The South Does Not A Majority Make

[sandnsea]

"There are 11 nonsouthern states that are comfortably Republican: Indiana, ND, SD, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, and Alaska; total number of electoral votes: 53. Any Dem who wins California's 55 electoral votes more than cancels out these states which are all losing electoral votes (except Utah). Let's also not forget oh-so-Democratic Hawaii, and Oregon and Washington (swing states that lean strongly Dem). Note: By winning both Oregon and Washington state in each of the last 5 elections (1988-onward), modern Dems (including TWO "Massachusetts liberals") have succeeded here where even FDR and Truman failed.

"OK, so Dems can beat out the GOP states in the nonsouth just by winning a few Western Dem states, but how can we win without the South?"

MORE:

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=1233

[patrice]

1. Amen to that! Thank you.

[derby378]

2. I cannot stress this enough...

Ditch any attempt to reauthorize the AWB. This will give the Dems some real hope of grabbing Texas and all of its lovely, plentiful electoral votes.

It will also help galvanize gun owners in other Western states. Read The Nation from April 18, 2005 for an article dealing with this.

[JohnnyBoots]

4. AWB?

[asthmaticeog]

5. Assault Weapons Ban (n/t)

[napi21]

7. Anti weapons ban

[ProudDad]

41. And exactly what the F***

does one use Assault Weapons for?

What possible use do they have in one's day to day life?

What possible purpose do they serve have other than killing the maximum number of people in the minimum amount of time?

Crap. Ban all of them and all handguns. Any weapon whose purpose is more than 50% killing humans should be BANNED BANNED BANNED.

How many gunshots do you hear in an average month. I hear too damn many of them!!!! I'm damn sick and tired of it too. I want them melted down and made into a monument to human stupidity and pathology!!!

They don't allow these obscenities in Europe and they don't have the kind of shooting war in the cities we have to suffer here.

Melt 'em all!!!




Or --


In the interest of dialogue...I propose we tax bullets at $5.00 each. Maybe that's a better idea, eh? :-)

[liberalfriend]

58. not bad

on the issue of taking guns away from people I generally disagree with you. In fact when florida allowed people to have concealed weapons violent gun crimes dropped dramatically (at least according to some seminar I was listening to on C-SPAN radio). But the point about taxing bullets is a good idea. Much like cigarette taxes, the ability to quietly influence societies actions as a whole by effecting their pocket book is a less politically charged method. My 5 bucks is a little high but I'm sure you could set the price enough to make a few bullets good for a normal citizen but really expensive for a criminal trying to arm themselves to the teeth. It's an idea worth taking a strong look at.

[ProudDad]

64. Maybe you can answer a question for me

What do "honest, law abiding" people use AK-47's and 357 Magnums, Glock 19s, Mac 10s etc. for?

I'm really serious and not trying to be confrontational.

[derby378]

75. What do honest, law-abiding people want Jaguars and Porsches for?

Can't they be happy with Civics and Corollas and leave the high-performance engines to the government?

It's a free society. We don't have to agree with everyone's choices, but as long as we all abide the law, we uphold life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as inalienable rights. Why mess it up for everyone?

[liberalfriend]

96. uh what he said

we can't be gung-ho about legislating behavior. I feel that though I may not agree or even understand the desire for someone to own a gas powered carbine gun that shoot like 300 bullets per second BUT I also have to look at the flip side. How could I expect the other side to tolerate gay marriage or simply homosexuality in general if we can't tolerate certain choices they make, like getting something out of owning an AK 47. (male pride alert: I'm not gay) I hope that answers your question.

[derby378]

74. Reality check

C'mon. It neither breaks your back nor picks your pocket if I own an AK-47.

And for the record, I do not own one. My wife would kill me.

But I wil defend to the death your right to say that we don't need these guns in civilian society. You tell me - will the Republicans guarantee you the same freedom of speech?

[okieinpain]

79. cool, go ahead and get your army together and go out and

confiscate those gus and after you get finished with world war III I check with you to see if it was worth it.

Geez...

[slackmaster]

89. A rifle that I used for target shooting was declared an "AW"

I've found that many people do not understand what the federal AW ban did and more importantly what it did not do. Specifically, about half of the people who are not familiar with firearms (and far too many who are familiar with them) think the AWB was the only thing preventing people from buying fully automatic firearms at Wal-Mart or gun shows. But AWs were by definition semiautomatic like many other firearms commonly used for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense.

...What possible purpose do they serve have other than killing the maximum number of people in the minimum amount of time?...

Capacity for killing humans was not among the criteria that defined assault weapons.

