I will say this once...WE DON'T NEED THE FUCKING SOUTH

[jeter]

I have no problem with the south or southeners. But some people here, like the DLC, the Republican Party and the media have missed the significance of the 2000 election:

Democrats won the popular vote & 268 electoral votes (two shy of winning) without A SINGLE SOUTHERN STATE!!!

For the first time in the history of US elections, the Democrats can win an election WITHOUT THE SOUTH.

That's not to say that we shouldn't press on in states like Louisiana, Florida, or Arkansas. But the point is we don't need them to win.

[Gringo]

1. As someone who is supposedly a south-basher-

I hate the way you've written your thread. It's mean for no reason. The premise may be correct, at least I hope so, but there's no reason to come off sounding so hostile towards southerners, even if you didn't mean to. Besides, why add to the already incredibly tedious tide of "South" threads? Yuck.

[jeter]

2. Hostile?

It's not hostile towards anyone. I specifically say I have no problem with the south. My beef are with those here, the DLC, the media and in the republican party who believe that without the south we can't win.

WE CAN.

[DEMActivist]

6. Perhaps you should re-read your post

Democrats can win an election WITHOUT THE FUCKING SOUTH

If that's not hostile, I don't know what you call it.

[Gringo]

8. Like I said, I want to agree with your premise,

but titling your thread "We don't need the F-ing south" makes it pretty easily misunderstood. Considering how frayed the nerves of the few remaining southerners must be today, why call it that? And and aren't you also kind of saying that we don't really need THEM?

[U4ikLefty]

3. ruh-roh!!!

n/t

[0rganism]

4. Some of the south is in play

It would be stupid to ignore those states where Democrats have been competitive, like Louisiana.

Also, with southern Dems Zell Miller and Fritz Hollings retiring from the senate, Democrats are that much further from a majority. We write off the South at our peril.

[5thGenDemocrat]

5. Well, maybe we don't NEED the South

But I, for one, would sure like to snap off a few electoral pieces of it in 2004.
John
It isn't just about BEATING Dopey. It's about administering an ass-whipping of historic proportions to him. To do THAT, we need pieces of both the South and the interior West, thank you very much.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

34. "It's about administering an ass-whipping of historic proportions."

The "No!" needs to be heard in every corner of this country.





"It's about administering an ass-whipping of historic proportions!"

[jeter]

7. Another thing

For all those DLCer's ready to throw in the towel. What states that Gore won in 2000 is Bush going to win in 2004? Really???

Give me demographics and reasons he's going to win them.

If the answer is none - which I strongly believe. Then we only have to win one more state and the election is ours.

[CarlBallard]

9. Oregon

Maybe. I mean it's definately the most conservative of the 3 pacific states. I'd call it a toss up at the moment.

[jeter]

11. HAHAHAHA. No way.

Bush is very unpopular in the pacific states. Nader did exceptionally well in Oregon and Washington. 2000 was an exception, not the rule.

Oregon stays Democratic.

[ButterflyBlood]

13. Wyden will bring out the vote this time

there were no major races in 2000 there. Also the Nader vote was what made Oregon so close. It won't be as big a factor in 2004.

[Pastiche423]

16. Excuse me?

Our past governor was/is a Dem, as well as our present governor. Furthermore, our two largest cities, Portland and Eugene are very liberal.

[Kat 333]

23. Nah - that isn't so

Oregon is anything but conservative. The least liberal people I have met here, actually, are some of the many Californians who are moving here in droves. California is a Democratic state but obviously offset by enough Republicans that they are trying to throw out their Governor for their own political agenda. You won't see that happening in Oregon anytime soon.

[mndemocrat_29]

30. Most will stay Democratic

but the possibility of losing Minnesota or Iowa is still out there.

[AntiCoup2K4]

50. California is a possibility

Not by honest means, of course. But they are already trying to "update" the voting system there, and we all know what that means. And with the BCE Terminator as puppet governor, it can and will happen.

BTW, I'm not a DLC'er by any stretch of the imagination. They (and especially Lieberman and McCauliffe) can go fuck themselves for all I care.

[philosophie_en_rose]

10. Frankly, we need everyone we can get.

And even if we didn't, why shouldn't our party try to reach as many people as possible? Just as we can't take traditionally liberal states for granted, we shouldn't abandon the progressive movements in the South - or anywhere else. They need national support and the national party needs local energy.

Just my opinions, of course. However, I don't see how the Democrats can simply disregard say, Florida.

[jeter]

12. you people seem to miss my point

I never said disregard the south. I said we don't need it to win.

