The South: Lost Cause

[placton]

I think the Democratic Party, nationally, needs to write off most of the South as a lost cause. When Al Gore can't carry Tennessee, we need to look to other areas to win. Florida is no longer really part of the South, and can be in play. But Arkansas, Texas, the Carolinas, Tennessee, Virginia, Mississippi (always fun to spell), Georgia, and Alabama are simply benighted areas with majority moron-American populations. I'll concede that Louisiana & Missouri may be a possible Dem wins from time to time.

The problem is that we are told (by, for example, the DLC and Lieberman) that we must appeal to these voters. Why? Zell Miller Democrats? Voters that expel a triple amputee who lost limbs in the war to a "more patriotic" chickenhawk.

Meanwhile, the base is going, going, gone. This is one are where Bush is right: he appeals to his base and they turn out: look at 2002!

Of course, we can try to be competitive there. Breax & Landrieu in LA should be supported, even though they are far to the right of where most of us are, because Congress is important too. But those 2 won in spite of being Dems, not because of it.

[poskonig]

1. I see your point.

We can win without carrying a single Confederate state. However, I'm not so convinced we cannot put any of them in play.

[rusk2003]

105. Southern Democrats

I have noticed one thing about Southern Democrats they seem to be more conservitive and tilt to the right and vote along with republican on many isues. Iam sure a few might just the Republicans pretending to be democrats. How Clinton and Carter wone Southern Sates I don't know I suppose it was becasue they were a genuis and from the South.

[FreeperSlayer]

2. Joe Lieberman, you are a disgrace.

Please resign. You speak only for Repugs now.

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. Don't Blame the Volunteer State

Blame Al Gore. If you fail to carry your own home state, it is YOUR fault, not the fault of the voters. He violated one of the ultimate maxims of presidential politics.

[placton]

9. and under what circumstances

will Tennesse vote for a Democratic presidential candidate in the future? Not likely for decades, imho.

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Again

That may be true, but if you don't vote for the favored son, he ain't that favored and that is his fault.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

17. The same Circumstances

as voting for a Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate.

[SharonAnn]

75. Well, we elected a Democratic governor in Tennessee

last fall. It's a start!

And, BTW, he's doing a great, great job and has engendered from many who weren't initial supporters.

[Lurking Dem]

31. Muddle -

Yet in the last election, Tennessee voted in a Democratic Governor. Momentum is on our side and, frankly, if African Americans in TN had been allowed to vote, Gore would have carried the state.

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. TN

If Gore hadn't been anti-gun, Tennessee would have voted for him.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

41. To be honest

And I am as pro-gun as anyone else.

The biggest thing was that alot of people (especially the rural yellow dog's) felt a disconnect with him. The gun issue was simply one factor in that disconnect.

[GumboYaYa]

4. I could not disagree more.

The South is solidly Democratic if you get the minority vote to the polls. The Dems need to stop paying lip service to African Americans and offer some real initiatives to this disaffected part of the Southern electorate. Get the African Americam minsiters and churches behind the Dems solidly and we can sweep the South.

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. Churches

You must not be reading the Catholic Church threads. The folks in that one think the Catholic Church should lose its tax exempt status for being political.

Of course, based on that, there isn't a black church in the U.S. that would remain tax exempt, but they politely ignore that reality to bash the pope.

[placton]

8. I think we actually agree to some extent

What the DLC wants to do is offer NOTHING to African American voters as part of their "strategy" to carry Southern states. The perceive white voters there to be racist rednecks - which they mostly are.

So, the current strategy is to appeal to those folks - and we will always lose. If we do appeal to the base (which includes African Americans) we will have more chance to win even in the land of the Stars and Bars. But that is NOT a "Southern" but a "national" strategy that does write off the South.

[GumboYaYa]

20. Okay, we do agree.

I am all for a national DEMOCRATRIC strategy that appeals to the base. That is why we should not vote for candidates that are "approved" by the DLC.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. African Americans Represent 14% of The Population

in Florida. They made up 16% of the electorate in FL in the 00 election and it was still close enough to steal.

We need to reach beyond our base....

[GumboYaYa]

37. With a thousand more African American voters

we win FL and the presidency. Mary Landrieu won LA in 2002 by appealing to the African American church leaders who turned out the vote.

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. Your statistics forget that African Americans tend to block vote. If you get the support of the ministers you can have a much higher turnout in the African American community that other blocks of voters. African American ministers have lost the fire for the Democrats b/c they have been burned so many times. We need to go back to basics to get the party on the right track.

If appealing to new voters means becoming the not so racist arm of the Republican party, we will lose the South time and time again.

Mary Landrieu showed us how to do it. It worked in 2002 and it will work in 2004.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. I Agree About mobilizing our base but

I have demonstated that we had an extraordinary African American turn out and it was still close enough to steal. Blacks make up 14% of the FL population but they made up 16% of the vote.

I love Mary Landrieu. She wins cuz she talks to Southerners in a language they can embrace. And she's not a DINO as some on this thread claim.

[donco6]

88. Incentives? Such as?

Honestly, I'm curious what could be offered.

[Yavin4]

5. I Agree

By writing off the South and concentrating on the Pacific West Coast, Northeast, and Midwest, we can develop a stronger, clearer message. Also, I think that we can make head way in other Western states like AZ, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado.

We can't win the South.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

19. but we also cannot turn our back

we must appear inclusive and wellcoming to all- whether that pans out or not.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[placton]

11. Florida v Georgia

Florida is full of folks who are or were liberal. It voted for the Democratic prez nominee the last 3 elections. Unlike Georgia. Yeah there are thousands of decent white folks in the South - but many thousands more lunkheads. Sorry if I offended. But, we must be realistic. The South is full of racists who currently elect other racists, for the most part. Sorry, but that's how it is.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. The world is full of racists

The north as well as the south. The east as well as the west. Your comment is a stereotype. As an African-American male living in rural Virginia, I say you are wrong.

