Why some states solid red and why some solid blue?

[Sammie13]

Re: Why some states solid red and why some solid b

And you could have added that the northeast, the most liberal part of the country, is wealthier than the south which is one of the more conservative parts of the country.

While I want disagree that the more liberal NE is wealthier (and offers a higher cost of living much like the liberal west coast....notice a trend) than the SE, Dixie is certainly not impoverished. But, again, the difference is educated, wealthier southerners dramatically opt for the GOP. If you look at voting trends in our affluent counties in the suburbs of places like Charlotte, Atlanta, Nashville, just for example, they are deep red. In fact, if you subtracted black voters in the South, you would find Dem candidates generally only receive about 25% of the vote.

Again, my only point was that an earlier poster way trying to say only 'uneducated morons' find the GOP appealing. Voting trends say differently, at least in the region I'm most familiar.

My question would be to my northeastern posters, how do counties vote in affluent areas near cities like Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Philly, Boston, etc? I recall back in the fall, I visited FDR's home in Hyde Park, NY, and the tour guide said that this affluent county was very conservative and that FDR didn't even carry his home county in New York.

 

[Sammie13]

Re: Why some states solid red and why some solid b

It seems also the Republican party has the South mesmerized by a narrow view of strict Christian and 'family values.' Such values are worthy of praise sure enough, but nonetheless are wielded as a weapon against people like us.

I noted religion is my earlier post (#21) regarding the red/blue loyalties, and fully agree with your comment. Between 'family values' and 'low taxes/less spending', it is very hard for Democratic candidates running in red states to break through on these issues. This economic stimulus bill, for example, will get plenty of commercial airtime by GOP candidates in 2010.

 

[naked gent]

Re: Why some states solid red and why some solid b

But, again, the difference is educated, wealthier southerners dramatically opt for the GOP. If you look at voting trends in our affluent counties in the suburbs of places like Charlotte, Atlanta, Nashville, just for example, they are deep red. In fact, if you subtracted black voters in the South, you would find Dem candidates generally only receive about 25% of the vote.

Sammie I think the real difference in voting patterns isn't between the wealthy in the north and south but between the lower to middle class voters.

Most people are not wealthy and in the north most of that class votes its economic interest which is democratic.

In the south that class of people vote republican. Its no mystery why the wealthy vote republican but why the less wealthy do is.

I agree that its cultural and like I said above I think that insular culture of the south is a remnant of its insular economy of days gone by.

 

[CoolBlue71]

Re: Why some states solid red and why some solid b

Did you folks know that in at least 90 percent of the states, the Election 2008 vote shifted Democratic?
(That is, by comparison of 2004.)

 

[Sammie13]

Re: Why some states solid red and why some solid b

Did you folks know that in at least 90 percent of the states, the Election 2008 vote shifted Democratic?
(That is, by comparison of 2004.)

Given the GW Bush fiasco, does that surprise you? Bad presidents typically equal a dramatic swing of the pendulum...I imagine the same happened in 1980/84.

 

[Gussss]

Re: Why some states solid red and why some solid b

This map uses a color scale that ranges from red for 70% Republican or more, to blue for 70% Democrat or more, to purple for counties that were equally divided.

 

[frankfrank]

Re: Why some states solid red and why some solid b

The parties in power go on a corrupt gerrymandering spree every 10 years to carve out the districts in their favor.

And sometimes MORE THAN ONCE every ten years, such as the Texas RE-gerrymandering put into motion by Tom DeLay and others in 2002 or 2003...

Now, THAT should be illegal. Gerrymandering notwithstanding, it should never be done more than once per census!

Centexfarmer told me that his Congressional District was one of those that was engineered in that RE-gerrymandering to be a guaranteed Republican district, but - surprise, surprise - they've recently been putting a Democrat into the House...

 

[CoolBlue71]

Re: Why some states solid red and why some solid b

Given the [George W.] Bush fiasco, does that surprise you? Bad presidents typically equal a dramatic swing of the pendulum...I imagine the same happened in 1980/84.

