Can Dean win the South?

[last1standing]

In a word, No.

But this isn't your average Dean bashing post because neither can Clark or any of the other Dem candidates running. The South is not winnable by a Democrat because we have not spent the time or money necessary there to reach the average voter. Instead we have branded them as stupid, lazy, and racist (and while I agree with that description for most southerners, it also fits most northerners, black and white). We will not win the South or the Plains States until we understand the true motivations behind the swing to repub in the last several elections and work to resolve them.

I have family and friends in the South and in the Plains States that Dems do so poorly in. When I travel there, I read the papers and watch the local news. I people watch and eavesdrop on conversations to hear what goes on in their lives. Now, most of what is of no interest, but some of it is more interesting than anything on primetime television. They're not talking about the next lynching, or how repubs have brought God back into their homes. They're not arguing over how many marshalls should be on each airplane. Most of the time they're talking about their jobs or lack of them and complaining about the last company that packed up and moved to Mexico. On the rare occasion that they talk politics, they are saying that the Democratic Party has left them behind. It's true. The Democratic Party has left southerners behind. The only time we think of the south is when we are nominating a presidential candidate. So every four years we want to hear a drawl, after that we want to go back to bashing a large portion of our country.

Over the years, this attitude has caused a drain on our viability in the south to allow four of the worst presidents in history to be elected. Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and bush* the lesser. While we have on occasion slowed this trend with Carter from Georgia, and Clinton from Arkansas, we have never stopped it. But instead of looking at the underlying cause of our problem we instead want to gloss over it by nominating southerners in the hopes that this time it will somehow magically stop our losses. Unfortunately, this is not a solution or even a stopgap anymore.

Albert Gore from Tennesee is a southerner with moderate political views who identified with the South and even had a drawl. He still lost every southern state in 2000 besides Florida, even his home state. Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 lost the vast majority of the South with a few exceptions in each case. Micheal Dukakis running with Lloyd Bentsen of Texas lost the entire south (besides West Virginia) in 1988 as did Walter Mondale in 1984 and Jimmy Carter (with the exception of his home state of Georgia and West Virginia) in 1980. A southern candidate will not win us the South.

There is only one way for Democrats to win the 2004 election. We must fight. The South and Plains States have an image of Democrats as waffling, effeminate, do-gooders, more interested in sparing the feelings of our enemies than protecting American citizens. While we at DU know the military history of bush* and his chicken hawk accomplices, we will not win the battle of impressions for 2004. Does that mean we leave the South to the repubs and concentrate exclusively on the North? No. But we must fight smarter and harder than just throwing out a resume and a southern drawl. We have to send someone out there who is able to shake up the southern perception of Democrats. We need a candidate who can work against these stereotypes by not only standing up to a fight but by picking a few as well. The only Democrat to do this successfully in the last thirty years has been Bill Clinton who is also the last Democratic president to win reelection in fifty years. This must be our short term goal.

Our long term goal is more difficult. We must again include the South and the Plains States in our dialog. This does not mean we must surrender the Democratic Platform for a more conservative one, but we must compromise and work with others in our goal to bring back the United States of America as the greatest country on earth. We can only do this by agreeing with each other on our most important issues, freedom, conservation of resources and heritage, and dignity. All Americans treasure those things but we must join together to achieve them. It will take several years to heal the wounds created by our regional schizm, but it can be done. The first step is for us in the Democratic Party to look at the South for what it really is, a land forsaken, not by God, but by us. Let's work to give the South what we have fought so hard for and they will join us. They may even overtake us, or better yet, become indistiguishable from us.

Of the nine candidates, the only one I've seen with the passion and energy to attempt this is Howard Dean. Wesley Clark may have it in him, but I've yet to see passion or energy from him in the quantities he will need. Kerry, while intellegent and capable, has shown no passion or energy this season. John Edwards has been little more than a pretty face this time, which is unfortunate as he would make a tremendous president in the future. Richard Gephardt has long ago lost any passion that was once there. Joseph Lieberman has forgotten what we are fighting for and is running as a conservative. Al Sharpton has the fight, but not the capablity of healing a nation. Carol Mosley-Braun is capable, but not passionate. Dennis Kucinich has passion and energy, but has never shown an ability to compromise as we will need to do. But these are only my feeling of each candidate and I'm sure each of us feels differently. The point is we will not win the South in 2004, but we can win enough to allow us to work towards a better solution in the future.

[CMT]

1. can any of our candidates win the south?

I think on the whole, NO. But we can pick off some southern states which is what Clinton did in '92. As a fiscally responsible Governor of a rural state who neutralizes the gun issue I think Dean can do as well as any of our candidates in the south. I think if he adds a strong Southern running mate like Bob Graham and campaigns on effective themes of jobs, education, and healthcare that they can pick off three or four southern states.

[JohnLocke]

25. Edwards

[CalebHayes]

58. Yes he will win both the Carolinas

[Clark Can WIN]

62. And/or Clark ------------- together would be awesome

in either configuration.

[dave29]

2. Not the entire south

but I wouldn't count us out everywhere. Agreed though, we MUST fight :)

[Racenut20]

3. Unfortunately, Dean would set it back even farther (in my opinion)

So why nominate him?