[placton]

15. My favorite quote about differences in racism

between North and South:
"In the South, whites hate blacks as a group, but like individuals. Up North, whites like blacks as a group, but hate individuals. Effect: the same."

[zoidberg]

32. The one I like the best...

In the South, white people don't care how close black people get as long as they aren't high. In the North, it's the opposite.

[alaine]

33. Another one I have heard:

"In the South, they don't care how close a black man gets, as long as he doesn't get too big (successful), and in the north, they don't care how big a black man gets, as long as he doesn't get too close."

I found it really interesting when I moved to Greenville, SC for a few years and became friends with a bunch of expatriate New Yorkers. They marveled at the fact that whites and blacks lived in the same neighborhoods and apartment complexes as white people, they said "you don't see that up north." (?) I've never lived up there so I don't know how true it is, but I assume they would not lie to me. As far as the quote goes, I've heard it from two different black people. I've never heard it from a white person, probably because you'd have had to have lived both places and be black, to know.

[TNDemo]

13. Are you going to write off all the midwest states?

They voted red too.

[northernsoul]

21. don't write anybody off just yet

We need to allocate resources effectively, sure, but it's a bit early to start picking entire regions of the country that we're just going to somehow amputate from the campaign.
The bad news for 2004 is that we're going to have to fight to defend states that used to be a "lock" for the Dems, like my own beloved Minnesota - which I'm afraid is now going to be a tossup.

[Classical_Liberal]

87. In the blue, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois

Are those not midwestern states?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Bush I Carried FL in 92

we won FL in 00 but it was disputed.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. I Have To Laugh

The person who started this thread said "Florida is no longer really part of the south"

He is implying that Florida is more like a northern state in voting patterns. It has voted Democrat at the national lebel once in the last twenty years. It has a Republican governor and filibuster proof Republican majorities in the state house and senate. The congessional delegation is two thirds Republican. This is only mitigated by the fact that both senators are Democrats. And any one who knows Florida politics knows Bill Nelson and Bob Graham are two of Florida's best politicians to navigate Florida's Republican leaning political tides.

Also, I would like to see a winning strategy for a Dem without the South and Border States. It's the Electoral College equivalent of the royal straight flush.

Don't hate the playa....

Hate the game....

[placton]

73. Yeah, FL is more like a northern state!

Look at MI, WI and MN. It's hard, but not impossible to elect Dems. Too many Republicans there - but they can be swing states on a national election.

[MattNC]

18. ditto n/t

[NewYorkerfromMass]

23. You are right. Gore proved it.

New Hampshire was the difference.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. There Was A Census in 2000

Add NH to the Democratic tally and we still lose.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

40. Add AZ too.

we're winnig that state. Napolitano's gonna help us do it too.

[Atlant]

55. And in 2000, Gore+Green beat Bush in NH.

And in NH in 2000, the Gore vote plus the Green vote would have well
over-topped the Bush vote.

Atlant

[jenk]

65. NH is always a little too conservative for comfort, but it will go dem

in 04

but it will be close, be prepared to fight for it

[alaine]

24. Screw you.

Hate to be crass and rude, but who is this "we" and "these voters". This is the internet, why do you assume that you are speaking to people north and west of the mason-dixon line. One enormous problem with the democratic party's appeal is its talent for alienating the working class because of it's intellectual elitism.

"Majority moron population"? This is definitely up there on my list of moronic statements I've seen here.

Your problem in the South is, well, the attitude that you've expressed in this post. Is it any wonder alot of Southerners don't vote for a party they feel alienated by?

The South... well, I'll never forget for the life of me the day after (I can't even remember which year it was, early nineties) Harvey Gant had just lost the Senate seat yet to Jesse Helms, and I was driving down I-240 east toward Black Mountain, NC, in my little beat up rusted out Toyota (79 corolla) with my long-haired hippie boyfriend and a "Stop clear-cutting, Defeat Helms" sticker on my back bumper. I heard a commotion and turned to look back to my left, and as I did a brown Saab came speeding up beside of me full of guys in suits and ties. In unison all but the driver rolled their windows down and swung out and sat on the tops of the doors and started whooping and yelling and pumping their fists, yelling "Jesse! Jesse! Jesse!" all the way down the interstate.

They were probably attorneys or something, clean and well educated in a shiny expensive car. The kind of people you'd never call "southerners" or the more to the point "hicks" or hillbillies"; instead, you might say they are "from the south" or
whatever, but it is these folks, the ones with money and power and influence, that keep the repukes in office in the south, here as everywhere.

There has been a huge migration South by northerners and Westerners in the last ten years, so if the democratic party is stupid enough to abandon the south and alienate southerners it will do so at it's peril

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. I'd Like Another Poster To Do The Math

but if you write off the South and Border States how the Hell will the Dems ever regain control of the Senate and House.

[alaine]

46. It's sad that so many in our party would rather keep

their intellectual snobbery and lose, than abandon it and have a chance of regaining control of congress.

John Edwards said that members of the democratic party need to stop viewing rural and suburban areas as places they fly over in between New York and L.A..

[Ripley]

29. Well said alaine.

If the Democratic Party had a brain, they would be taking advantage of the dire straits southerners are in and exploit that. The farmers are struggling, the textile industry is collapsing, their schools are crumbling trailers without a/c and they could very well be persuaded that Bush is to blame for their hardships. They aren't all stupid republican clones....no, they like many Americans have just DROPPED OUT of the process. And you don't woo them back by saying YOU ARE MORONS AND F*** YOU!

[alaine]

42. This is also a slap in the face to unions, who endorse

democrats. So sad that, with attitudes like this, republicans don't even have to defeat us, we defeat ourselves.

