Democrats don't need the South!!

[windansea]

please God....nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[lancdem]

1. I hope Kerry doesn't abandon the South (I think it would be a bad move)

If he picks Edwards or Clark for VP, that would be a very good sign.

[windansea]

4. it might help

but people focus on the top of the ticket

[Mistress Quickly]

17. Florida

and if we could win Ohio and PA (the repobs are sinking lots of money into PA) I think the fears of losing because of the GOP stronghold in the south are overhyped.

Now, California, did I see some stats on here about how they are starting to lean to the right? :scared:

That could be a problem.

[Rhiannon12866]

92. What about Graham?

If he were on the ticket, that would certainly help the Democrats in Florida. I liked what he was saying, just before he dropped out.:shrug:

[windansea]

93. a southern VP could help

but people focus on the top of the ticket

[windansea]

2. kick n/t

[jfxgillis]

3. Okay.

Other than surrendering to Southern blackmail and nominating a Southerner (because, presumably, bigoted Southerners won't vote for a Northerner) and other than surrendering to the Ray Moores on the secular/religious distinction, and other than surrendering to the remants of Jim Crow sentiment on affirmative action, and other than surrendering to the pro-Lifers on Reproductive choice, and other than surrendering the the South's insistence on anti-Labor soc-alled-Right-to-work laws,

Other than ALL that, what would you have the Democrats DO to win the South?

[windansea]

7. at least nominate someone who can threaten

to win a few states...if we don't...Rove will spend all his gazillions on the battleground states

PS your assessment of southern voters is a bit biased and simplistic

[SaveElmer]

43. Going after the South threatens us elsewhere

Bush has more than enough money to compete everywhere. We do not. In my opinion, there are far more swing voters in the midwest, west, and southwest than there are in the south. We have a far better chance of capturing Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Montana, and West Virginia, than we do Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, the Carolinas or Tennessee. Pandering our message to get southern voters in my opinion, is threatening us elsewhere.

[formernaderite]

59. Rember how much money McAwful wasted in Florida 2002?

I say screw the South since they're willing to screw themselves. Let's put our resources in regaining Ohio, West Virginia, and winning New Hampshire.

[Clark Can WIN]

71. Screw the South huh?

Well there is a winning strategy AND attitude. :thumbsup:

[Leilani]

77. I lived in West Virginia

& people there consider themselves Southerners, especially in the Charleston area.

So I would say screwing the South won't get you W.Va.

[jfxgillis]

57. Well, then, tell me why

Kerry can't "threaten" to win a few states in the South.

And If Rove doesn't spend gazillions in the South, the Dems don't, either. ZERO-SUM.

[Bombtrack]

9. We don't need to win the south, we need to be competative in it

Making Florida, Arkansas, and Louisiana swingstates, and having NC, TN and GA as longshots thins GOP resources nationwide, which we need to do to hold them off from focusing more than 2000 on places like PA and MI, states we need to win

[windansea]

11. exactly my point n/t

[jfxgillis]

65. Boy, is this getting tedious

It's ZERO-SUM.

If we don't waste resources on states we can't win, that means WE TOO have more to invest in defending PA and MI, to take your examples.

Now, your "swingstate" idea is quite reasonable. If there's a chance we could win LA's EVs, say, and I think there is even with a Kerry, then investing resources might well be worthwhile. Poaching even one state from Bush would critically alter Bush's Electoral mao.

[Leilani]

74. I agree

but forget Georgia..it's now controlled by Ralph Reed, & they voted
against Cleland.

Virginia is a long shot, but more likely. They have a Dem governor, & the northern part of the state is getting more liberal.

With the right candidate, it's in play. Also Arkansas, Louisiana, & West Virginia are very doable with the right candidate.

[Trajan]

22. As a New Jersey born ...

California raised 'city boy' ... I just gotta tell ya ..

Idiots are EVERYWHERE ... NOT just the south ...

Also: .. VERY wise and intelligent Progressive/Liberal/moderate/centrist voters exist everywhere: .. INCLUDING the south ...

We need EVERY Democrat: .. EVERY moderate republican, EVERY progressive independent ... EVERY ONE of them on board for our collective future ...

Playing the 'south' card is foolish, but so is demeaning the fine people who are southern ....

We ARE inclusive ... we dont simply pay lip service to inclusion ...

