Special Election Victory In Mississippi Shows How Democrats Are Learning A Strategy To Win In The South.

Last week's Democratic victory in the special election in Mississippi 's First District was nothing short of spectacular. This victory made Democrats a perfect three for three in special elections in 2008, all of which took place in traditionally strong GOP districts in Illinois , Louisiana , and Mississippi. How are the Democrats doing this? Is it simply an advantageous political environment, or are we seeing something deeper? An analysis of the victory in Mississippi shows a combination of factors that should be alarming for the GOP.

High Turnout Powers Democrats to Victory

Total turnout in the final special election was 107,229, an astonishing 59.8% increase relative to the first round between Childers and Davis. In past special elections, turnout in the runoff has often been equal to or even less than the first round turnout. The large increase in turnout led to Democratic candidate Travis Childers' unexpected 8 percent victory over Republican candidate Greg Davis (54%–46%). Despite the fact that Democratic performance is lowest in MS-01 in comparison to the other 2008 special election districts in Illinois and Louisiana, the Democrat scored the largest victory margin in Mississippi.

Certainly, the current unpopularity of the GOP brand played a role in Childers' victory, but more important was his ability to attract votes from areas of the population who are generally hostile to Democrats. This district houses no large urban center, as we have classified all counties in Mississippi 1 as either rural, micropolitan, or suburban-exurban. The breakdown is as follows: 40% of the counties carry a rural designation, compared with 42% classified as micropolitan and 18% as suburban-exurban. Despite generally accepted norms about GOP dominance in rural areas, Childers won 65% of the rural vote and, perhaps more importantly, 59.4% of the rural white vote, which is normally a strong portion of GOP support. Overall, it is estimated that Childers won 46% of the total white vote districtwide and 54.4% of the nonsuburban white vote.

Democrats Making Progress in Republican Areas

Although the turnout pattern in Mississippi 1 was more favorable in the runoff, it would be erroneous to ascribe Childers' success to a demoralization of the Republican base. Looking at the progression of the vote in DeSoto County , a Republican stronghold, doesn't show a reduced turnout overall, but rather a stronger performance by the Democrat in this area. These factors were evident throughout the district. In a prototypical general election, Davis ' base in DeSoto County would account for 13% of the total vote. However, in the special election process, DeSoto County actually accounted for a greater share of the vote. In both the first and second elections, DeSoto County contributed 18.6% of the vote. The victory was not accounted for by an unmotivated turnout in GOP areas, it was accounted for by a significantly increased performance by the Democratic candidate in these areas as the campaign went on. For example, having won an anemic 16.5% of the DeSoto vote in April, Childers garnered 25.1% in DeSoto in May, producing a deficit of just under 10,000 votes, which was easily offset in the remainder of the district. Had Childers garnered 16.5% in the runoff, his DeSoto deficit would have been 13,695, reducing his plurality by 3,734 votes — about half of the districtwide margin. Finally, in Lowndes County , one of the bigger counties in the district, Childers completely overcame the Republicans' original advantage. Davis had carried Lowndes by a 53% to 43.6% margin in the first election. Childers reversed that result, with a 9.6-point victory in the runoff as the total share of the Lowndes vote swelled from 6.3% in the first election to 7.7% in the runoff. More than twice as many votes were cast in Lowndes in the runoff, indicating that a massive infusion of new Democrats turned out.  

As mentioned above, Childers' strong share of the rural white vote was paramount in producing this victory, but we feel it is worthy of further analysis. Childers' share of the vote in rural counties with the lowest percentage of African-American voters was astounding. Itawamba (5.6%), where Childers won 60.6% of the vote; Tishomingo (3.6%), where Childers won 60.1% of the vote; Pontotoc (13.9%), where Childers won 53% of the vote; Union (13.6%), where Childers won 56.1% of the vote; Tippah (15.9%), with Childers garnering  59% of the vote; Alcorn (10.2%), with Childers amassing 60.9% of the vote; and his home county of Prentiss, with an African-American population of 12.8%, where Childers won 85.3% of the vote.

Along with his majority of the rural white vote, Childers also scored a dominant victory among African-American voters. In the six counties with the highest African-American population, Childers won a minimum of 48.9% (in Grenada ) and more than 70% in both Clay (73.1%) — the only county in the district with an African-American voting age majority — and Chickasaw (72.9%). Childers also garnered a majority in heavily African-American Marshall, Panola, and Yalobusha counties, all of which are at least 35.8% black.

In addition to his success with the rural white and African-American segments, Childers was assured victory by his domination of the larger counties. Childers amassed 58% of the Lee vote (Democratic Performance of 41.6%) in both the first and second elections, with Lee's share of the vote in the runoff reaching 10.8%, versus 12.6% in the first election and compared with 9% in a typical general election.

What Does This All Mean for 2008?

These results in Mississippi could have enormous implications for future elections in the South, as Democrats are generally able to win southern congressional districts with a 40%–45% share of the rural white vote, depending upon the total racial composition of a particular district. As this analysis reveals, a black/white rural coalition can generate a Democratic majority in several other Republican-held congressional districts.