My own parents are leaning democratic now, except for certain issues. But the democratic party always has been the party of the working class, and if we pass up the opportunity to reach out to poor southerners now, then I guess I do fall into the "majority moron" category, not because I'm a southerner, but because I am a democrat.

[Ripley]

60. Also senior citizens.

My Dad is 72, life-long Republican, hated Clinton. He hates Junior even more. He said he'll vote for whomever the Dems run (he is in North Carolina). There are a lot of reasons seniors are disappointed, or disgusted with Junior...war-mongering, huge federal deficits, prescription drugs to name a few. There are LOTS of retired people in the south and they could be another block (they tend to have a good voter turn-out anyway) we could get, if only *sigh* they weren't called MORONS.

[Classical_Liberal]

89. The DLC reaches out to yuppy southerners, not the poor

.

[QC]

36. Excellent post!

This especially bears repeating: One enormous problem with the democratic party's appeal is its talent for alienating the working class because of it's intellectual elitism.

[alaine]

43. Thanks. I would say that this was a problem for Gore.

But being that he won, I won't.

Plus I think Georgia is a horrible example given the fact that vote fraud may have been involved.

[tedoll78]

26. Most of the South? Yes.

Florida, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Those are the three, totalling 42 electoral votes.

I propose that we seek to tie-down Gore's 260EVs early and worry about picking-off 10EVs somewhere else.

WV + NV.
NH + AR. (<---- very possible with a Dean & Clark ticket)
OH.
AZ. (<---- put Richardson on the ticket for this one)

I do think, though, that if we decide not to go after the South, we should force Bush to defend some of its costlier states. Pull him into Florida; force him to spend gads of time and money there, time and money that he'd otherwise spend attacking Blue states.

We also need effective ways to suppress the GOP vote in their geographic strongholds. Advertise about how liberal Bush has been; make the GOPers say to themselves "Why bother vote?" Boost our turnout and kill theirs: that's how we win.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. Wouldn't Be Alot Easier To Choose A Candidate

who makes Bush defend the entire map. Well, not the entire map cuz some Red States are beyond a-n-y Dem's reach. States like Texas, Indiana, Utah, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska,Nebraska, Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi, and Wyoming will never go for a Democrat.

I can think of at least two candidates in the race and one candidate who might announce who would at least make Bush defend as much of the map as possible.

Also, if you write off the Red States, Son of a Bush can spend his quarter of a billion dollars on making the Blue States competitive.

[WoodrowFan]

38. South D

I think South Dakota is winable (barely) but add Virginia to the "Goes blue when hell freezes over" list.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. We Forgot Idaho

All these small states that get an "extra" Electoral College vote are a killer.

[theboss]

28. President is not everything

By this strategy, you are laying the groundwork for permanent minority status. We would concede 1/3 of the electoral college and House and a quarter of the Senate because we don't like rednecks? God forbid we ever lose Pennsylvaia, Ohio, or Michigan.

Why don't we just give the Republicans the presidency and a Veto-proof Senate and shut down operations all together?

[carolinayellowdog]

30. The Emerging Democratic Majority includes parts of the South

The authors see AR, NC, LA, TN and VA trending Democratic. Each has seen significant Dem victories in recent years. What "we" should write off IMO is sectional bigotry which exists in far greater intensity in the Northeast than I'd have ever imagined before discovering DU. THANKS to muddleoftheroad for the perspective of an African American man in rural VA. Working in rural VA I find the race relations to be generally better than elsewhere. I'm white but am from an interracial family and my black half-siblings say the most racist place they've ever lived was Boston.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Remember The Anti-Busing Hysteria in Boston

and MLK encuntered some of the most intense racism when he headed north to integrate Chicago neighborhoods.

[Mel]

45. gee thanks a lot

from NC I really appreciate that you think we are a lost cause.

Look at it this way the corporations that move to these so called 'right to work states' where do you think people are moving too in order too work? Look at NC's textile industry we're sunk those jobs aren't coming back you think Repuke ideals are going to appeal to those voters that don't have jobs?

You can write us off if you want but your not even doing it for the right reasons if you ask me.

Look at NC's Research Triangle Park and the medical area around Duke and Chapel Hill you someone help me out on that angle.

You can't just write us off we aren't morons! We are out here fighting for our sick democracy just like you are!

Max l believe lost in Ga. because the pukes cheated! Cheated that's right see touch screen voting. Miller is leaving and it would be foolish to not run a strong Democratic candidate for his seat and I think Max should run for that seat if he will.

[alaine]

50. Say hallelujah!

The worst part of the whole thread is that it is not the south that is potentially a lost cause and to blame for the democratic party's problems, it is the democratic party itself, and the sentiments expressed by the thread author showcase the party's ignorance on just why it finds itself in this predicament.

[Sephirstein]

48. I'm not so sure...

Mississippi can't be as bad as most of us thing if they decriminalized marijuana and Arkansas has a strong enough Democratic presence if we run the right candidate (including even a couple of progressives).

And if the NRA endorses Dean (assuming he wins), who knows what'll happen to our fortunes in the mid-west or the South?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. Wayne LaPierre Has Already

ruled out a Dean endorsement. He said that Dean is a NRAINO- a guns rights candidate in name only. The NRA opposes vicarious liability for gun manufacturers which Dean supports.

And Clinton was the most anti-gun president in history and he broke the Republican lock on the South because he was culturally in tune with the region.

[Classical_Liberal]

90. clinton was a last gasp. We have lost alot of dem senators and reps

in the South since then.

[carolinayellowdog]

49. More African-American elected officials in MS and AL than...

the whole rest of the country combined. And they are DEMOCRATS, writing off whom would be a PROFOUNDLY RACIST move on the part of the party.

[Classical_Liberal]

91. The DLC writes them off, not the liberals

. Look at what they did in thet Florida governers race.

[QC]

51. Here's an even better strategy!

Condensed from various posts at DU.