How many gunshots do you hear in an average month.

None.

I hear too damn many of them!!!!

Maybe you should move to a better neighborhood.

They don't allow these obscenities in Europe and they don't have the kind of shooting war in the cities we have to suffer here.

Or you could move to Europe.

In the interest of dialogue...I propose we tax bullets at $5.00 each. Maybe that's a better idea, eh? :-)

How many national elections are you willing to sacrifice in order to feel safer?

[ProudDad]

99. It's obvious

that when you gun nuts talk about guns your reasoning centers go out of whack and the only kind of statements you can make are ad-hominum, irrelevent and/or totally devoid of any meaningful contribution to a dialogue.

I give up...

You win...

You've mowed me down with your superior ability to turn off the centers of reason and drown me in a pile of your bullshit.

Thanks for the information...


By the by, I can't fucking afford to "move to a better neighborhood".

[slackmaster]

100. I don't see any ad hominem attacks in my post

Compare and contrast to yours:

that when you gun nuts talk about guns your reasoning centers go out of whack and the only kind of statements you can make are ad-hominum, irrelevent and/or totally devoid of any meaningful contribution to a dialogue....

Name-calling is argumentum ad hominem. And you didn't even try to address what I actually wrote.

...By the by, I can't fucking afford to "move to a better neighborhood".

Here's your 'tude back at you:

:nopity:

[JohnnyBoots]

3. Explains why the GOP has embraced to religious fundies, they

had to lock down the Bible belt.

[derby378]

6. Unfortunately...

All the Religious Right has to do is scream "abortion" and "gay marriage," and then let Karl Rove do the legislative legwork from state to state. That's one reason why the GOP made such gains in 2004 across the board.

[sandnsea]

9. Hmmm

So you're saying we should abandon the inner cities by giving up AWB, abandon gays and abandon women. Is that right?

Why would anybody vote Dem?

The point of this piece is that we don't need the Bible belt south. The logical conclusion from that would be some of these wedge issues just aren't as important as people are making them out to be.

[derby378]

11. You don't need the Bible Belt - but you do need their votes

Besides, you should re-read my post. I never said anything about abandoning gays or women. That's Karl Rove's job.

[impeachthescoundrel]

10. I think that is a mistaken conclusion

As tired as I am of repeating it, the only gains made by republicans were a gift from Diebold. Period.

[derby378]

12. Diebold did play a major role

Can't be denied. The same can be said for ES&S and Sequoia.

But not all the blame can be laid at their feet - the Religious Right still carries a lot of culpability.

[CTLawGuy]

33. no, there are no actual republicans

its all Diebold.... :eyes:

[ProudDad]

28. Only because the Dems are silent

or marginalized.

[Wetzelbill]

8. Montana may be turning Blue pretty soon

They have a progressive Governor the first Dem in nearly 20 years. The Dems have control of the Lege for the first time in forever. One virtually unbeatable Democratic senator and the other one is a very, very vulnerable Republican, who even if he does win in '06, will almost certainly retire rather than run as a 76 year old. But he almost lost last time to an unknown so this time he's in big trouble.

MT is only a few electoral votes though. But the point is, if Dems can start winning over legislatures, and then Governorships in some of these Western States then we have a shot.

For example, both New Mexico and Arizona, have democratic governors who are both very popular in their states. Bush barely won NM and won AZ by 8 points or so, I think. Clinton, however, won AZ twice, and I think NM too. Plus, I know in NM, Greg Palast has said, they have a voting problem on reservations and in hispanic districts, which both vote for democrats. If we can cultivate some of those successes, and get more votes verified, Democratic presidential candidates can start picking off some of these states. A good place to start is getting good quality candidates to really get after it in races for the state legislature, Mayorships and city councils. From there you can radiate out and start picking up some steam. I hope so anyway.

[JohnnyBoots]

15. It's all about getting in on

the ground level infrastructure on a county by county, state by state basis.

[Wetzelbill]

22. definitely, you got it right

That takes a mass movement. A lot of like-minded people deciding to do the little things. The problem is, the people who most care and would be the best candidates are activists not politicians. Most people don't want to run for office and use office as a means for activism. That's why I like to tell people, run for school board, city council, dogcatcher, whatever. Progressives need to take stuff into their own hands.

Coincidently, I am going to run for state senate in MT. I'll be going back this year to do so. :)

[JohnnyBoots]

25. Good luck I

[Wetzelbill]

26. thanks

[Hippo_Tron]

38. Montana is a small enough state that a takeover wasn't too hard...

Arizona will take longer, simply because it is a bigger state. BTW Clinton only won AZ the second time. He only won Colorado the first time.

