Your challenge is for the Democratic Party's voter base to be found in non-Southern working class Whites and Southern college-educated Whites. Minorities are still a primarily Democratic bloc in this scenario.
Add dixie prole whites to it, and it becomes a possible coalition in "no southern strategy" atls but without dixie working class whites, it's not happening
So, the D’s get a healthy majority of well-off suburban voters in this scenario? In South but not the rest of the country?. . . and Southern college-educated Whites. . .
IRL Democratic Party in the 90s.
So, the D’s get a healthy majority of well-off suburban voters in this scenario? In South but not the rest of the country?
Generally, the country advances past racial issues, but Catholic-Protestant becomes much more of a sticking point than OTL.
Believe it or not, Michael Dukakis of all people may have polled as much as one-third of the Alabama white vote in 1988. Much of this was probably from the New Deal generation (who would have been around their 60s in 1988). As that generation declined in numbers, the Democratic white vote in the South has gone from merely 'bad' to 'comedic'.
IRL Democratic Party in the 90s.
Yes, the Democrats get a healthy majority of well-off suburban voters in the South but not in other areas.
What do you mean by Catholic-Protestant becoming a sticking point...?
What do you mean by Catholic-Protestant becoming a sticking point...?
For well-off suburban voters, it might have to be that Catholic colleges are given a crummy deal and the perception that they’re treated unfairly.Some cocktail of disagreements on combination social-economic issues,most likely. Off the top of my head; education (Some kind of tension over the continued existence/funding of parochial schools perhaps?), immigration (The rise in Catholic Hispanic immigration could create tensions on the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder over low skilled work and housing), and targeted public welfare.