DOCSLIB.ORG

Day 2 – Virginia Political History

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Day 2 – Virginia Political History 9/28/2017 Day 2 – Virginia Political History 1 9/28/2017 2 9/28/2017 The “Solid South” (Presidential Elections) Virginia voted for Republican Candidate in 1872, 1928, 1952, and 1956 3 9/28/2017 Partisan Breakdown in Virginia – Presidential Elections (1960-2016) 1960-1968 1972 1976 1980-2004 2008-2016 Current Virginia At the beginning of 2017, Virginia was one of 19 states under divided government Statewide offices (Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, United States Senators) controlled by Democrats. House of Delegates and State Senate Controlled by Republicans (House 66-34, Senate 21-19) House of Representatives – 7 Republicans, 4 Democrats 4 9/28/2017 Recent Virginia Election History Presidential elections 1992-2016, Republican candidates won four times, Democratic candidates won three times. In 2016, Virginia was a closely watched battleground state Democrat Hillary Clinton defeated Republican Donald Trump 49.7% to 44.0% 2016 Presidential Election Clinton defeated Trump in 51 out of 100 House of Delegates districts Trump defeated Clinton in six of 11 Congressional districts Five counties in Virginia—Buckingham, Caroline, Essex, Nelson, and Westmoreland—voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 but voted for Trump in 2016. 5 9/28/2017 Virginian Election History From 1977 through 2009, the Virginia Gubernatorial Election went against the Presidential Election from the previous year: 1977 – Republican wins after Carter (D) wins in 1976 1981 – Democrat wins after Reagan (R) wins in 1980 1985 – Democrat wins after Reagan (R) wins in 1984 1989 – Democrat wins after Bush (R) wins in 1988 1993 – Republican wins after Clinton (D) wins in 1992 1997 – Republican wins after Clinton (D) wins in 1996 2001 – Democrat wins after Bush (R) wins in 2000 2005 – Democrat wins after Bush (R) wins in 2004 2009 – Republican wins after Obama (D) wins in 2008 Partisan Breakdown in Virginia - Governors Number of Years Party Breakdown Governors 1874-1902 8 All Democrats 1906-1966 16 All Democrats 6 Republicans, 1970-2014 12 6 Democrats Partisan Breakdown in Virginia – United States Senators Years Congress Party Breakdown 1881-1887 47th – 49th 1 Republican, 1 Democrat 1887-1965 50th - 88th 2 Democrats 1965-1973 89th – 92nd 1 Independent, 1 Democrat 1973-1983 93rd – 97th 1 Independent, 1 Republican 1983-1989 98th – 100th 2 Republicans 1989-2001 101st – 106th 1 Republican, 1 Democrat 2001-2007 107th – 109th 2 Republicans 2007-2009 110th 1 Republican, 1 Democrat 2009-2017 111th – 115th 2 Democrats 6 9/28/2017 Partisan Breakdown in Virginia – United States House of Representatives Number of Number of Years Party Breakdown Districts Elections 1885-1901 10 8 73 Democrats, 7 Republicans 1903-1933 10 16 145 Democrats, 15 Republicans 1935-1953 9 10 All Democrats 1955-1967 10 8 79 Democrats, 11 Republicans 1969-1991 10 12 42 Democrats, 78 Republicans 64 Democrats, 78 Republicans,1 1993-2017 11 13 Independent (Current) Partisan Breakdown in Virginia – State Senate Year Democrats Republicans 1960 38 2 1970 33 7 1980 32 9 1990 30 10 2000 19 21 2010 22 18 2017 19 21 Note: --Republicans and Democrats were tied 20-20 from 1996-2000 and again from 2012-2015. When there is a tie, the Lt. Governor acts as the tie-breaker. From 1996- 2000, Lt. Gov. was a Republican. From 2012-2015, Lt. Gov. was a Democrat 7 9/28/2017 Virginia State Senate – (Current) M. Mason 8 9/28/2017 Partisan Breakdown in Virginia – House of Delegates Year Democrats Republicans Independents 1960 96 6 0 1970 75 24 1 1980 74 25 1 1990 59 40 1 2000 50 49 1 2010 39 59 2 2016 34 66 0 Note: 1974-76 – 65 Democrats, 20 Republicans, 15 Independents (Current) Years Political Era 1945-53 The Byrd Organization’s Loosening Grip 1954-63 Massive Resistance 1964-67 New Democratic Coalition 1968-71 The Holton GOP 1972-75 Rapid Realignment 1976-80 Republican Ascendancy 1981-92 The Democratic Decade 1993-99 “Virginia Renaissance” 2000-06 “Sensible Center” 9.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From James A