[Wetzelbill]

44. technically MT is bigger

AZ has more people. :)

No, I agree, it will all take awhile. Montana wasn't a quick take over though. They really aren't even a take over yet. It took over twenty years, and even then, Bush blew away Kerry and even Gore in MT. You're more likely to see AZ vote for a Democratic presidential candidate than you will MT. It's got a small but very odd population in terms of voting patterns. The same people who voted for probably the nation's most progressive governor, also voted for Bush and one of the most far-right members of Congress, all on the same ballot. Not to mention they voted for democrats in the local lege races. Really an odd pattern.

[dorktv]

102. Arizona likes women though...We vote for women in droves

That is why my local district has two women in the state house.

[Racenut20]

13. It would seem to me then, the winning strategy would be

Don't nominate anymore Kerry's.

Problem is, the Democratic party does not get to pick the nominee. It is done by the MSMedia, about 100,000 voters in Iowa, and a few in New Hampshire, where Democrats are only 26% of the registered voters.

Our guy is being picked by Republicans, and it looks as if they are pretty good at picking one they can beat.

Then we have places like Missouri, where the DNC and Campaign pulls out the national money leaving the State candidates hanging out to dry. That bit of wisdom cost the Democrats the Governorship of Missouri in 04.

[Frances]

16. I don't agree with you

about blaming Kerry.

We can count on the media to go into full force attack mode against any Dem candidate. They ridiculed Gore (who had no faults exact being too serious); they made Kerry's honestly won battle medals a liability; they made Dean into a screamer through their technology.

I think we have to be prepared for the fact that if the Dems ran Jesus Christ, the media would attack him. That would actually be easy as Jesus stands for everything that Jerry Falwell and the fundamentalists are against. The media would claim that Jesus as anti-Christian and the fundamentalists would never understand the irony.

[formernaderite]

30. You may be on to something...

particularly in the way the Iowa caucuses are run...I don't believe they are very democratic at all...in fact they're downright coercive.

[napi21]

14. We've got to confront the religious arguments!

Listen to Bernie Ward's show on Sunday mornings called God talk. Believe me, I'm not steeering you to a Fallwell like site! That's not what Bernie's show is like at all.

This morning he was talking abot the arguments the RW always use and how to answer them. I can't recall them all, but one I do remember is when a RW extremist says "I'm right because I read the Bible!" He said simply respond by asking "Which Bible?" There are so many different bibles and each one is different. He went on to say that extremist ANYTHING is bad and a failure.

There's some support Bernie Ward group who is selling Ward's Drawers, (underwear) and today the leader said she was remaning them Ward's Major Drawers, thus able to call them WMD's!

Anyway, he has a lot of good ideas on how to convert a lot of mainstream Pubs away from the RW nuts and convince them to see the truth.

[JohnnyBoots]

18. Jim Wallis is good like that too

[illflem]

17. The way to turn around the redneck states

is to show them they that they are truly environmentalists, agreeing more with the Demo party and that the Reps are bent on taking away their happy hunting and fishing grounds.
This could be done with the NRA's help.

[JohnnyBoots]

19. That and to educate Timmy Toolbox how

he votes against his and his family's interests when he votes GOP because of highly spun non important issues. If this can be done on large scale basis the backlash could severly criple the GOP for a long long time.

[Island Blue]

20. Or, you could stop calling them "redneck states"

That is unless you also want loose many of the strong Democrats living in those states who vote blue 100% of the time.

[illflem]

21. Calling them rednecks is the same as calling blues liberals

Are you going to quit voting Demo because they call you a liberal now that it's become as derogatory a term as redneck?
Most rednecks like being called rednecks.
I'm a redneck in redneck Montana and proud of it.
It doesn't mean I have to vote GOP.

[formernaderite]

32. Hey I'm a liberal....and a bit of a redneck...

neither which I find the least derogatory.

[sandnsea]

45. Redneck Montana,WTF?

I lived in Montana for 15 years, all over the state, and never ever ever heard anybody refer to themselves as a redneck. Ever. You're either a transplant, or the place has gone to hell more than I even want to know.

[illflem]

46. Montana for fifty years

No doubt you lived in Missoula or Bozeman if you think the majority of Montanans aren't rednecks.

[sandnsea]

51. Havre, Great Falls, everywhere

Nobody referred to themselves as a redneck. Absolutely nobody. People had too much pride in themselves, their intelligence and their work for that ignorance. I lived in Montana when it was the top 5 in education and proud of it. Get a clue. There aren't any rednecks in Montana, or at least there didn't used to be. It's not cute, it's not funny. It's ignorant.