[Ishoutandscream]

34. Thank you for your common sense post

Lot of us "dumb, bigoted southerners" on this board. It gets tiresome with all of the attacks. The elitist attitude of some Democrats (and there are a few on this board) only gets us in trouble in the long run. We need to look for solutions, rather than simply attacking.

Thanks again for an excellent post.

[jfxgillis]

60. Please. That's a straw man argument.

Here's the underlying issue: Should the Democrats construct their electoral strategy to specificly appeal to Southern voters?

If the answer to that question is "No, the Democrats need to modify their agenda to appeal to specifically Southern voters" but that the agenda we already have is sufficent to carry some Southern EVs, then that's ALREADY what the Democrats are doing.

If the answer to that question is "Yes," i.e., that the Dems need to move toward positions to appeal to white Southerners, then I say the Democrats should not do that.

[Clark Can WIN]

76. Straw man my ass

the poster said there are idiots everywhere and as someone who has traveled the country extensively I'm prepared to back that statement up.

WE ARE THE MINORITY PARTY RIGHT NOW.

That's painful, but also true. We cannot, CANNOT and must not ignore any region, any constituency, any potential vote.

We MUST remain the big tent party, and more importantly LIVE it - this election or we will lose it.

[windansea]

86. right on n/t

[krkaufman]

45. One....

One... run a candidate who doesn't come out and say that he doesn't *NEED* to win the South to win the GE.
Two... run a candidate with broader appeal, a candidate who is finally trying to nullify the right's grip on the faith vote by highlighting which party truly exemplifies and demonstrates the values consistent across different faiths.

[jfxgillis]

63. One more

One. Run a candidate who pretends what's true is false

Two. What is "broader" appeal? What you mean is, run a candidate who's a Southerner, because enough Southerners are bigoted enough to vote against a Northerner that it's difficult to win there.

[windansea]

67. your one sounds like Kerry

did you vote for IWR...no not really
Patriot Act...didn't mean it
NCLB....it's Bush's fault

[southerngirlwriter]

72. It's not a matter of "bigoted Southerners won't vote for a Northerner"

it's REALITY. You tell me how a "Massachusetts liberal who is the wealthiest man in the Senate" is going to convince the short-order cook who lives across the hall from me and is very concerned about an illegal immigrant possibly "stealing" his job -- how is that candidate going to win my neighbor's vote?

A Southern democrat, even a "good ol boy" like Edwards who "made somethin' of hisself" (both phrases I've heard my neighbors use about him) might not get his vote, but he has a MUCH better chance than a wealthy Northeastern liberal.

[IowaBiker]

78. The problem southern girl ...

Is you are having a hard time seeing beyond your southern attitudes to know that is a southern attitude.

"Richest guy in the Senate, blah, blah, blah"

Because that guy Bush, from Texas is what, Poor?

You might as well have said, "Fire up the General Lee, and tell Daisy Duke that Hee Haw is on."

--Brian

[Clark Can WIN]

87. what an ugly and bigoted statement imo

She was trying to tell you THE WAY IT IS where she lives and you all but call her ignorant for not seeing things your way and proceed to perpetuate the ugly bigotry of the "stupid southerner".

When a candidate says "we don't need X" (blacks, southerners, women, whatever) that tells constituency X that candidate could really give a shit about them. Not too hard to figure out why they might find that offensive.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Right you are!!

We don't need the south. It's a waste of time and money to even campaign there. What's to be won? How? They all went for good-ole-boy bush in '00 and there's no sign they'll do any different this time, no matter who the candidate is.

[Bombtrack]

13. Having no margin of error in 2004 is idiotic

not that Kerry even said this crap anyway. The media is twisting someones words ad nausium once again

[windansea]

19. he didn't say it

but he sure implied it..hence the cartoon

doesn't matter anyway..Kerry is probably the worst candidate we could run in terms of the south

[Bombtrack]

23. No, he isn't. Probably 98 percent of political strategists will tell u

Dean is by far the worst to run in every state other than maybe Vermont and Hawaii.

His guns talking point is hypocritical and empty. Gun nuts aren't going to vote for him.

[windansea]

30. correct..but Dean has little chance at the nomination now

and I don't hit people when they're down...:)

[Dhalgren]

16. I agree!

Let's not waste our money on lost causes! Put the money where it can actually acheive some good. It would be wonderful if the South were actually in play, but ask anyone who has any experience down here, politically, and they will tell you - it's a dead leaf.

[girl gone mad]

35. I have experience down here.

and it ain't a dead leaf.