    Revision, Fall 2004 (20 November 2004) Prepared for James A. Thurber, ed. Rivals for Power, 3rd ed., (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005). Partisan Polarization, Politics, and the Presidency: Structural Sources of Conflict James P. Pfiffner George Mason University In his campaign for the presidency in the 2000 election, George W. Bush promised that he would work closely with Congress and the Democrats and tone down the corrosive partisan rhetoric that had come to characterize Washington in the last years of the 20th century. After a very close election in which Bush narrowly won the presidency while trailing the Democratic candidate by half a million votes, many expected him to take a conciliatory approach to Democrats in Congress and seek out moderates of both parties to forge an agenda in the middle of the political spectrum. But that is not what happened. Arguing that political capital had to be spent rather than conserved, Bush put forward a conservative policy agenda and won some impressive victories.i Just when his momentum began to lag in late summer of 2001, terrorists struck New York and Washington. The atrocities of 9-11 transformed the political landscape and presented Bush with a country unified under his leadership and broad international support for the United States. Yet three years later as he ran for reelection, the nation was deeply divided over his presidency and the war in Iraq. Although much of the political division between the parties in Congress and among partisans in the electorate could be attributed to disagreement over President Bush’s policies, the roots of the divisive partisan politics of the Bush Presidency lay in political developments in the preceding four decades.
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee, the Solid South, and the 1952 Presidential Election
    University of Mississippi eGrove Honors College (Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors Theses Honors College) Spring 5-9-2020 Y'all Like Ike: Tennessee, the Solid South, and the 1952 Presidential Election Cameron N. Regnery University of Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/hon_thesis Part of the American Politics Commons, Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Regnery, Cameron N., "Y'all Like Ike: Tennessee, the Solid South, and the 1952 Presidential Election" (2020). Honors Theses. 1338. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/hon_thesis/1338 This Undergraduate Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors College (Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors College) at eGrove. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of eGrove. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Y’ALL LIKE IKE: TENNESSEE, THE SOLID SOUTH, AND THE 1952 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION by Cameron N. Regnery A thesis submitted to the faculty of The University of Mississippi in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors College. Oxford April 2020 Approved by: __________________________________ Advisor: Dr. Darren Grem __________________________________ Reader: Dr. Rebecca Marchiel __________________________________ Reader: Dr. Conor Dowling © 2020 Cameron N. Regnery ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my parents for supporting me both in writing this thesis and throughout my time at Ole Miss. I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Darren Grem, for helping me with both the research and writing of this thesis. It would certainly not have been possible without him.
    [Show full text]
  • The Civil Rights Realignment: How Race Dominates Presidential Elections
    Political Analysis Volume 17 Volume XVII (2015) Article 1 2015 The iC vil Rights Realignment: How Race Dominates Presidential Elections ` Timothy J. Hoffman Seton Hall University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/pa Part of the American Politics Commons, and the Political Theory Commons Recommended Citation Hoffman, Timothy J. (2015) "The ivC il Rights Realignment: How Race Dominates Presidential Elections `," Political Analysis: Vol. 17 , Article 1. Available at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/pa/vol17/iss1/1 The Civil Rights Realignment: How Race Dominates Presidential Elections Timothy J. Hoffman The evolution of the black vote in presidential elections is one of the most significant changes to the American electorate over the last century. During this period, the black vote shifted to become one of the most solid pillars of the Democratic coalition, culminating with the historic election of Barack Obama as the first African American president in 2008. The race gap is arguably the most influential gap in explaining the political behavior of Americans and affects other behavioral gaps in American politics. This paper will take an historical perspective of presidential elections and political party dynamics since the Civil War and investigate how black voters defected from the Republican Party due to the actions of Democratic presidents who sought to enfranchise African Americans to build a stronger electoral coalition. We will analyze how the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932 began the evolution of the black vote, as the New Deal promised new opportunities for minorities and signaled a shift towards a more involved government that served the needs of the people.
