Mississippi, Part 2: Democratic Dilemma or Dead End?

Mississippi’s entrenched voting patterns present a complex landscape and obstacles that transcend typical partisan lines

In recent years, as parts of the Deep South have shown signs of political transformation, some have wondered if Mississippi—a state with a large Black population and deep-rooted Democratic history—might be on the verge of a similar shift. While Georgia, for example, has seen a leftward trend due to rapid population growth and diversification, Mississippi remains a Republican stronghold, showing little movement in the past two decades.

To understand why Mississippi has resisted these changes, we examine the unique dynamics of the state’s population, voting patterns, and deeply rooted social structures. In this section, we’ll explore the significant obstacles Democrats face in Mississippi and whether a path forward exists in a state where traditional partisan tactics seem to fall flat.

Continued from Mississippi, Part 1: The Southern Question

Mississippi’s Political Stagnation and Future Democratic Challenges

Mississippi’s Stagnant Political Shift: Why It’s Not Another Georgia

Beginning in the late 2000s and throughout the 2010s, Georgia’s political landscape started shifting toward the Democrats. Fueled by rapid population growth centered in Atlanta and its suburbs, Georgia went from a state that voted Republican by more than 15 points in 2000 and 2004 to a state where, in 2008, Obama lost by only 5.2%.

Growth and diversification in the Atlanta suburbs, along with declining Republican support among well-educated suburban whites, continued to erode Georgia’s red tilt through the 2010s. In 2016, Trump won the state — but only by a lackluster 5.1% — and in 2020, Georgia flipped entirely, with Democrats not only taking the presidential vote but also winning both Senate seats in the runoffs.

Mississippi, however, has not followed suit. In 2000, Mississippi supported George W. Bush by a margin of 16.9%. In the following years, Obama lost Mississippi by 13.2% in 2008 and 11.5% in 2012—the closest Democrats have come to winning the state in recent presidential elections. The state shifted only marginally toward Democrats in the 2010s, and by 2020, Biden lost Mississippi by 16.5%, barely improving on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 performance. Overall, while Georgia shifted 11.9 points to the left from 2000 to 2020, Mississippi barely moved, edging just 0.4 points toward Democrats.

The big picture: between 2000 and 2020, Georgia shifted 11.9 points to the left, while Mississippi shifted only 0.4 points towards Democrats. The question is, why?

Population Dynamics: A Lack of Urbanization and Diversity

The divergence between Mississippi and Georgia’s trajectories is largely explained by population dynamics.

Over the past 50 years, Georgia’s population growth has been driven by Atlanta’s expansion as a hub of industry, finance, and affordable housing, nearly doubling the state’s population from 5.4 million in 1980 to 10.9 million today. Atlanta’s surrounding suburban counties saw a major influx of highly educated, higher-income voters, contributing to Georgia’s leftward shift. By 2020, the Atlanta metropolitan area’s population reached six million, nearly quadruple its 1980 population of 1.6 million residents.

Mississippi, on the other hand, saw its population grow by only about 25% over the same period, from 2.5 million to 2.9 million residents, with almost no growth attributable to suburban or urban areas..¹.Jackson, the state’s largest city — actually shrank by 26.2% since 1980², and its surrounding suburbs have remained stagnant. Mississippi’s population is also aging; by 2030, over 25% of the state will be 60 or older. Without the urban growth or younger, diverse populations seen in Georgia, Mississippi lacks the drivers for a major political shift.

Suburban voters, a group that has trended leftward in other states, simply don’t comprise a significant portion of Mississippi’s electorate. In 2020, only 23% of Mississippi voters came from suburban areas, compared to 62% in Georgia, 49% in South Carolina, and 56% in Alabama. This leaves Mississippi’s electorate dominated by rural, Evangelical white voters and a similarly religious but predominantly Democratic Black population.

And across the board, Mississippi is losing population as a whole. In fact, it was one of two states in the last 10 years to lose population, along with Michigan.

