The South and the Democratic Party

[Akno21]

Here is a piece I read on another site by a loyal Democrat, who lives in Britain but comes from Georgia. Tell me what you think of it.


In 2004, I threw my weight behind the Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry simply because I¡¦m not too impressed with George W Bush (and that¡¦s an understatement), though I¡¦m with him Iraq and that¡¦s about it. In all honesty, I think the man¡¦s reduced America¡¦s (the country I love second to my own) standing in the world but as far as I¡¦m concerned being anti-Bush is not necessarily synonymous with being anti-American despite what FoxNews would have you believe

Understandably, I knew from the start (and despite selecting North Carolina¡¦s Senator John Edwards as his running mate) that Kerry was never going to do well in the South. Being an optimist, I held out last minute hopes of Florida coming the Democratic Party¡¦s way, despite my mother saying he had no chance! How right she was!

Watching the 1996 Election results, a lady said upon Bill Clinton winning Florida said something alone the lines of: ¡§As someone from a family that¡¦s lived in Florida since 1892, I¡¦m pleased she¡¦s come home¡¨. I understand how she felt because I felt much the same way when Clinton carried Georgia in 1992 (and some say you can credit Georgia¡¦s then governor with that ¡V a man by the name of Zell Miller). I, barely, remember Jimmy Carter¡¦s near-clean sweep of the South back in 1976 because I was only a bairn

As contemporary Democrats go, Clinton was certainly competitive in the South winning four states both in 1992 and 1996 and running George Bush the Elder and Bob Dole pretty close in the popular vote. Of course, you had the Ross Perot factor back then and he disproportionately harmed the GOP rather than the Democrats; though the South was his weakest region. By 2000, however, Clinton¡¦s standing in the South had fallen, which did Al Gore no favours

Love him or loathe him, Zell Miller says that the Democratic Party is a ¡§national party, no more¡¨. Indeed, the 2000 and 2004 elections have seen the Democratic Party become the party of the periphery in that it¡¦s presidential success has been confined to the North-East, the upper Mid-West and the West Coast. Granted, they are still an improvement on debacle years such as 1972 and 1984; however, in those years the Democratic Party was in a stronger position on a congressional and state level than what they are today. While I can¡¦t condone Miller for publicly endorsing and campaigning alongside GWB (a domestically and fiscally inept president if ever there was one), he has a point. I refer now to the fading fortunes of the Democratic Party in the 11 states of the ¡¥Confederacy¡¦:

1) In the 100th Congress (1987), there were 16 Democratic senators to 6 Republicans and 77 Democratic representatives to 39 Republicans
2) In the 103rd Congress (1993), there were 12 Democratic senators to 10 Republicans and 74 Democratic representatives to 46 Republicans
3) In the 109th Congress (2005), there are 4 Democratic senators (Landrieu of Louisiana, Lincoln and Pryor of Arkansas, and Bill Nelson of Florida) to 18 Republicans and 48 Democratic representatives to 83 Republicans

That list cannot be easy reading for the most proud of Democrats; though, I¡¦m of the opinion there are those in the party who want to forget the South and focus their attentions on the southwest. On a personal level, the state of Louisiana electing a Republican to the US Senate was like a stake through my heart considering it¡¦s never had a GOP senator in living memory

Furthermore, taking a look at the southern state legislatures; in 1990, Democrats held 75% of all seats, today it¡¦s only just in their favour: 51% to 49%. Democrats control the legislatures in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and North Carolina; Republicans control Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia; while Tennessee is split (Democratic House and Republican Senate). Republicans hold 7 governorships to the Democrats 4.

The challenge facing the Democratic Party in the 2006 mid-terms and 2008 presidential election is daunting. I still think moderate, centrist, populist Democrats (a la Clinton) have appeal in the South.

The 2004 CNN Exit Poll for the House of Representatives, the electorate in the South (I¡¦m not sure if this is confined to the ¡¥Confederacy¡¦ or whether it includes some ¡¥border¡¦ states) is comprised as follows:

1) Party ID: Democrat 36%; Republican 43%; Independent 21%
2) Ideology: Liberal 17%; Moderate 42%; Conservative 41%

From that I can only deduce that Southern Democrats are of a moderate rather than liberal ilk, with significant numbers of conservatives among them. The exit poll data for each state is even more striking with the Democratic/Republican/Independent split for each state being as follows:

ľ Alabama: Dem 34%; Rep 48%; Ind 18%
ľ Arkansas: Dem 41%; Rep 31%; Ind 29%
ľ Florida: Dem 37%; Rep 41%; Ind 23%
ľ Georgia: Dem 34%; Rep 42%; Ind 24%
ľ Louisiana: Dem 42%; Rep 40%; Ind 18%
ľ Mississippi: Dem 38%; Rep 47%; Ind 15%
ľ North Carolina: Dem 39%; Rep 40%; Ind 21%
ľ South Carolina: Dem 33%; Rep 44%; Ind 23%
ľ Tennessee: Dem 32%; Rep 40%; Ind 28%
ľ Texas: Dem 32%; Rep 43%; Ind 24%
ľ Virginia: Dem 35%; Rep 39%; Ind 26%

The ideological breakdown throughout the South averages at 15.8% Liberal; 42.8% Moderate and 41.4% Conservative

I sometimes wonder if the Republicans are over-represented and the Democrats under-represented in those figures. What I mean is: were Republicans in the South more enthused into turning out for Bush then Democrats were in turning out for Kerry? I can understand why moderates or socially conservative Democrats might stay at home

Furthermore, in all states the percentage of Democrats voting for Bush exceeded that of Republicans voting for Kerry. At the very worst, 21% of Louisiana Democrats voted for Bush and at the very best, a mere 7% of Alabama Democrats voted for Bush; while the number of Republicans voting for Kerry peaked at 7% in Florida. In all states bar Florida, Independents broke in Bush¡¦s favour.

Understandably, liberals broke for Kerry and conservatives broke for Bush. In no state did conservative support for Kerry break 20%; while liberal support for Bush ranged from 17% in Georgia and Virginia to 32% in Texas. Moderates broke for Bush in Alabama (53-44), Louisiana (51-47) and Mississippi (51-48) and broke for Kerry in Arkansas (58-40), Florida (56-43), Georgia (52-47), North Carolina (50-49), South Carolina (50-49), Tennessee (59-40), Texas (51-48) and Virginia (57-42); however, in no state was the latter enough to offset Bush¡¦s commanding lead among conservatives

If the Democrats want to be realistic about winning the 2008 presidential election, then they need to think carefully because the writing is on the wall for ideological liberals as far as Dixie goes, pure and simple. If the Democrats are to win, then they need to be competitive in the South by selecting a moderate candidate who can appeal to sufficient numbers of Republicans and independents; and moderates and conservatives to gain the advantage in some states. The days of the Democratic ¡¥Solid South¡¦ are long gone but with the right presidential candidate they can, at best, win three, four or, maybe even, five states. Remember, Clinton came tantalisingly close to North Carolina in 1992 and Virginia in 1996

I think some in the Democratic Party worry about upsetting the liberal base by selecting a moderate presidential candidate. Well, needs must! At the end of the day, where are MoveOn.org et al going to go, if not the Democratic Party? The GOP, I think not. Surely, a moderate Democrat is preferable to a conservative Republican. As far as Dixie goes, it would seem a liberal Democrat is dead on arrival. Democrats have a choice:

1) Select a moderate and, at least, be competitive in the South
2) Select a liberal and fight another battle on ¡¥home¡¦ territory ¡V first, it was Iowa and New Mexico. Where next? Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. You can¡¦t afford to let the GOP win this game of dominoes!

Any potential Democratic candidate needs to re-affirm such values as love of family, faith in God, economic growth, fiscal responsibility and strong defence. The Democratic Party, while supporting the separation of Church and State, should reach out to evangelical Christians stressing tolerance and mutual respect by taking on the inherent bigotry/intolerance of the Religious Right. As far as abortion goes, the Democratic nominee should be pro-life but support abortion when a matter of medical and/or psychological necessity. Abortion should not be a matter of choice only necessity. He or she should also oppose gay marriage (perhaps supporting civil unions, which don¡¦t infringe on the sanctity of marriage)

[bballny]

1. This writer

has a good perspective on the south. I live in Georgia in one of the most conservative areas. The south's political philosophy hasn't changed since the beginning of the republic. Look at the 1860 southern platform. It is the same as today. They basically hate the North and think of the liberals as the north. I have many friends who wouldn't put up Kerry signs because of the flack they would receive. My wife actually got a sale(Realtor) because we put up a Kerry sign. These people moved back into town to be around some like minded people. The only candidate I see that can make it a battle is Mark Warner of Va.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Perhaps it's a matter of time before the voting block in the South is

diluted from the displaced Northerners moving there after they take their profits from their overpriced real estate and move to a region with lower taxes, less heat bills if any, and a permanent vacation. This demographic can't be this concentrated indefinitely.

[NativeTexan]

12. A good perspective, but...

....flawed. As is all politics nowadays. What has happened in the South is that the neo-cons have successfully convinced way too many that politics is religion; religion belongs only to white protestants; white protestants will always take care of themselves and to hell with everyone else; because that is the way God sees it; and God is a conservative.

