In South Carolina, Job Losses Crack Solid Support for Bush

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/18/national/18SOUT.html?hp

Lynn Mayson is an unemployed machine operator here. Roger Chastain is president of a textile company. While they travel in distinctively different circles, they have quite a bit in common.

Both are Republicans. Both were part of the Solid South vote that helped George W. Bush win the White House in 2000. And, now, both say they are angry enough about job losses in the region to vote for someone else in 2004.

"Something's got to give," said Ms. Mayson, a mother of three, as she left a state-run jobs center the other day. "I'm not going to vote for Bush unless things change. The economy has got to get better, and it's only going to do that if someone makes something happen."

Mr. Chastain, whose company, Mount Vernon Mills, has laid off 1,000 workers in recent years, is part of a coalition of textile executives who have formally complained to the White House about trade practices they contend are driving Americans out of jobs and manufacturers out of business, while giving huge advantages to China and other countries.

"Bush can forget about the Solid South," Mr. Chastain said. "There's no Solid South anymore."

[jiacinto]

1. SC will be firmly behind Bush in 2004

If it even remotely competetive then Bush is in deep trouble.

[RamboLiberal]

2. If the Dem candidate sends out the right message

then Chimpy may be in trouble in SC - 3rd highest unemployment in the country, the working class may be willing to abandon him and some white collar as well in affected industries.

Asked for a show of hands in Spartanburg to indicate how many of the executives voted for Mr. Bush in 2000, all indicated they had. Asked for a show of hands of how many would be willing to abandon him in 2004, all indicated they would.

[jiacinto]

4. But they will return to Bush

SC will remain GOP in 2004. If our candidate even has a prayer then we are winning 40 states or more. SC is the home of Bob Jones University. It won't be voting Democratic unless Bush completely collapses.

[w13rd0]

7. Well, let's keep hammering...

...Bush has already collapsed. We just need to make sure everyone sees the footage and facts...

[jiacinto]

13. Even so

I still see SC clinging onto Bush.

[markses]

16. You would have seen the Japanese in Salt Lake City

in December of 41.

Worthless in a fight, these number manipulators.

[KoKo]

19. Why are you so sure about how SC will vote Carlos?

I'm surprised.

[jiacinto]

30. See #27

nt

[CheshireCat]

68. This South Carolinian thinks Bush is in trouble!

I am from the upper part of the state where most manufactoring industries "are" - or should I say "were".

My sister-in-law has always been a freeper type Repuke. She called last week to say that she will NOT vote for bush again. Her reason is the closing of all these textile plants. She plans to vote Dem for the first time in her life.

My mother is pretty well off but she has been a Democrat since the Vietnam era. However, most of her friends are Republicans. Maybe I should say that most of her friends "were" Republican. They have come to literally HATE bush. They will not vote for him again.

My father is a doctor and a republican. He used to love Bush, but not anymore. He is really worried about the economy. Will he vote Democratic? That remains to be seen, but he will not vote for Bush. He says if he doesn't feel that he can vote for the Dem, then he will not vote.

If something doesn't change yet, there is a chance that Bush could lose here. I guarantee you that if W wins SC, it will be by a much smaller margin.

[bigwoody]

49. Agree. Lived in Charleston 3.5 years. I truly believe that social/moral

(as they see them) issues dominate the voting choices of the bible belters way more than economic issues.Economic chaos would be responded to by these people with "at least bush isn't a baby killer tryin' to take our guns!) logic.:crazy:

[Best_man23]

50. Unemployment can be a powerful persuader

When you don't have work and you're worrying about how to keep a roof over your head and food on the table, social and moral issues often wind up taking a back seat.

[David__77]

64. I think the importance lies in putting Bush on defensive...

The point here wouldn't be to realistically win. Did Clinton even ever win this state? I don't think. I think the point is to put Bush on the defensive everywhere possible. Not through big money advertising, but through getting better volunteer organization and better message. This will be key to electing our Senate candidate there as well.

[GOPBasher]

82. True, SC is going to Bush, but

if we're even remotely close, say within 10%, I think we're winning nationally by a landslide.

[kskiska]

3. There's been quite a bit of talk about this here lately

more from the article

"We've heard a lot from elected officials that free trade creates jobs," Mr. Dillard said. "That's absolutely true. It has created jobs in Mexico, China, Indonesia and everyplace else in the world, but not here. We're tired of it."