So, without significant urban centers or suburbs, without any substantial population growth driving diversity or an influx of moderate voters, and with the current population only growing older, Mississippi lacks the leftward drivers that could indicate a Democratic resurgence in the state. Given these circumstances, the question we’re left with: is there any path forward for Democrats?

The Democratic Challenge: Balancing White Conservatives and Black Voter Turnout

Mississippi’s recent down-ballot elections underscore Democrats’ biggest challenge: courting conservative white voters while energizing the state’s Black voter turnout.

Only 15 years ago, Mississippi Democrats were able to win down-ballot elections by taking conservative positions and riding off residual support from white voters.

Ronnie Musgrove, the last Democrat to win the state’s governorship in 1999, fits this archetype. In his 1999 gubernatorial victory, he won large swaths of rural, conservative counties in the northeast corner of the state by adopting conservative stances similar to his Republican opponent, Michael Parker — and instituted bans on same-sex adoption and measures like requiring “In God We Trust” in public schools.

Another example is Gene Taylor, one of the most conservative Democrats in House history, who represented MS-04 for over 20 years and was successfully reelected 10 times. Taylor’s conservative, Yellow-Dog appeal won over over the staunchly Republican southeastern Mississippi voters, who hadn’t supported Democrats in presidential races for decades. In 2008, even as John McCain won 66% of the vote in MS-04, Taylor was re-elected with over three-quarters of the vote - demonstrating his cross-partisan appeal.

By 2010, however, this strategy had fallen apart. Musgrove lost his re-election in 2003, and even Taylor was swept under partisan tides, and was unseated by a narrow 5.3% margin by Steven Palazzo in 2010.

Ultimately, even the most successful Democrats in Mississippi chose to switch to the Republican Party to avoid fading into total political irrelevance. Conservative Democrats like Taylor, realizing there was no political future in the present party, switched their party affiliation to Republican. Among these party-switchers is current Republican Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, who began her career in state politics as a Democrat before joining the Republican Party in 2010.

A pure Democrat-in-name-only could no longer win in Mississippi; but what about a conservative Democrat who encoded some core progressive policies in their platform?

Similarly, Jim Hood’s 2019 gubernatorial campaign attempted to bridge Mississippi’s divides. A conservative Democrat who served as state attorney general for 16 years, Hood appealed to both white and Black voters by incorporating progressive policies, such as Medicaid expansion, tuition-free higher education, and universal preschool. alongside conservative stances on issues like gun rights. Hood garnered impressive support among white voters, particularly in Republican districts, but ultimately, he struggled to turn out Black voters in the numbers necessary for victory. In heavily Black MS-02, Hood outperformed Clinton by six points but was unable to overcome the entrenched partisan alignment across the rest of the state.

Hood captured impressive support amongst white voters (overperforming Hillary Clinton in the heavily white and heavily Republican districts of MS-01, MS-03, and MS-04 by 14%, 15%, and 13%, respectively). Hood even showed strength among the state’s Black voters (overperforming Clinton in the heavily Black district of MS-02 by 6%). But for all of his campaign’s strength, without stronger support among Mississippi’s Black voters (which he was unable to turnout in the aggregate, at rates even close to presidential elections like in 2016 or 2020), Hood was unable to secure victory.

On the flip side, former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture in the Clinton administration Mike Espy found unprecedented support with Black voters but was unable to win substantial white support. Espy ran a strong, energetic Senate campaign, highlighting his fiscal conservatism (supporting the Trump tax cuts and positioning himself as pro-business) and his opposition towards gun control and abortion, all while steadfastly advocating for a progressive agenda including medicaid expansion. He aimed to supercharge Black turnout — a recurring challenge in midterm elections — and he did so, winning MS-02 by a whopping 36% compared to Hillary Clinton’s 29% victory in the district two years earlier. While Espy’s 6.3% loss was the best showing for a Democratic Senate candidate in Mississippi in the 21st century (astonishing, considering no other Democratic nominee came within 10 points of victory), he still proved unable to gain the crucial white support necessary for outright victory.