Well, Sammie13, the election ended three months ago. But I didn't create this thread. (Note: I have no problem with this thread!) So allow me to reflect on Election 2008, and respond to your above remarks, with the following.…

You mean … 1976/1980 (going from Democrat Jimmy Carter to Republican Ronald Reagan)?! …I'd imagine that to be, obviously, because of Reagan retaining all 27 of Gerald Ford's 1976 states and winning to the GOP side 17 more in Election 1980. (I don't have that info. But I would love to examine it if someone directed me to it.)

Does it surprise me? …No. What it does is squash any uninformed comment from anyone who might say, "The presidential election of 2008 was close!"

Come to think of this, Sammie13, what did surprise me is the state of Arkansas. Ark.—along with neighboring Missouri—had historically backed every prevailing Democrat; but in Election 2008, [Ark.] actually shifted 10 points more to the Republicans. That leads me to ponder whether Hillary Clinton would've carried the state her 42nd president husband used to govern (and for which she was its First Lady!) had she—rather than [President] Barack Obama—been the 2008 Democratic nominee [for president]. (Quick note on Mo.: You and I had our predictions, and we went back and forth a bit on The Show-Me State. Yes, you were right. But it is worthy of note that Mo., won in 2004 by 7 points by [ex-President] George W. Bush, did shift sharply to the Democrats—to a needle-thin margin of .1 percent victory for John McCain! You are probably already aware of this. )

Louisiana—normally identical in voting to its neighbor immediately north (they last disagreed in 1964 when Lyndon Johnson carried Ark. while six-state also-ran Barry Goldwater snatched La.)—also shifted to the GOP (by 4 points). This also was the case, but to a lesser degree, with Tennessee (+1) which, like Ark., La., and neighboring Kentucky, has had a track record of voting with the winning candidate. (Ky. did shift four points to the Democrats. Perhaps this was due, in part, to the key Senate race of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had fought, with success, for his political life.)

West Virginia and Oklahoma pretty much duplicated in 2008 their 2004 vote.

So … by the standards of U.S. voters in Election 2008 … it appears Ark., La., Okla., Tenn., and W.Va. enthusiastically believe the Republican Party has been performing quite well, thank you! (Note: With the exception of Okla., all of these states were carried, in both 1992 and 1996, by this country's previous Democratic Party president, Bill Clinton.)

Personal Note: I have a relative, to whom I'm close, living in Colorado. I visit every year. And what a kick it is to look at a Republican bastion like Colo. and see that the entire state's counties shifted Democratic—easily showcasing how a state like Colo. flipped from red to blue (via a whopping movement of 14 points!).

(For more information on my above comments, feel free to go to the following link from The New York Times: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html. At the left-hand side, click "Voting shifts." From that point, compare not the percentage of the votes but the margin of victory between the Republican and Democrat in Elections 2004 and 2008.)

 

[CoolBlue71]

Re: Why some states solid red and why some solid b

Lol I think I read that Nebraska is going back to strickly majority after the "folley" of having to give Obama a vote.

You may be more up to date than I. After Nov. 4, when the results were in that Barack Obama had carried the 2nd congressional district (which covers the Lincoln and Omaha areas), Nebraska Republicans reportedly expressed an interest in seeing what they can do to revert the state back to a winner-takes-all-electoral-votes system as operated in 48 other states. So I haven't read or heard of anything official.

(Funny, I think: Had the [GOP's] 2008 fate been just the opposite in Maine, they'd be hurling accusations if the Democrats in [Me.] also expressed such desire.)

 

[Sammie13]

Re: Why some states solid red and why some solid b

As always, great analysis Cool of the red/blue debate....a couple of thought/questions:

--how did Arizona and Alaska perform for the GOP compared to '04 since they both had local candidates. I thought they would have also appeared on your "GOP enthusiastic" list...does that mean that they under-performed using '04 as a baseline?
(Actually, I looked at your NYT map now, and both AZ and AK were slightly more Democratic)

--Louisiana was not a surprise in that their black population has decreased post Katrina, giving the GOP a larger % base.

--TN/KY/WV also were not surprises. The Clintons are popular in these states, but being a part-time E. Tennessean I can tell you that Appalachian Democrats are a different entity. You saw in the primaries how poorly Obama did here. These folks will swing to either party...they dislike outsiders (and yes some are racists) and are economic Dems and social Repubs. Someone like Sen Jim Webb of VA is a poster-child for the kind of Dem that they support. Hills talked their language, Obama simply was not someone whom they could relate.