[QC]

60. It depends on who's doing the calling.

I often call myself "queer." But that's very different from some guy driving down the street and yelling it out his car window at me.

Likewise, having affluent, educated urbanites call people "rednecks," as Sam & Janeane like to do, is a real bad idea.

[meow2u3]

76. You have a point

For a educated urbanite to call a rural white a redneck is like a non-black calling a black the 'n' word.

I call this phenomenon "ethnic privilege": it's OK for a group of people to use racial slurs which describe their own race, but not to use racial slurs of a race not your own.

[formernaderite]

31. Are you kidding?

The dems don't want to win that bad. And it's not really the name "redneck", it's the way they say it.

[QC]

59. I was about to post the same thing--GMTA! n/t

[napi21]

24. You can try that, but there are still TWO BIG ISSUES!

Abortion and Gay Marriage. Until we can convince the folks in the South that the Gov't has no business messing in that area, and that it belongs in their churches instead, you'll NEVER win the South!

Believe me, I lived in PA for 42 years, and relocated to SC in 1987. I've lived in SC, TX and Ga. It doesn't matter that you can get agreement with the locals on the environment, their economic good, their safety, or anything else. When you get down to the bottom line and ask if they would consider voting for the Dem, the answer if always NO! When you ask why, they say "because I don't believe in abortion and gay marriage!"

[ProudDad]

40. What would happen if you told them

that no Democrat is going to force them to have an abortion or marry anyone of the same sex?

In fact, the repukes have proven that they're more inclined to meddle into your personal affairs, your family and your bedroom than the Dems.

[tnlefty]

95. It doesn't matter. The interest lies more in being able to determine

what YOU will or will not be able to do, or to see, or to experience for yourself to make a determination for yourself whether something is good or bad for you.

[quaoar]

23. You left out a few states

Ohio has been comfortably Republican even if we almost pulled it out last year. Same with Colorado. And West Virginia has become Republican in presidential elections.

But there are several Southern states that can be won by the right Democrat running against a Republican who is not an incumbent during wartime -- Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.

[Hippo_Tron]

37. Clinton couldn't win North Carolina, it's trending Republican

Louisiana and Tennesee are also going way of the darkside unfortunately, but I don't think that they are beyond hope by any means.

[Clark2008]

48. Clinton won NC, TN and LA both times.

Instead of all this complaining about Southerners I see on this board (not specifically you, per se), why don't some of these people come down here, get in their cars, go out to the rural voters who never hear anything but right-wing radio on their commutes to the city to work, talk to them and give them the REAL Dem message.

That would go a long way toward trending the South back to blue.

Name-calling and ignoring the region isn't going to accomplish much.

[Hippo_Tron]

53. Clinton did not win North Carolina either time, here's the maps

http://www.presidentelect.org/e1992.html

http://www.presidentelect.org/e1996.html

[Clark2008]

55. Thanks, but that wasn't exactly my point.

My point was that Clinton won the majority of the South - both times (OK, so not NC, but he still took many of them) AND that we need to not ignore the region.

I'll harp on this again: we need to get the real Dem message out to the rural voters and stop letting the Reich-wing media do it for us.

[Hippo_Tron]

65. We need to compete in as many states as possible

As a Louisiana resident, I would love to see my home state in play. With the right candidate, I do believe that it could be in play. However, I was just trying to focus on long term political trends.
My fear is that since almost all southern states were so democratic between reconstruction and the 1960's, that they are reversing in trend and are going to stay Republican for a while. However, my point about Florida and Virgnia (and in some elections Tennesee and even Louisiana as well) was that they went to Republicans sometimes during the "solid south" period, so maybe they are more within grasp than the others.

On the other hand: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and California were reliable GOP states until Bill Clinton. Now three of them are solid blue and one is very much trending blue.

Personally, I really wish that we had the political climate back in 1992, where Alabama while voting for the GOP candidate had two Dem Senators and Vermont while voting for the Democrat still had a Republican senator. The south was considered "in play", the northeast was considered "in play", and both parties ran more than a regional campaign. I think that you are right in that we should not count the south out and work to make it a more competative region again.

[wildeyed]

73. And Clinton only lost NC by 1000 votes the first time.

Plus our governor is a dem and the legislature is dem controlled. So we are far from a lost cause!

[rockymountaindem]

66. Colorado is not "comfortably" Republican anymore.

We won the State Legislature, both houses, last year for the first time since 1960. We also increased our share of the Presidential vote from 42% to 46% (Bush got 51%) and elected a Democratic Senator, all despite a huge funding disadvantage. That's not what I'd call comfortable for the Republicans.