They are so tired of it, he said, that for the first time industry leaders are drawing a line in the cloth, insisting that if the Bush administration does not narrow the trade gap with China by the fall, company executives will withhold support for Mr. Bush or even campaign for another candidate. That was the principal message of two news conferences the officials held in Greensboro, N.C., and Spartanburg, although only Mr. Gephardt emerged as a possibility.

(snip)

Asked for a show of hands in Spartanburg to indicate how many of the executives voted for Mr. Bush in 2000, all indicated they had. Asked for a show of hands of how many would be willing to abandon him in 2004, all indicated they would.

Things are really bad if Spartanburg would vote for someone else. Democrats don't even run a candidate in county elections here.

[jiacinto]

5. Again this is right now

Come November in 2004 these voters will, by and large, retunrn to Bush.

[DemBones DemBones]

How can you be so sure of that? Have you ever even been to

South Carolina? I think people in the state might have some clues about what's going on there.

[jiacinto]

11. Okay recent electoral results

SC went comfortably for Bush in 2000. It went for Bush and Dole. And it has not voted Democratic since 1976. I can be fairly reasonable in saying that Bush will win the state.

[CatWoman]

14. I find it so astoundingly amazing

that you are an "expert" about how other states vote.

Can you for once listen to the people in those states?

Just once???

[jiacinto]

15. Because South Carolina is a Republican state

Catwoman--look at the numbers. Why are you unwilling to listen to the data, which shows a picture that is not rosy for Democrats in the state? In 2002 the Democratic candidates for Govenror and Senator lost. Hollings's seat is in grave jeopardy even with Tenenbaum on the ballot. The GOP Controls the state.

[markses]

17. And how, pray tell, did the numbers get that way?

The point is not to "look at the numbers" then throw one's hands up in despair. The point is to change the numbers. Now, if you were here saying something like

"While we should devote some resources to reaching those people in South Carolina who are dissatisfied with Bush, and while we should begin developing rhetorical strategies to reach those populations, given our limited resources, we should be aware that the hill may be too steep, and resources may be better spent elsewhere."

That's what we call a measured response. It acknowledges the possibilities and constraints, and builds on the openings, while realizing the difficulties.

Instead, you hit this mantra "Bush wins SC. Bush wins SC. Bush wins SC." It's ridiculous. And unhelpful. And ultimately, defeatist. It is not the discourse of a fighter, which is sad, since we need fighters now, and not beancounters - even if a little bean counting now and then wouldn't hurt.

[jiacinto]

21. It's not defeatist

There are more compelling states in the region than South Carolina. The state has not voted Dem since 1976. It is too Republican.

Now, if polling data show the state to be in reach, then it should be targeted. However, I think KY, TN, MO, AR, LA, and FL are more winnable than SC is.

I am being realistic. The odds of the Democrats winning there are quite slim.

[markses]

24. See how easy it is to offer positive alternatives?

Rather than the usual gloom and doom. Notice that you didn't do so in any of your other posts on this thread.

Now, since my post had already acnowledged the "realism" of the position, I need not even respond to that. But you should, if we are to be in this fight as partners, try to point out the positives for us ALONG with the negatives, instead of repeating the negatives 45 times in one thread without a positive word. That IS defeatist, however "realistic" it might be.

That said, I still think South Carolinians shoulden't be written off, and that some resources should be devoted to reaching out to those constiuencies. And that's what it's all about, at the end of the day, right Mr. Political Scientist? The people who have no jobs and no prospects? The people who have lost their Head Start and childcare to the GOP tax cut scheme? The more we reach out to those constituencies, the more we build a base for a better future and a better society. Right? That's why we're playing this game, yes?

[KoKo]

22. Carlos.....alot has happened in the South since the midterm elections.

Inspite of what some folks here may think.....not everyone in SC is brain dead. You aren't allowing for "changes in" economy in the last year to sway your belief in your statistics.

Poppy Bush was polling great and then Poof! It can turn on a dime. And, we need to see the fallout from the "blackout."
It may hit a nerve in the country. Vulnerability......on Shrubbies watch.........Maybe not.......but could be.

[jiacinto]

29. See #27

It shows the Dem performance in SC.

[CheshireCat]

70. See post #68, Carlos

SC will be much closer than 2002. I live here. I talk to people who are changing their minds everyday. Bush may carry the state, but then again he may not. He will not carry it by the margin he did in 2000. SC will be up for grabs!