Granted, 2018 was an extremely pro-Democratic year, with Democrats winning the national House popular vote by nearly 10%. Espy’s Republican opponent Cindy Hyde-Smith was incredibly weak, having been engulfed in several controversies which included expressing support for a public hanging and being pictured at the home of Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy.

But while Hood and Espy reveal possible important opportunities for Democrats in the state and showcase possible coalitions for a competitive race, neither was able to consolidate crucial support across both demographics.

Brandon Presley’s Campaign: A New Model for Mississippi Democrats?

In the 2023 gubernatorial election, conservative Democrat Brandon Presley came within 3.2% of victory, building on lessons from Hood’s campaign but taking a distinctly populist approach. Beneath the already-impressive topline, Presley won 96% of Black voters in the state,(overperforming Joe Biden despite running in an off-year election under an unpopular Democratic president). Presley did this while also successfully consolidating support among white voters, overperforming Joe Biden by 10%, flipping 5 majority-white counties from 2020, and swinging many heavily-Republican counties in the northeastern region (where he originates) towards the left.

So how did Presley — who lacked Hood’s 16-year pedigree and Espy’s appeal to Black voters — manage to outperform both candidates?

Unlike Hood or Mike Espy, who ran campaigns centered around specific policy issues, Presley reframed the race as a battle between insiders and outsiders. While like Hood, Presley often stressed his conservative bona fides, positioning himself to the right of the national party on issues like abortion and gun control, made the race less about partisan labels and more about corruption vs. integrity and the powerful vs. the powerless. As Presley summed up his campaign: “It’s not even Democrat versus Republican. It’s those of us on the outside versus those of them on the inside.”

Presley, a self-styled populist, emphasized his modest roots — recounting his struggles in his upbringing, living without electricity and running water, from his very first campaign ad. Presley highlighted his efforts to improve rural infrastructure as Public Service Commissioner — expanding internet and broadband access, fiercely regulating power companies, and opposing rate hikes.

Presley cast incumbent Gov. Tate Reeves as emblematic of a corrupt political elite, focusing on a recent welfare scandal and advocating for policies like Medicaid expansion and grocery tax cuts. By centering his campaign on anti-corruption and working-class values, Presley connected with a broader base, winning 96% of Black voters and outperforming Biden by 10% among white voters, flipping five majority-white counties.

Presley’s relative success suggests that an anti-corruption, populist message could provide Mississippi Democrats with a path forward. Like Hood, Presley balanced conservative stances with progressive policies, but by emphasizing populist values over strict partisanship, he demonstrated how Democrats could broaden their appeal.

Mississippi’s Structural Barriers to Democratic Gains

Despite Presley’s impressive performance, Mississippi’s structural barriers to Democratic gains remain significant.

Presley’s success was aided by the vulnerabilities of his opponent, Tate Reeves, who faced a series of corruption scandals, backlash for reneging on a promise to repeal an unpopular grocery tax, and widespread criticism over the Jackson water crisis—an issue exacerbated by his opposition to funding critical water system repairs. With these controversies, Reeves practically handed Presley a clear angle to frame his campaign around “change,” positioning himself as a reformist alternative to the established political elite

However, there are a couple of important caveats. The first is that this was a gubernatorial election, where state-level issues and candidate-specific weaknesses often play a larger role than in federal races. Much of Presley’s campaign focused on Reeves’s gubernatorial record, a factor that would be difficult to leverage in a Senate, House, or Presidential race where the stakes are higher and partisan lines are more deeply entrenched. In these federal races, an anti-establishment, populist message may not resonate as strongly or may get drowned out by broader national dynamics.

The second caveat is that Reeves was an exceptionally weak candidate. His record and the specific controversies surrounding his administration allowed Presley to center his campaign on integrity and anti-corruption rather than simply Democrat versus Republican. This strategy proved effective in a state election, but it would be challenging to replicate in a federal race, where partisan divisions are more rigid and the focus is less on individual candidates’ state records.