Let's write off all the people who do not live in the more liberal areas of the two coasts. After all, if those people in flyover country had any sense, they wouldn't live there, right?

People in the military are professional killers. Write them off.

Religious people haven't outgrown fairy tales. Write them off.

Working class people have retrograde social attitudes, don't know what latté is, and seldom read Chomsky. The more clever at DU like to refer to them as the lumpenproletariat. Write them off.

People who own guns are attempting to compensate for their minuscule genitalia. Write them off.

Once we unburden ourselves of the Great Unwashed, we are certain to draw no more than 8 or 10% of the electorate, but we will be able to sit around and congratulate ourselves on our exemplary moral and ideological purity, and isn't that what really counts?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. lumpenproleterat (LOL)

the scattered masses,


"The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up....."


-Karl Marx

[BarbariansAtTheGate]

53. Well that'll drum up support

from the South for the Dems. Call them morons. :eyes:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. I agree. The Dems should try to pick up states elsewhere.

The south is a lost cause. Pandering to white southerners (in general) by moving to the right will accomplish nothing. Rather than waste money and make the party more republican, why not go after the states that are more likely to vote Democrat?

How about the nominee selecting a Latino VP candidate and going after AZ, NM, CO, etc? Not to mention fortifying the base in CA and elsewhere.

How about a woman as a VP nominee? Fortifies the base nationally.

How about an African American VP nominee? Fortifies and energizes the base.

I can't conceive of a strategy that could win states in the south that doesn't require an even more rightward shift of the party. And, even that would likely prove futile, not to mention antagonizing the more natural base elsewhere.

[carolinayellowdog]

58. Your avatar is ashamed

Truth and love requires acknowledging that the South has been crucial to every Democratic victory in our lifetimes-- Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. You left out the Republican victories

Reagan (twice), BushI, and BushII. My avatar was a realist. Care to tell me how the Dems can win the south without turning right. Make that "more" right.

[carolinayellowdog]

81. Fallacy of the excluded middle

I'm not saying the Dems can "win the South" or should try. The original post, which you are supporting repeatedly, *is* saying that Dems should abandon effort and hope of winning *any* state in the South. (And, by not limiting his remarks to presidential elections, implicitly that Dems should abandon all hope of having any Senators, Congresspersons, Governors, ets. etc. in the South.) There is a huge gray area in between, and that is where our hope lies.

The Dems cannot carry the *majority* of the South realistically, but we can damn sure carry *some* Southern states in a presidential election, enough to win, without turning any more right. Gore did it. Clinton did it. The burden of proof should not be on those of us who are saying it can be done again, but on those who are saying it cannot. How'd they do it? By being right on the issues and articulate in conveying them.

Your avatar was not a regionalist bigot.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

118. Articulating issues..

First. Remind me which southern states Gore won in '00?

I agree with you about not abandoning the southern congressional candidates - sometimes they even vote with the other Democrats.

"The burden of proof should not be on those of us who are saying it can be done again, but on those who are saying it cannot."

Why is that? You're saying the Democratic party as a whole, should expend money and energy on the south. Should they not expect positive results by doing so? Polls show that (white) southerners are more likely to vote republican than democrat.

"By being right on the issues and articulate in conveying them."

Such as?

"Your avatar was not a regionalist bigot."

Regionalist bigot? That's a new one on me. My father was born and raised in Arkansas and fled the poverty and ignorance that was there at that time. I lived in the south (Jacksonville, FL) during the civil rights movement. I must admit that the attitudes of (most) white people there (I'm white) did not endear the region to me. Do you deny that regionalism exists. Any Democratic candidate that hopes to win an election in my region (the Pacific Northwest) had damned sure be pretty left leaning to have a chance.

Being originally from California and now Washington, we get our share of charactizations as granola munching, tree-hugging, kumbaya singing, unrealistic, commies.

Big deal.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. If You Write Off The South , Most of The Midwest, And Border States

how do you get anything approaching a governing majority in the House and Senate.

[QC]

61. You're just caught up in mere "electoral politics."

Can't you see that contempt for the rednecks is much more important than an inconsequential thing like control of the Congress!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. OK. Answer this.

How does the Democratic Party get the "redneck" (your term) vote without moving to the right?

[QC]

77. Well, we could try running on class issues.

You know, like we did back when we were the majority party for a half-century.

Lots of us ignernt shitkickers down here are out of work. Talk about that and some of us might listen.

But that strategy, of course, would require Nice Liberals to embrace the Great Unwashed, and hell will freeze over before that happens.

[Classical_Liberal]

93. The DLC says that is class warfare. Naughty Naughty!

Can't do that!

[QC]

102. Class warfare =

when working people complain about getting shafted every way they turn.

You're right about the DLC. I was never so disgusted with Gore as when he made a few timid populist noises, got a bump in the polls, and then ran like a scalded dog when the talking heads and his own party elite accused him of "class warfare."

Could it be that all 1,000 of the talking heads squawk and shriek about class warfare whenever someone says anything slightly populist because they are absolutely scared shitless of the issue?

[indigo32]

123. Absolutely QC

We can't let them run us off screaming class warfare everytime these issues are brought up. This is our only chance.

[shimmergal]

98. The three "Ps".

Pragmatism. Populism. A nod to southern Pop-culture phenomena.
Doesn't require Democrats to sacrifice any of our real values.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. What governing majority do we now have?

And, many of the southern Dems now vote with Republicans. Beyond that, I don't recall "writing off" most of the midwest and border states.

How do the Dems "get" the southern states without moving to the right?

[SharonAnn]

79. Campaign on what the Democratic Party stands for!

Stand up and say it! Stand up and SHOUT IT! We are the ones who develop policies that help real people. Contrast that with Republicans.

Religion is a big issue, find ways to separate it. The churches can't affect your economic well-being (jobs, health insurance, overtime, pensions, etc.). The churches can't stop corporate greed from destroying your lives (jobs and benefits), destroying your community (pollution and tax credits), and destroying our country (moving off-shore and selling weapons to every other country in the world).

