What was old is new again. As in 1992, the prospect of a Democratic presidential aspirant named Clinton sweeping some southern states into the Democratic fold is being discussed.

What is the New South? 

One day I will do a post about the re-alignment of the South towards the Republican party, which is in my opinion the most important development in American politics in the last century. But not today. Today, we discuss the group of states characterized as the ‘New South’. These are primarily Virginia, North Carolina and to a somewhat lesser degree Georgia. It’s important to note that the term is also used to describe a temperament and philosophy of government that has been the practice of politicians in many other Southern states, but it is these ones that have been most effectively transformed by economics, demography and policy into something approximating a distinct grouping when compared to the ‘old south’ (the other states that formed the Confederacy during the Civil War).

So what’s the difference?

Particularly after the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts in the 1960’s, the South got a bad reputation in the wider American consciousness. Civil rights protests, segregation, the Klan and all the other signs and signifiers of the cultural pathologies and peculiarities of that region were on national display. It is unfair in historical terms to act as if the South was the only region in which racism existed at that time and since. But politics is comparative, so as the least racially tolerant and integrated region it inevitably became the poster child. Southern states were seen as intolerant, racialized, inward-looking and economically backwards. The term ‘New South’ came to be used to describe administrations, policies and (as we are concerned with here) states that seemed to subvert this identity.

How? Were they more racially tolerant?

Well, in some cases. But not always. Many simply shifted emphasis so as to talk about economics rather than segregation, while deliberately dragging their feet on integration. But let’s look at each of these states in turn, in descending order of democratic viability.

Virginia

The ‘Old Dominion’, site of the first British colony in the New World, has produced more presidents than any other state. This is largely because it was the most wealthy and populous colony at the foundation of the United States. Since the end of segregation and the exodus of working-class Southern voters from the Democratic party, Virginia had been pretty solidly Republican in presidential contests. But because of its heft in the early Republic, Virginia was chosen as the location out of which the District of Columbia would be carved. This has had unexpected consequences for us in the current day. As Washington has grown, its suburbs have spilled out into Virginia proper, injecting an increasingly large moderate element into the previously Conservative Virginian electorate. This, coupled with the states large and solidly-Democratic African-American population allowed Obama to win Virginia in both ’08 and ’12. The state has had a string of electorally sucessful Democratic governors in recent times, including Vice-Presidential candidate Tim Kaine. The current Governor, Terry MCauliffe, is a long-time Clinton aide and member of their inner-circle and seems sure to pull out all the stops in trying to keep his state in the Democratic column for his former bosses. Winning the state against Trump seems highly plausible, if not likely. And doing so means Trump must look outside of the traditional Republican heartland and win swing-states elsewhere to counteract the loss of Virginia’s 13 electoral votes.

North Carolina

The Tar Heel state is an interesting one. One of the first states to be hailed as showing a distinct character from the rest of the South, for a long time the ‘North Carolina Model’ was held up as a way forward for the whole region. This model included a progressive commitment to education funding and a pro-business economic strategy with comparatively high levels of public investment. This has led to several world-class universities and research institutions in the state and the development of a considerable financial center in Charlotte. This model was both helped by and reinforced lower levels of racial tension than in other parts of the South. All these factors allowed Obama to win the state in ’08, but in 2012 North Carolina went back to the Republicans. But in that same year the Democratic majority in the state legislature that had endured for decades and helped implement their much-lauded model was thrown out in a tidal wave of dissatisfaction. This may suggest that Clintons chances here are poor. But the current governor Pat McCrory has become one of the leaders in the current iteration of the incessant American culture wars, pushing what has become known as the ‘trans-gender bathroom bill’. This has fanned a growing sentiment that his administration has become too conservative for the state which it governs, and his loss could be Clinton’s gain. Current polling seems quite favorable to Clinton, but this far out from November such leads can be ephemeral and evaporate as polling day draws closer. Still, a victory for the Democrats here would net them 15 electoral votes. Add to this the fact that Clinton is unlikely to win North Carolina without also winning more moderate Virginia and a victory here begins to make a Trump victory mathematically problematic.

Georgia

The Peach State. No, really. That’s its moniker. The very name conjours the image in my mind of ice-tea being sipped on a sunlit porch as genteel men in linen suits fan themselves with their hats and discuss the weather. Which is appropriate, as Georgia is often seen as the heart of the South. But Georgia has a large African-American population and one of the fastest growing Hispanic populations in the United States. The Democrats have been talking about it becoming a ‘Purple’ or ‘Swing’ state for years, but it never seems to actually happen. As with Missouri, the Dems can never quite seem to seal the deal. Not since Clinton in 1992 has Georgia failed to fall in line behind the Republican nominee. But their margins have indeed been narrowing over recent years. Obama came comparatively close in ’08, but lost the state by about 8 points in 2012. Current polls show Clinton even with Trump in the state, or even with a slight edge. But there is a high level of undecideds, obviously un-enamoured of either candidate. With sufficient resources and careful positioning it is distinctly possible these could go for Clinton, especially if Trump fails to lift his numbers with suburban women, Hispanic voters and the state’s African-American community. What is more, putting money into competing in Georgia would force the under-resourced Trump campaign to put resources into securing its theoretical base rather than eating into the big industrial states Trump claims to be able to win over. Even having the state in play is a tactical victory for the Democrats. I would say a win here as unlikely but conceivable, and it is unlikely that it would be determinative in the electoral college. In other words, if Clinton is winning in Georgia she is probably enjoying such a good night she won’t require its 16 electoral votes.

What are the implications of Clinton being competitive in these states?

In the Presidential election, you want as many plausible paths to 270 electoral votes as possible. Taking what had been previously reliable Republican electoral votes in, say, Georgia would open up a lot of posibilities for getting to 270 for Clinton, and close several for Trump. It can reduce the necessity of winning states like Ohio and Florida who usually get the lion’s share of money and attention in Presidential races. But whether this polling is representative of actual voting intention remains to be seen. I will be more persuaded if the numbers continue in a consistent fashion over the next two weeks to ensure this is not simply a phenomenon associated with the publicity surrounding the recent Democratic convention. But Clinton’s competitiveness in the ‘New South’ is easily one of the more interesting stories in the current presidential election. A victory there could discredit Trump, his rehtoric and the entire basis of his campaign and the sentiments that underpin it by turning a simple loss into an electoral bloodbath.