Charleston (WVA)Daily News speculates on how Dean could win state vs. Bush

[CMT]

West Virginia has only five electoral votes, but those five votes would have been enough to make Al Gore president in 2000. The state had a long history of being one of the most supportive of Democratic candidates--even Michael Dukakis won the state in 1988.

The Charleston Daily Mail has a good article on how it might be grabbed from George W. Bush in 2004:

In 2000, George Bush was the dark hourse presidential candidate in West Virginia, wooing voters right under the nose of would-be Romeo Al Gore. Now, West Virginia is being linked to another presidential suitor--and it's not Bush. Republican political strategists here are warning Bush could be vulnerable to former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, one of nine Democratic challengers, in key states like West Viriginia, and on exactly the same issue the president used to court state voters--guns.

"We are whistling past the graveyard if we think Howard dean will be a pushover," Bob Moore and Hans Kaiser fo Moore Information write in a memo first reported last week in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call...

http://www.dailymail.com/news/News/2003101313/

[demnan]

1. Do what JFK did

West Virginia was such a surprise win for John F. Kennedy (supposedly because of anti-Catholic prejudice) but JFK went to West Virginia and said, "I care about the poverty here and I'm going to help you." Essentially that's what Hillary Clinton did in upper New York State to win as Senator. Any of the Democrats could easily win West Virginia, and make a dent in either North Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky or Tennessee by doing the same thing.

Appalachia has always been a region of poverty, full of people who would like to have good paying jobs and stay in their communities, but unfortunately many leave for cities just for economic survival. If any of the Democrats have a plan for reversing the flight from that area, they could make a major gain in the Appalachian border states and the impact would affect voters in Midwestern and Eastern cities where migrants from these areas now dwell.

[Cha]

2. And those assholes killed JFK for "caring"!

By 2004 I think life in the USA is going to be so much worse for a lot of People that they are going to be happy to listen to the Dem who speaks to them.

[TKP]

3. WV Politics & Beyond

I have a very good friend of mine from Morgantown, WV whose father was the president of the UMWA for 20 years in the 70's and 80's. Quite a character, and every other word out of his mouth is "union", a man who strongly defends what he believes. I had an opportunity a couple of years ago to go with my firend to his hometown and visit his family and took the occasion to speak with his father about the recent victory for Bush in 2000. This guy was basically the money carrier for the UMWA, the one who went to give the check to the party for support. In the past he had entertained LBJ, McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Gore, etc... in his home. He told me he traveled to Charleston, WV to meet with the candidate and express his position and find out what they were going to do for the union. Al Gore didn't show, they sent Tipper. She was meeting with an environmental group. I don't need to tell you what mining does to the land. And as he put it, needless to say he turned around and went home, the union did not push Gore, and they lost the state.

I do not wish to step out of line with DU policy at any time, and it is certainly not my intention at this time to do so. But this brings up a point that needs to be considered (and probably has been discussed before I ever logged onto this site). While most people vote their wallets, it has become increasing difficult for some who were formerly strong Democratic voters to support the candidates as they formerly did. Take for instance my friend's father. Strong Democrat. Strong union man. He sees the Democratic party embracing environmentalist, gay rights, appearances as though they wish God would go away, things along that line, and he can't marry the these conflicts (as he sees them) together.

I don't know. Maybe it just an older generation. But it seems our Party has sprung a lot of changes on the old guard, and let's face it, on the people with disposable income and influence who could fund and carry the message that this is a Party of the working people, and it's turned them away. I know my parents and many of my relatives who were strong Democrats have felt like their concerns have been shoved aside because of special interests. IMHO, we need to get back to emphasizing ourselves as being for the working class, retrench as it were, and quit focusing so much on the special interests which can be used to divide and conquer us. The 2000 election results in WV are a mirror of what has happened to the Party nationwide.

[dfong63]

4. who are you calling a "special interest"?

you're saying that environmentalists and gay rights advocates are special interests, but a mine workers' union isn't???

[JohnKleeb]

5. We should pay attention to the union interests but those two are important

as well. I am big for union rights as I am environmental protection and gay rights.

[AP]

7. The interests of those special interests all flow down from the essential

goals of unions. Unless more wealth and political power flows to the middle and working class -- which is the goal of unions -- none of these other issues will matter.

[AP]

8. Another thing: environmental/gay activits didn't help Gore win WV

Did they help him win any state?

[TKP]

9. dfong63 & others

Thank you for your question. I appreciate all the comments.

For you and anyone else that might read my original post, I wrote some of it from the prespective of the person with whom I had the discussion.