The voter doesn't want the government controlling his/her church so let the government take care of everything outside of religion.

Find ways to separate this stuff!

[Classical_Liberal]

92. I don't write off the midwest and the borderstates

I would put more resources currently being wasted by the dlc on yuppies in the South into winning them.

[carolinayellowdog]

110. More misleading generalizations

Some Midwest states, including KS, NB, and IN, are less winnable for us than a couple of Deep South states, LA and AR. The obvious thing for anyone who isn't a regionalist bigot to do is to plan a strategy STATE BY STATE rather than writing off whole regions. More states outside the South are writeoffable than states in the South: UT,ID,MT,WY,CO,OK,SD and the abovementioned 3.

[Classical_Liberal]

114. More electortal votes are winnable in the North, and West

Individual states are meaningless. I wouldn't waste nearterm resources on any of those staes either. Though I would persue a long term strategy on Ks, SD, Co, and Montana Besides that I think we need to recalibrate our Southern Strategy to a different class of people. The dlc strategy is for stock options republicans. Recalibration will take more than one election cycle. Which may mean in the short term persuing a Northern and Western strategy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

120. Now, you're talking sense.

My point is that we go after states that we have a chance of winning. You're right about UT, MT, KS, WY, OK, SD. Why expend money and energy where there is no chance?

I could see making an attempt at LA & AR. The rest of the south looks pretty bleak.

[DrFunkenstein]

57. Southerners Believe Strongly in Sacrifice, Honor, and Duty

They just might cross the line to vote for an alternative to someone who dodged the draft and went AWOL for his last year of dodging. Perhaps a highly-decorated Democrat that volunteered to command riverboats up the Mekong Delta.

<>

<>

<>

[Classical_Liberal]

101. Then why did they screw over Cleland?

?

[Le Taz Hot]

62. This is such typical DLC bullshit!

First of all, your characterization of Southerners as "majority moron-American populations" is not only highly insulting, it's highly inaccurate and mischaracterizes MILLIONS of wonderful Americans.

I'm sick and tired of the DLC "writing off" huge portions of the electorate. I'm in California's San Joaquin Valley and I don't remember the last time they contributed to anybody's campaign around here. They write off college campuses in which the majority of students don't live on campus. Now they're writing off the South? As in at least 8 STATES? It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. One of the reasons these districts can't mount a good campaign is because of lack of money via the DNC/DLC because THEY have deemed they are "unwinnable." They remain "unwinnable" because of a lack of funds and support on the national level.

EVERY district and every state should be "in play." It's why I've gotten much more involved locally. We can't wait for these DNC/DLC bozos with their "conventional wisdom" to come to our aid. We have to do it ourselves. Organize locally and bypass them. And yes, it can be done. It helps if you have the local Dems behind you and you can usually get it, but don't look to the DNC/DLC for help if you happen to be in one of those districts that they've written off 'cause it ain't comin'.

[theHandpuppet]

63. A clarification...

"The problem is that we are told (by, for example, the DLC and Lieberman) that we must appeal to these voters. Why? Zell Miller Democrats? Voters that expel a triple amputee who lost limbs in the war to a "more patriotic" chickenhawk."

Actually, Max lost because he was a true patriot to the wrong cause -- our nation, the US of A. The chickenhawk won because his so-called "loyalty" was to those who elevate allegiance to a neo-confederate, slave-holding, antebellum Dixie of the Stars and Bars above that of their own country. That element within the Southern vote, though a minority, makes it near nigh impossible for a current Dem, especially one from outside the South, to carry the vote. Even Al and Max weren't "Southern" enough for their own states. Sad but true.

I would have to agree, by and large, that "the South" is a write-off for any Dem or Progressive candidates, and I think the situation is getting worse as time goes by.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. Unfortunately, The South Is Where The Population Growth Is

and hence it's increasing electoral clout.

[MissouriTeacher]

72. But isn't...

a lot of the population growth in the south attributed to minorities? Most notably Hispanics?

If we can keep them in our camp, this could be a good thing.

[SharonAnn]

80. And, it's possible that voting machine fraud had something to do

with it.

It really is possible that's what happened.

[Lars39]

64. Was it time for another one of these threads?

I do not know why anyone would be pushing to just write off whole segments of the population because of the past. Do you live in the south? Do you know how many people are hurting here economically? The south is ripe for ABB voting if the Democratic party is willing to stick up for the rights of the working class. It's still the economy that will get votes.

[Ripley]

66. They're not even subtle about it.

Read post 19.

"we must appear inclusive and wellcoming to all..."

I swear one would think Trent Lott wrote that statement.

[GOPBasher]

68. I mostly agree.

But I think Arkansas can be in play with the right candidate. And as you mentioned, we should still try to win Missouri, Louisianna and especially Florida. I think that pretty soon, Virginia will be competative.

[Art_from_Ark]

84. Unless a Southern governor or Wesley Clark is on the ticket,

Arkansas is probably in the R camp.

To wit, Arkansas results since 1968:

68-- George Wallace (former Democratic governor of Alabama)
72-- Nixon
76-- Carter (Democratic governor of Georgia)
80-- Reagan
84-- Reagan
88-- Bush 1
92-- Clinton (Democratic governor of Arkansas)
96-- Clinton
00-- Bu$h 2

At the same time, Arkansas has had Democratic Senators for this entire time except for the 6 Hutchinson years. And three of the state's 4 representatives are nearly always Democrats (the 3rd District has been Republican since 1966). So presidential politics do not automatically mean that there will be a coattail effect.

[placton]

70. The people who disagree are much like Greens:

Greens are well intentioned people. I agree with almost all their positions. It would be nice if a Nader-type candidate could be elected by the US.
PROBLEM: it ain't gonna happen in the lifetime of anyone posting on this thread.

