket, Democrats could thus capture virtually every state carried in the first part of this century by such winning Northern Republicans as William McKinley and Calvin Coolidge, leaving to Dole the Southern and Western states that sustained William Jennings Bryan and his agrarian Populists. Now, as then, the South could be isolated as an outlier whose particular passions are out of step.
It is probably not coincidental that Republicans are facing these problems in the North and Pacific West at a time when the party’s center of gravity has shifted South. Working down from presidential elections to the local level, Republicans have steadily conquered the South in the past three decades. In turn, the South has now conquered the GOP.
The South now sends the largest bloc of Republican legislators to the House and provides the entire Republican congressional leadership, led by Georgian Newt Gingrich in the House and Mississippian Trent Lott in the Senate.
Though these men are not monolithic, they lean toward an aggressive, confrontational brand of conservatism. Built on opposition to abortion, gun control and most federal regulations, and offering a minimalist view of government’s role in society, Southern conservatism has become the dominant voice in the GOP.
It has eclipsed not only the extinct tradition of Northeast liberal Republicanism but even the center-right moderation of today’s Northeastern GOP “gypsy moths.” For young “movement” conservatives, it is the Gingrich vision that is most inspiring. It is the vision that Dole, once the embodiment of a more measured Midwestern conservatism, embraced to win the GOP nomination.
On some fronts, Dole has edged away from Gingrich since the primaries. But his identification with “revolutionary” congressional conservatism remains an enormous hurdle in large stretches of the Northeast, Midwest and Pacific West. Though economically conservative, Republican-leaning swing voters in the Northern or Pacific Coast suburbs--to a greater extent than their Southern counterparts--also tend to support gun control, legalized abortion and a role for government in funding basic social needs, such as health care for the elderly and education.
“The debate has switched about what is reasonable,” said one GOP strategist who works extensively in the Northeast. “On guns and tobacco and a handful of other issues, we have been pushed into a position, especially among women, of ‘how can you have that position?’ At the same time, these suburban economic conservatives are finding Bill Clinton an acceptable alternative because he has moved toward them on the balanced budget and welfare reform.”
Like Devine, this Republican strategist believes that if Clinton is reelected and governs successfully, he could solidify these emerging geographic divisions into a lasting advantage for Democrats.
Perhaps. But the underlying instability of U.S. politics, especially the waning of partisan loyalties, works against either party establishing sustained dominance.
In that sense, it would be a mistake to see even a sweeping Clinton victory as an entitlement for Democrats in 2000. But it would be equally mistaken to dismiss it as a blip. The breadth of victory possible for Clinton today was unimaginable for a Democrat as recently as 1988. He’s riding not only on his own wave, but a yen for centrist solutions in states like California, Illinois and New Jersey that could boost another Democrat--say Al Gore, to pick a name--who offers the same blend of fiscal discipline, individual responsibility and social moderation.
The lingering suspicion of government, and the hunger for moral renewal, are forces that could quickly renew the GOP itself even if Dole--or, less likely, the GOP majority in Congress--falls next month. But not if Republicans remain on the course that has allowed Clinton to seize the center. Without a correction, Republicans could find themselves in the same position as Democrats during the 1970s and 1980s: able to win congressional seats by tailoring candidates to local conditions, but entering presidential races with a reputation for ideological excess that hobbles their nominee from the start. (Ask Walter F. Mondale or Michael S. Dukakis how difficult it is to rebut that assumption once it takes root.)
The vanguard conservatives now driving the GOP may want to believe this election is a referendum on nothing but the weaknesses of their candidate. But Democrats who said that after Nixon won 49 states against George S. McGovern in 1972 found themselves shut out of the White House for all but four of the next 20 years. You can ignore the message if you want. But the electoral map doesn’t lie.
The Washington Outlook column appears here every other Monday.
(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)
GOP Strongholds No More
From 1968 to 1988, Republican presidential candidates averaged better than 50% of the vote in 39 states. According to public opinion surveys, President Clinton now leads Bob Dole in the majority of these states.
States where Clinton leads
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Washington
****
States where Dole leads
Alabama
Alaska
Idaho
Kansas
Mississippi
Nebraska
North Dakota
North Carolina Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Utah
Wyoming
****
States where they are even
Indiana
Nevada
****
States Clinton leads that averaged 50% or more for the Republican candidate from 1968 to 1988
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Michigan
Missouri
Montana
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
Washington