[renaissanceguy]

27. The way to win back the south is NOT

the so-called "moral issues." We need to talk about JOBS and HEALTHCARE. There are plenty of people out there who simply can't make ends meet. They work themselves to death at companies who are willing to fire them at any moment for a cheaper worker. Many receive no benefits, little time off, and stressful work conditions. We need politicians who will address these issues, much like Bill Clinton did in '92. Keep beating the jobs issue and promise better jobs and protections for workers, and you'll win over a lot of people.

[ProudDad]

29. HEAR, HEAR!!

[LiberalFighter]

50. "abortion" and "gay marriage" have to be taken off the table as issues

[renaissanceguy]

80. If only our leaders would do such a thing as say

"there's no debating one's right to privacy." Period. End of sentence.

That's all they need to say.

[ProudDad]

34. There was a murder in front of my house

about 3 weeks ago. One of the bullets hit my roof where my girlfriend and I were hugging the floor.

I had 2 major thoughts after hearing the murder and seeing the covered body;

1) The phony drug war -- pushing up prices to the point where it's "profitable" to kill. This un-winnable "war" must be stopped in favor of treating drugs as a public health issue. IT'S NOT A POLICE ISSUE! The cops would be the first to tell you it isn't...they're powerless against the current situation.

2) FUCKING GUNS -- there are too many goddamn guns around. Especially semi-automatic handguns whose ONLY purpose is killing human beings. I just missed shooting expert in the Navy and know that pistols are only good for close range murder NEVER FOR HUNTING.

Please, don't give me that crap about guns being a deterrent. I'm sure that at least a dozen good citizens on the block where this person was murdered were armed. That didn't save this guy or any of the other hundreds of people who are killed by fucking guns.

I've lived in the South. I agree that the only way to fight repuke bullshit is with truths about Jobs and Justice, not trying to out-Bubba the repukes in the South.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. Do you live in an urban area?

I agree that guns are not a deterrant. Somebody was making the argument that if you gave everybody a gun, then if somebody was being mugged, 30 people would just pull their guns out and the guy would run like hell.

ONE of the many problems with this is that about 15 of those 30, myself included, would have no fucking clue how to shoot our guns and probably end up killing each other.

That being said, I think that gun control is something that usually needs to be decided on a local basis. Sure, there are some common sense federal laws that need to be in place. However, states like Montana have extremely low violent crime rates and very loose gun control laws, mostly because there are few large impovershed urban areas that are breeding grounds for drugs, crime, etc. However, states with large urban areas New York, Illinois, etc. need to enact gun control laws for their big cities because violent crime is a serious problem.

[ProudDad]

39. I live in a Major urban area

Oakland, CA.

We're not the murder capital we used to be but there are still too many (mostly drug trade or domestic abuse related) murders each year.

[sandnsea]

42. On Montana

The truth is, they control guns. They control it socially, not through the law. Some of the stuff that people suggest should be legal or routine on guns, local Montanans would be horrified over. Teachers with guns? Parents would think the teacher had lost their mind. Guns belong at home, locked up and/or away from kids. They belong in a gun rack, unloaded, when being transported. People who aren't responsible with their guns get serious shit about it. Alot of people who have crazy ideas about gun rights would be laughed out of most of these gun states.

The problem is, no local Dem will stand up and explain all of this to locals in gun states. They just go along with the crazy liberal gun-grabber bullshit and say "I love my guns", and get elected. My own Pete DeFazio does it all the time, refuses to go near the gun issue.

The biggest problem the Democratic Party has is local Dems who won't stand up for what's right at the local level. Be it guns, abortion, bankruptcy law, taxes, the war...

[Hippo_Tron]

35. Here's what I don't get, Florida went to Nixon in 1960

And it went to Bush in 1992.

Is Florida all of a suddenly becoming a swing state because unlike the other southern states, it wasn't solidly Democratic for all those years? Oh yea, and Virgnia is another one. The only Democrat since Truman to win Virgnia has been Lyndon Johnson. YET, Kerry did better in Virginia than anywhere else in the south (not counting Missouri since it wasn't part of the confederacy) except of course Florida.

So are Florida and Virginia trending Democratic after years of GOP control, whereas the other southern states are trending GOP after years of Dem control?

Yea I know, Florida has lots of Jewish people, hispanics, and of course senior citizens, but I still find it interesting that this southern state has gone to so many Republicans.