[Melodybe]

8. You are wrong Dean is appealing to all of my ex-republican friends in MS

I am in MS and if there ever was a haven for the religious right it is here. However, most people are beginning to turn on bu$h. We were already poor but no we are worse off. People are getting screwed and they know it. My repub father in law is just now beginning to get the picture. One of my diehard friends wouldn't let me talk bad about Bill O'Liely but agreed that Bu$h had to go. I will be surprised if MS goes repub next year, I think that Black voters and Southern Democrats will come out in hordes. Plus we still have paper ballots so there it would be hard to cheat the vote. Dean is by far the favorite of my repub friends, they like that he is good with money and that he wants to fix health care. Dean will do a lot better here in the South than any of the other candidates except maybe Clark.

[TexasPatriot]

4. thank you

A well thought out and positive post supporting Dean. I dont necessarily agree with all of it - but i think theres a lot of the gist in there that I do agree with. I may think Clark is a better answer - because I think there are some states with demographics that make them a lot more winnable than being lumped into the generic 'south' bucket - and I think Clark will be a more effective candidate in several of those - but that's an honest disagreement that's a matter of opinion and well within the bounds of civil discourse.

[burning bush]

5. Right now, Dean is the ONLY candidate that can win the south!

Read here to understand why I make that statement:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=40991

[retyred]

6. I think your wrong, Clark can and will

Clark Focuses on Southern Votes 12/29/03
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/29/politics/campaigns/29CLAR.html

The New Hampshire primary is less than a month away, but Gen. Wesley K. Clark will spend the waning days of 2003 far from the North. Instead, he will barnstorm across eight Southern states, even though most of them do not hold their primary elections until well into March and many Democrats expect their presidential nominee to have been chosen by then.

The unusual campaign swing is meant to demonstrate what General Clark's campaign says is his strength in a region where Democrats have not fared too well in recent national elections and thus to portray him as the best alternative to another candidate, Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont.

The decision to look ahead to the general election in November before a single vote has been cast in the primaries is a calculated risk by the Clark campaign, which has been briskly raising money over the last three months and attracting growing crowds at recent stops in Wisconsin and South Carolina.

General Clark is trying to show the party that his national security credentials and experience leading a well-integrated institution make him the most qualified candidate to go toe-to-toe with President Bush in the fall. With five Senate seats being vacated by Democrats in the South, General Clark is also trying to demonstrate that for Southern office-seekers, he would be a strong presence at the top of the ticket.

<snip>

This is a very, very smart move. You can't win without winning the South. Clark knows this.



retyred in fla
“good night Paul, wherever you are”
So I read this book

[last1standing]

7. I've been wrong before.

But while I think it's great that Clark is campaigning in the South, it does little to alleviate my worries on the larger scale. We have to have more than strategy to win states in the south. We need to fire southerners up and make them believe that we want them back as truly equal members of our party and country. I don't think Clark is speaking to that, but if he is, I hope he does well.

[TexasPatriot]

9. at the same time

i think the southerners who feel the disconnect with the democratic party need to avoid the 'Zell Miller displays' of the world. This party has to be a big tent - its the party of the working man (and woman), and there's a HELL of a lot of those (well, fewer working men and women since Bush took office, but i'm sure he'll blame Clinton for that).

Yesterday, kicking off the southern tour, Clark said "We learned that America's diversity is our greatest strength, and that our families and our communities suffer without it."

I think it's true of the democratic party as well.

[Scott Lee]

39. He's got a loooong way to catch up to Dean in the South.

[Deesh]

46. You can, actually.

A Democrat could win the election without carry a single Southern state. The electoral college determines the winner. If our Democratic candidate carried all of the states Gore carried in New England, the Midwest and the far West, and added Ohio, the Democrats win the White House.

[msanger]

10. the "south" is actually five different regions.

An interesting article on the national election can be seen at

<http://www.massinc.org/Commonwealth/new_map_exclusive/beyond_red_blue.html>

It divides the country into ten "voting regions," five or six of which are in "the south."

Here's what it says about Virginia!

Virginia may actually be the most promising state for Democrats in the Southern Lowlands - ironically so, since a few years ago Virginia was as reliably Republican as West Virginia was reliably Democratic. One sign of the changing politics here was Democrat Mark Warner's five-point victory in the 2001 governor's race - held just two months after the September 11 terrorist attacks and at the height of President Bush's popularity. Warner was helped by the state's large black population in Southern Lowland cities such as Richmond and Virginia Beach, but he cemented his win by carrying places that had not voted Democratic for president since 1964. One major example is Southern Lowlands' Fairfax County, a source of more than 400,000 votes just outside Washington, DC, that could almost be part of Northeast Corridor except that its homes and offices are more spread out and much more recently built. It gave Bush only a 6,000-vote margin in 2000, though his father won by 10,000 votes during his losing campaign in 1992. Still, a concentration on Southern Lowlands may not be enough to swing the state: Warner also won places like the Appalachian city of Lynchburg, thanks to his much-vaunted "NASCAR strategy."

[last1standing]

11. I watched that campaign.

Warner fought like hell to get his message out and it worked. He went to Appalachia and told them the truth face to face. He wasn't afraid to get his hands dirty in order to wrest Virginia from the repub grasp and he did it.

Warner is a good example of what I'm talking about.

[GBD4]

17. well...

unfortunately, Warner is proposing some tax increases that are not being received too well, this will likely hurt his standing in the state...but I do think Virginia is one of the more competitive Southern states

[markus]

12. The Party's Southern Problem

I think the problem in the South is, much like the upper midwest where I now live, is that the rump Democratic party is incapable of pursuing the one strategy that can recapture those regions: open Class Warfare.

The working and middle class have been successfully divided along racial lines in the south since the civil war. This has prevented people of real common interest from banding together.

In the midwest things are more complicated. I can't understand why farmers vote Republican. I do know that a candidate who is openly anti-gun and anti-military is doomed.