[Leilani]

75. I don't agree

I think because of the loss of jobs in the South, Dems could be much more competitive this election.

And you don't have to become bigoted, or go against principles to win, you have to emphasize the things you agree on.

[sangh0]

6. Why is Dean abandoning the South?

He has stopped all his TV ads in southern states

[windansea]

10. maybe he's broke?? n/t

[citizen snips]

8. The Democrats need a few southern states to win.

History has shown that a dem must win at least 5 southern states to win.

[leyton]

54. History shows you need 270 electoral votes.

Perhaps candidates like Gore didn't win the entire election because their message was too far to the left, too far to the center, or because they were unengaging candidates. What you have to ask is this: is the fact that these candidates lost all these southern states the cause of their defeat in the general election, or a symptom of a larger problem?

I think we shouldn't write off states like Louisiana or West Virginia, but we ought to be looking at solidifying our hold on the Great Lakes states and expanding our California base into Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada. That's where there are more immigrants and more Hispanics, who tend to vote for Democrats; that's where the population and the electoral votes are going; that's where we can establish a power base to complement the industrial northeast.

[Freddie Stubbs]

91. WV is definitely winnable

It is a very Democratic state. The only reason that Bush won was due to the issue of the enviornment. Many people there make a living coal mining, and Gore wasn't seen as someone that implement policies that would help that industry.

[LuminousX]

12. Democrats are hoping for a magic formula

where they can cut the south out and force change on the south from the outside.

They need to realize that the South is begging to have other options than the GOP but needs to be engaged internally. It cannot be written off.

[Dhalgren]

21. Right. The South wants a party that is Republican, just a little

less so. As long as the Democratic Party is the party of choice, LGBT equality, and strong support for the underclass, it cannot win in the south - unless the repubs run some one like Bob Dole, who just pissed everybody off. All you have to say down here is "tax cut" and you are guaranteed the win - even when the majority of the voters would not be benefitted. Sorry.

[girl gone mad]

29. Wrong.

If that were true we wouldn't have any Dems anywhere. We have a liberal Dem mayor of the second largest city, and she sure didn't promise to cut taxes to win votes.... I worked on her campaign. And she won in Republican districts, not Dem ones.

[Dhalgren]

36. If you are from a part of the south

that supports core Democratic principles, then I am unfamiliar with that area. The parts of the south that I am familiar with overwhelmingly are anti-abortion, anti-gay equality, anti-funding of public schools, anti-gun control (of any stripe), pro-prayer in schools, pro tax cuts, and anti-labor. Like I said, you may be from some part of the south where liberal ideals rule - man, that must be nice.

[atre]

52. What parts are you familiar with?

There are many hotbeds of Democratic Party support here in N.C., even in some rural areas.

[formernaderite]

62. As you know the support is on a local level...

...a fellow I grew up with lives in a coastal NC town, where I spend as many summer weekends as possible. He runs a business and is politically Libertarian....but where he lives you have to be a registered democrat to get anything done. It's a local thing, because the local offices are still democratically run.
However, these democrats are not progressives by any means. So you will still find pockets of democratic strongholds, but they are also likely to vote for the right whackos in the Presidential elections.

[democratreformed]

56. I have to take issue with this one:

anti-funding of public schools?!? That's a new one to me. And I have lived here my whole entire life. Some of your other issues are valid - but are becoming increasingly less so IMO.

[girl gone mad]

24. Damn right we are.

the strategy of abandoning the South is pure idiocy. Here is one of the best opportunities in years to at least make a few states swing states again, but instead we're gonna run an out of touch Northeastern elitist with little ability to connect.

[Dhalgren]

28. Where is the southern state that could be converted

into a "swing state"? Which ones could be put into play and how?

[girl gone mad]

31. Louisiana, Arkansas..

for starters.

[Dhalgren]

42. Admittedly, if the candidate is from the south

(or the state in question), then there might be the "Native Son" aspect to a "swing". But, to say that the south as a whole is viable enough to spend very short money on is way too dicey. If we had unlimited funds, I'd say "Hell yes! Let's give those republican bastards a run for their money!" But, our funds are very limited and we have to make choices - where will the money best be spent. I am a born and bred southerner and know this place and these people about as well as can be known. If you have to skip somebody in the campaigning, you might as well skip here, because you probably won't win, anyway.