    [Show full text]
  • CARTER HAS SOLID LEAD OVER FORD, REAGAN for Release: June 24, 1976 by Louis Harris B with His First Ballot Nomination Now Virtually Assured, Former Georgia Gov
    The Harris Survey CARTER HAS SOLID LEAD OVER FORD, REAGAN For Release: June 24, 1976 By Louis Harris b With his first ballot nomination now virtually assured, former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter has aoved out to a sweeping 53-40% lead over President Ford and a much wider 58-352 margin over former Calif. Gov. Ronald Re.~;;cn, according to the latest Harris Survey, held in mid-June. The base of Carter's strength is his apparent ability to carry his hone area of the South. He leads Gerald Ford in the border states by 68-29% and in the deep South by 57-38%. He is ahead of Ronnld Reagan in tkc region by almost the same margin: 68-28% in the border states and 55-372 in the deep South. He is the first Democrat in 12 years to demonstrate a capacity to win a solid South. The reason for Carter's current wide lead in this latest poll of 1,480 registered and likely voters is that traditional Democratic groups have rallied behind his candidacy now that the primary season is over. --Among labor union members, Carter leads the President by 61-33% and Reagan by 64-30%. --Among blacks, he holds a 71-17% edge over Mr. Ford and a 75-119: spread over the former California governor. --Among people who view themselves as liberals, Carter is ahead against President Ford by 67-27% and against Ronald Reagan by 76-182. -Among Catholics, he runs well ahead of the President by 53-409: and he beats Reagan by a more sizable 58-36%.
    [Show full text]
  • Epilogue: Ugly Roots
    Epilogue 269 Epilogue: Ugly Roots hatred and fear of everything Republican, black, federal, and liberal-a burning memory that, it is not too much to write, was consuming and Race, Emotion, and the Rise of the Modern all-pervading in politics and society. For the next seven decades, the "Solid South" was almost completely and exclusively Democratic in its Republican Party in Alabama and the South politics and in its political and associated moral culture. Anything even remotely connected with the Republican Party was anathema in the Feldman Glenn South, indelibly associated with the traumatic, caricatured, and largely inaccurate collective memory of corrupt and incompetent "black rule," backed by the bristling bayonets of an invading army of northern, fed- eral aggression.' From Redemption onward, Republican candidates, in- cluding national presidential candidates, received only a handful of votes in the southern states. That is, until, the election of r9zB. From 1865 to r9z8 this was the Democratic Party, the "Solid Demo- cratic South," sometimes referred to by its proper name in places like Alabama: the "Conservative and Democratic Party." During these years there were several sporadic, and not inconsequential, challenges to the Solid South-Republicans, independents of various stripes, and fi- FOR ALMOST A century after the Civil War, the Republican Party ex- nally the Populists of the r89os.' But in the latter part of that decade, isted only on the periphery of southern society and its polity. The vast southern whites of all kinds-Bourbon Democrats and Independents- majority of white southerners viewed Republicans with the most intense agreed on the overriding goal of white supremacy, Jim Crow, and a dislike and suspicion-a revulsion so deep and so abiding that it is im- whites-only politics.a In Alabama, whites of various political persuasions possible to state it too strongly.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of the Negro Vote in Mississippi
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Master's Theses Theses and Dissertations 1957 The History of the Negro Vote in Mississippi M. Michele M. Michele Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation M. Michele, M. Michele, "The History of the Negro Vote in Mississippi " (1957). Master's Theses. 1385. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/1385 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1957 M. Michele M. Michele THE HISTORY OF THE NEGRO VOTE IN MISSISSIPPI b7 Slater M. MiChele. O.S.F. A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Loyola Un1versity in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts June 19.57 LIFE Virginia A. Doyle was born in Forest Park, Illino1s, Febr1.UU7 26. 1926. She was graduated from Nazareth Academy, LaGrange, Illinois, June, 1943, and was received into the community or the School Sis­ ters of st. Francis in June, 19~ She graduated trom Alverno College, Milwaukee, July, 1949 with the degree or BaChelor ot Science in Education. From 1949 to the present, 1951 the author has taught h1sto17 at St. Francis High School, Yazoo 01ty, Mississippi. She began her graduate studies at Loyola University in June, 1950.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF (9. Why the Solid South? Or Suffrage Restriction and Its Results)
