We really can't compete in the South.

[Julien Sorel]

Take a look at these historical voting patterns. Given a choice, the South has always voted against progress. They voted against the Republicans over abolition, then emancipation, voted against TR, the original progressive; several Southern electors broke ranks and voted against JFK; they began defecting from the Democrats en mass with George Wallace, who ran an overtly racist campaign; they voted with Nixon, with Reagan: there has almost never been a progressive cause or candidate the South supported except FDR, and that was a simple case of having to vote to save their own asses. They voted for Johnson out of inertia and because they thought he was one of them, then turned to Wallace when they learned otherwise.

There is no reason to believe they will start changing now. Look at the link I provided above. Click on the "Electoral Vote & Distribution Totals." These people vote lockstep, and the more reactionary the candidate, the better.

We can, I think, pick off a state or two with a Southern candidate. But we can't out Bubba the Republicans down there. What we have to do is find a way to appeal to rural voters outside the South, and across the Plains.

And no, I'm not accusing all southerners of being racists or anything like it. This is taking the South as a whole, looking at historical voting patterns, and drawing a conclusion. A conclusion that looks pretty damn valid.