[MISSDem]

48. I'm afraid you may be right about it being a losing battle but

there are a lot of democrats in the South. I live in Mississippi and the voters just elected a Republican governor but only the second one since Reconstruction, so...And the Democrat who was defeated didn't lose by a landslide (he lost mostly to dirty politics and racism - the Republican candidate and now governor actually allowed his picture to be displayed on the Conservative Citizens Council web site).

[democratreformed]

27. Great analysis from you here, IMO

Thanks. My point is that all us local Dems down here really are looking for some support and leadership from the "higher-ups".

[Dhalgren]

32. How do you get Southerners, as a bloc, to support

reproduction rights, LGBT equality, tax increases (or at least no tax cuts) support for public schools, separation of church and state, etc. How do we do this? If we could it would be great, but I can't see how it can be done.

[democratreformed]

51. Right now, I am working

within my local Democratic club to educate voters about the rich history of the Democratic party when it comes to social programs. I am hoping that will make a dent. By within the club, I mean that we are working on putting together some ways to get this message out. To start, I am working on a column for my county's paper outlining the history and legacy of the party and the social programs that exist today that we championed by the party.

My hope is that, faced with some economic facts, they will begin to realize that those issues that you mentioned are not the most important ones. Of course, I may be totally naive, but GOD, we've got to do SOMETHING! We have to at least try. If that doesn't work, we will try something else.

My particular state, Arkansas, currently has a majority of its Washington lawmakers from the Democratic party. That tells me that there is certainly hope.

[democraticgator]

14. they dont.........

As long as the dems hold all the states that Gore won, the only states that we would need to shift to win are either Florida (not the real south, trust me, I live there) or Ohio (hard hit by all the manufacturing jobs that were lost.

[windansea]

40. electoral maps rarely repeat exactly

we can't assume the Gore states are in the bag

[fujiyama]

61. Thanks for making that point...

I think a lot of people are forgetting that Gore won MANY of his states with LESS THAN 5%. That's not good enough to consider "in the bag" or safe. Three are Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin (both WI and IA were won with less than 1%). IMO it will be IMPOSSIBLE to win without these three as well as Oregon (less than 1% margin) and Pennsylania (less than 5%). A lot of money will have to be spent there. We also have to make sure to win NM again, which was also less than 1%. There is a reason Bush was there recently.

There were a few states Gore should definetely not have lost such as West Virginia. For God's sake, Dukakis won that state! Had Gore won that, Fl would have been irrelevant. I'm going to go easy on him losing Tennessee because that state has been trending rightward for a while now. I'm surprised by how many Naderites fault him for losing TN (As though Nader could have won TN!)

I also think we should make a play in AZ and NV and try harder in Missouri. Two southern states we may be able to put resources into are TN and LA...

[windansea]

64. electoral strategy depends on the candidate

see this thread for another wrinkle on this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=233184

[digno dave]

15. Southern VP=1 southern state

At least with a southern VP it can be said that his state will have a good chance of going Dem.
I bet id Gore had chose a southern VBP he may have carreid 1-2 southern states.

[Bombtrack]

20. southern CANDIDATE, regardless of vp, is the only logical choice

of these 4 candidates. 2 born-poor rural southernors or 2 eastern establishment born-rich urbaners from the 2 most liberal states
Kerry can only win one southern state, Florida, and only with Bob Graham. Dean can win none, with any vp, in overwhelming probability.

On the other hand a Clark on the top ticket opens up the south to a split at best, and probably 1 or 2 southern states won at worst. Particularly Florida. With a Clark-Graham ticket, it's on for democrats.

[Dhalgren]

25. If Clark is serious about his stand on gay rights,

(and I hope he is - it's admirable) then he cannot win the south. All the repubs have to do is say that Clark is in favor of forcing gay teachers into the high schools' locker rooms, and it is all over. Abortion, gay rights, prayer in schools, ten commandments in the courthouse - these are what kills Dems. every time.

[girl gone mad]

39. No.

This is a local issue, and voters know it. The etremists who would never vote for a Dem anyhow are the only ones who would be swayed by it.

[Dhalgren]

44. If the only people who voted

were the more urban, better educated folks, then maybe the dems would have a fighting chance. But, the national republicans work the local issues and many of the voters do not see a separation between the two. I know plenty of folks who consistantly vote against their own interests because the Dems are pro-choice. That's all, just that one issue - and there is a lot of folks down here who do that. Not just the pro-choice issue, but all of the "moral" or "christian" issues, and to them "local" and "national" have no meaning.