Of course, Jesus......God in human form on earth....was a liberal in the first degree! So, what they have done is actually skew, confuse, and propagandize the South into their own image.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Joy Anne]

2. I think he's wrong

I was talking the other day with a just-retired Republican patronage employee, who asserted, with no prompting from me, that the 2004 presidential election was stolen via voting and voting machine manipulations. So if the 2004 election was stolen--and just barely, perhaps by Kerry being a quitter in Ohio--and our supposedly Democratic candidate ran on the same platform as Bush and with a similar record--for the war in Iraq, against same-sex marriage, touting an employer-based incremental change in health care that is maybe a little better than the Bush MSAs and Medicare prescriptions but too convoluted to campaign on (and no help to us self-employed and unemployed or to the automakers) as a solution to our ongoing health care crisis, and on and on--then imagine how overwhelmingly we could have won with a candidate who didn't hew to the DLC line.

We (and I personally put in hundreds of hours for an uninspiring candidate) almost won because of all the crowds of voters who waited in line for hours to vote against Bush. Running a Bushlite certainly won't win in 2008!

[Akno21]

4. You're missing the point...

Did you even look at the numbers? Liberal 15.8%, Moderate 42.8%, and Conservative 41.4%. We aren't going to do better in the south by pandering to 17%. We need the south. It's getting bigger. By 2012, we can win Ohio and the blue states, and still lose the Presidency. We aren't going to win a single southern state by nominating anyone to the left of John Kerry. Look at the CNN exit poll. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html 21% of the country is liberal, 34% conservative, and 45% moderate. They have a 13% bigger base than we do. So why give them a decided edge by running a liberal candidate? You want a liberal in 2008. I want a winner.

[changeishere]

11. same polls

Are these the same polls that gave the elections to Gore and Kerry?

[musical_soul]

5. I think the south can be won...

even by the most liberal candidate.

What Democrats have to do is this. Talk to voters about issues that deal with them. Each state has their own individual set of issues. The average person (lib or conservative) is not constantly thinking about abortion, gay rights, or the war. They're thinking about employment, where our tax money goes, and other things that relate directly to them.

We have to explain to voters why we think the Democratic Party can run the state, local, and federal offices better than Republicans can. Don't do it by making a campaign of badmouthing the other side. That turns many voters off. Make it mostly what we have to offer them.

[ProgressAlwaysWins]

6. Democrats are never going to win the South back

It's a lost cause now after 9/11 and GWB. Forget about it. It's not going to happen. The South is going to stay fundamentalist and Republican for a looooong time. I say forget about them and focus on places like Ohio and the rest of the Midwest. We didn't lose Ohio that bad.

We ought to focus on Midwestern farmers and their families. as a potential voting base. They're going to be a hell of a lot easier to convert than Southerners. Theoretically, it shouldn't be too difficult, seeing as they're the ones getting screwed over the worst by Bush. The people in power have raped the agriculture industry for all it's worth, and I'm willing to bet that Midwestern moms are largely the ones who are losing their sons in Iraq. What the right essentially did was get the agricultural breadbasket to vote against their own self-interest by telling them things like "Democrats support the terrorists" and "Those godless librrruls want to outlaw religion", which most of them believed because they are basically trusting and probably not the most intellectually-minded people in the country. I don't mean that in an insulting manner. They're hard-working and basically decent people, but they're not Harvard grads. What we need to do is get those ideas out of their heads and make them understand how the right has screwed their families over. If we can get those people to come around, we should have a chance. We need to convince them that we actually like them and aren't the snotty, arrogant Northeasterners they think we are. The Republicans are screwing them, but they voted for the Republicans because they THINK they like them. Hopefully it won't take too many more Midwestern sons coming home in pine boxes to convince them that something's fucked up.

[uppityperson]

7. What about MS and LA post Katrina?

[ProgressAlwaysWins]

8. OK, you got me on those two...

True. I didn't think of that. Still, two states does not equal "The South".

[uppityperson]

9. 2 states=2 states

Ohio and "state X" don't equal the midwest either, by that definition. LA and MS are good states to turn anti-bush and I'm darned glad of it.

[guru_5685]

10. war

If there has been one success in the bush presidency, it has been to divide the country and paralyze it. The masses and divided and ready for another civil war.

This time the war will not be fought with bullets; at least not on american soil. The civil war in america this time will be fought with ideas and politics about things that do not matter to our country as a whole. We will fight about abortion, gay rights, affirmative action, and the death penalty.

If we are going to have a meaningful CRUSADE in this country, we need to fight against corporate corruption, energy management, protection of civil liberties, corporate exploitation, outsourcing of jobs, and the lack of unity that exists in america today

I want a war...one the freaking matters !!!!!!!!!