As a UMWA union leader, it was his position that the environmentalist were costing the UMWA jobs, and therefore hurting the working class and prohibiting the hiring of more union members.

My conversation with him was very interesting. This guy participated in wildcat strikes with the teamsters and the UAW, just about anyone associated with the AFL-CIO during the 70's. Depending upon your age, you may or may not remember the turmoil with the unions and corporations during that time. Let's just say this guy was thrown in jail more than once. He also participated in turning over police cars (whom the union workers viewed as siding against them) and setting fires to corporate interests. It was some interesting times to observe.

Let me re-emphasize -- this guy was all union. Period. Given the money and support the unions have given the Democratic Party over the years, he felt Democrats were obligated to the union first and foremost. Having grown up in a union family myself, I can say that position is well grounded among union workers. So yes, with union people, environmental concerns, gay rights, and many other social "special interests" take a backseat to the needs of the working class for jobs and benefits.

Let me be more forward if I may. Once again, I don't want to overstep the boundries of DU, and being new here I'm not sure where the line is drawn (Not that I'm interested in walking in gray areas just to see if I can or not. That's not my purpose. If I have, please point it out, for I don't desire to disrupt discussions or misuse my priviledge). I speak from personal experiences as a child of a union family.

Things like the environment, gay rights, civil rights, women's rights, seperation of church and state, are IMHO always going to be relegated to the frindge of the core union Democratic Party supporters. They have one concern -- the union. It's jobs. It's getting work for the union. It's bringing jobs to the union. When I talked to my friends's father, and mentioned how our Party has embraced the gay community, or how our Party has embraced decisions involving (for instance) not having X-mas lights on government property, he shuttered. Right or wrong, it was upsetting to him. To him, the Democratic Party should be about the working class and jobs for union members, not these other things which he regarded as being petty. I've seen and heard these same reactions from my own family and from other union families I have known since childhood. It is a prevailing issue, and until we address these things, it will continue to be an issue. Many lifelong Democrats have gone to voting Republican over social issues. IMHO, we know it's true, but for some reason, we don't want to talk about it.

In the big cities, not as much an issue. In the heartland of America, big issue. We ignore the heartland of America at our own peril and demise.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

10. voting the pocket book over all else.

no surprise there. But to lose votes over the social issues?
It's an interesting dynamic. Seems the best thing to do is emphasize economics over all else.

[dfong63]

12. it sounds like prejudice to me

gay rights and environmental protection are NOT in conflict with the interest of working people. on the contrary.

[JohnKleeb]

13. Thats why we need to be socially liberal and economically liberal

heh thats why I support DK guys, he has all the right views.

[dfong63]

14. that just defies common sense

... it goes with the repub spin that dems are the party of the "special interests". anyone with one good eye can look at the two parties and see which one really represents the "special interests": the mega corporations, the greedheads, the polluters, the union busters, the wall st thieves, the outsourcers... if any "working people" feel that their interests are getting short shrift with the dems, then they need to sit down and ask themselves how well the repubs are doing on their behalf. sure, the dems could do better, and i wish they would. but the dems' failures to defend workers, is not because of any conflict with environmentalism or gay rights. it's because the dems too have sold out to the corps, though to a lesser extent than the repubs.

[AP]

6. This is part of the problem of Gore's totally confused campaigning

He thought it was more important to hew closely the environmental person he'd created for himself. It's amazing that he'd foresake labor to impress the Sierra Club. That's shocking.

This post deserves its own thread.

[dfong63]

11. so where do you draw the line ?

supporting civil rights for blacks cost dems the south, unto this day. was that the wrong thing to do? are blacks a "special interest"?

I don't know. Maybe it just an older generation. But it seems our Party has sprung a lot of changes on the old guard, and let's face it, on the people with disposable income and influence who could fund and carry the message that this is a Party of the working people, and it's turned them away.

i think working people are waking up to the fact that environmental damage hurts them in a big way... it's not an just abstract. pollution kills, causes cancer, birth defects, destroys property values, destroys communities. i think working people are also waking up to realize that a hell of a lot of their co-workers are gay and tired of living in the closet.

on edit: should be "co-workers, friends, sons, and daughters are gay".

I know my parents and many of my relatives who were strong Democrats have felt like their concerns have been shoved aside because of special interests. IMHO, we need to get back to emphasizing ourselves as being for the working class, retrench as it were, and quit focusing so much on the special interests which can be used to divide and conquer us. The 2000 election results in WV are a mirror of what has happened to the Party nationwide.

so are the repubs doing any better job of representing the working class? of course not. as Jesse Jackson observed, when the chickens get mad about something, that doesn't mean they should vote for col sanders.