The rump party structure is in the control of the John Breaux's and Zell Millers of this world, and they under no circumstances are going to abide with any openly progressive class warefare politics.

However, this is the only thing around which people in these regions can unite against the GOP. We have to run exclusively on economic issues and the corruption of the GOP.

At some point, we need to break the "meme" of being the party of minority interests. There is a simple way to do this. Declare a program to end all racial preferences in this country for all purposes. Substitute instead income based preferences. While this is risky in that it will piss off the black upper middle class who's well educated children still benefit from preferential college admisions, it signals that the battle is no longer about race. That war is over, finally. The battle is about who controls our economic destiny.

Until we are prepared to some how shed the anti-gun, party of minorities tag and become an aggressively economically Populist Party, we can never recapture the red states.

[TexasPatriot]

38. taking all the candidates off the table for a minute

lets talk about using class as a campaign issue

Now - you go near class warfare in this country and hell breaks loose. People start screamin 'pinko' and 'trilateral commission' and the freepers go nuts and start blowin up buildings.

So there's sort of a problem. However - there is no better rally the deep left dem base argument than:
35 hour workweeks
$10 an hour minimum wage
%50 top tier income tax
nationalized health care
etc...

Can you create the populist mob and ride it like Gracchus? I imagine it's possible - but you'd have to be the most charismatic SOB on the planet to sell it. However - I'll tell you one thing... If we get a candidate who, 5 days before the election, was losing terribly in all the polls... it would be a wild stunt to try (though it would kill the party downballot if it didnt work)

[shivaji]

81. Very good point.....markus n/t

[worldgonekrazy]

13. I'm beginning to think we ought to just let the South go

Let them be the confederacy they have always dreamed of.

Yeah, I know this is exactly the kind of "branding" you speak to in your post, but goddammit I am tired of seeing post after post saying the Dems ought to cater to Southern voters. They vote Republican (as a whole) because they are racist, homophobic, and stupid. Challenge that statement, I dare you.

[ArkDem]

15. Oh, come now, surely there is room in the "big tent"

for us poor, stupid, racist and homophobic hillbillies. We cain't hep if weis inbred!

[last1standing]

16. I just wrote seven paragraphs challenging that statement.

Southerners are no worse and no better than northerners and your remarks prove exactly what I was trying to point out. I don't know why you think that you are better than anyone in the south, but I can promise you are not and neither am I.

Also, I never suggested we cater to the south, but bring them aboard and treat them as equals respecting their ideas. It's "viewpoints" such as yours that will leave us as a regional party with no real national control.

As a side note, do you think we should disenfranchise blacks who are "racist, homophobic, and stupid"? How about baptists? Jews? People with brown hair? As a whole most people are racist, homophobic, and stupid. Is it wiser to teach them or ignore them? Hint: We ignored the Nazis...for awhile.

[surfermaw]

14. Dean & Edwards with help from Clark,Graham and Clinton , will take South

Take a look back in history...back to the days of Harding,Coolidge and Hoover...without the safety net put in place by democrats...we would be in a depression instead of a deep recession...When a man family is without jobs, health care and necessities of life...they start to think about things that matter in the government..and realize that voting for guns,abortion and on a promise of a man being a Christian isn't the correct or wise thing to do. Now this nation might not be as hungry and unemployed as they were in the 20's and 30's,but they are hungry enough, 8.7 million out of work, 40 thousand without health care..and the one that have found jobs especially the white collar people, are taking the jobs that were held by blue collar and working for much less than they were when Clinton was in office...Now remember after Harding,Coolidge and Hoover, it took three generations dying off before another right wing president Reagan was elected.

We must put a lot of money and time in the south in the next year,we must get to the people who don't know the democrat party and what it stands for and what it has done for the working class of this nation. They must be made to understand that without the democrat party and the labor union members who fought and died in some cases, we would still be working in sweat shops and as many hours as the owners wanted with the salary he was willing to pay...He must be made to realize that if business is allowed to buy another election for George Bush , we could very well be back to the 1920 & 30's working in sweat shops. It's going to take a lot of money time and energy to win the south back.

[TeacherCreature]

18. yes

The candidate with the most sepport in the south is the best candidate to win in the south. We will get some southern states.

[SayitAintSo]

19. Dean has shown that he doesn't understand the south....

Example ... His confederate flag gaffe. While I knew what he was trying to say and agreed with him completely, he ROYALLY FUBARed that whole communication. He couldn't have screwed up worse if he'd set his mind to it !

Dean comes off like a damn Yankee carpetbagger down here - screw the polls. I'd love to see him do well - he scares the shit out of me though when makes gaffes like that. He's constantly apologizing, backtracking and clarifying. The pukes are wetting themselves with excitement. WAKE UP !

[last1standing]

20. I disagree.

I think Dean understands the south better than most of the southerners running. Most people north and south don't care if a candidate makes a verbal gaffe. If they did, bush* would be sweeping streets instead of blowing them up. I also think the carpetbagger claim is rather specious. It doesn't ring true when you consider how well Dean does in southern polling (despite your problem with them). Dean is running hard on issues most southerners agree with and he's doing in a way that gets their attention. No one else can say that.

As for waking up, I think it's your nightmare, not ours.

