Quick Review of the Former Slave States That Voted for Romney

The Confederacy still threatens to rise again but only succeeds in holding itself back.

I have a comment pending approval on a good editorial written by former Mehlville-Oakville Patch editor Sarah Flagg that states that Missouri, statewide, elected a white Democratic Governor, white Democratic Attorney General, white Democratic Senator, white Democratic Treasurer, and white Democratic Secretary of State.

So, how did Missouri's only dark-skinned candidate, President Barrack Hussein Obama, do statewide in Missouri?  You guessed it, he lost in a landslide.

Regional Patch Editor, Kurt Greenbaum asks a similar question.

But, how does that compare to the other former slave states in the Union that went for Romney as their President?

From what I can tell in a quick review is that Missouri is an outlier in even having that many statewide races during a Presidential election.

One thing is for sure, in every state that went for Romney, (mostly all former slave/confederate states) not a single "black" American was elected to statewide office.  

There was one Hispanic Republican elected to the Senate in Texas.

Of the 12 Senators elected in those states, only 3 were women, 1 of which was a Republican.

Five other females were elected to statewide office.  One was a Democrat for Treasurer and 4 were for Secretary of State, of which one was Republican.

All together, there were 37 non-presidential statewide races that I can find on The New York Times' website.  Based on initial review, only 1 is not of European Caucasian descent.  The honorable Republican from Texas.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Karl Frank Jr. November 08, 2012 at 03:58 PM
"But here’s the bottom line: In its nearly two-century history, Missouri has never elected a person of color to any statewide office. Not one. In fact, only one African-American has even made it onto the ballot. That was Rep. Alan Wheat, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in 1994. He lost to John Ashcroft by 25 points." - Ray Hartmann
Matt Hay November 08, 2012 at 05:15 PM
While you are doing your "Quick Review of Former Slave States" you might want to also quickly review what is called a "history book." In this book, you will find things out like 18 out of the 19 Senators who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 58 days were Democrats. The Democratic Party also opposed abolition of slavery of part of their official platform. It was the "Evil White Republicans" that A) Sponsored the Civil Rights Act of 64 and B) worked tirelessly, many to their own demise, to bring about the abolition of slavery in the US. In fact, Martin Luther King, Sr, MLK Jr, and his brother Alfred were all Republicans. To turn this into some racial topic is both disingenuous and inflammatory. The fact folks of color were not elected to state wide positions has nothing to do with the pigment in their skin, it is that there are very few that vie for the offices, and the ones that do, hail from the St. Louis or KC portions of the state, which are heavily Democratic in a Red State overall. You fail, or intentionally overlook it seems black men like Sherman Parker, who, if it were not for his tragic and untimely demise due to a heart attack, would have surely held a state wide office in Missouri. Respectfully, I am less intelligent for reading your writing on this topic. I would suggest you pick up a History Book.
Karl Frank Jr. November 08, 2012 at 05:20 PM
Yes. The two parties have changed dramatically. The 21st Century GOP is the Southern Democratic Party/KKK of the post civil war era. This article is about the 2012 GOP and 2012 Democratic Party. Liberalism and Conservativism does not stick with any one party. Lincoln was obviously very liberal, as was Teddy Roosevelt. Heck, even Nixon created the EPA. Free phone program? Started by Reagan. But again, this article is about the state of the current GOP and Democrats. The 2012 version of the parties.
Karl Frank Jr. November 08, 2012 at 05:26 PM
And we should never forget that it was Eisenhower who used big government to create the Interstate Highway System and used his exit speech as president to warn America of the perils of Military Industrial Complex. Have you ever seen it? But anyway, we are way of topic, which is that this post is about the current state of the 2012 GOP and Democratic parties. If you missed it, you may want to read the following written before the election: http://mehlville-oakville.patch.com/blog_posts/the-republican-party-will-not-win-the-white-house-again-in-my-lifetime
michelle November 08, 2012 at 05:29 PM
cell phone give a ways were not started by Reagan, the subsidized phone service for low income families originated in the Reagan administration following the break-up of AT&T in 1984. the free phones began under George W. Bush. in 2008... need I remind you who controlled the house and the senate at that time?
Karl Frank Jr. November 08, 2012 at 05:32 PM
Michelle, the same logic applied across the board...which is? Fill in the blank here for us:_____________________________________ And don't forget, nothing happens in the federal government without presidential approval. W. could have easily vetoed the move.
michelle November 08, 2012 at 05:41 PM
http://alfonzorachel.com/900/malcom-x-black-democrats-political-chumps-race-traitors I guess black conservatives don't know what they're doing to themselves? are they stupid? are they misguided? plan on throwing this "uncle tom" under the bus for reminding people that putting those in power only so they can ignore your plight is disingenuous? Allen West lost his run in Florida... is that because he's black? are the folks in Florida racist? Jesse Jackson Jr was reelected, despite having been absent from work since June, and has been under two separate federal investigations in the last few months... but that's totally cool, right?