The economy here is shot!!! We caanot lay all of the blame at Bushes feet. We have a legislature full of idiots, but most people I know are starting to blame Bush.

People in SC are HURTING!

[jiacinto]

76. I'll leave it at this

SC looks hopelessly Republican. But if you all can make a compelling case on the ground and poll decently, then maybe money and support will be forthcoming.

[NewJerseyDem]

40. Everyone thinks their state is liberal

If you believed everyone here about how liberal their state was than you must be convinced that Bush will lose every state except maybe Alaska. It seems like everyone is saying that people in their state are getting really made at Bush. That they are all changing their mind and regret voting for him in 2000. I think a lot of people have convinced themselves that they live in a liberal state even when it is more conservative.

[StandWatie]

72. I don't think most people are anything..

they just vote for the other guy when the economy goes in the toilet..

[CheshireCat]

69. right on, DemBones!

I am from SC. Things are changing here.


See my post #68 above.

[kskiska]

10. The textile industry is dying

and has been for some time, but it's certain that it isn't coming back, and people here are out of work by the thousands and mills are closing daily. Unless these people are happy and employed by the time 2004 rolls around, I can't see him winning here.

[jiacinto]

12. I can see Bush winning there

His father got 60% of the vote in 1998. Even in 1992 and in 1996, while Clinton was winning, it clung on to Bush I and Dole. Bush II won it comfortably in 2000. It won't be voting Democratic in 2004. That's just a pipedream.

[markses]

18. If you repeat it 25 more times in this thread

Maybe the tooth fairy will bring you a lollipop.

[jiacinto]

27. What is it about reality that you don't want to deal with

1980 Reagan 49.42%; Carter 48.14%
1984 Reagan 63.55%; Mondale 35.57%
1988 Bush I 61.50%; Dukakis 37.58%
1992 Bush I 48.02%; Clinton 39.88%
1996 Dole 49.79%; Clinton 43.96%
2000 Bush 2 56.84%; Gore 40.90%

Constantly, since 1980, the Democrats have lost the state by landslide margins. With the exception of Reagan's narrow win in 1980 the Republicans have prevailed here by at least five points. With the exception of 1996, when Clinton came relatively close, the other years have been landslie victories for the Republicans.

[markses]

32. One can be a realist AND a defeatist

They are not mutually exclusive.

We see an article talking about REAL dissatisfaction with Mr. Bush among South Carolina's manufacturing base. A fighter sees that as an opening, even if she also REALIZES that the state is close to unwinnable. A defeatist throws up his hands in despair and forgets the opening. A fighter makes inroads, maybe not for this election, but for the next one - even while REALIZING that the resources to be spent on these inroads are necessarily short, given the political conditions. A defeatist turns around, walks away, and offers no positive alternatives.

One can be a realist AND a defeatist.

Are you a fighter?

[jiacinto]

33. I am not being defeatist

But funds are limited. I would love to make SC competetive, but I think the cost is too high.

[markses]

34. I'm glad i finally got you to talk about resources

Notice that you hadn't done that before. You just kept repeating that Bush would win, for no apparent purpose other than to repeat it.

Of course, I agree that funds are limited and could be better spent elsewhere (how could i not agree - I'm the one that brought it up!). You should still be on notice, though, that simply chiming in (and repeating, as a mantra) some defeatist position without offering the positive alternatives or building on the positive will not do, that it is defeatist (however "realistic" it may be), and that you will be called on it.

Do you think that any energy should be devoted to reaching out to the manufacturing base in South Carolina?

[markses]

36. What's your source?

n/t

[jiacinto]

37. Ok

www.uselectionatlas.org

[markses]

41. OK, I checked your atlas

(I always check sources, a habit I picked up - as you did, I'm sure - in graduate school).

A few thoughts. I would even add to your argument by showing the Perot vote in 1992 and 1996, since these are clearly added to the GOP stats when the right wing 3rd party is not in play. If you add Perot's 1992 total to GHW Bush's, they're about the same at W's numbers for 2000.

That said, if you look at the actual map, you'll see that the area described in this article is the most consistently Republican (in this atlas, blue) area of the state, with large chunks of the middle of the state going red (Dem) consistently over the same time period.

However, Al Gore DID lose big in SC in 2000. Nobody is disputing that. However, the area described in the article IS the most consistent GOP area over your timeframe. Why not do some work there to change that in the future?