    9 Why The Solid South? Or, Suffrage Restriction and Its Results The new political structure was not the product of accident or other impersonal forces, nor of decisions demanded by the masses, nor even the white masses. The system which insured the absolute control of predominantly black counties by upper-class whites, the elimination in most areas of parties as a means of organized competition between politicians, and, in general, the nonrepresentation of lower-class in- terests in political decision-making was shaped by those who stood to benefit most from it—Democrats, usually from the black belt and always socioeconomically privileged. As this chapter will demonstrate, the disfranchisers articulated consciously elitist theories about suffrage and wrote these theories into law in a successful effort to re-form the polity. Table 9.1 summarizes the chronology of the passage of restrictive statutes detailed in chapters 4 through 7. Compared to previous pictures of disfranchisement, this table emphasizes the large number of statutes, the importance of legislative as well as constitutional restriction, and the gradual nature of the process of legal suffrage limitation. As tables throughout this book have shown, the solid South did not crystallize immediately after Reconstruction.1 The electorate continued to be highly volatile in most Southern states for nearly two decades after Hayes withdrew the last troops. Disfranchisement, which finalized the transition from the Reconstruction to the one-party sys- tem, took more than three decades. It should also be noted, however, that the restrictive laws tended to come in waves. The high tides of the disfranchisement movements came in the years 1888 to 1893 and 1898 to 1902.
    [Show full text]
  • THE 1976 ELECTIONS: VIRGINIA SECEDES from the SOLID SOUTH by LARRY SABATO
    THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA VOL. 54 NO.1 THE 1976 ELECTIONS: VIRGINIA SECEDES FROM THE SOLID SOUTH By LARRY SABATO Mr. Sabato, formerly a staff member of the dates receiving 836,554 and lead over Carter in the statewide Institute of Government, is currently a Rhodes 813,396 votes, respectively (or 49.3 tally. Scholar at Oxford University. percent to 48.0 percent), with four The populous Washington suburbs Happy days were here again for different third-party candidates ac- comprising the Eighth and Tenth Democrats nationally in 1976, as counting for the remainder. It-was a districts were of critical importance their party regained the presidency high-turnout election in Virginia, as to Ford. In these areas, heavily laden after an eight-year hiatus and in much of the South; a total of almost with federal government workers, managed to increase slightly their 1.7 million votes was cast, with 80.8 Carter's anti-bureaucratic stance overwhelming edge in Congress. percent of registered voters and 48.6 and his proposals for reorganization Democrats throughout the South percent of the total voting age were met with less than overwhelm- were especially joyous since one of population casting ballots. A sizeable ing enthusiasm. Consequently, Ford their region's own, Jimmy Carter, 17.8 percent turnout increase over secured most of his margin of victory had marched to the White House at 1972 was recorded, although this in the Eighth and Tenth districts; had the head of a p alanx of southern rise was considerably less than the Carter been able to carry them by as voters.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Politics in the Solid South
    Legislative Politics in the Solid South The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Olson, Michael. 2020. Legislative Politics in the Solid South. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. Citable link https://nrs.harvard.edu/URN-3:HUL.INSTREPOS:37365770 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA ©2020 — Michael Olson All rights reserved. Dissertation Advisor: James M. Snyder, Jr. Michael Olson Legislative Politics in the Solid South Abstract How does the absence of competitive parties aect legislative politics? In this three-paper dissertation, I explore this question in the context of the American Solid South, which persisted from the re-establishment of white Democratic rule following Reconstruction until the Civil Rights Era. Using a variety of original data, particularly on state legislative roll call voting, I explore how one-party government aects legislative behavior and the representation that constituents receive. In the rst paper, I examine how the creation of the Solid South through black disfranchisement aected state legislative roll call voting, demonstrating that formal, in- stitutional black disfranchisement was impactful for legislative representation. This piece lls an important gap in the literature by demonstrating that the rules limiting the franchise in the South shaped the unique political character of the Solid South. In the second paper, I examine whether southern state legislatures exhibited party-like patterns in roll call voting.