Karl Frank Jr. November 08, 2012 at 05:47 PM
Michelle, I understand the points you are trying to make, but they are unrelated to the data provided and what they infer. Saying you have "black friends," which is essentially the strawman argument you are trying to make in defense of my article, doesn't mean that institutionalized cultural racism is not as real today as ever. It's no coincidence that the Romney states just happen to be the same states that made up the Confederacy. There is just no defending this. It's not logical or reasonable to think otherwise. To be clear, this isn't really about Republicans and Democrats. If racism was only a Republican problem in Missouri, then my article wouldn't make any sense. It's anecdotal, but I had more than one democrat union friend that told me clear as day that they could never vote for a "nigger."
Matt Hay November 08, 2012 at 06:07 PM
What was provided however was not actually data. They were mindless talking points without context. I would argue that Lincoln, however well intentioned, is the greatest Constitutional Usurper of the 19th Century, but that does not change the fact that Abolition was part of the platform of the Republican Party, and anti-abolition was the stated goal of the Democratic Party. Fast Forward to 2012. How have the party's switched? I would argue that the Democrats have gone from advocating physical slavery to debt and entitlement slavery. As a great many black conservatives have noted, they have traded one set of chains for another. Please cite evidence as to how the parties and ideals themselves have changed. Your entire screed attempts to infer, or attempts to infer that one can deduce, that because Obama did not win Missouri and that the rest of the State Officer winners were white (though no blacks were running as far as I am aware, so could not win), that somehow Missouri must be xxxxx <insert whatever inference you intended to make here>. I would argue that your inference appears to the casual reader (who is not a 2 party duoply ideologue), to be racial in nature. Was there some other inference to be made, or were you tossing observations out there with no purpose whatsoever? If you are going to call the GOP the 21st Century version of the KKK, perhaps you could point to facts? I mean, unless you think Herman Cain, Allen West, JC Watts, Walter Williams etc hate themselves.
michelle November 08, 2012 at 06:21 PM
I respectfully insist that you refrain from putting words into my mouth, especially if you are going to use " ". "To be clear, this isn't really about Republicans and Democrats. If racism was only a Republican problem in Missouri, then my article wouldn't make any sense. It's anecdotal, but I had more than one democrat union friend that told me clear as day that they could never vote for a "nigger."" seems to me that your democrat buddies might be the actual racists. They are the first to pull the card and obviously, according to your pals, they are the ones voting based on the color of skin. I have read your other article, and it is obvious that you are convinced that republicans are some sort of evil, so let us not pretend that you were not off handedly implying that republicans, those who voted for Romney (because republicans voted for their candidate, and not the "man of color") are the racists living in all those slave states, keeping the black community down. It was nice discussing this with you though. Unfortunately I have more pressing matters that require my attention.
Dan Miller November 08, 2012 at 06:42 PM
I just came across this article linked on a black conservative's page by a friend. While I have no research right now to engage in discourse with you about Missouri, or the holding of office by non-whites in the ex-slave states, I would like to ask you, of all the ex-slave and confederate states, how many non-white Republicans ran for office state-wide, and lost, when other Republicans were voted into other offices within those states, between 2004 and 2012? If you are serious about your implications, then the question I posed, and the responsive data, would do more to support your theory. Additionally, in your quest, did you also consider looking into how many non-white republicans and conservatives ran for office and were elected in your time period, in union states? You see, I think your point is valid after 1960 and through the decade. Possibly, even through to the Clinton Era. However, it can be argued that after Clinton and 9/11, the "political" divide became much more about fiscal, foreign and domestic POLICY, much more than it is about racial prejudice, in the Republican Party. With this election, I would stake my life on it, that the LARGE MAJORITY of Republicans voted on policy, not race, and the Democratic population found itself voting more with racial preferences and Union say-so, rather than policy.
Karl Frank Jr. November 08, 2012 at 08:52 PM
Dan, Michelle, and Matt, I think you can call it whatever you want or not call it whatever you want. You also can name anecdotal representatives of your party that lie outside of the norm. (As in, representing less than 1/10th of 1%.) But the bottom line is simply that demographically, there just aren't enough people left in America that support the "policies" (as you seem to want to call them) of the 21st Century GOP on a national scale. There is a reason why they have only won the popular vote once since 1988. Nate Silver for fivethirtyeight.com said it simplest and without negativity on election night: "President Obama was re-elected, relying on a coalition of voters that was broader than it was deep. Democrats maintained an edge in party identification, allowing Mr. Obama to win despite losing independent voters by several points. Forty-five percent of those who voted for Mr. Obama were racial minorities, a record number, and he made gains among Hispanic and Asian-American voters. Mr. Obama’s win carried forth into most of the swing states. Of the 10 states that the campaigns contested most vigorously, he may lose only North Carolina, while winning battlegrounds in the four major geographic regions of the country. Mr. Obama is also likely to win the popular vote, perhaps by two to three percentage points, once votes from California, Oregon and Washington are fully counted." In Missouri's case, Clinton won it twice, as did Carter.