[SayitAintSo]

21. Bull hockey ... not better than a southerner, I guarantee you.

#1) If Dean understood the south he wouldn't have made the confederate flag gaffe, because we would innately understand that in the south , gaffes DO matter because:

#2) Bad manners and being RUDE is second only to treason in the south - a southerner knows this instinctively, like he knows the alphabet, which brings me to:

#3) My "rather specious" comment about Dean being seen as a "damn Yankee carpetbagger", well darlin' that's because he's seen as, ready, < RUDE >, as well as a know-it-all in his demeanor. If he understood the south, (which again he obviously DOESN'T), he would know how to play to the south, again, he doesn't. We do like our men tough (wimpy northeastern liberal elitist types don't get it down here), that's a fact, but momma sho' don't like ugly - we can't stand them rude either, rude is a cardinal sin. And now to my next point...

#4) As for polls - we are thirty % undecided down here, in the south - it was just on CNN - Dean shouldn't be counting any southern chickens right now - it's a little premature I would say.

Sayitaintso

[last1standing]

22. If rude people and gaffes don't work in the south...

How do you explain bush*? That rude, smirking bastard did pretty well down there last time and he's made so many gaffes there are books about them.

Can I ask what part of the south you're from? Maybe that would explain our different opinions.

[arewethereyet]

29. am I going to have to put the hose on you two ?

I have to agree with the southerner although on a different tack.

Gaffes are not necessarily bad, the SORTS of gaffes can be. The flag thing was terrible to some, good to others.

More at issue are the flip flops and, how can I say this delicately, mis-truths. Arrogance does not play well down here either.

[SayitAintSo]

53. Agreed ... Good point .

No hose needed :)

[SayitAintSo]

52. I explain it like this ... Was it Clinton that said... Dems fall in love..

Republicans fall in line ..... That's the only way I can understand it or explain it. People aren't stupid here. I continually quiz my republican friends and family about how they don't wince and cringe every time Bush opens his mouth (like I do). They automatically excuse it - they go to extraordinary lengths to excuse, down play, poo poo any criticism etc. They fall in line. They have a binary view of politics. Bush has gotten an INCREDIBLE pass as a result. I think books will be written about this some day (as I shake my head).

We Dems however are different. We see things and live in a world of more nuance, complexity and shades of grey and will more readily, honestly admit our doubts and shortcomings. That strength is also our weakness.

I am from South Carolina, home of great southern barbecue and the best of tawdry politics, the home of Lee Atwater, KKKarl Roves mentor ...

And by the way - I apologize if my last post seemed rude ... mother taught me better :).

[last1standing]

56. It didn't seem rude at all.

My family is from southern Kentucky and northern Tennesee and was just wondering what part of the south you were from. Maybe we have a different idea of what is needed and wanted. Having seen the devastating poverty in these areas, I want very much to see them vote their true interests. It galls me to hear a poor man talking about voting repub with a welfare check in his hand.

I agree with you about the difference between repubs and Democrats. It really is like trying to herd cats to bring us together.

[SayitAintSo]

65. I am with you on concern for people not voting their true interests

I have an acronym I use to explain republicans - RDR <republicans don't read>. They are obviously marginalized by their party in so many ways, but continue to vote and support it so blindly. It just is mind numbingly unbelievable. I continue to try to educate my family and friends on the empirical data ( articles, voting records, etc.) of what the Republican agenda has literally done for them in areas such as: workers rights, Medicare, corporate, environment, welfare...etc.etc.... They don't care - they take a partisan, oppositional viewpoint and that's it.

My thinking, (and this is where I thought the original post was going when I started reading it), is that the democratic party MUST undertake a vast coordinated, multi-media, nation-wide educational effort to educating the electorate on the fundamental differences between the parties. An example - like PSAs (public service announcements) are done. Teach people a little bit of history in the process. It's incredible how our young people don't even know their history. Just Ask 5 teenagers or young adults - when blacks got the vote - you'll be stunned. And they in turn will be when you give them the real answer.

This is what I believe needs to happen - and it doesn't get done in an election cycle.

[last1standing]

67. That is where my original post was going.

We need to work on this for many years to come, not just during the GE.

I think we need to start now, by talking the same issues in the south as in the north about our economy, this failed war, and terrorism. Let's stop pandering for a few votes and begin asking what the South wants to join our party. They're not going to ask for slaves or AK47s as so many here seem to think. They'll ask that we include them when talking about jobs as unemployment hits the south hardest. They'll ask that we keep our promises when we talk about healthcare for their veterans and children. They'll ask that we accord them the same respect as intellegent human beings we accord ourselves. These are easy things to give, since we're offering them anyway. Maybe they just want to be asked back to the party.

Of course, in the meantime, we need to get someone out there with the energy and passion to sway as many voters in the north and south as possible.

[TexasPatriot]

32. hold on - dumping the south into a bucket for a sec

i remember Clayton Williams... the man was a walking gaffe - and people were more than willing to support him (until he was rude to Ann Richards). Molly Ivins had some great material on that issue. So in essence - i agree that Rude is a huge turn off. But - gaffes are NOT something that southerners necessarily care much about. If they know what you mean, or what you think you mean by something - then thats good enough for them.

the argument that gaffes are acceptable... heh. well, southerners are a lot more forgiving of someone they already trust making a gaffe. Problem is, if you start off making mistakes, you're not going to gain their trust - and then they just stop listening. That's not just politics either - you have no idea how many yale businessmen i've seen come into austin with some grand idea and a powerpoint presentation and, good idea or no, because there's no trust they might as well be talking to a wall.

Southerners have to trust you before they'll pay you any attention - and you dont get trust when your opponent can string together a strong flip-flop argument, because the next logical inference is that you're pandering. Oddly enough, what people from other regions dont understand is that we do this to our own as well. True insurgency just isnt normal down here - its about longterm personal relationships long before politics. We dont discriminate. Go back and read Zell Miller's daily show transcript - when he talks about how its about families and relationships long before political parties.