Southern Dems, black and white, are wonderful folks. My point is they will get outvoted by the moron-american majorities in those southern states for at least a decade - and likely longer.

Gee, I'd like to see all the pie-in-the-sky stuff attacking my post come true. Grow up. It's not gonna happen.

As I said, I support trying to win congressional elections in Dixie. But, to win nationally, we need to stop wasting time pandering to the majority of male rednecks and their wimmen who will vote GOP til they die.

It alienates the base (that's us, among others) and is a waste of time.

[QC]

76. Are you going to respond to people's objections?

Or just dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you as naive?

There have been two very compelling objections raised here:

1. We have no shot at controlling Congress without Southern support. Abandoning the South in presidential terms makes it very unlikely that we will do well in congressional races here. How do you deal with that? (Hint: It's not enough just to say, "I support trying to win congressional elections in Dixie.")

2. Following your strategy would allow Bush to spend his entire $200,000,000 in "our" states.

These are very compelling practical objections that neither you nor the other advocates of the "Ditch the Rednecks" position have even attempted to answer.

And then there's the equally compelling moral objection that your strategy would also "write off" a major share of America's black population. How do you deal with this?

[MissouriTeacher]

78. Missouri is definitely not a lost cause.

We have Kansas City and St. Louis which can pull a lot of Democratic voters. Most people here north of the Missouri river would not consider us part of the South, and technically we never were.

[placton]

82. I included MO in my "Dem" states (n/t)

[placton]

85. My reply (it and 50 cents = cup of coffee):

two very compelling objections raised here:

1. We have no shot at controlling Congress without Southern support. Abandoning the South in presidential terms makes it very unlikely that we will do well in congressional races here. How do you deal with that?
ANSWERS: I am looking at the presidency as the most likely area where we can quickly reverse the evils of the GOP. Winning there also helps with the judiciary - most important these days (see Bush v Gore in the Supreme Court). I do not believe we are likely to win back BOTH houses soon, whether or not we elect the president, because the GOP has redistricted many states (MI is just one example, TX will soon be another) to guarantee control of the House of Reps. Moreover, I think that a liberal/progressive national strategy will help many local races, because PEOPLE LIKE US WILL COME TO THE POLLS - and vote for the more conservative candidates who can win for the Dems. Most states are divided into rural/urban areas. We can win statewide, because of the urban areas, but we are gonna lose a lot of the rural congressional districts.

2. Following your strategy would allow Bush to spend his entire $200,000,000 in "our" states.
ANSWERS: Bush is gonna outspend us EVERYWHERE, no matter what our strategy. I have been roundly criticized in this post for denigrating southerners (black and white), but I beg to differ. I do think people will vote their interests, no matter how much we are outspent. If the argument against my theory is that Bush will spend more money, we are gonna lose anyway. The real answer is that we must spend our Dem-bucks where they will do some good. Sorry, Messrs. North Carolina and Virginia, Chelsea will be running before your states vote for a Dem presidential candidate.

The biggest arguments against me here are simply pie in the sky. Realistic persons, I believe, will agree with me. I wish it were otherwise.

My "Ditch the Rednecks" position is based on the fact that the majority (51% or more) of said folks are racist - and they voted Democratic where OUR PARTY WAS THE RACIST one. We must realize that race is still the big issue in the US.

So, rather than "the equally compelling moral objection that your strategy would also "write off" a major share of America's black population," I suggest our party has in fact written them off! That's the DLC position. Which of the white Dem presidential candidates has said WORD ONE about issues affecting African Americans? That's a mistake, in my opinion.

I am most pleased with this debate, even if people disagree, because progressives MUST discuss this, and the party MUST do something about its base.

[QC]

96. Golly, I can't imagine how people ever got the impression

that you were denigrating Southerners ("moron-Americans"). Must be their incredible naiveté or something.

Both of your arguments here are based on the questionable notion that all things short of perfection are equally short of perfection. So, since we will not soon gain control of Congress, it doesn't matter much how far down we are. Since Bush is going to outspend us anyway, it doesn't matter whether he does it by a factor of two or a hundred.

Well, it does matter how much he outspends us, and where, and it does matter whether we have enough seats in Congress to get something done or not. If we didn't have a large minority in the Senate, for example, we would now be discussing Judge Pryor.

I agree with you that people generally vote their interests. You seem to exempt white Southerners from that generalization, though, when you assume that they are motivated solely by race. Having spent most of my life in the South, both in rural areas and towns, I can assure you that a lot of people here are hurting, and a candidate who would deal with things like job-exportation and stagnant wages would get a listen. Contrary to what you and many others tend to assume, most white people here do not lie awake nights obsessing over black people.

So-called "cultural issues" like race, religion, sexuality, abortion, etc. are most powerful when no one is talking about economic issues. It's been thirty years since the Democrats had much to say about working people issues, so it is not surprising that when the parties sound pretty much the same on that, people will vote on "cultural issues." They are what has filled the vacuum left when the Dems abandoned class.

So, I think a Democrat who talks about "kitchen table issues" has a good shot here. But, as I said upthread, I don't expect it to happen, partly because the Dems do not want to offend their corporate sugardaddies and partly because many Nice Liberals hold the working class in open contempt.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

108. I'd like to see the research data

that suggests 51% of southern whites are racist.

I suspect if you looked at the data you would be suprised by the fact that racism transcends regional boundaries.

The last state to elect a black governor was Virginia, capitol of the Old Confederacy and the last black congressman from a majority white district was from a border state and a Puke no less.

It's cultural elitism not race that prevents Dems from not doing better in the South

[Classical_Liberal]

95. Actually it is the other way around

Without more Southern Dems in Congress and in the Governerships we have no shot at he South. The republicans have a machine called the religious right down there and it works very well.