Ultimately, while Presley’s approach shows potential for Democrats in Mississippi, replicating this success in other contexts may prove difficult. Additionally, Mississippi’s stagnant population growth and predominantly rural, aging electorate continue to limit the likelihood of a significant leftward shift, reinforcing the broader structural barriers facing Democrats in the state.

The Road Ahead: Can Democrats Build a Winning Coalition?

Which brings us back to the bigger question: can Democrats become competitive in Mississippi?

The path forward is far from certain.

Mississippi’s current demographics heavily favor Republicans, and with the state’s population in decline, these dynamics aren’t likely to improve for Democrats.

Hood and Espy’s campaigns highlight the seemingly impossible “can’t have your cake and eat it” challenge Democrats face: appealing to the state’s predominantly Republican voters (who comprise 60% of the electorate) risks alienating their core coalition. Candidates like Hood flaunted conservative positions on gun rights, criminal justice, and abortion in an effort to broaden their appeal. However, while many Black Mississippians lean conservative on issues like abortion due to religious beliefs, this does not make them uniformly conservative; they tend to support left-leaning policies on issues like climate change and criminal justice, in line with Democrats across the rest of the nation. This creates challenges in crafting a message that resonates across Mississippi’s diverse partisan spectrum.

Still, Democrats may have ways forward in the state.

Presley, Hood, and Espy each demonstrated viable approaches for future statewide campaigns. Even Gene Taylor—likely the last Democrat to win MS-04 in recent history—offers useful insights for Democrats. While conservative, his success stemmed more from his populist stances, which could resonate in a predominantly blue-collar state like Mississippi, where many residents rely on government programs like Medicare and Social Security. In Congress, Taylor successfully cultivated a populist record, consistently voting against Bush-era tax cuts, free-trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT, and supporting campaign finance reforms — positions that set him apart from the political mainstream.Although heavily gerrymandered, the state house and state senate still offer potential openings for Democrats.

Longstanding issues of corruption and poor Republican governance governance in Mississippi present further opportunities. Former Governor Phil Bryant’s involvement in a recent welfare scandal underscores a recurring pattern of Republican mismanagement. By spotlighting these issues, Democrats can potentially make races less about partisanship and more about integrity, effectiveness, and change. While this strategy may have more limited impact in federal races, where national partisanship is deeply ingrained, it could still make a difference in state-level contests.

At the federal level, however, the prospects are far more limited. Outside of MS-02, which Democrats already hold, none of Mississippi’s congressional districts are closely contested enough to justify significant Democratic investment. The state’s Senate seats are held by capable — if not generationally talented — Republican incumbents; in 2020, Cindy Hyde-Smith, outspent 10-to-1 by Mike Espy, still won by a 10-point margin. Mississippi’s runoff system also complicates Senate bids for Democrats. Even if a Democrat wins a plurality, they would face a later runoff election, where lower turnout has historically favored Republicans.

None of the state’s house seats besides MS-02, which Democrats already represent, are closely divided enough to be worth a substantial amount of funding or effort.

Both of the state’s senate seats are held by capable — if not generationally talented — Republicans. In 2020, Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith was outspent 10-1 by Mike Espy and still won by 10%. Mississippi’s run-off system makes outright winning a senate seat even more difficult: even if a Democrat managed to win a plurality of the vote, they would be forced to win another, later election with substantially lower voter turnout.

For now, Republicans have little reason for concern in Mississippi—— with the possible exception of the 2027 gubernatorial race. Perhaps by adopting Presley’s populist, anti-corruption playbook, Democrats can begin to make Mississippi a competitive state.

1. https://www.djournal.com/opinion/columnists/wall-street-journal-bashes-mississippi/article_e0956000-abd8-11ee-8910-0bf0767e484e.html

2. https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2023/05/30/jackson-population-shrinking-at-alarming-rate/70260052007/