[sandnsea]

43. Maybe

We may well see a total flip. The states that were progressive Republican years ago will go Dem. The southern KKK wing of the Dem Party will go Republican. And we'll battle over the same states we battled over years ago. Except years ago Republicans usually won, which may well mean Democrats will usually win in just a couple of years.

[theboss]

97. Florida's population changes every 10 years

It's a difficult state to track because it's population is so transient. Other southern states have a more stable population.

[Clark2008]

47. Here's a novel idea: run a 50-state campaign instead of

bashing one whole region of the country.

We need to be united, not divided by bigotry toward one area of the country.

[KingFlorez]

49. That's the idea

The key is to get as many people backing us for a united front. Solidarity is the key to us winning anything.

[sandnsea]

52. Or face the truth

That particular region of the country has caused political problems for Democrats since at least the Civil War. Let the Republicans have the headache. Keep building the kind of progressive party that used to be associated with some Republicans. We can create a united front of "live and let live" westerners a whole lot easier than trying to unite liberal city dwellers and the religious south.

[Clark2008]

54. Yeah - how 'bout you trying that.

I grew up in the 70s and 80s and had two Democratic senators and a host of Dem governors.

Funny thing, I live in the South. In Tennessee, no less. The last good VP came from my state.

What you need to understand is that the South has only started going mega-Republican in the past five years. Where you guys get this revisionist history is beyond me.

All you have to do to win the South is get the REAL Dem message out to the rural voters instead of that Reich-wing radio shit they listen to 24/7. But, is AAR in any markets of that type? No. Did Kerry visit down here in any discernible fashion during the 2004 campaign? No.

Don't go bitching about the South if you're not willing to lift a finger to help.

[sandnsea]

57. Tennessee?

The state with 5 Dem Congressmen and 4 Pub? If your own Dem Congressmen won't deliver the REAL Dem message in your state, don't come whining to me for help. Uh uh. They run away from the national party platform, they DON'T WANT Presidential campaigns to bring anything controversial to cause them problems, then they whine about lack of support.

Read your history going back to the Civil War. Dems in the south have always been a problem. Electing candidates that would appeal to them would inevitably cause the rest of the country to vote for the Republican. Now we're seeing the problem reverse itself, the KKK Dems are now fundie Republicans. It's a regional problem that's going to have to change on its own.

[Clark2008]

63. The Dem Congressmen are all on the other side of the state

And - they still have trouble getting the real message out.

My issue is with those on DU who want to blast or ignore the South without offering any finger to help those of us down here who are asking for it.

And my father is a Civil War historian. I know all that stuff. My point is that the South has not been Dixiecrat or Republican ever since the 1960s like people on here have claimed. And, have you looked at a map? One of those blue and red ones? Why is it the South gets the brunt of all the ire on DU, but the mid-West doesn't? Virginia and Arkansas have as much chance of turning "blue" with the right candidate (and no rigged machines) as Montana. It's a fact.

[sandnsea]

71. No they don't

The west isn't quite as heavenly bound as the south. The west prefers to live and let live, and has a history of populist economics as well. The west would be much easier to win back. The biggest problem is land use. Change the way we talk about the environment in the west, we'll have those states back rather quickly. We don't have as big a problem with abortion and gay rights in the west either.

The south is the south and it hasn't changed. The KKK Dems are now fundie Republicans. The culture has to change and there isn't anything a Democrat from the outside can do about it. If your own Dems can't do anything in your part of the state, what makes you think outsiders can?

[Clark2008]

93. There are no Dems in my part of the state.

And - there's no AAR, either. Only fundie and conservative talk radio.

Go figure.

And, the South has changed. I'm pretty tired of your bigotry. If I told you that Jews haven't changed or black people hadn't changed, I'd be labeled a racist. BUT, because you're speaking of a group many on DU vilify (despite the large number of Southern DUers), it's OK.

Go ahead and target the west - I'm not saying don't. I'm just saying not to ignore the South. Build up the party from the ground up. Like Dean wants to do. Deliver the message like Clark is doing - Clark is a fantastic messenger for the South. People here respect military (save the brain-washed fundies who hate anyone with a "D" after their name.). That's what it takes.

[Hippo_Tron]

67. So explain Truman, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton then...

Harry Truman managed to carry southern states (even with Strom Thrumond mounting a third party challenge) and was progressive enough to appeal to the rest of the country to win.

Kennedy managed to win southern states and was progressive enough to appeal to the rest of the country, even with Dixiecrat Harry F Byrd cutting into his electoral votes in the south.

Jimmy Carter managed to carry almost the entire south and was progressive enough to appeal to the rest of the country.

