Mississippi Learning?

Mississippi Republicans give Abraham Lincoln narrow lead (though no majority) against Jeff Davis. But hey, there’s progress: a narrow majority now think blacks should be allowed to marry whites.

Public Policy Polling’s latest survey of Mississippi included a hypothetical presidential election between Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis.  The result?

 Lincoln would win out 55-28.  That’s largely because of Lincoln’s overwhelming support from Democrats, 76-10. He only narrowly edges Davis with Republicans, 45-36, and the match up is actually a tie with independents at 44%.

That the state’s Republicans would give Lincoln only a plurality victory over the leader of the Confederacy is somewhat disappointing. But the poll contains some good news as well. Earlier this year, as you may remember, PPP found that only 40 percent of Mississippi Republicans thought interracial marriage should be legal. Now that number’s up considerably—to 52 percent.

(Via David Nir at Daily Kos Elections)

Author: Andrew Sabl

Andrew Sabl, a political theorist, is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto. He is the author of Ruling Passions: Political Offices and Democratic Ethics and Hume’s Politics: Coordination and Crisis in the History of England, both from Princeton University Press. His research interests include political ethics, liberal and democratic theory, toleration, the work of David Hume, and the realist school of contemporary political thought. He is currently finishing a book for Harvard University Press titled The Uses of Hypocrisy: An Essay on Toleration. He divides his time between Toronto and Brooklyn.

11 thoughts on “Mississippi Learning?”

  1. Next question: What percentage of Mississippians believe what I’ll euphemistically describe as “Mississippi Democrats” ought to have the right to vote?

  2. I find the result for the independents to be the most interesting; Can we finally be spared this nauseating pretense that “independents” are independent thinkers whose subtleties can’t be confined to a particular ideology? Rather than, for the most part, the most ignorant segment of the polity, who have never thought deeply enough about politics to make up their blasted minds?

    1. Brett, I don’t think that many denizens of this site disagree with your assessment of “independents.” AFAIK, most independents actually behave like quite predictable partisans. My guess is that the MS “independents” are born Bourbon Democrats who nowadays vote Republican, but have never adopted the Republican habit of bowing to the image of Lincoln. This hypothesis would require looking at an age subtabulation, which I’m too lazy to hunt for.

      1. The mainstream notion is that “independent” occupies the center of the bell curve. But since the two main parties have already pretty much taken that space, “independent” now tends to mean the tails to the distribution.

    2. Right on, Brett. I much prefer dealing with committed conservatives with whom I disagree than low information “independents.” I’d rather disagree with someone I respect than agree with a penumbra. I think the Broders of the world have a lot to answer for in engendering the “independent” chimera, that a vacillating witlessness is somehow the sine qua non of “middle America.” Plus, given that our political system, for better or worse, is set up as a dialectic, to remove one’s self from this necessarily messy process seems to me an act of fear and/or cowardice (re: the well deserved purgatory of Naderites). Of course, a proportionally representative parliamentary system might be a good solution for this, but that’s another thread.

  3. Wow, it’s Agree With Brett Day.

    … As usual, I find out about my state from bloggers in other states. And I totally wish they had asked that question, Brainz.

  4. I wonder what percentage of MS conservatives would vote for Jesus over Judas if they were given descriptions of their actions, but not their names.

    Sounds like that hippie-freak socialist pacifist had it comin’ if ya ask me…

  5. This seems like an odd result, given the fact that the Democrats are the party of racism. What about Robert Byrd?

  6. Yes, politicalfootball, if the Democrats were the party of racism this would be an odd result. Since in fact the Republicans have been the party of racism -ever since they ran the 1964 Presidential campaign in opposition to the Civil Rights Act and then absorbed the most racist of the Southern Democrats (starting with Strom Thurmond)- it’s not actually surprising at all.

    Now you have a choice. Your beliefs are at variance with the facts. You can change your beliefs, or you can ignore the facts. Alas, since you’re a Republican, you’re almost (but of course not quite) certain to make the wrong choice.

  7. Democrats are the party of racism, but it’s Jefferson Davis stood on his head racism. Racial spoils, only with a different favored group. But racial spoils no less, equal treatment under the law is still anathema to the Democratic party.

Comments are closed.