Now I dont think Dean has been rude to the south. Note how Edwards and Clark have (for the most part) stayed above the infighting - that internal squabbling is brash in a sense - but it isnt deadly so.
As for understanding the south however, i dont think Dean has a good grasp of it - and i think SayIt is probably right to point to the Cflag gaffe. It's sort of like marketing for a website... you can get people to look at it once - but if they dont like it it's hell to get them to look at it a second time. Dean turned off a lot of potential in that episode - and it's going to cost him a lot of personal elbow grease to get it back. Considering how hardfought the battleground states will be in the upcoming GE - I doubt he'd spend the energy, and end up just writing it off. That's why i go back to the original intent of the thread - that re-engaging the south is critical to the health of the party. We are NOT "racist, homophobic, and stupid" as some would assert - and if the south is abandoned we will lose this election, cloture control of the senate, and some very scary consequences.

[arewethereyet]

34. sage words from the Great State of Texas

And boy oh boy you hit it on the head with the point about requiring trust before anything else. I'll have to say that General Clark's vascillations will not help him much in this area.

Edwards has been on track from day one and this will make its worth apparant when things swing down there.

[last1standing]

36. If you're right, I think we're in big trouble.

Because there is no Democratic candidate, including Edwards or Clark, who is going to take the South this election. The best we can hope for are a couple of pickups with maybe WV, VA, LA, MO, and FL. After that, we need to work on every swing state possible to pull the electoral numbers.

After this election, we need to work very hard on changing the antagonism between north and south that has gone on since the founding of this country.

Just to reiterate, I do not want to brush off the south, I want to bring them in as equal players in our party. I just don't think there's much chance of success this election.

[arewethereyet]

41. it was a huge mistake to walk away from the south

and they will take much convincing to overcome this.

Conceed nothing for you will surely need the very thing you give away at some point.

[last1standing]

42. You're right.

And it's going to take years to regain our position there, not months. Personally, I respect the way Dean is taking the issues to the south and didn't just pander to percieved notions of race and religion. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but from what I've read, seen and heard, many were impressed.

[arewethereyet]

43. oh I almost forgot

his deciding to break with keeping the personal side of Dr Dean under wraps and start talking religeon as he crosses the Mason Dixon line will not sit well with our more religeous folks. Christianity is not a regional thing. He should have stayed the course on that one.

[TexasPatriot]

44. taking on both of these posts

if you walk away from the south - the Bush gets to focus 200m+ on battleground states - and we'll be lucky to take the NE and Cali.

Edwards gets trust from being from the south - so he gets a pass. It's one of the reasons he can come into austin and pick up all those big campaign contributions (he isnt getting money from Mainers with an interest in Hydro Quebec). I think Edwards is still the darkhorse in this race - but when Clark entered and walked from Iowa, it forced him to stay in and throw deep, and Iowa has turned into a money pit. Not his fault, but I think it'll kill his ability to survive losing SC.

Clark has a pass in the south that is the one other thing a lot of people dont understand. Southerners LOVE the military. If General Clark were a socialist there'd be people in Mississippi who'd vote for him anyway. There's instant trust in it - and once he got past the first wobbles of the campaign he's been strong, on message, without any real miscues of any note (thats one of the reasons he's not in the news all the damned time, whether the Clark supporters like that answer or not).

Most of the states you list are in play if Clark is the candidate. The issue of repairing the damage internal to the party is odd - because it's a result of Clinton. Strangely enough, the SOB never had the chance to do a lot more than damage control in 8 years in office. The pubs held on, tooth and nail, and with guys like Greenspan keeping the screws to him - and the fact that he didnt win with half the vote, he never had a mandate to make anything really truly 'democratic' stand up. Maybe Americorps... not a lot else. Dont get me wrong - he was a great president - but he never got enough political capital to be able to do the good things.

If we want the ability to do that, we need more than just the presidency. We need 12-2-1, and that's going to be a bitch with Texas redistricting in play regardless of the circumstances in the fall. The only way I see of doing that is by bringing a candidate that people who are moderately disposed towards Bush dont hate - and thus there is an element of voter suppression. If there are pubs who feel comfortable enough with the dem candidate that they'll sit it out in protest, we could pick up a LOT downballot - especially in the south.

[last1standing]

49. If that's the case, then how do you explain the last thirty years?

That's how long it's been since a Democrat has won the south, if not longer. In that time we've had plenty of southern candidates in both places on the ticket with little result. Why didn't southerners trust Carter, Bentsen, Clinton or Gore, and what would make them trust Edwards?

And thanks for some good info and good opinion. This is what DU was set up for.

[TexasPatriot]

63. heh

yeah, ive had a few of these over on P/C - in fact a discussion in a very similar vein that covers some of this - but i never see this sort of discourse here in our collective gd loonybin though ;) Used to have some great discussions on the leadershipforchange site before clark announced.

but to answer the issue at hand
The south used to vote dem out of family/habit/allegiance - whatever you want to call it. That all started shifting when the south started to become the 'sunbelt'. See, i live in rural texas - and believe it or not there are still all those same old loyal dyed in the wool democrats out here. A lot of them vote dem because our friends are democrats, and they think like we do, and so we vote for our friends.