Bill Clinton carried southern states and was progressive enough to not only appeal to the rest of the country, but win the entire north east, do very well in the midwest, and win the entire west coast.

I don't even mention Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Lyndon Johnson because all of them won in absolute landslides, all of them carrying a good number of southern states. The south has some of the poorest areas in the country and Democrats are clearly the populist party. They've voted for us on economic issues before and if we frame our campaign right they will do it again. We've already done a good bit of work putting the entire North East, as well as California solidly in our column. If we can put just ONE southern state into our column, then the GOP's electoral advantage is in serious jeopardy.

[sandnsea]

69. Read my post again

Between the Civil War and FDR, Cleveland and Wilson. That's all. The solid south voted Dem, Dems never won. Why? Half the party was KKK Dems. Sound familiar?

The only reason any Dem won after FDR was New Deal economics that appealed to the REST of the country. FDR only won because of the Depression. Carter won because of backlash against Nixon and Ford pardoning him. Clinton won because of a shitty economy, just like FDR, and was helped ALOT by Perot. Kennedy was Kennedy and not even Clinton was a John Kennedy. Rumor has it that election was stolen anyway.

People ignore half the equation on Presidential elections routinely around here. The best way to win in the future is exactly the way Republicans won for nearly 100 years. Dump the religious south on the Republicans, just like Dems had to deal with the KKK all those years. You're starting to see people reject that idiocy, the rest of the country really does prefer progress.

[quaoar]

68. Has the Republican Party surrendered New England?

Have they given up on California? Hawaii? No.

But you want to write off the South.

So go ahead and purge the party of everyone whose thought isn't pure enough for you. Do the Republicans' job for them. It'll save them a lot of time and money.

[sandnsea]

70. Not exactly

I say let the local southern Dems decide whether they're Democrats or not. If they are, then support the national platform at the local level. That's how the Republicans do it. If not, there really isn't anything the rest of us can do to change the equation anyway.

[quaoar]

78. What the hell does that mean?

You want Democrats to goosestep to the national party like Republicans?

[QC]

83. It means some here want a purge.

It never ceases to amaze me just how goofy the purists around here can be. Yeah, let's make the party as small as possible. It's not like we actually need more people to vote for us or anything. :silly:

[sandnsea]

85. I am not a purist

AT ALL. I don't think the Democratic Party needs to change one bit. If southern Dem don't like it, they don't have to. If they want the south to vote Dem, then they're going to have to stand up for what Democrats across the country believe in. THEY are going to have to do the standing and stop running from the national platform. If they don't want to support progressive taxes, living wage, environmental protection, quality education, etc.; then they aren't Democrats and there's no amount of help we can give them. They're the same KKK Dems we suffered with after the Civil War, time to let the Republicans have them for a while.

[sandnsea]

86. No I like the hamster wheel party

Running in circles and getting nowhere. There's no point in a party if you don't agree on basic principles. The south isn't progressive and never has been. That's just the way it is.

[Bridget Burke]

91. My Rep is Sheila Jackson Lee--is she Democratic enough for you?

Who's your Rep? In fact--what is your state?

I don't want a specific "Southern" strategy. But emphasis on the economy, health care & education is something every voter can understand. And what about ensuring that we only fight wars forced upon us, rather than illegal invasions designed to benefit a few? Quite a few Southerners have military traditions--& quite a few Northern & West Coast Democrats helped Bush invade Iraq. Yes, he lied to them--were they too blind to understand? By the way, I don't call for abandoning choice, gay rights & sensible gun control. Not that I've heard any Democrat campaigning on taking all the guns--don't believe everything the NRA says.

Texas Democrats have long supported the party financially, but the party has NOT helped local Dems--or even tried to campaign for national candidates down here. The Party expects to do badly, so why even try? Ever heard of self-fulfilling prophecies?

The current Republican stranglehold on Texas began when the Texas Republicans allied with the state's ultra-conservative Religious Right. Not just Fundamentalists--who have a history of supporting Church/State separation--but the Dominionists. Democrats elsewhere ought to pay attention.

[KingFlorez]

62. Not enough focus

There is not enough focus in the south. In the 80s and early 90s the Southern Congressional delagations we're full of Democrats and right now Democrats perform very well at the state level in the south. You can't win the presidency with out at least one or two southern states and you can't control Congress without a signifigant number of southern seats. This is the United States, which means we should make a play for every state.

[sandnsea]

72. Yes you can

Republicans did it from 1860 to 1936, save Cleveland and Wilson. It can most certainly be done. Brand all Republicans with these southern fundy Republicans, the same as the previous KKK Dems, and watch the rest of the country reject Republicanism and go back to the Democrats. Trick is, they won't go to the socialist wing of the Democratic Party and the socialist wing doesn't get that yet. They got that when FDR ran, helped enormously.