Matt Hay November 09, 2012 at 02:58 AM
Your comments are not only are in-congruent with reality, but what you just stated is in no way related to the initial premise of your "piece". As for reality, Peter Kinder won a statewide office, and the Missouri Republicans made gains in the Missouri General Assembly to form a now veto proof majority, so the "policies" resonate with some Missourians obviously. However, your piece was not about policies, it was a factually devoid race baiting screed. For you to think Obama won because he was a superior candidate and not because of the fact that the Republican Party ran the only candidate they had to the left of John McCain (because they had to make sure they chose an ever worse candidate), with little difference between the 2 candidates, a vote for either of them was a vote for Obama's policies.
Karl Frank Jr. November 09, 2012 at 03:11 AM
I will stick with Ray Hartmann's bottom-line that was the first comment above: "But here’s the bottom line: In its nearly two-century history, Missouri has never elected a person of color to any statewide office. Not one. In fact, only one African-American has even made it onto the ballot. That was Rep. Alan Wheat, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in 1994. He lost to John Ashcroft by 25 points." - Ray Hartmann I suggest reading it because even though he is only talking about Missouri, he says it much better than I did. http://www.stlmag.com/Blogs/SLM-Daily/November-2012/White-Power-and-Missouri-Politics And the fact is, not a single black statewide candidate was elected in any...NOT 1...of the former slave states in November of 2012...and that is out of 37 possibilities. That is data. 0 of 37, or 0%, nada, zip, zilch. That is data. Here is the map of interest: http://www.learner.org/biographyofamerica/prog10/maps/images/map_10_a.gif I hope to have a version of it added to the story later. Pretty much looks like the 2012 Presidential election.
Karl Frank Jr. November 09, 2012 at 04:14 PM
Here is a map of racists tweets by location/state in relation to President Obama's re-election. http://geocommons.com/maps/210024
Karl Frank Jr. November 09, 2012 at 04:15 PM
Here is the map explained: http://www.floatingsheep.org/2012/11/mapping-racist-tweets-in-response-to.html
Matt Hay November 09, 2012 at 05:35 PM
So, the intent of your rantings, which you initially denied was racial, you are now admitting was indeed racial as you attempt to bolster your non-factual statements with anecdotal evidence that racists exist, and this was just your round about way of calling Republicans dirty racists? You are presenting one strawman argument after another. One could aggregate all of the racial quotes about Romney or George Zimmerman for that matter, as well, but that does not make an argument that Democrats are racists. All it proves is that racists exist, which no one disputes. This racism cuts both ways in those who would not vote for Obama simply because he is black as well as those that WILL vote for Obama because he is black. Both are examples of racism. That said, those tweets have as much to do with the lack of Black Statewide office holders as the price of Tea in China, absolutely nothing. We do not have any Japanese, or even Jewish statewide office holders currently either. Does that mean Missourians are prejudice against the Jewish or the Japanese? You are conflating correlation and causality in an attempt to make a specious argument. How is it that one gets to a position of being able to write racist rants for The Patch?
Karl Frank Jr. November 09, 2012 at 05:38 PM
I don't remember denying my implications of racism. I think I am being very open about my accusations of racism in the former slave states of the union. What I am showing here is that while we have come a long way, we still have a long way to go.
Nora Zimmer November 13, 2012 at 05:19 PM
I didn't vote for Obama because of his policies, not because of his race. Your "race card" implication is a cheap ploy that was sadly bought by the many uninformed voters.
Karl Frank Jr. November 14, 2012 at 04:47 AM
Here is Lee Atwater explaining how the GOP can win over the racist vote without sounding like racist themselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=X_8E3ENrKrQ
Nora Zimmer November 14, 2012 at 05:07 AM
1981, really????
Karl Frank Jr. November 14, 2012 at 05:12 AM
Absolutely. You don't really think these things happen in a vacuum do you? Rumsfeld and Cheney work in the Ford White House admin and sold nuclear technology to Iran with Westinghouse. It's been the same players for a long time. As a matter of fact, there has not been a winning Republican election without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket since 1928. Pretty crazy, huh? I often say, the efforts of today are the political fruits of 25 years from now. Most of the political, behind the scenes operatives have been in the business for their entire lives. They get their political science degrees and go to work at age 22. If they are good, they help get someone in the White House, become millionaires, and retire wealthy. Just think...."Karl Rove"


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something