When suburbia started happening - that's when the south went bad. All those little houses in places like north dallas, or north houston, or north austin (why its north i dont know). I lived in north dallas when the dem/pub change was happening - with all the old dems from places like McKinney and Frisco, and the sudden influx of those young more-for-me 70s republicans into places like Richardson and Plano. The dems controlled every office in the county - and suddenly all these new people had moved in (new people they didnt know, who didnt have the same allegiance to kith and kin) - and so the new folks threw out the old. These are the real republican bastions in the south - suburbia. The dems can do well with segments, Clinton with soccer moms for example, but they're pretty much an impossible nut to crack. There's a lot of echo-chamber outgrouping and greed in these places.

The real shift happened in texas in the mid 70s... the Reagan democrats were a symptom - the shift happened when Hill was upset by Clements in 78. By then - Texas had become a state in play.

So that takes us back to what factors happened pre-78 to bring this about. First off - vietnam was bad. The south was very pro-war, and the 68 convention woke a lot of dems up. The civil rights issues were bad too - and a lot of the heroic politicians that lead a lot of change in the south were at this point very democrat. Then you had the big oil crisis - and the economic nightmare that was the mid 70s. There was a LOT of pressure for some sort of change. I know this isnt unique to the south, but this is how it played here.

Now there have been some very good writers who can chime in on the idea of what influence the creation of the pub thinktanks in the late 60s early 70s had - but i think it was fairly pronounced. By creating a pro-military pro-god face for the pubs in the south, they created the seeds for change. As people grew up, they started moving into these suburban areas. When the pubs took the sunbelt city councils etc - they handed fat tax abatements to corporate america to move from the NE and Midwest down south - thus securing large corporate powerbases. At the same time, they had all the advantages of whiteflight. It wasnt a conspiracy - i dont think it was even planned - but it worked out really well. Most of the middle class in the south ended up in suburban centers - where it was made more and more in their interests to back pub interests, and outgroup urban centers.

Carter vs Reagan - well, by then there were issues. There were pubs in positions of power in the south for the first time since reconstruction and that helped, but by and large Reagan had both the economy and the iran situation to run on.
Lloyd Bentsen was a badass - and we loved him, but he was running against Bush in 88 after Reagan. Clinton ran against both Bush and Perot (and Perot did terrible things to Bush in Texas), and Gore - well, Gore is a special case. I'll get into that if you want.

The gist is - we have a LOT of support in the south still, but the pubs have spent a long time reinforcing the idea that government is bad, does nothing good for you, and just takes your money. When Clark's first plank was his Americorps variant - I think it was a masterstroke. Here's a positive make the country better program, volunteer based (wont cost you money) that lets everyone work together (reinforces family-clan). If we want to re-engage the south - the first step has to be to put a Dem into the WH whom they trust a little, and then grow that trust through action. I firmly believe Clark is the most capable at making that happen - which is why i support him so much. Edwards has a lot of the same sorts of positives in that he's one of the clan - but because he doesnt have the inherent trust the Presidential Medal of Freedom imparts, he doesnt have quite the ability to teflon himself. He'll have to fight a lot harder (its why i think he's 12 years early).

[last1standing]

66. Thanks for the info.

But in my mind there are still a few problems with this.

#1. While you do a great job explaining recent Texas politics, that doesn't necessarily extend to the rest of the south.

#2. What about Clinton in 1996 when bush I wasn't a factor and Perot much less so than in 1992?

#3. Jimmy Carter and Al Gore were both military figures from the south running against opponents with no honorable service to speak of, yet both lost every state in the south in 1980 and 2000. Why will Clark fare better?

#4. As far as you've stated, nothing has changed in those repub suburbs. What makes them ripe for Clark?

I agree with you on the thinktanks. If Dems had done that we would have gotten the south back by now.

[TexasPatriot]

71. ok

for number 1, a lot of what i talk about in texas goes for a lot of the southern urban growth centers - like Atlanta. The math changes a lot when you get into the Mississippi's of the world - and those are tough nuts at this point - and that's where the idea that the south can be lumped into a bucket breaks down. Reston has almost NOTHING to do with what Reston looked like in 78. Florida has undergone massive demographic changes in the same period. We really have to get into a lot of little specifics to make the conversation valuable.

96 was interesting - again he won without a mandate and couldnt effect the sort of change that would have made the dem core happy. In a way, i blame them for not voting for him. Remember, Clinton faced a pub congress, he had to live in conflict every day. Honestly, by 96 - there were some in the dem party that thought things were sittin pretty, and with unions on the decline they thought they could carve out a party right in the middle and marginalize the pubs. Might have worked... but, well, then we got the mess.

Carter in 80... man, i dont know if FDR could have won against Reagan in 80. That one was just going to be ugly.

Gore. The Gore campaign screwed up, and only Gore's running back into key states and the end and breaking ranks with some of his advisors and almost pulled it off (or pulled it off depending on which SCOTUS opinion you read). The pub core was already energized, and Gore ran a centrist campaign that didnt get the dem core excited to vote for him. They stayed home. Even then as things got close down to the wire, enough made a protest vote by not voting, or voting for nader, that he was quashed. He should have run left rather than center. I said it then - (at the time, my online screaming confined to the f*#&edcompany boards - which were remarkably political) - but it didnt matter. Today we see the obverse - our base is enraged already. There are already so many people that hate * the SOB, you're not going to convert any more. Gore had the best economy in the century to run on - and he ran a bland 'i agree with him' campaign (excepting for the few exasperated debate sighs that he caught so much crap for). Like i said - Gore's problem was simply that there were more angry anti-clinton pubs in the south than his meager turnout could offset. We enrage the pubs who are currently somewhat lulled at our peril.

