Bag the Southern Stratey...go North ?

[SaveElmer]

I have thought for quite sometime that Democrats should forget about appealing to the south in Presidential elections. It weakens our message elsewhere in the country. Instead, we should be focusing on the Northeast, Midwest, West, and Southwest. States like Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Montana are in a much better position to be receptive to a Democratic populist message than the South is. We should still look south at other levels (Governor, Congress etc), where a message can be crafted to appeal to a particular geographic area without diluting our message elsewhere.

Sorry if this has been posted already, but this article in Slate sums it up perfectly as far as I'm concerned.

http://www.slate.com/id/2094552/

[K-W]

1. Bad idea.

First off,you cant really ignore any region. Secondly, if you ignore them in the pres election, it will hurt governor and congressional elections.

[SaveElmer]

2. Isn't that what we have been doing ?

Haven't we in essence been virtually ignoring certain areas of the country in our zeal to appeal to the southern voter, an area with very few true swing voters...certainly less than some of the states I have mentioned.

[K-W]

3. In every presidential election, candidates focus on swing states

or states where there are important congressional or state elections, where the presidential candidate can campaign for other democrats a little.

I dont think we ignore any parts of the country per se.

[jfxgillis]

7. The South is like Scarlett O'Hara

If you make a play for her, she breaks your heart.

If you tell her to ply her seductive charms elsewhere, she's all over you.

Should the Dems IGNORE the South? No. They should say: YOU come to ME, baby, I ain't coming to you.

[StClone]

4. Southern Truths

Spread the truth about Bush and his cronies and let the South decide if they like what Bush is doing to them with all the support they send to the W.H.

[Tomee450]

23. Southern

support of Bush and the Republican party is based mostly on race,imo. Whites fled to the Republican party because of the Civil Rights movement which they opposed. As long as Bush and his party are seen to be anti minorities, southerners won't care what is being done to them by their own party. They will continue to vote against their own best interest.

[ma4t]

26. One problem w/ your analysis ..

is that it seems like support for Republicans in the South is stronger among younger voters than older ones. It's hard for me to credit the idea that voters who weren't even born in 1964 became Repubilicans because Johnson signed the Civil Rights Acts. There has to be more to it than that.

[EXE619K]

5. Please listen to this guy!

I'm also a Minnesotan, and I'll tell ya folks....our state used to be a solid "blue" state.

Not anymore.

Since, the 2000 elections the political dynamic of this region has changed and very much so. And the same applies to WI and IA(got many friends over there).Although the DEms are still holding on to mandate here, it's been "dripping" ever since.

It might be a good strategy to invest in the south(to spread the resources of the GOP), if we win one down south, but cannot secure the midwest...this bodes ill for the Dems.

$200 million(plus focus group spin) goes a long way and I think Bush/Cheney will go for the Jugular in all 50 because they have the resources to do it.

In my opinion, trying to "win" a potential southern swing state, but losing one in Midwest is not a good trade.

But, that's just my opinion.

[HootieMcBoob]

8. Maybe we should have a Northern Strategy

Who knows? I'm tired personally of having to always have a candidate that's from south. What would it be like if Northerners decided they wouldn't vote for somebody who wasn't from the north? It's absurd and would never happen right? Well, that's basically what's going on in the south. It's frustrating but it's the reality that we have to deal with.

[EXE619K]

13. This has nothing to do with regionality....

Nor, does it have anything to do with the Northern vs. Southern candidate's viability.

I'm talking about the situation here in MN, WI, IA region.

[Bandit]

6. Go for the people not the geography

It matters not where anyone is from. People all across this nation are suffering the same consequences of the Bush* Cabal. Every state has had to make huge tax increases to make up for the Feds cutting funding that normally went to states. The money has gone to the extremely wealthy in this country and people all across the nation are beginning to realize this. Appeal to the people even if they do have a Confederate Flag on their pick em up truck and have always voted Republican. These people can be changed just as Dean suggested.

[HootieMcBoob]

9. But Republican fear of the other has always trumped

Democrats common sense message in the south.

[yellowcanine]

10. Modified Strategy - Border states + Florida

Missouri, Tennesee, North Carolina, Florida are all winnable for a Dem. Go all out in places like Ohio - lot of big industrial cities that could deliver the state to a Dem with a big Dem turnout. The Northeast should be fairly easy - it has become the most reliably Dem - so don't ignore it but depend on organization and media to get the word out. Southwest is trending Dem - keep pounding in NM and Arizona. Of course the Blue 2000 states + any one of Florida, Tennesee, West Virginia, Missouri would do the trick, no? Louisiana is another possible win for a Dem in 2004, imo.

[SaveElmer]

11. Agreed on Florida

Florida is really southwest in character...so I would make a push there. Also West Virginia which is more midwestern than southern would be worth pushing resources into. I would forget about North Carolina unless Edwards is the nominee. I also believe Tennessee is a lost cause.

[watercolors]

30. don't count Fl. out

Remember Gore really won Fl. We just has jeb and Harris playing dirty!!

[MattNC]

14. NC

i really can't see us winning NC -- even with Edwards on the ticket. Trying to keep his Senate seat is going to be hard enough.

