I don’t understand this chart.

Harry Truman from Missouri is a “southerner,” but Barry Goldwater of Arizona is a “northerner.” Texas-born Ike is a northerner because of Kansas or because he was a University President based in Harlem?

Seems like, on the margins, the definitions were shifted around to make the chart’s distinctions a little more pronounced.

Posted by: President Buchanan at December 26, 2003 04:35 PM

the chart refers to southerners (“S”) and “non-southerners” (“N”). so every president who is not from the traditional South is labeled a “non-southerner” (“N”).

I think the trend this chart shows is pretty persuasive. If you want to be elected President as a Democrat, you need to be a moderate from the traditional south. (Fortunately) the Dems never quite believe this, and keep nominating northern liberals.

Posted by: nikita demosthenes at December 27, 2003 05:35 PM

What about Bush 41? On the chart (‘88 and ‘92) he is an ‘S’ although famously being from Maine (remeber Kennebunkport?). He was an adopted Texan, but not in the sense that W is. Besides, there are so few data points that I wouldn’t read too much into it. Any particular elecetion could be an exception. On any given Sunday… or first Tuesday after the first Monday of November.

Posted by: John at December 28, 2003 06:01 AM

The experience of George the First, even if you take him to be a Yankee, still supports the claim made in the chart. You’d move his loss to Clinton from “S defeats S” column to “S defeats N,” making that column even longer and adding another dem win to it. That may actually be what happened - I still remember the democrats demonizing George I calling him a “vacationer from Kennebunkport, Maine.”

You’d also move his victory over Dukkakis to “N defeats N.” That’s one less southern victory, but the main point being made was that being southern was an advantage for democrats, and it still doesn’t change the fact that Reagan’s victory over Carter is still the only “N defeats S.” It also doesn’t change the fact that the only non-southern Dem win was Kennedy in ‘60.

Posted by: samuelv at December 29, 2003 02:18 PM

//What about Bush 41? On the chart (‘88 and ‘92) he is an ‘S’ although famously being from Maine (remeber Kennebunkport?). He was an adopted Texan, but not in the sense that W is.//

Just two points:

First, GHWB began his political career in Texas as a Congressman from Houston and served 2 terms. From that point on, he was viewed as a Texan. As most of us here know, your place of birth has little to do with your “naturalization” as a Texan. (Probably has a lot to do with the fact that most all our Heroes of the Alamo were not Texans. Even Sam Houston was from Virginia.) You might be able to take the man out of Texas, but you can never take the Texas out of the man.. :-)

Second, given the sweep the Republican Party has made in the Governorships of the South, we may be seeing a dying Southern Democratic Party. It will be interesting to see how this political demographic migration plays out in the next 20 or so years of the Democratic Party stronghold moving from the South to the North. I predict given the current selection of candidates for the Democratic nomination, we will see a large segment of traditional Southern Democrats voting Republican in ’04.

Posted by: TexasGal at December 29, 2003 07:59 PM