4 - suburbs. The issue is that the suburbs are rife with fear. 9-11 scared the crap out of em - which is why they voted in droves for pubs when Bush in the offyear congressional election played the fear card. Clark represents a candidate they will feel a lot more comfortable with - so whereas they may not vote FOR him, they wont necessarily get up and vote against him. Clark has a positive campaign, he's running with crossover appeal without the anger. There's no energy to excite the pubs against him - and in the non-suburbs he'll bring people to the polls others will have trouble exciting. There's a big dem GOTV advantage and pub GOTV disadvantage when you play Clark.

[last1standing]

78. Basically, you think the South can be much more in play than I do.

You think that there have been specific reasons the South has gone repub versus a trend that has been egged on by a change in policies by each camp. While I can agree with you to some extent on that, I think the majority of it has been the change in policy and not specific events.

This election has come down to Dean and Clark and I think the South will decide the outcome of the primaries. If Clark wins the southern primaries, the north will follow. Same for Dean. Either way, I don't think the South will vote Dem this time with the possible exception of WV, VA, LA, AR, and FL. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am. I think it's much more important this time to work on a message of inclusion, not just slap a southerner on top of the bill.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention tonight. You do make some persuasive arguments.

[Scott Lee]

37. Dean is winning the South - more than Clark by 3:1

[arewethereyet]

23. by and large you're right on the money but Edwards is the answer

not Dean or Clark.

Takes one to know one and Edwards is one of us and he was speaking about your points months ago.

But make no mistake, we are not abated by having a southern VP.

[last1standing]

24. I don't think having a southerner on the ticket is necessary.

I think we just need someone who can speak to the South with passion and energy. Edwards just hasn't had that. I hope he runs again in 2012, though.

[arewethereyet]

26. I hear what you're saying

but you also have to speak to their concerns. Neither Dean nor Clark do that. Dean's platform is particularly contrary to what we want.

[last1standing]

28. I thought Dean was running with a good platform for the South.

What is he saying that's contrary to southern voters?

[arewethereyet]

30. where do I start...

anti-war, repeal of the tax break for the non-zillionaires and his thoughts on trade. His pitch toward being minority friendly will be viewed sceptically as well.

That should do for starters.

Contrast that to Edwards and I think you'll see a stark difference.

And lets face it, who can resist that accent and the charm it conveys ?

[last1standing]

33. You don't think southerners see the merit in those things?

I don't see how these would be bad things in the south if someone with a spine stood up and made his case.

As for Edwards, he just didn't take off this round. I think it's too late for him.

[arewethereyet]

35. Well I believe you'll be surprized regarding Edwards

And we'll need to agree to disagree on the other matter.

[last1standing]

40. We don't disagree on his quality.

Just whether he has the opportunity to turn things around. I think we have had several top quality candidates this cycle. Dean just happens to be my favorite.

[burning bush]

27. Only A White Southerner Can Win The South

Because Southerners are segregationist by nature, clanish, isolationist, and racist.

Right?


Bullshit, baby.

Dean is the ONLY candidate that can take the south from the Repukes, because he is the only candidate that is operating from the position that the south has been betrayed by the Republican agenda.

Other Dems mouth their agreement, or take a stand on their own southern roots, but only Dean has shown the nerve required to fight for the south without fear of losing or offending, and the insight to know HOW to fight for the southern vote.

Dean will do well in the south, because southerners are not as stupid as many Dems seem to believe.

[arewethereyet]

31. you make him sound like US Grant

he was not well recieved down here.

[TexasPatriot]

45. heh

generally, when you start telling southerners that you know whats good for em, they're going to go back to watching football. You'll get 40% of the vote, but a longhorn with a D next to it will get 35% (cept in College Station).

[windansea]

48. the Starbuck's doctrine

a sure winner in the south

[SayitAintSo]

57. Dean has been fearless and bold I agree...

And I think you are right that Dean is the only candidate communicating with the kind of passion and strength that is necessary to play well here in the south. I just seriously doubt that he can take the south with his entire approach, demeanor and stated positions. One key problem is the Dem south is very conservative, pro military. While I see Dean as really more moderate based on his record - he is seen as one of the most liberal and his anti war position will not play well here with the Dem base. That's problematic.

I applaud Dean though for his message that the Dem's have been betrayed by the Republican agenda. Getting that across however will take more that one election cycle.

[last1standing]

61. But how can Edwards take the south?

If I really thought he could do it, I'd back him in an instant if only to ensure the Democratic win we so desperately need. But based on his campaign so far and the history of the south, I don't see it.

Care to influence me?

[SayitAintSo]

68. My thinking is that Clark is the better bet, but I am impressed by Edwards

Edwards is incredible in his ability to connect with people on the stump. I have seen him numerous times in person and continue to be impressed, He also has the fire and the passion, although you haven't seen it on TV like Dean. His IWR vote hasn't' hurt him like Kerry, oddly and would probably help him here in the south. He is really speaking to labor down here. He has opened 2 offices in SC - one in Columbia and one in Florence. He is serious about the SC vote. I think Edwards truly has "IT" - I just fear the timing is not good for him.

Clark while not as dynamic a speaker and engaging as Edwards, I think he has it over Edwards because of the military experience. I feel that Clark can get a lot of the vet vote here in SC if he plays it right, I think he is the ONLY one that can sweep the vet vote. We have the highest % of vets in our voter base. It's a big contingency. Early on, when Kerry was hot, he had many of the vets pledged to him - his former gunner in Nam is from SC and was organizing for him. The word is that the vet vote is not going to Bush this time. He fooled 'em last time when they threw their support to him over McCain in the famous SC dirty, ugly, nasty Rovian primary battle. And in Bush's own words ... Fool me once, fool me twice ... I can't get fooled again ... I think he's lost the vet vote. The question is how many vote Dem Vs. sit out in the general. I think Clark is the key here.