[jiacinto]

42. Well

Two or three interviews aren't a scientific reflection of the political stances of the populations there.

Maybe someone should try to do long term work there. But wasting millions of dollars on what is admittedly going to be a tough to hopeless task is not the best way to spend resources.

[markses]

51. Nice straw man

Since nobody talked about "spending millions of dollars" on the basis of that article, you are obviously just arguing against the easiest opponent in your imagination. Real "scientific" there.

And, by the way, registering effects is not as scientific as digging for causes. You seem to simply register effects (here are these numbers, etc.) rather than searching for causes (here are the economic, social and cultural conditions, here's how they produce the numbers, etc.).

Of course, in politics (and political science) your approach reflects the EASIEST way to go about things, since the past numbers are really the most quantifiable of political phenomena. That does not, however, make them either the most interesting, the most determinative, or the most accurate reflection. It is simply not a field where quantification does the most work. Unless you begin to develop a qualitative theoretical apparatus, you will have very little to say about anything.

So, "well" yourself.

[alaine]

48. "things that have happened in the past will

always continue to happen in the future, ad infinitum, forever and ever, amen." How disappointingly unscientific your theory is, and to think I wasted my time coming back up here and giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[VermontDem2004]

80. But now you have the third highest unemployment

people are willing to dump Bush who voted consistently with Republicans. Things are different, you keep using arguments that people will vote for Bush because they voted for republicans before. You have a good argument that they voted for Republicans, but things are COMPLETELY different since 2000 WAY Different. People are going to be voting or not based on his 4 years as President, not because of the tagline "compassionate conservative"

[KoKo]

23. Okay....Carlos.....you've convinced me. SC will go Repug.......

Defintely........

Peace.

[jiacinto]

31. See #27

nt

[CheshireCat]

73. Hi kskiska - I agree!

For those of us who live in SC, we see what is happening.

My freeper Sister-in-law who has never voted anything but repuke, called last week to say that she would be voting Dem next election. Never, in a million years, did I expect her to change.

What changed this freeper? The number of job losses and mill closings in SC. When the workers in the textile industry lose jobs, the negative effect on the economy trickles down fast.

[blm]

54. Don't bet on it, jiacinto. The veterans have yet

to make their big move against Bush. If Bush loses the veteran and military vote down here, he is gone.

[jiacinto]

62. I'll take your word for it

But, based on the elections since 1980, the Democrats have been unable (except in 1980), to come even remotely close to winning the state in presidential elections.

[Occulus]

71. you leave out the fact

that not one of those election was ever contested the way this one was. And that this is the first time American history that we have 1) a bumbling idiot and 2) a total business failure sitting in the Oval Office. And while this is not the first war that has been based on a lie- and likely won't be the last- it's proving to be a spectacular failure of a lie. Added to the way * and Rummy-dum-dum are treating our soldiers and vets, and you have a recipie for SC going Dem.

There are lots and lots of things that make this administration the worst ever. Ashcroft's and Ridge's stated desire to overturn posse comitatus (sp?) will not play well in SC, either.

So, yes, SC could conceivably go Dem in 2004. IF the people there are pissed off enough, that is, which * is well on his way to causing.

[jiacinto]

77. It will still be hard

SC has not voted Dem since 1976. And maybe it might be more competetive but ultimately, unless Bush completely collapses, it will stick with the Republicans.

We'll be lucky if Inez Tenenbaum can win her race.

[SayitAintSo]

6. The SC Veterans are also pissed and organizing from what I understand

The worm may be slowly turning down here ... and when it finally does and solid dem support begins to stir among former Repubs, there will be no turning back. The SC/southern vote can not be taken for granted for too much longer.

[mndemocrat_29]

8. If South Carolina is in play

Then so is NC, GA, VA, GA, KY, and TN. If we can win South Carolina, we'll be winning in a landslide.

[KoKo]

26. I'm starting to think NC could be in play also.....and that's an easier

one than SC. So much military in NC......and so much bad news. I just posted that Ft. Bragg has 600members of military families who are involved in "Veterans for Peace" (the group Pitt spoke to) and another military peace organization is also active in the area.

And, then there's that "Stop Bush" spray painted on a stop sign in my really Repug neighborhood which hasn't been cleaned off yet. (I live in NC, btw)

[Jose Diablo]

60. Cost vs Benefit?

It is far from certain that Bush* owns the south.