[krkaufman]

47. It's the swing voters....

> This is a local issue, and voters know it. The
> extremists who would never vote for a Dem anyhow
> are the only ones who would be swayed by it.

Thank you for pointing that out. We're talking about pulling in Independents, and disgruntled (paleo-)Republicans -- not the hard-core right-wing.

[Dhalgren]

50. I am going to add this and move along.

Southerns (at least a large section of them - in my experience) consistantly vote against their own best interests for issues that they deam "moral" or "ethical", more philosophical or "gut" issues. A person can say, "I am for cutting taxes on the rich and then everyone benefits". And they buy it, because they like tax cuts, even if they don't get any of it. Voters down here don't tend to vote on disgrundlement (though at certain times and in certain places you may find this) and there are damned few true "indepedants" down here. You are a Republican or a Democrat based upon what you believe and what you hold to be right. Down here, your party is picked for you, based upon whether you are pro or anti a particular list of issues. I wish it were otherwise, but I don't believe that it is.

[windansea]

69. right n/t

[mikehiggins]

53. Maybeso, but that will happen no matter who we run

Being from the south and a decorated war hero, etc., etc., will at least get us a hearing from some folks who might otherwise not even give a thought to voting for a Yankee Senator from Massachusetts.

The democratic base is going to vote for any legitimate candidate who can stand a chance of beating Bush. That is the actual message of Iowa and New Hampshire. Lots of people look to Kerry to be our best chance at fielding a credible Anti-Bush. Unfortunately, that decision does write off a huge number of voters who could be swayed to our side in crucial states if we had a candidate who could get a hearing.

Clark can do that in Florida, for example, and help elect a Democratic Senator to replace Bob Graham. Kerry is not going to have very much in the way of coattails in most of those five Senate races we have to try to win.

There is not a great deal of personal loyalty and investment in Kerry by the general Democratic population. I have heard nobody whose voice trembles with excitement at the prospect of electing another eastern liberal, etc., etc. If our nominee has a good chance of beating Bush he will be supported by the Democrats no matter what his name is.

Its the other folks we have to go after, and Clark is our best way of doing it. So we won't get all of the voters whose hatred of gays is the be-all and end-all of their existence. No democrat will. With Clark, though, we can get some of their neighbors, and every vote will count.

That's why we wanted Clark to run in the first place and that's why we're going to support him to the end of days. (which will be in November)

[krkaufman]

46. Clark-Graham would be excellent

For everyone.

[windansea]

68. how old is Graham ??

[Bombtrack]

70. 67 i think

.

[Ishoutandscream]

38. Bingo!

You nailed it.

[dolstein]

49. Wrong -- it doesn't work that way

In order to win states in the South, the Dems will, at the very least, need a Southerner at the top of the ticket. But to be safe, they'd probably need to have TWO Southerners on the ticket.

Kerry isn't going to win in the South regardless of who he picks as his VP.

[SPAZtazticman]

18. actually....

if al gore had won new hampshire, he would be president right now. florida wouldn't have even mattered. there were a whole lot of states where it was close in 2000 that werent in the south. and for your information, gore did a lot of pandering to the south.
also, this doesnt mean i dont like people in the south. i just don't think people anywhere will vote for a candidate who spends all his time pandering to his oppanants. also, if we didnt have a corporate media then quite a few people in the south would vote democratic, for the simple fact that they're not filthy rich corporate executives.

[creativelcro]

26. LOL: good one!

[windansea]

89. says it all doesn't it n/t

[Monte Carlo]

33. If Kerry's smart, he'll never anything like what he said again...

... that the Democrats don't need the Southern states to win. Even if his intentions were merely an observation, it is dancing on a mine field.

[windansea]

66. cats out of the bag n/t

doesn't matter anyway..everyone knows he and Dean would be weakest in the south

[bigtree]

37. This post is nothing but ....................................

(implied but not said)

[windansea]

41. electoral strategy not important?

yikes!!!!!

[leyton]

55. This is an excellent article:

From The American Prospect, an excellent treatment of the dilemma:

http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/2/schecter-c.html

Note: New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada (the Western sunbelt), an area of rapidly increasing population and in particular Hispanic population, which is more likely to vote for Democrats.