--Arkansas is a different bird. First, there was popular Mike Huckabee helping McCain.

Secondly, the Republican wave began hitting the south hard in the '80's. But, it was a wave and some states were slower to jump on board. GA, AR, LA, and TN were among the last with GA and AR at the very back of the line. What we're seeing is that those states who were first in the South to jump on the GOP bandwagon are also the first to test the waters on the other side, the Dems. States like VA, NC and even FL were pretty hardcore GOP in the '80's while the above-mentioned states were still swimming with Dems (even Alabama had alot of Dems in the '80's). My point is GA and AR are still caught up in their newfound GOP-dominance and aren't disenchanted enough yet to revert back to a Democrat. Of course, I'm talking about more than just the presidential office, too. It seems like the GOP grip on a state (some might call it a plague) lasts 12-16 years.

Also, without a black candidate, the South Democatic bounce would probably be non-existent.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

Re: Why some states solid red and why some solid b

Most people are not wealthy and in the north most of that class votes its economic interest which is democratic.

In the south that class of people vote republican. Its no mystery why the wealthy vote republican but why the less wealthy do is.

I agree that its cultural and like I said above I think that insular culture of the south is a remnant of its insular economy of days gone by.

So wait why DO poor white people in the south vote republican if they aren't wealthy? Or not even religious? Well some say they are but then they are major alcoholics while they use drugs so that doesn't count.


And WHY is the south so opposite in politics then the north is? When did that start or what is the root cause of it?

 

[Sammie13]

Re: Why some states solid red and why some solid b

So wait why DO poor white people in the south vote republican if they aren't wealthy? Or not even religious? Well some say they are but then they are major alcoholics while they use drugs so that doesn't count.


And WHY is the south so opposite in politics then the north is? When did that start or what is the root cause of it?

N.G., just a hint....he's hoping you'll bring the confederate flag into this discussion.

 

[spiderhead]

Re: Why some states solid red and why some solid b

Notice how on that map all of the coastal regions which are usually very expensive beach fronts occupied by highly intellectual educated types are all blue except for in Florida which is probably due to the large retirement communities (old timers) located there.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

Re: Why some states solid red and why some solid b

N.G., just a hint....he's hoping you'll bring the confederate flag into this discussion.

actually i'm not im honestly wanting to know why one side is solid one party and one is the other. Why is the south mainly directed towards the republican party and the north democratic. I honestly wanna know

 

[CoolBlue71]

Re: Why some states solid red and why some solid b

As always, great analysis Cool of the red/blue debate....a couple of thoughts/questions:

…Right back at you!

(With what appears below, I hope you will bear with me and what I have written. It may be more than what you care to read. )

--how did Arizona and Alaska perform for the GOP compared to '04 since they both had local candidates. I thought they would have also appeared on your "GOP enthusiastic" list...does that mean that they under-performed using '04 as a baseline?
(Actually, I looked at your NYT map now, and both AZ and AK were slightly more Democratic)

Arizona, which was brimming with speculation of John McCain possibly upset with a loss of his home state, shifted one point Democratic. Ariz. is normally solid red, but in the last 60 years it had two GOP presidential nominees in strongly Democratic years: 1964 Barry Goldwater, winning only six states that weren't neighbors to Ariz.; 2008 McCain, losing all his neighboring states except Utah. (Bill Clinton is the only Democrat to carry Ariz. in the last 50 years—in 1996, to be exact—and prior to that the state was blue for Harry Truman, in 1948. Before Truman, Franklin Roosevelt carried Ariz. in each of his four elections, in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944.)

Alaska moved four points to the Democrats. While bearing in mind the unseating of convicted longtime Republican Sen. Ted Stevens to Democratic challenger and Anchorage mayor Mark Begich, a loss is a loss.…

So the GOP's 2008 nominees for president and vice president both saw losses in party support in their own home states. (That … matters!)

--Louisiana was not a surprise in that their black population has decreased post Katrina, giving the GOP a larger % base.

Prior to successfully winning re-election to a third term in the U.S. Senate, Louisiana's senior Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) expressed feeling disheartened—by the polls, apparently—that her state was unlikely to vote Democratic. Landrieu noted, over the summer (if memory doesn't fail me), that La. (along with Ark.) had reliably backed the winners of the previous nine elections (1972-2004).