A little stategy on where to focus the effort CAN win the day.

Think "swing" counties and focus. SC can be ours, just like Georgia. Local effort, county by county.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

9. This is huge.

It is one thing to look at press releases from the RNC, dollar amounts given to repukes by people benefitting from the job hemmorhages, and read the posts on online day care centers like Freep and Lucianne. All, and more, are as much astroturf(fake grassroots) as anything else.

But, when former supporters, such as these in industry and in the Deep South, which has heretofore been represented as a lead pipe cinch by the repukes...well, some rough beast this way comes, and it ain't slouching towards Babylon, sparky.

I re-submit: The repukes, for all their talk about making their majority in both houses of congress permanent, and getting that mouth-breather re-elected, are hangin' ten on the abyss. They have had the better part of ten years control over both houses to make things better. All they have done is obsess about Clinton's Penis of Evil and spawn idiots like DeLay, Thomas and Frist.

Oh yeah: And make the economy, for you and me, worse. A lot, lot worse.

We still have to work our goddamned nuts and ovaries off to win this one, though.

[wiggle-room]

20. Clark could be big in the South

I believe Clark could seriously hamper bush in the South, and yes, his military record and status would be a big factor in that.

Call it a gut feeling, but I do feel that for a lot of regretful conservatives, Clark would be an acceptable alternative.

There is a lot of discontent with bush among those thought to be assured supporters. The South should not be written off by the Dems for 2004. There is a golden opportunity here, imho.

[Yavin4]

25. I'm Shocked That S.C. Still Has Textile Businesses

No paid laborer on this planet can compete with Chinese slave labor in textiles. Hell, even Mexico is losing textile plants to China. The best thing these workers can hope for is a job in government. Textile and tech is dead in S.C. However, I agree with Carlos. Bush will win S.C. handily. He'll get the fundie and biggot vote.

Ironic isn't it. South Carolinians will vote for "smaller government" leaders, yet their best hope for maintaining their standard of living lies with getting jobs in the government. It's the great American socioeconomic political paradox. The Republicans are winning office by running on a small government platform, but it's big government, on the state and federal level, that's keeping the middle class intact.

[Noordam]

28. IT is the ECONOMY STUPID

and in 2004 Bush II will learn what Bush I learned.

[bluestateguy]

35. Even Wesley Clark won't win SC

Maybe, MAYBE, North Carolina, but even that is a reach. So the South Carolinians don't approve of Bush on the economy. There are just too many other issues, most having to do with culture and race, that cut the wrong way for Democrats. Wesley Clark could probably hold Bush to a single digit victory in the state, maybe even force him to camapign there, but that's about it. When I speak of cutting into the South in 2004, South Carolina is never on my list of possibilities, along with Mississippi, Alabama and the granddaddy of them all, Texas.

[kskiska]

38. SC voted Republican Governor Beasley out

in 1998 because he opposed the lottery on evangelical Christian grounds. His successor, Hodges, a Democrat, was voted out because he moved the Confederate flag from the statehouse dome. People here can be swayed by sometimes trivial issues. The Upstate, where the textile industry is centered, is solidly Republican, but the rest of the state, especially along the coast, is less so. It's possible that the disgruntled textile workers in the Upstate could tip the balance away from Bush, if things continue to be as bad as they are now, on issues much more substantive. These people were born and raised here and are not likely to move to other regions in search of jobs.

[Frances]

39. I have relatives

in South Carolina. The state is very Republican. I can't see a lot of Republicans voting Democratic, but I can hope that some will say that they are going to sit the election out. It would be great if Bush had to spend some money and time there in order to shore up his base.

I would not count too much on the power of veterans. After all Bush beat McCain in the South Carolina primary. Thinking of that primary reminds me that Bush plays really dirty.

[blm]

55. Bush did that by lying to the veterans down there.

They are now organizing AGAINST Bush for 2004 and will work for Kerry.

From Dec. New Yorker:


http://www.johnkerry.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6197&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=-1
........
The real business of the day was transacted afterward. Kerry mingled easily with the vets, who were mostly African-American; he cussed and joked and talked about places like Da Nang and Da Lat. A pink-faced overweight man approached. "I'm Jim Gunn," he said to Kerry. "Do you remember me?"