Snip:

Here's why. Putting the Gore-Nader vote together as an indicator of underlying Democratic strength, and comparing it with the Bush-Buchanan vote, the eight closest states the Democrats won in 2000 and will have to defend in 2004 are Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin. Using the same comparison, here are the eight closest states the Democrats lost in 2000, some of which they will obviously have to win in 2004: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and Tennessee. By these rankings, only two out of 16 states critical to Democratic chances are in the South. Compare that with six in the Midwest and four in the Southwest and you have a sense of the mathematical logic that is driving the Democrats to focus their 2004 presidential strategy outside the South.

Snip snip:

[windansea]

58. interesting...but...

comparing what happened with Gore (states won/lost/close) does not tell you what will happen with our 04 candidate

electoral maps never seem to repeat...and I wouldn't take that hispanic vote for granted either...as Davis/Bustamante found out here

who do you think chimpy's amnesty program is aimed at??

[Adjoran]

73. The Electoral College has changed

since the 2000 census. The states Gore won in 2000 now have seven less total EC votes.

Competing in the south doesn't mean we have to spend all our money, or compete in all states. SC and Texas are lost causes, but we have a hell of a lot better chance of carrying Louisiana or Arkansas or Tennessee or North Carolina than we do of carrying Ohio.

The fact remains that since Jefferson, no Democrat has won the Presidency without at least two southern states. The last Democrat, NOT from the south himself, who won was John F. Kennedy.

To win without the south requires winning 70% of the rest of the states; EC votes.

We are a long shot in this election. A strategy that begins by ignoring a whole region with nearly 1/3 of the EC votes needed to win is not giving our nominee a fighting chance.

The argument that "it's a zero-sum game" is utterly fallacious. Our party operates differently in the south. It's more personal campaigning, we get a lot more bang for the buck - but the regulars won't bother if the candidate writes them off from the start. We don't have to match repub spending - we never have.

The "zero-sum" argument works both ways, too: if the repubs don't have to defend "their turf," they are free to spend the whole bankroll in the close states elsewhere. And they only need to win 31% of those votes to make 270.

Instead of creating fantasies, why not just say, "I hate the south because of some people there and its history, and I would rather be a minority party forever than appeal to working and minority southerners to win."

[IowaBiker]

79. "Need the South" is old thinking

With the Republican party absorbing the hatreds and prejudices of the old Dixiecrats, the Democratic party is not free to abosolve itself from that sick relationship and build a party of freedom and hope.

The south in many ways is still fighting the civil war. Despite some pockets of change, the dixie flag is still evident, the phrase "Yankee War of Agression" stil prominent. To make political deals with this area of the nation is to make a deal with the devil -- a deal with which the Republican Party is ideally suited.

Inviting as it may seem, to listen to or accept the pleas of southerners that they have changed is only to ignore their long heritage of lies, deceptions, repressions and assasinations. It is this heritage to which they refer when they proudly point to their rebel flags flying from their statehouses and parks.

Experiments with the south have failed, as recently as the 70s and 80s, industrial migrations to the south sputtered because work ethics were so disparate, and intellegence was often held in such deep contempt.

I know what I'm writing about; I've lived in the south twice, long enough to realize that the national sport of dixie is lieing to yankees. They ALL do it.

So why not leave their hatreds, prejudices and false religions to the Republicans. Quite panndering to the base side of our geography, and take the high ground espoused by Lincoln that the Republicans have left behind?

There are plenty of electoral votes for Democrats to leave behind the imorality and devisive politics of the south and create a new major party of values, compassion, hard work and intellect.

Leave the notion of re-establishing an antebellum aristocracy to Bush and his ilk. We don't need it.

--Brian

[windansea]

81. yikes!!!

:freak:

[Devil Doll]

82. Maybe you're right, IowaBiker,

...maybe the Democrats don't need the South, but having been raised in, perhaps, one of the most racist patches of soil this side of the Mason Dixon and having recently returned after 21 years away, I can promise you, the South still desperately needs the Democrats.

By giving up the South, we'll be conceding a heck of a lot more than just electoral votes. Jill


BTW, Hi everyone and GO CLARK!!!!

:)

[windansea]

83. welcome

to DU

:toast:

[Devil Doll]

85. Thanks, windansea!

:toast:

[KaraokeKarlton]

80. Kerry has said he doesn't need the south for months

it's dumb and he's going to end up paying for it at some point.

[BootinUp]

84. SO true, and yet on CSPAN right now

is a professor of Pol. Sci from U of Maryland saying the democrats would do better to build a non-south strategy. I think he does a poor job of making his case.

[windansea]

88. another genius huh?? n/t

[NV1962]

90. Yeehaw!

Good show Windansea!