[Devlzown]

12. There are a two are three southern states

the Dems should try to win -- Louisiana, Arkansas, maybe Tennessee or North Carolina. We shouldn't spend our limited time and money on the rest. People always bring up the large percentages of minorities and poor people down here, but they fail to mention how few of them vote. Even the ones who are registered. The people who vote down here are generally middle class, conservative, and overwhelmingly Republican.

[wuushew]

16. I agree on LA, but wouldn't trying for MO be a better idea?

I keep reading how TN has become more red since 2000.

[Devlzown]

18. Definitely.

Tennessee was just a maybe. And I only think North Carolina is winnable if Edwards is on the ticket, and even then it's still not a sure thing.

[RainDog]

15. here's my "southern strategy"

Dems need to let the truth make the fundies free to stay home on election day.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1062469

[ieoeja]

17. What is a "Northern Strategy"?

The only thing I can come up with might be amending NAFTA and FTAA to include only those states that protect unions. If Mexico opposes unionization within an industry, Mexico cannot export goods related to that industry freely into the United States. If Alabama's Right-To-Work law stands in the way of unionization, then other countries have the right to charge increased tariffs on goods made in Alabama.

The third world country taking the most jobs away from the United States is the former Confederate States.

[bleedingheart]

19. Why I don't like some Southern candidates -the south gave us Right to Work

Walmart and the Bible Belt...oh and loads of conservative/centrist ideas...

someone please tell me good reasons for wanting a southern candidate

The last good candidate from the south was Lyndon B Johnson who actually tried to wage a war on poverty...

[SaveElmer]

20. Wrong way to look at it

I am not advocating not having southern Presidential candidates. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were fine Presidents. The point is to move our resources, and craft our message, to places where they can move the most voters. We shouldn't weaken our message to try and grab votes in the south, when that will hurt us elsewhere. I believe the slippage we have seen in places such as Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon, West Virginia, and Ohio, is because we have muddled our message in an effort to attract southern white conservative voters.

[SharonAnn]

22. Be careful about shifting our resources because that allows * to

shift his resources. You've got to keep in busy enough on the ground even in states you might not win so that he has to expend resources there.

Otherwise, they can just take all their resources (money and people), move them to states where we're competitive, and really gang up on us there. That way, they'd outspend us 4 to 1 instead of 2 to 1. it would be hard to overcome that, no matter how "righteous" our message or our candidate.

[SharonAnn]

21. And taxpayer support of corporations, no environmental

restrictions, reduced worker protections, lowest wages, poor education system, poll taxes, all relicts of the "plantation" and "Southern sheriff" mentality.

And guess what, it still goes on. I'm astounded almost daily now that I live in Tennessee.

A letter to the editor in the Knoxville News Sentinel 18 months ago may still be true:

"Where I grew up in Yankee country, people generally regarded the South as a region uniquely marked by demagoguery, anti-intellectualism and deep, deep ignorance.

Judging by the antics of the state Legislature over the past three years, I'd say we got it just about right."

[kath]

24. The GOP has pretty much given up on the Northeast, as the Slate

article mentioned, and they don't get a lot of hassle for THAT. So why would it be so evil for the Dems to give up on the South??

I'm so sick of the bullshit that "we need a Southerner on the ticket, blah, blah, etc"

And I HATE the freakin' Electoral College...

[dusty64]

25. We shouldn't write

off any region except maybe the mountain states and a few southern ones. I think we need to contest Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Florida at least. We also have many important House and Senate races down there and winning back control would be VERY hard if we neglect these areas.

[Touchdown]

29. Dems already have written off Mountain states.

Try living here, and see how much you get paid attention to.

Ever hear of Rollie Heath? I didn't think so. He ran as a Dem for governor here in Co. against Repug Bill Owens (Bush cronie, and Texas oil lobbyist and he BARELY won by about 150 votes in 1998), and got trounced. Why? Becausde he got no support, or money, or help from the Dems, because they were wasting all their time coddling the South, where we still lost Max Cleland over smear tactics.

When I see dismissals like this, I have no sympathy for Southerners who think their entitled to the constant stroking from the Dems.

[GreyV]

27. I agree...

Southerners will never be true Democrats. South and progressive views don't mix well. I went to Atlanta last year, and let me tell you, most of these southern Democrats are no different than their southern Republican brethren. Most of them think that the current administration is doing a pretty good job. Only true democrats are usually northerners or midwesterners who moved there.

There is a lot of 19th century mindset down there, although they like to call it heritage.

[PVnRT]

28. While we may not win those states

if we get our message out to them, then two things happen:

(1) People running for state office, Congress, and governor in those states might get enough of a push to ride into office

(2) We improve our numbers in those states, meaning that Bush will have to go down there and try to counteract it - meaning he is running around even more and spending more money.

Plus, if we close the gap, as far as popular votes go, it's a hell of a lot easier to claim a mandate.

Why do we need to "dilute" anything? Much of the support for the Republicans comes from wedge social issues that they hammer in down there constantly. Why not remind them that they are losing jobs too, that their health care coverage is being eroded (if they even have it anymore), and so on? Something tells me that many liberals in the North just don't want to try, as it involves going to places they see as backwards and beneath them.

Of course, if you write off the South, you are also ignoring millions of black voters, but no one seems to want to bring that little ugly truth to the surface.