Kerry nodded warily. Gunn was the leader of the Coalition of Retired Military Veterans and had attacked Senator John McCain during the 2000 Republican Presidential primary in South Carolina. Kerry had written a letter protesting the charges that another veterans' group had made against McCain-essentially, that McCain was "anti-veteran"-and he had got the other Vietnam combat veterans in the Senate to sign it. Now Jim Gunn said to him, "I just want you to know, Senator, that you were right about McCain and I was wrong. Bush lied to my face, and I'll never support him again." Gunn proceeded to file a bill of particulars against the President on veterans' issues. Then he sighed and said, "I wish there was a machine that could really say when someone is telling the truth, but you sound sincere when you talk about our issues. I represent seventeen thousand vets in South Carolina-I'm like their union boss-and if you run for President next time we're with you."
........

[PartyPooper]

43. These people will vote with their Bibles in hand.

These Bush Republicans can be starving, but, they will still vote against the Democrats and for the Republicans. There's no way we can win with the "South". Period. End of discussion.

:dem:

[alaine]

44. A quitter never wins. You know the rest.

John Edwards is from SC. Dad worked in a mill in Seneca SC. Sure you have heard it all before. The south is not Pluto out at the end of the universe. The south is me typing this post.

Edwards has raised more money in SC than all the other candidates combined.

Stop pissing and vinegaring the south. I don't hear speculation about us winning "the north", or "the west", or "the east".

I know, white southerners are the bad white people all the other white folks get to point at and go "look at those bad racist people, I'm so glad we don't have racism anywhere in the U.S. but the south". As far as D.U. is concerned you seem to want to shut us up so we don't speak and blow the whistle on the rest of the country where all of the "good" white people live. You don't even seem to care about the Black population in the south, which is a massive mistake. More African-Americans' ancestors came to the U.S through S.C than any other state and as such many have relatives here. S.C is the only state I have ever lived in where I have made a middle-class wage as a working class person. The influx of hispanic people into the Southeast in the last few years has been enormous, and there has also been a signifcant immigration of people of Ukranian and Russian descent. This has increased the numbers of the poor and working class, and has made competition for jobs and the demand for social services increase. South Carolinians need a democratic president and congress, and if we (D.U.ers) would stop opting out of the battle before it is even fought and instead get off our behinds and try to make a difference in the South, we could win individual states in the South. It is racist and classist to dismiss a whole region of people like this. The South is also home to the banking capital of the U.S: Charlotte, NC (NY city is #2).

Will y'all ever tire of making yourselves look so ignorant?

[jiacinto]

45. See #27

SC is not winnable. And unless polling data shows otherwise there are more compelling states to run ads in.

[alaine]

47. And Jesus spoke.

This is where you are wrong, and this is why you lose Southern states.

And obviously, the answer to my last questions is no.

Sad that you would rather be right than actually win. Sounds fishy.

[JVS]

52. I've been following this thread

And I'd like to know which states, in your opinion, would be better targets for the Democratic candidate to try to make gains than South Carolina. Thanks.

[markses]

56. After much prodding

jiacinto finally answered that question in post #21:

"Now, if polling data show the state to be in reach, then it should be targeted. However, I think KY, TN, MO, AR, LA, and FL are more winnable than SC is."

[JVS]

59. What about Red states not in the South?

Ohio, the Dakotas, Arizona. Are they worth pursuing?

[jiacinto]

63. In The South?

Those states are:

Arkansas
Kentucky
Missouri
Tennessee
Louisiana
Florida

Maybe even Georgia, which was close in 1992 and in 1996.
Maybe Virginia or North Carolina.

[MissMarple]

46. Until they see he wears no clothes.

George is an illusion, a fabrication. There is no hat and absolutely no cattle. He shrouds himself in obfuscation and they cannot tell the difference. Now, what was it that Lincoln said about fooling people? Let's hope he was right.

On edit: note to alaine: It's not the people in the south that are so much the problem as the political machine that controls the vote. Jiacinto informs us of the trends and voting patterns as he sees them recorded. He knows he cannot positively predict outcomes, only their probability based on past voting history. It is up to us to change that.

We can do this.

[JVS]

53. I would like to point out

that in Florida a lot less people would have to see that the emperor has no clothes than would be necessary in S.Carolina.

[Noordam]

57. Touchscreen Florida will have Bush winning by 14%

just like his brother Jeb did in 2002. This State is more a write off than SC.