[KingFlorez]

82. We've never won without the southern states

Carter and Clinton both had southern states in their column. The composition of Democratic majorities in the Congress was held up by moderate southern Democrats. I'm saying if we write these states off, it gives the Republicans too much of a free pass.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[KingFlorez]

92. Not a good idea

It's clear we can't control Congress without any of these states. We can't give the Republicans all those electoral votes without a fight.

[IntravenousDemilo]

87. On the other hand, there has been a decades-long population shift towards

the South, so the numerical importance of the southern states in the House and in the Electoral College is proportionately greater than the period from 1860 to 1936. It's not as easy to get elected without them as it once was.

[sandnsea]

98. Towards FL & TX

Not really the entire south. Some southern states have lost electoral votes as well. IIRC, there's also been a population shift to western states as well.

If you look at historic maps, the south has always voted as a block. Whoever they vote for, loses, in time. Especially when social issues are on the line. Once people in the rest of the country fully realize some of the idiocy of the fundies, they'll flee to the Democrats, as long as we aren't dominated by the socialist wing.

[QC]

61. Wow! Who ever heard of such a thing?

Do you mean maybe we need to be a national party in order to win elections? That's really thinking outside the box!

[CTLawGuy]

90. thats why we have howard dean in there

travelling to red states, giving money to the state parties.

[AX10]

56. I agree.

[paulk]

77. it's going to take a long time to turn the south blue

a long, long, long, long time.

If ever.

I agree, a midwestern/western strategy is by far the way to go. Write the south off on the national level - work to build a strong grassroots party locally.

I thought at the time and still think that the biggest mistake Kerry made was picking Edwards (and the southern strategy that implied). I suppose he felt he had to make a play for the southern Senate races up for grabs - but Edwards couldn't even deliver his home state - and we lost the Senate seats, too.

I also agree that the western mindset will be easier to win over than the southern - there's a strong libertarian streak out here that doesn't like the government sticking it's nose into private lives. Social issues aren't the same dividing wedge here that the Republican's have been able to exploit so successfully in the South.

[Clark2008]

94. Edwards was the wrong Southerner to pick.

Most people in the South cannot relate to a high-powered attorney.

There are plenty of Southern Dems who would have better fit that "Southern Strategy" role. The media and Bilderberg drove the Edwards pick.

[Jane Eyre]

81. NC beat out Utah for the extra delegate from 2000 census

NC and Utah battled it out in court for that last extra delegate. Utah challenged the "sampling" method used by the census to account for the people who inevitably don't get counted in underserved communities such as the homeless. Had they won, there would be another Republican congressional rep in Washington. NC has a Democratic state legislature and governor. We won the court battle and got another Democratic Congressman from our state as a result.

North Carolina was the only state targeted by the Clinton campaign in 1992 that did not fall into the Democratic column, but the margin was less than 1000 votes statewide. It can be done, but it takes a huge GOTV push. States such as Louisiana and Arkansas are probably better Democratic targets, but NC could be winnable. I think that the key is for Democrats to focus on their core constituencies in southern states, such as minorities and women.

[Vektor]

88. I'd still like to see the Dem party win over more of the people.

It's too damn close as it is, and there is no good reason why the south should be such a Republican stronghold - that is the poorest region of the nation, and by voting for people like Bush, they are voting against their own best interests.

Truth is, those that vote Republican, often have no idea of what's really going on in the country, or in the world for that matter. They don't vote on the real, concrete issues that matter, like poverty, health care, fair wages, civil rights, and clean air and water. They vote on concepts and misguided notions - like religious brainwashing, and paranoia. Perfect example: the "War on Terror". Yes, Bush convinced these poor souls that GOD wanted us to wage war on an emotion. "Terror" is just a feeling. Of being scared shitless. And the Bush admin. convinced the most ignorant and uninformed among us that they needed to be scared, but that he would protect them from "terror" if they just voted for him. That's how these conservatives always are, always have been. Over the years the enemy has changed faces, but the theme has stayed the same.

[ProudDad]

101. I'd like to see corporate capitalism lose

in all 50 states and the rest of the world.

"It IS the economy, stupid"... Capitalism is the disease, not the cure.

[JackDragna]

103. Where we really need to go after is the Rust Belt

..places like Michigan, Ohio and maybe down into Kentucky and Virginia..that whole area of the country. I think that area is more ripe for Dem gains than anywhere else.