[Mel]

106. Come on, now we are like Greens

because we disagree with you and btw it's not pie in the sky what a candidate needs too address in the South it is very much what the platform of the Democratic party use to represent is it not?

Have you ever even lived or worked in the South?

So if you think 'us good southerners' will all be out-voted do you think maybe we should just do away with the Electoral College that ought to help us southerners that aren't morons, right?

Do you really even know what a redneck really represents? in a positive sense it represents the rural labor class...farmers

I know some see it as racist, gun carrying, and not very smart but in the rural parts of the south it means a farmer.


Might I make a suggestion of reading Jesse Jackson Jr's
'To Form a More Perfect Union'
Mr. Jackson has a plan and it isn't name calling.

You see this is a wedge issue and the pukes just love it they thrive and stay in power on it. That's why we have to be smarter we turn it on them that's the way to win elections! Not calling Southern people morons.

[QC]

112. Some prejudices are acceptable in Nice Liberal circles.

Namely, class and region. These are perfectly fine, even virtuous.

[tpub]

83. oh, OK, so I guess I should stop trying to register people

to vote, stop trying to get them to the polls, stop trying to get them interested and active in politics, etc. I guess I'll just give up and if I don't have the time or money to travel and help out in one of the states you DO care about, I'll just sit here and cross my fingers that we win in the end.

Puh-leeze!

"Louisiana & Missouri may be a possible Dem wins from time to time."

In New Orleans we have a Democratic mayor. In my state, we have 2 Democratic Senators and we're about to elect a Democratic governor. Bush got a slim win here in 2000, and with a LITTLE help from the party, we can win this state in 2004. Why? People here are pissed off! People here are suspicious of politicians and they're becoming HIGHLY suspicious of the Bush administration.

Sure there are plenty of morons in LA, but I saw plenty of morons in New Jersey when I lived there.

You'd be pretty stupid to write off my state.

[placton]

86. Please note: I specifically advised NOT to write off LA!

[tpub]

94. "I'll concede that Louisiana ... may be a possible Dem wins

from time to time"

I read what you wrote in your original post. I don't see this as specifically advising Dems NOT to write off LA. But maybe as a former English major I'm picky.

I don't think you should write off any state. If you want to suggest concentrating money/effort on other states, fine. But I don't like your writing off the south in general (or anyone else for that matter). And I'm glad to see that many others here agree with me.

[enki23]

99. you might want to. it's a shithole.

there's a whole lotta south which is far, far better than LA. the best thing i can say about this state is that it contains new orleans. that isn't saying much. even better, the state's best cultural asset is sinking into the mud. (albeit slowly)

did i mention the rates of violent crime?

this state is owned by chemical companies. i live right by the river, i see 'em every day. every time i drive into alexandria i'm assaulted by an overpowering acrid stench. it makes me wonder what they're doing that we aren't in baton rouge, and how could they possibly be *worse?* maybe they aren't. smelling worse isn't the same as being worse. and hey, did you know there is no mandatory testing requirement for their effluent streams? they can dump whatever they like, so long as they don't get caught (by a DEQ which doesn't enforce, an EPA which no longer has the resources to, and a state and federal administration who like it that way.)

sure. go tigers.

no, don't write it off. a place this bad will want some change sooner or later.

[Classical_Liberal]

100. I think there can be a long term strategy for the South

but the DLC's southern strategy won't work. It appeals to yuppies in the South. Not he working class and the blacks. It is a misnomer, that the fundy right in the South are poor. They are well healed suburban yuppies, and they wouldn't vote for us even if their megachurches didn't exist. The fact that they support things you would think only an uneducated person would support, like creation science, only reflects specialization in the way we educate various professions. Many computer programmers are fundies. Computer Science doesn't require biology training.. It is a technical skill.

[QC]

103. Very good point.

It's important to know your enemy, and an awful lot of people here at DU seem to know nothing at all about our enemies.

As you point out, there's a common assumption here that religious fundamentalists are poor and inbred. Not the case. Nor are they necessarily stupid.

A while back someone started a thread claiming that Pat Robertson was unfamiliar with judicial review. Now I loathe Robertson, but he is not dumb. He's a Phi Beta Kappa from Washington & Lee, and a graduate of Yale Law and the University of London. He also built a $200,000,000 media empire by getting old ladies to send him their social security checks. Evil, but not dumb, and assuming that people like Robertson and Bush are dumb can only help them. Molly Ivins has made this point about Bush many times, but most DUers persist in thinking him stupid. He benefits from that.

[Dob Bole]

97. Every Dem President in the last century carried Southern states

If you had fewer posts, I would be yelling "Freeper alert!" I keep up a website for Southern Dems, and if you would check it, you would note that we are not dead. Just because Gore didn't want to try for any Southern states, that doesn't mean we are morons. If you take the South for granted, don't expect us to keep voting Dem.

[jiacinto]

104. You need more than the base to win

The base of either party is not enough to win. You need more than your base to win, or otherwise you'll perenially end up with nothing more than 35-40% of the vote.

As for the south these states are lost causes:

Oklahoma
Texas
Mississippi
Alabama
South Carolina

Those four states are not probably not going to vote Democratic; but, in the coming years, due to minority population growth and the emergence of "ideopolises" (see Judis and Texiera), they might become competetive in the 2010s:

Georgia
North Carolina
Virginia

These southern states are winnable and should be targetted by Democrats:

Louisiana
Arkansas
Missouri
Kentucky
Tennessee
Florida

[carolinayellowdog]

109. Left out TN and WV

both winnable, meaning more states are in the winnable column than either of the other two

[Classical_Liberal]

116. West Virginia was winnable with more populism not less

Tennessee wouldn't vote for Gore, who was their own politician.