[JVS]

58. With rigged voting machines we can write off the whole country

Sorry, I assumed real elections. I guess we won't have that. Perhaps we should just not run a candidate. For the purposes of argument though change Florida to Ohio. SC is still not as good an investment as Ohio

[FubarFly]

61. A smart investment in the South now will pay dividends in the future.

The Gop via shrub is vulnerable on the economy. A strong push for voter registration and turnout may not get the Southern states completely out of the "red" for this election, but will be essential towards changing things for future elections. Demographics do change. It would be unwise not to take advantage when GOP support is at a significant nadir. If the Democratic Party can lay the foundation as being the Party for jobs and responsible spending, it can go a long way towards erasing its perceived weaknesses on guns, the military, and "Christian" values. If you write off the South now, you may as well write it off for good.

[demnan]

65. States to persue

West Virginia, New Hampshire, Florida - those were close states last time

[goobergunch]

66. Personally I doubt that we will win SC..

however, this article leads me to believe that * may get far less votes in SC that in 2000...and if that trend is consistent throughout the South, then we have a good shot at winning OH, AR, TN, and NC.

[jiacinto]

67. Exactly

If Bush fares worse than he did in SC in 2000 then things are looking good for us. But I still see Bush winning that state.

[northzax]

74. as much as I hate it

I gotta go with Carlos here. Look, the decline in manufacturing may well cause a decline in the support for * in SC. And the military vote may be suppressed, but let's be realistic, where are these voters going? Dem? please. that ain't gonna happen, it just isn't. what may well happen is that fewer of them will go vote for *. In swing states (MI, OH, FL, GA, etc) suppression of the GOP vote, combined with a strong Dem presence will produce a win. But in SC, there is not a strong Dem base to play with and take advantage of the situation. It may be close, it may cost resources for the GOP to win, but if the Dem candidate wins SC it won't matter much, since it'll be a reagan-esque landslide. It's actually a shame that no GOP candidate is taking on * from the right, that person might take the primary, a Buchanan or Forbes type.

you know what all this 'defeatist' talk reminds me of? A Marxist revolutionary party, where anyone who speaks the truth about a potential defeat is labeled a 'defeatist' and ignored. Kerry/Dean/Lieberman/whoever has about as much chance of winning SC as * does in Minnesota.

[markses]

75. Your take on my use of defeatist is WAAAY off

What I don't like, and what I am in my rights to decry, is PURE negativity - even if that pure negativity constitutes a partial truth.

Notice that in calling Carlos defeatist (which he certainly was until he moderated his mantra), I never once disputed the truth of his assertions. hell, I gave him the assertion to actually make the truth worthwhile. Where Carlos was just repeating, over and over, that Bush would win, I suggested he 1) highlight the value of that assertion for strategy (better spending resources) and 2) offer positve alternatives (what other states would be better). If you offer only negatives, you are being defeatist, whether what you say is true or not. That has nothing to do with "suppressing the truth" or "ignoring" anybody, and I defy you to show me how it would function that way. What it "reminds you of' is, of course, a different matter, but worthless if it doesn't correspond to the present case at all.

We need fighters, not gloom and doomers. To the extent that carlos was later able to 1) note the relevance of his otherwise purposeless mantra for strategy and 2) offer positive alternatives, he himself proves that his constant harping on the negative could have been usefully supplemented.

[samsingh]

78. repugs only cry

when they are personally impacted. otherwise they don't care about the plight of others.

[young_at_heart]

79. As a "new" southerner, I think religion is deeply involved

In the five years I've lived here I've noticed the strong connection between voting Republican and "being a good Christian". I think Ralph Reed had a big hand in all this!

[cap]

81. Ralph Reed has a big hand in this...

some one from the Christian Coalition is on the boards of local government.

What needs to happen is knocking the "Christian" out of Bush... to show that he is not a Christian like them.

[young_at_heart]

83. True....but what IS the definition of a "good" Christian?

It seems to change every day!

[The Zanti Regent]

84. No doubt in my mind that Clark WILL carry South Carolina

After seeing General Clark on TV, there is NO DOUBT in my mind that he could lead the Democrats to a potential 50 state sweep!

[GOPBasher]

85. Let's get real, Chimp will win SC, BUT

if we even get SC down to about 10%, we're winning the whole nation is a landslide. If Bush spends any time or money campaigning there, it's all over, he's going back to Texas.

[dArKeR]

86. So what if the economy does get better. What about the 3 years of decline?

Where would we have been if not for Bush's incompetence and blowing our billions on a false war?