I don't know, for fact, which state inherited the majority of the losses in La.'s black population—post-Hurricane Katrina (2005)—but I really hope the answer is neighboring Texas. Analyses of the changing electorate—and where people are located and that they're moving more to the south than north—is going to be a topic of interest for Election 2012. The Census Bureau's 2010 Report will likely determine, and catapult, Ariz. to top-15 ranks and drop [No. 9] New Jersey out of the top-10 (see Wikipedia.org's "Proposed Electoral College 2012," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Proposed_Electoral_College_2012.svg).
It is Tex., which will apparently gain the most in [2011-2020] electoral votes (four!), that may become the most vulnerable GOP stronghold (when it comes to looking at either political party's list of "strongholds").

--TN/KY/WV also were not surprises. The Clintons are popular in these states, but being a part-time E. Tennessean I can tell you that Appalachian Democrats are a different entity. You saw in the primaries how poorly Obama did here. These folks will swing to either party...they dislike outsiders (and yes some are racists) and are economic Dems and social Repubs. Someone like Sen Jim Webb of VA is a poster-child for the kind of Dem that they support. Hills talked their language, Obama simply was not someone whom they could relate.

--Arkansas is a different bird. First, there was popular Mike Huckabee helping McCain.

If we had his this conversation prior to Election Day 2008, I would have predicted that the difference in Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College would be that she wouldn't necessarily win more in the popular vote but would run up the numbers in the Electoral College. That, yes, Hillary would have carried Arkansas. Border south states Kentucky and West Virginia, too. That she would've campaigned in Tennessee and fought McCain over it (and been victorious). That Louisana would've been the toughest nut to crack (shades of 1964), leaving it in question like Missouri was in the John McCain-vs.-Barack Obama battle.

Virginia and North Carolina were wisely targeted by Obama and his campaign—but I do question whether the Clinton camp would've gone after Va. and/or N.C. (her husband performed quite competively in both states!). I'm thinking their "research" would've said, "Go for them!" just like with Colorado. I think Colo. was going to fall to the Dems, no matter the nominee. Uncertain, though, with Va. and N.C. With Indiana—which, along with Va., was Obama's Big Election Coup—I don't think Hillary would've won the Hoosier State nor gone after it. And not with Nebraska's 2nd congressional district (another of Obama's Big Election Coup).

Quick note: In talking up "Big Election Coups," I think W.Va. may be the big one for a 2000 (and 2004!) George W. Bush. Previous to Bush, Bill Clinton's Big Election Coup was winning over New England and populous states—with identical voting records—that stuck with the party even when Clinton was done and Bush had reduced Democratic support margins (especially in 2004): upper midwestern states like Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin as well as Pennsylvania, to name a few. For Bush, I think W.Va. was The Big Republican Takeover—and the late great Tex. Gov. Ann Richards, I think, sensed it on her Larry King Live Election 2000 apparance. (Richards revealed that the Dems suspected they might lose W.Va. A terrible loss from a state that had historically sided with the party, even in Election Disaster years like Jimmy Carter's failed 1980 bid for re-election!) So I hope the Dems, via Election 2008, have gotten even with the W.Va. loss by winning over, with regularity in future elections, the [Republican bastion-but-lately-Democratic-trending] state of Colorado.

Secondly, the Republican wave began hitting the south hard in the '80's. But, it was a wave and some states were slower to jump on board. GA, AR, LA, and TN were among the last with GA and AR at the very back of the line. What we're seeing is that those states who were first in the South to jump on the GOP bandwagon are also the first to test the waters on the other side, the Dems. States like VA, NC and even FL were pretty hardcore GOP in the '80's while the above-mentioned states were still swimming with Dems (even Alabama had alot of Dems in the '80's). My point is GA and AR are still caught up in their newfound GOP-dominance and aren't disenchanted enough yet to revert back to a Democrat. Of course, I'm talking about more than just the presidential office, too. It seems like the GOP grip on a state (some might call it a plague) lasts 12-16 years.

Also, without a black candidate, the South Democatic bounce would probably be non-existent.