[punpirate]

17. Amen...

... we need all the help we can get to push this creep out of office, along with all of those idiots he brought along with him.

The current perception of the South is furthered by the 2002 election--Sonny Purdue and his flag frenzy--but the simple truth is that there are a lot of people in the deep South who don't like what's happening in Washington, any more than the rest of us. Organize them and get them to the polls and we might just send a message to the boy king and his minions.

[electricmonk]

14. Ok

I'll make sure I sign up for the re-select * campaign first thing Monday. And I'll make sure all my friends and family work for him too.

Signed, A fucking Southerner

PS. The 2004 election is not going to be the 2000 election revisited. It's a whole new ball game this time out. Every single vote needs to be worked for in Blue and Red states. And not a single one written off.

[Gringo]

18. See what we mean, Jeter?

I got into a MASSIVE flame-fest over milder sentiments than you've expressed here regarding the South. I'm still smarting over it.

I do think that some of the southerners are a bit hypersensitive, but the overproliferation of "South" threads, and their overwhelming negativity is starting to make me hypersensitive too. If there was a good reason for wording your header that way, I would understand, but to the casual observer, it would look like you're just trying to stir up another shit storm.

[sandnsea]

15. We need to disrail the neocon train

And if people don't understand that means getting the American people to understand their Constitution is at stake, especially the South, then I don't think we have a prayer in the long run anyway. It'll be good to have a Democratic President, but if we still have this radical right wing Republican Congress and people spouting off this crazy ideology, then we'll still be in alot of trouble in this country.

[neuvocat]

19. Don't bait the DLC'ers like that.

Especially the phonies from New England that say they'er southerners.

[Old and In the Way]

20. Disagree....

We need the South to get more Dem Reps and Senators elected. Electing a Democrat President with a Republican Congress won't solve our problems...and may even make it worse for us long term.

Strong Democratic turnout in the south might also change the balance power in Congress...then the payback fun will begin.

[VermontDem2004]

43. I agree Bush wouldn't be fucking this country

as much if we had a Democratic controlled Congress.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. You mean like

Reagan didn't fuck the country (NOT) when the Dems controlled both houses of Congress?

We don't just need Democrats. We need Democrats with spine.

[w4rma]

21. The south could be receptive to Democratic economic reform

Remember, the south consist of the poorest (but unfortunately, least educated) states in the nation.

[FredScuttle]

22. Uh....huh?

Remind me again when President Gore was sworn in? Oh yeah, that's right...because, in part, he failed to win a single southern state, the election was still up for grabs by the time we got to Florida and we all know the tune from there...

I would think the experience of the 2000 theft would indicate to you that nothing, NOTHING, can be written off.

[Pompitous_Of_Love]

26. Gore screwed up in the South

I can tell you that he pissed a lot of Dem activists off here in North Carolina because he wrote the state off from the very start of his campaign. The party itself had a great election cycle that year, sweeping all but one of the Council of State offices and producing enough Dem wins in the General Assembly to keep firm control of the Senate and split the Rethugs to keep control of the House. Gore got his ass kicked in the polls here because he did no campaigning or advertising. The 2004 Dem candidate will get the same bum's rush if he decides to write us off from the start as well.

Here's a clue for those of you actually wanting to win the election -- don't write off any state, much less a region. A strong run in any state plants the seeds for eventual victory, even if it is another Dem Presidential candidate in a later election cycle. If Dems decide to concentrate on only a select few regions of the nation, they'll soon find themselves a regional party with no coherent national message. That's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[loyalsister]

24. The hostility is in saying

"we don't NEED particular voters." As if what they want\expect\need from their government does not matter. It does matter. Whether we can win with the south or not, NO presidential candidate should ever write off any part of a population that he wants to govern.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[styersc]

27. Your profile says that you are a Canadian-

So the claim that "we" don't need the south is meaningless. I wager that even the most rabidly conservative southern state has more electoral votes then Canada. (But I'm a southerner so my opinion doesn't matter).

[no_hypocrisy]

28. I dunno. Didn't the country go down the slippery slope in ca. 1860 when

some well-intentioned northern officeholder virtually uttered,
"We don't need the South"?

[molly]

29. Yes we do

is Florida considered "the south"?

[kcordell]

31. One Thing Is Certain

The Democrats can win without a single Canadian vote.

[molly]

32. LOL!!!!

[retread]

33. Is getting a large number of resposes to a thread you started

a "badge of honor"? Why else would you phrase it the way you have?