[Classical_Liberal]

111. I don't have a citation

but a while ago someone cited a stat that showed a much lower percentage of people vote in thet South than elsewhere, and an even lower percentage vote in Texas than elsewhere in the South. The poorer you are the less likely you are to vote. Why not reach out to sympathetic non voters instead of people who would be republicans even in the North? The dlc strategy is wrong not just because it is a Southern Strategy, but because it is a strategy for getting republicans.

[jiacinto]

115. You have no guarantee on nonvoters

I don't see how people can automatically assume that nonvoters are going to be liberal or progressive.

[Classical_Liberal]

117. A certain percentage are, and if the south has more of them

then we want to raise the percentage of moderate to liberal ones. The fact that it correlates to poverty is an indication potential progressives are being left out, and not Conservatives. The reactionary non voters already have politicians to appeal to them. The liberals and the moderates haven't had anyone in a long time.

[jiacinto]

121. Then do this

Find precincts that turn in 60-65%+ for Democrats that turnout less than average. Find those where few people are registered to vote in comparison to the pool of eligible voters. Then get them registered.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

119. "Taken as a whole, nonvoters appear well represented by those who vote"

so says the authors of the seminal work on the presidential choices of voters and non-voters.

Since there is very little difference in the preferences of voters and non voters for a myriad of reasons registering new voters will only make a difference at the margins.

Here's the link

http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/publications/par/July1999/HightonWolfinger/html

[theHandpuppet]

107. The Insidious Political Clout of the Neo-Confederacy

I posted this months ago but it bears repeating in this thread, if only to illuminate WHY indeed the Dems can write-off the Southern states:...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Anyone who would deny the insidious influence of neo-confederacy in our govt and its policies needs a reality pill. This "Sons of Confederate Veterans" group is the same one that publishes that racist rag, "The Southern Partisan", and they have their tentacles all over the Bushreich! (They were also instrumental in the defeat of Max Cleland in GA) Check this out for a frightening eye-opener:

The Temple of Democracy. Fighting the Neo-Confederate movement and its takeover of American politics and policy. See: http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/

Prominent politicians appearing in Southern Partisan Magazine: U.S. House Representative Dick Armey, U.S. Senator John Ashcroft, U.S. Senator Thad Cochran, U.S. Senator Phil Gramm, U.S. Senator Jesse Helms, and U.S. Senator Trent Lott. Index to Southern Partisan magazine, the bi-monthly journal of the same group that made defeating Max Cleland its primary goal in the mid-terms: http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/SouthernPartisanIndex1999.htm

Ashcroft defends "Southern Partisan": http://www.fair.org/press-releases/southern-partisan.html and http://www.fair.org/press-releases/ashcroft.html and http://www.uncletaz.com/ashcroft/

Additional reading : http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/SouthernPartisan.htm http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR011501b.htm

McCain bows to neo-confederates associated with Southern Partisan -- note that Quinn, piublisher of SP, also had ties to Ronald Ray-Gun http://www.tnr.com/013100/soskis013100.html and http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2581

Pat Buchanan and SP: http://www.political.com/gossip-arc/0040.html

The Bush Family and the neo-confederacy: http://www.guerrillanews.com/civil_liberties/doc674.html
http://www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone/february00/03confederacy.html

Related links:
http://www.shucks.net/
http://www.detnet.com/wilke/partisan.htm
http://www.pointsouth.com/index.html
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/SouthernVoice100500.htm
http://www.newnation.org/Archives/confederacy-020418.html

"Southern Partisan T-Shirt Identical to One
Worn By Timothy McVeigh at Time of Arrest"
http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR011501b.htm

Edited to add: http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/WhyfightNeoConfederacy.htm

[amazona]

113. don't necessarily agree

I believe there was vote theft in Tennessee, and perhaps in Louisiana, so maybe it also occurred in some of these other states.

I don't believe that we should write off the South. I do think we need to make a greater effort to appeal to the concerns of the loyal African-American voters in the south, who want a strong social safety net, and GOOD public education, and who might be encouraged to come out if we did a better job at getting their issues (which should be our issues) and candidates out there.

I personally believe we will have an "Anyone But Bush" climate which could make it a great time to elect an African-American president or at least a VP. Nothing is decided yet, and there is still time for others to be drafted if Sharpton or Mosely-Braun are for some reason unacceptable. Personally I would love to see Sharpton in a debate with * or Skeletor. I am also starting to wish that Julian Bond would come forward for president or VP.

Also, why wouldn't Wesley Clark appeal to the southern voter? A general who actually defeated and succeeded in having a genocidal madman (Milosevic) brought to trial, he is miles above anything the GOP has to offer.

Graham and Edwards certainly have their appeal.

Al Gore has proven he can get a majority of the votes.

I just don't think we should throw up our hands too soon and give up the south. However, what we MUST do is to clean up the voting scandals and find some way to guarantee clean, fair elections. Why are folks going to come out in Georgia or Mississippi or anywhere else if they believe that their vote will be stolen?

Unfortunately, the problems with Dean or Kerry in the south may indeed be very real. But, even then, I don't believe we should just throw up our hands and give up; instead, we should make an even stronger effort to select a VP who will get out the progressive vote.

[Nicholas_J]

122. Not really

THe problem is that in many states, a large percentage of the democratic party membership consists of black, churchgoing people, whos are fiscally progressive, but socially conservative.

Lets face it no matter what, a large number of people who benefit from fedeal social programs, educational grants and such, are either poor and black, or popor whites, and in the South, this divide is wider than in the rest of the country by and large.

But by the same reasoning, their socially conservative nature (rural communities usually are), makes them leary of changes in social ideas. Their minister state homosexuals, and they believe it.

I hate to say it, but homophobia is probably far more ramapnt among the minorities and the poor, and among the rural religious.

You notice that when campaigning in RURAL Iowa, Dean does little to mention his role in Civil Unions. He does not downplay it, but does not mention it if he can avoid it.

The South will be far worse for ideas that are just TOO socially progressive for the Theo-dems.