One has to wonder if the Republican Party is in shambles these days…like that of the Democrats in the 1970s and 1980s (when it won just one presidential election). The sharp GOP trend in the 1980s is very noteworthy, in part because it won in the Reagan Revolution brand-new voters. That experience for the GOP may be the experience for today's Democrats thanks to Barack Obama. (I have to say that I don't have information from that period for which I can take a look at the numbers.) But that was a movement that was also a glory period for one party and a downcast one for the other. That poses the following question: Via back-to-back election ass-kickings, from 2006 and 2008, is the Republican Party of today the Democratic Party of yesterday?

In addressing Georgia: it is movable! One could say the black vote shifted it 12 points to the Democrats in Election 2008. That numbers are what is fact. But I don't recall it being fact that all the Obama votes came from African-Americans. And with the blacks and non-blacks alike, movement in the south would definitely have occurred even had it not been Obama as the Democratic nominee…but Hillary instead. It was going to happen, period.

In the south, Obama did best in states along the Atlantic. It was an unusual election for a Democrat to do better in North Carolina (+12/+13, and winning it!) and South Carolina (+8 DEM) and Georgia—states Bill Clinton lost in his second election of 1996—while historical bellwethers Arkansas (+10/+11 GOP) and Louisiana (+4 GOP) and Tennessee (+1 GOP)—also in stark contrast to GOP strongholds Alabama (+4 DEM) and Mississippi (+6 DEM)—broke from their reliable pattern as well as the national trend.

I want to address Florida.…

When I've mentioned bellwether states, the top ten that spring to my mind are: Missouri, Nevada, and Ohio, the top tier of the past 25 elections (1908-2004; most recently, 1912-2008); Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana, the mid tier; Delaware, Maine, and New Mexico, the lower tier. The electorate is changing and more elections for some states needs to pass to see if they maintain bellwether status.

N.M.—the baby of that group—just experienced its 25th election. Its first dating back to 1912, it turns out N.M. has now voted with the winning candidate in 23 of 25 elections—for 92 percent—and it is now a bellwether on the level of Mo. (also 23-for-25), Nev. (24-for-25; with 1908-2004 it was 23-for-25), and Ohio (23-for-25). N.M. has picked only two losing candidates—in 1976 (Gerald Ford instead of Jimmy Carter) and 2000 (Al Gore instead of George W. Bush; mitigating factor: Gore won the U.S. popular vote).

Here is where I get to the Sunshine State.…

I failed to recognize, prior to Election Day, that Fla. is racking up an impressive track record in siding with the winning candidate. No matter the memories and feelings of Election 2000, Fla.'s only "mistake" from 1972-2004 has been with George Bush Sr., in 1992. Prior to Election 2008, it did get 1968 correct [Richard Nixon] and was still 9-for-10 in that ten-elections cycle [1968-2004].

Ohio is now the only state in the nation that has backed the winning candidate in each of the last ten elections of 1972-2008. But of the top-10 most-populated states in the nation, it is Fla. that has the next-best record [to the Buckeye State].

When I wrote last July 15 [http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=218465&page=3] that Ga. and/or Fla. had been in every prevailing Democrats' win column (not true with the GOP!) … I should have noted with that fact Fla.'s latest, impressive track record. Though Fla. was "wrong" numerous times in the first three decades of the 20th century, in the last 20 elections [1928-2004 and, most recently, 1932-2008], the state of Fla. has just two mistakes on record: 1960 (going for Nixon instead of John Kennedy) and 1992 (opting to re-elect an unseated George Bush instead of Bill Clinton). (Reminder: I know what people are thinking about Fla. and Election 2000.)

The point: We've underestimated the Sunshine State. If any of the likes of Mo., Ky., Tenn., Ark., and La. make more upcoming presidential election mistakes—as they did in 2008 (and I already have a feeling Obama will be a
a two-termer!)—Fla. may be the next big-time bellwether!

 

[letme]

Re: Why some states solid red and why some solid b

So wait why DO poor white people in the south vote republican if they aren't wealthy? Or not even religious? Well some say they are but then they are major alcoholics while they use drugs so that doesn't count.


And WHY is the south so opposite in politics then the north is? When did that start or what is the root cause of it?

[Madonna] ..............