So that's my take - Either Clark or Edwards I think has a much better chance that Dean here.

[floridaguy]

47. Clark's charm and military background play well in the South

Dean's arrogance and condescending comments don't.

[arewethereyet]

50. if the story about fudged Kosovo reports gets going, nope

that give creedence to the Shelton comments and thats the kiss of death to military people

[last1standing]

51. Can you back that up with some fact?

Or at least a more reasoned opinion? I'm not flaming, I just want to know if there's more to your statement than you're own feelings.

[arewethereyet]

55. fair

Not sure I can find the link but it should be findable. there was a Newsweek story sometime in the last week that Clark fudged strike rate figures rather massively to make it seem that the all airplane war was working.

Shelton, ex chairman of the joint chiefs had intimated that Clark had integrity issues some months ago.

Military people are all about integrity, its a big part of the program. If you show that a general has issues in this regard, well thats trouble. Ask one if you don't believe me. I've never seen a military man who did not place great stock in honor and intregrity. Well the guys who lost their way after VietNam are exceptions sometimes but surprizingly many of them feel the same way.

Not sure if this answers your question.

[last1standing]

59. I was replying to post #47, but I would like to know more about this.

I doubt it's true, but if it is, that would hurt Clark considerably. That's a shame as I see him as our second best choice.

[arewethereyet]

69. I also wait for more on this as its dynamite

from what I read it seems to be documented but I guess time will tell.

It can't be totally thrown out as impossible as there were similar things done in Viet Nam to make it seem more positive and as General Clark was over there, he would know how to play that game.

if it comes back around then we shall see.

if the media is REALLY all right wing, it might not come back around till Clark is the nominee and then it is a more decisive stake in the heart.

[TexasPatriot]

64. i just dont buy the shelton stuff

Cohen's a republican... i read his comments on Clark long post this episode - and they're glowing... i heard the story about Clinton swearing he was snookered... It's just political crap - and ultimately if Clark were the nominee and Clinton were to say, as he pretty much did in the message to the Hague, that Shelton is a liar, I dont think I'd worry too much.

[arewethereyet]

70. my military contacts seem to feel otherwise

and as they are 'connected' I tend to listen to them.

time will tell...

[TexasPatriot]

72. here's the link

http://www.counterpunch.org/genclark.html

i know a lot of that crap has been debunked (repeatedly in different locations), and since we're dealing with Counterpunch (the guys that have in the past asserted that Clark is a war criminal) I find it relatively silly but I imagine someone's going to have to do a line by line teardown before it's put to bed. I'll see if anyone's bored in Little Rock.

[Turkw]

54. Not only must we fight, we must hit the professional liars who echo

The right-wing propaganda. Hit them hard, anything to shut them up, keep them on the defensive. Then our candadite (when I say our candidate, I mean who ever gets voted our candidate) can talk about issues and frame the debate.

[BobbyJay]

60. Only with Sam Nunn

lol jk

[TexasPatriot]

73. kicking

just cause i see last1 on and wanted to be sure he found my response :)

[last1standing]

74. This is from a few days ago and my memory isn't that good.

Which response did you want me to see?

[TexasPatriot]

75. 71

[Clark4VotingRights]

76. Gene Lyons, author of "The Hunting of the President" doesn't think so.

GENE LYONS: "I think that in practical terms Clark puts several Southern states back in play. Right now, Bush would be very hard-put to win any of the states that Gore won in the last election. So if you can take away from Bush, or at least strongly compete in Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, possibly Georgia, Florida, with all of its military people, you all of a sudden take from Bush this air of invincibility and fundamentally change the electoral map. When you look at it like that you have to ask, how in the world is Bush going to win this election? Where are his electoral votes going to come from?

BUZZFLASH: There's this perception among progressives and Democrats that because the Bush administration is so right wing, and effectively all three branches of government are in the control of the Republican Party, that we're underdogs. But people forget that Gore won the election by a half-million votes...As you've pointed out, if the Democratic candidate wins every state that Gore won, all the Democrats have to do is just pick off one more, whether it's Arkansas or West Virginia, and the Democrats take the White House.

GENE LYONS: Well, I've been reminding people of that all along. But I also think Clark does more than that. My subjective view was that culturally there was no way that Dean, for example, could win in the South -- he would be a complete non-starter. Dean has a terrific line about this. He says he'd tell the pickup driving set (a group that would include me, for what it's worth) that they've been voting Republican for 30 years, and ask them "What have you got to show for it?" Great line, but would they ever hear it at all coming from a Vermont Yankee? I've got my doubts. And that would allow the Republicans to spend a lot more money in places like Missouri and Pennsylvania and Michigan that are states that are very competitive. And it would make it extremely difficult for Dean to win in that he'd have to run the table in all the other states and pick up one more state somewhere.
...
I think Clark would bring back a lot of military people. I think there's great disquiet among people of the old-fashioned style of patriotism right now, and it's looking for a place to go. And I think there's a very good chance it would go to Clark. I think that he would have a strong chance to unite that which has been divided."

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

[last1standing]

77. I appreciate his opinion.

But I think mine stands as well.

[Clark4VotingRights]

79. Oh, sorry. I thought you were inviting input.

My bad. It was just a speech.

[last1standing]

80. I was inviting input.

But I'd prefer you're to Gene Lyons. Sorry if I came off harshly.