Heading into the midterm elections, there was a great deal of chatter around the thesis that Democrats had found a new way to win statewide races in the South--by nominating liberals who fashion themselves as "progressives" and could rally base and minority voters.
Give Southerners liberalism unvarnished, and they would come.
But, alas for Democrats, this proved rather impotent. Beto O'Rourke won't be a U.S. senator from Texas. Andrew Gillum won't be governor of Florida, nor Stacey Abrams governor of Georgia.
As Democrats look ahead to 2020, the results in the South in 2018 illustrate why the strategy of tacking to the left, both regionally and nationally, may play right into the hands of the two men they most love to hate, Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
In November, Democrats made major pushes in the five largest Southern states--Florida, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia--targeting federal and statewide races. The only place that strategy worked well was in Virginia, already reliably in the Democratic column.
In Florida, with Gillum and U.S. Senator Bill Nelson leading their ticket, Democrats took just two of the nine targeted House seats and lost both a Senate seat and the governor's race--in fact, every statewide race except for agriculture commissioner.
In Texas, with O'Rourke leading the way by not beating Ted Cruz, Democrats took just two of eight targeted House seats, and all eight GOP incumbents running for re-election statewide won--Gov. Greg Abbott by more than 1 million votes.
In Georgia, Abrams' candidacy helped the suburban doughnut around Atlanta to the Democratic column, costing Republicans one House seat. But she fell short against Brian Kemp, who lacked her polish or political skills.
In North Carolina, none of the House seats targeted by Democrats flipped, though they did manage to reduce the GOP's previously veto-proof majority in the legislature.
The results for Democrats were even more grim in smaller Southern states. In Arkansas, where as recently as 2010 Democrats held the governorship and every statehouse post, they didn't come within 20 points in any statewide race and lost every federal race for the third election in a row.
So why is this important in 2020? Because if Democrats can't win statewide races in the South, they face daunting math in both the electoral college and the Senate. And the near-total failure of out-and-out "progressive" candidates to win in 2018 raises serious questions about the wisdom of nominating them two years from now.
If Trump sweeps the South outside Virginia, he's at 167 electoral votes. Add to that the 36 votes of the reliably Republican states in the West and Great Plains, and he's at 203. And in every presidential election but one since World War II, the same candidate that has carried Florida also carried Ohio, which puts him at 221.
Thus, Trump would need just 49 electoral votes from the remaining states; in 2016, he got 85. To deny him the presidency, a Democrat would have to take away Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, with no room for error.
Now consider how much easier it would be for a Democrat to beat Trump if he or she could pick off some states in the South, as both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did on their way to the White House. And consider how unlikely that will be if the Democratic ticket is headed by Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders or Kamala Harris or Cory Booker.
The Senate math is even more daunting. Of the 22 Republican-held seats up in 2020, 12 are in the South and six in those reliably Republican areas in the West. Democrats must also defend a seat in Alabama.
Democrats need to flip four seats to get to a majority. So if they are shut out in the South, including Alabama, the best they can hope for is a 50-50 tie, even if they run the table in the four remaining GOP-held states--Arizona, Iowa, Colorado and Maine.
Of course, proponents of the with-progressives-we-can-win strategy will point to the fact that O'Rourke, Gillum and Abrams came closer to victory than Democrats have in recent elections--and also closer than Phil Bredesen, the Democratic moderate in Tennessee's Senate race.
That may be true, but given the political winds blowing in Democrats' favor in 2018, might they have won those close races had they nominated candidates more willing to trim their progressive sails?
Long-term demographic trends, particularly more urban and minority voters and a shift toward Democrats in the suburbs of major cities, do threaten Republican hegemony in the South. But 2020 is not the long term.
The biggest short-term problem for Democrats in the South is that they are getting buried in small towns and rural areas outside of major cities with majority white populations, digging a hole so deep that there are not enough urban, suburban and minority voters to get them out of it.
Kemp took at least 70 percent of the vote in half of Georgia's counties. In the 350 miles of Florida from Pensacola to Jacksonville, Gillum won just two counties. And if you drew a line across Texas from El Paso to Austin to Houston, O'Rourke's only victories north of that line were in Dallas and Fort Worth.
If Democrats can't fix their problem with rural voters, they are unlikely to win statewide in the South in 2020--and 2018 shows that throwing self-styled progressives against Republicans' big red wall is certainly not the solution.
------------v------------
Rich Shumate, founder and editor of ChickenFriedPolitics.com, where this article first appeared, is a former Arkansas resident. He is a journalism professor at Western Kentucky University.
Editorial on 12/10/2018