[tlb]

35. I seem to be teh only one here to recall the congressional reapportionment

The electoral vote in 2000 with the same states now following the 2000 census would tilt I believe 16 extra votes to Bush . For example, New York lost two votes, Texas gained two. Most gains were in the south. Karl Rove would approve your " thinking ", if it can be called that. If carried through, it guarantees future unbroken republican victories.

The snotty smug hostility to the south you see so much of here repuslses me.

[Kahuna]

36. We don't if you can guarantee us every state we got in 2000..

AND if we throw in NH and NV. You can't. So we need to always have Plan B.

[fishnfla]

39. You know if a southern gentleman like Clark were to run

we wouldn't need the North. The Deanie-bopers who run this forum realize that, ergo ipso facto, we have Southern bashing threads. The Northeast liberals are afraid they will be marginalized again because of a strong Southern candidate.

[lkinsale]

44. A southern gentleman IS running

Graham. 5 time winner in FLORIDA, farm roots, soft-spoken southern statesman.

And don't mention the "VP" words, thanks. A candidate who has all the cards to beat Bush is a terrible thing to waste.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. Your Premise Is Incorrect

You Forgot about the 2000 Census which gave the South an additional dozen Electoral Votes*


Yes, a Democrat can win without the South but it's the Electoral College equivalent of the inside straight flush. And if we cede all the Red States to Bush it means he can concentrate all his forces and quarter of a billion dollars on the Blue States.

Also, what makes your premise absurd is that the Dems can't be a majority party in the House and Senate if they cede the entire South.






*I'm sure another poster has the exact number.

[DemoTex]

38. Jeter, your screen name is very ironic for a South basher.

Jeter Lester was the dysfunctional Georgia sharecropper in Erskine Caldwell's Tobacco Road. Old Jeter was not unlike some of the Snopes clan of Faulkner's Yoknapatawpha County, Mississippi.

In the immortal words of Jeter Lester, "Sons, and sons, and sons-of-bitchs!"

[Bridget Burke]

40. What do you mean by "we", Paleface?

Canada has many admirable qualities but, last time I checked, NO electoral votes!

[Patriot_Spear]

41. Hey Sport...

You think you don't need guys like Begala and Carville? MAy did you pick the right symbol for your icon... lol

[styersc]

42. Absolutely brilliant-

The Democratic party is so strong across the country, and our presidential nominee is such a shoe-in that we have the luxury of turning our backs on entier regions of the country.

[Fescue4u]

45. wrong...

No President in recent history has won without at least some of the south.

[zoidberg]

46. Really?

And which Northern state is going to vote for Dean/Kerry/Lieberman/Gephardt that didn't vote for Gore in 2000?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. There Was A Census

If we carry all the 00 Blue States and NH we still are eight or nine votes short.

And Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Iowa were very close.

[VermontDem2004]

47. You have a point

if Gore would of won New Hampshire and Bush legally won Florida, Gore would be the first President in US History to win without picking up a single southeastern state.

[QC]

52. If frogs had wings,

they wouldn't bump their asses on the ground every time they hop.

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

[NashVegas]

48. We Need a DIFFERENT TACTIC for the Southern States

And for those who insist we can't win without the South:

instead of bowing, scraping, and begging, I propose we invite them to the party.

ie, recall the old adage many of us learned in college that was lost to us in high school: the harder you try to impress someone with how great you are, the more they think you're an asshole; the more you relax and just be yourself, the more people like you.

If we can nominate a good enough candidate and run an exciting enough campaign, we can make the South come to the Democrats. They know a good show when they see one.

[molly]

51. I will say this 1 more time..WE NEED THE FUCKING SOUTH

whatsthe matter with you? Don't hedge your bets! We need everyone we can get and this IS America BTW. We are a nation "of the people - by the people - for the people." I don't see a mention there of significant states - do you? If you like living like your living - don't change your narrow-bigoted-fucking-attitude. If you want to live like a redneck-bigoted-asshole - keep on posting like you are posting.

The pugs, the DLC and anyone else is no excuse for your bigotry.

[diamondsoul]

54. I beg to differ.

We may not "need THE FUCKING SOUTH" to win the upcoming election, though I'm not entirely convinced of that either, but we do very MUCH need the South to realize what a worthless POS Chimpy is so that we don't wind up in the same boat all over again.

Not only that, but we NEED to stop tearing other citizens apart and come together as a society to overcome all the shit we're currently standing in, neck-deep.

We DO NEED THE SOUTH TO WIN. But I suppose that depends on what your definition of the prize is. Mine is reclaiming my country and the principles it was built on.

[newyawker99]

55. I am locking this thread.

All other South-bashing threads have been locked.

Thanks for your understanding.


NYer99
DU Moderator