    [Show full text]
  • Solid South" and How Was It Affected by the Presidential Elections of 1964 and 1980?
    What was the "Solid South" and how was it affected by the Presidential elections of 1964 and 1980? From the late 1800’s until the late 1900’s the southern regions of the United States overwhelmingly supported one political party, the Democrats. This constant support for the Democratic Party was referred to as the “Solid South”. For nearly a century, the reign of the Solid South made it very difficult for any Republican Party members to get elected into the more powerful government positions. This Democratic trend perpetuated itself until the elections of 1964 and 1980. In those two election years the country’s current social issues caused a major shift in support making it possible for a Republican to reclaim the Presidency. The “Solid South” began in the late 1800’s around the end of Reconstruction. During this time, and up until its end almost a century later, the southern region of the United States voted solidly with the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party won by large margins in the South in every Presidential election from 1876 to 1948 except for 1928, when candidate Al Smith ran on the Democratic ticket and was beaten by Republican Herbert Hoover, but even then the Solid South continued to support the Democrats. This cycle of voting was slightly cracked in the 1950’s when Democratic support of civil rights caused the party to lose some of its support. Still, it was not until the 1964 election that the same issue would cause a significant break in the South’s trend. However, the Solid South did have a short-lived resurge of power when the presidency was won by Democrat Jimmy Carter, who then lost his re-election campaign to Republican Ronald Reagan.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Spaulding, %22Georgia and the Election of Jimmy Carter
    Georgia Historical Society Georgia and the Election of Jimmy Carter Author(s): Phinizy Spalding Reviewed work(s): Source: The Georgia Historical Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Spring, 1977), pp. 13-22 Published by: Georgia Historical Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40580339 . Accessed: 05/07/2012 11:41 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Georgia Historical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Georgia Historical Quarterly. http://www.jstor.org Georgiaand the Electionof JimmyCarter By Phinizy Spalding November 1976 the Americanpeople, by votingin Jimmy Carter of Georgia as their new president,shattered the long held belief that no one from the South-least of all from Georgia-could be elected to the highestoffice in the United States. Whether it be the triumphof New South principles,a victoryover the partyof Watergate,or a formof psychological reparationdone by the othersections of the nation to the South as a kind of late paymentfor injuriesdone in the past,one thing is certain from the vantage point of Georgia: the state took, has taken, and is still taking enormouspride in the victory of the man fromPlains.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Did the Democrats Lose the South? Bringing New Data to an Old Debate†
    American Economic Review 2018, 108(10): 2830–2867 https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20161413 Why Did the Democrats Lose the South? Bringing New Data to an Old Debate† By Ilyana Kuziemko and Ebonya Washington* A long-standing debate in political economy is whether voters are driven primarily by economic self-interest or by less pecuniary motives like ethnocentrism. Using newly available data, we reex- amine one of the largest partisan shifts in a modern democracy: Southern whites’ exodus from the Democratic Party. We show that defection among racially conservative whites explains the entire decline from 1958 to 1980. Racial attitudes also predict whites’ ear- lier partisan shifts. Relative to recent work, we find a much larger role for racial views and essentially no role for income growth or non-race-related policy preferences in explaining why Democrats “lost”( the South. )JEL D72, J15, N42 ( ) Recent events in the United States and Europe have rekindled interest in a long-standing political economy question: are voters driven primarily by economic self-interest or by less pecuniary motives such as ethnocentrism? Some scholars see economic dislocations fueling many voters’ current rejection of the status quo, whereas others see racism or xenophobia as the chief factor.1 In this paper, we reexamine one of the largest and most debated partisan shifts in a modern democracy: the exodus of white Southerners from the Democratic Party * Kuziemko: Louis A. Simpson International Building, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, and NBER email: [email protected] ; Washington: Yale University, 37 Hillhouse Ave., New Haven, CT 06520, and NBER( email: [email protected]) .
    [Show full text]