I can not fucking believe you.....
For ever you have been calling southerners racist & bigots. Klan members and bible hiphuggers. Now ....they are major alcoholics while they use drugs ....

ya better go ask your Ouija board what is wrong with your brain thoughts....

OMFG...................

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

Re: Why some states solid red and why some solid b

[Madonna] ..............

I can not fucking believe you.....
For ever you have been calling southerners racist & bigots. Klan members and bible hiphuggers. Now ....they are major alcoholics while they use drugs ....

ya better go ask your Ouija board what is wrong with your brain thoughts....

OMFG...................

From the ones I met.
Ur not perfect either. Ur an example of someone who is racist.. look at your banner. Obama being compared to Bin Laden? The FIRST black leader of this nation is being portrayed as being connected with terrorists.

But nobody can answer me!!! Why is the south mainly red and the north mainly blue.. why are they so MAJORLY divided in terms of politics?!

 

[Sammie13]

Re: Why some states solid red and why some solid b

From the ones I met.
Ur not perfect either. Ur an example of someone who is racist.. look at your banner. Obama being compared to Bin Laden? The FIRST black leader of this nation is being portrayed as being connected with terrorists.

But nobody can answer me!!! Why is the south mainly red and the north mainly blue.. why are they so MAJORLY divided in terms of politics?!

I think some reasons have been hit on in post #21, 22 and 25. My view, to reiterate is a combination of a strong Baptist-driven society where the church is a driving political force and social values--abortion, gay rights, prayer in school, flag-burning, etc. drive many peoples decisions. Yes, others are driven by racial issues (both whites and blacks believe certain parties most look after their needs) and, finally, a belief that lower taxes drive the economy, which is a GOP issue. People in the North lack evangelicals in the large % that the South has, most northern states lack the large African American population that exists in the South which creates certain tensions that only black & white southerns can relate, and finally, people in the North have more trust in big government to make their lives better...southerners loathe government. These are 3 reasons that contribute to the South being red.

 

[Sammie13]

Re: Why some states solid red and why some solid b

the[/I] next big-time bellwether!

Yeah, cool, I think Florida is the new, more important Missouri as bellwhethers go. It seems Ohio and FL, along with NM, are consistently crititical to electoral success.

Katrina refugees were spread out everywhere, but Texas certainly got the lion's share. A lot of people agree that the Long Horn State may finally be heading toward battleground status. That would be fascinating to watch.

We'll have to see if '06 and '08 really are watershed elections that turn the fortunes back to the Dems. Much relies on the economy and Obama. The country is the Dems to run now with Repubs on the sidelines. But, I think, from what we've seen the last month, they will be a vocal opposition party. It helps the GOP cause that there is so much emotional volatility in America right now--people are listening to their oppositon! If times were better, no one would pay attention to their complaining....but right now America is listening to the GOP. Look how quickly they helped drop the approval status of that dreadful stimulus plan...almost 30 points in just a few days.

Cool, I don't recall on the stats now, but I think in a number of lower Southern states, Obama relatively received the same voting % among white voters. The surge in black vote in GA certainly could swing the state 12 points. That was the case, too, in SC, AL, and MS. I've been watching many elections (state and local) in GA throughout my life, and the problem has become,especially in the last decade, that blacks only turn out in large numbers for Democratic candidates who share their skin pigmentation. We even saw that again with the more recent US Senate runoff where they did come back to help Obama with a Democratic Senator instead of Saxby. Of course, I would assume an Obama re-election would not suffer from that problem....although, the novelty of a black president may have worn off by then for some AA voters....we'll see.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

Re: Why some states solid red and why some solid b

I think some reasons have been hit on in post #21, 22 and 25. My view, to reiterate is a combination of a strong Baptist-driven society where the church is a driving political force and social values--abortion, gay rights, prayer in school, flag-burning, etc. drive many peoples decisions. Yes, others are driven by racial issues (both whites and blacks believe certain parties most look after their needs) and, finally, a belief that lower taxes drive the economy, which is a GOP issue. People in the North lack evangelicals in the large % that the South has, most northern states lack the large African American population that exists in the South which creates certain tensions that only black & white southerns can relate, and finally, people in the North have more trust in big government to make their lives better...southerners loathe government. These are 3 reasons that contribute to the South being red.

Why do black and white southerners have certain tensions? And why does the south hate the government? This is interesting.