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.

[KittyWampus]

1. The South Would Require Winning Local Offices & Redistricting

isn't that how it's done?

[Julien Sorel]

5. How can you redistrict to nullify the Bubba vote,

when that's about 30% of all voters down there? We get the black vote and the relatively small percentage of white liberal votes as our base. They get the Bubbas, which I think is 30-40% of the population, plus the moderate Republicans as theirs. It would take a miraculous job of redistricting to overcome that numerical deficit, as far as I can tell.

[Tweed]

38. Not only do we have local races, but we have statewide too

We have 8 of 12 Attorney Generals, 8 of 12 Secetary of States, and almost half the governors. We also have 40% of the House seats that are in the South. The local and state is there, everyone just seems to glance over that and focus on President.

[DaveinMD]

2. we don't need to win the deep south

but we can win in places like Virgia, Arkansas, North Carolina and West Virginia. Louisiana used to be a lot more competitive than it is right now. We're talking about picking off one or two more states. Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina are not what we are talking about.

[leftofthedial]

3. we need to get a couple of states in the south

which ones?

[Quixote1818]

4. Never say never! The south is made of PEOPLE and all they need is

to be educated and courted. Look Bill Clinton won in Florida and Georgia. If we quit running New England "Liberals" who look like they are from France and start running down home, good old boy candidates who talk about values we can win in the south. We simply have to take Jesus back which really is not that hard since Jesus was extremely liberal. We just remind them of the values of Jesus which are our values. As P.T. Barnum said "Their's a sucker born every minute". Well, in the South their are one hell of a lot of suckers and we can most certainly be the good version of P.T. Barnum. The South does not look impossible to me. It looks like uncharted territory that we ignore every election.

[Julien Sorel]

6. I agree with bits and pieces here.

But Florida isn't really "The South," as I'm thinking of it, plus Bush I won that state in 1992. Clinton did win Georgia in 1992, which is a little bit surprising to me, but he was running against a guy with a messed up economy, only got 44% of the vote (Perot), plus Bush I was hardly the kind of candidate the South would warm up to -- which was part of his problem. I don't see the Republicans running another country club Republican for a long time, and as long as they don't, I believe it's going to be the solid South against us.

[arewenotdemo]

63. My problem with courting the South

Is that unless our candidate is a Southerner, it's a lost cause.

That says one helluva lot about the mindset of Southern whites. Demos should look to pick off FL, VA, AR when we can. If we do have a candidate from the region we expand the number of targets, of course. But Gore couldn't even carry TN, so we can't expect anything from most of the South.

I believe that Clark could easily carry FL and AR in 2008, however.

[ArkDem]

77. Actually, when P.T. Barnum came up with the 'sucker' quote

he didn't use a pronoun.

[AnnInLa]

7. Born in the South, lived here all my life, and

I completely agree with you. DNC should concentrate on all the states north of the Mason Dixon, except for FL...FL has so many retired Northerners and Cubans, that they could be swayed with the right message. There is NO right message for the South from the party of the liberals....and the Southern states don't have that many EC votes....don't waste resources, time or money down here.

[lakemonster11]

8. I don't know.

These may not be representative examples, but Kerry won 55% of the rural Tennessee county my extended family lives in, whereas Bush won 63% of the rural Washington county I went to college in.

I think many people have been discounting how close the election was in many states (and in the country as a whole).

[theboss]

9. No one is talking about competing in Alabama or Mississippi

But why can't we compete in Virginia, Tennessee or North Carolina? States that are filled with new industries and northern transplants?

[vixannewigg]

12. Give Virginia a Chance

I live in Virginia, and the vote was not that far off here. I used to complain about all of the northerners moving into the big McMansions here because of cheaper real estate. No longer. Come on down northerners!

It sucks that because of the electoral college I feel like my vote doesn't really count. But you can't just write off the south entirely. There are plenty of democrats in the south who wanted Kerry to win as much as in the blue states. In fact, we wanted him to win MORE because we hate the bubbas too and we LIVE with them!!!

[newyawker99]

21. Hi vixannewigg!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

18. Why not? The only ads that ran down here were Bush related

and I think the divide was something like 53-47.

[southlandshari]

54. New industry

Alabama has been leading the South (and much of the country) in attracting new industries from all over the world in the past few years (particularly automotive manufacturers and related industries). So I wouldn't count this state out if your theory has merit (and I think it does).

Of course, I should admit up front that the reason my state is seeing the arrival of multi-million dollar industries is that our government gives them outlandish tax breaks and other perks to come here. Ugh.

[Orlandodem]

10. Focus on New Eng, MidWest, and SouthWest.

NV, CO, AZ and NM could be in play with the right candidate and message. Add that to the MW and NE states and the EV vote goes blue.

FL could turn blue in the future with the right candidate. FL is a microcosm of the country - hispanics, rednecks, whites, blacks, asians, urban, rural, fundies, moderates.

The key is crafting a message - somehow and someway - to attract enough voters.

[AP]

11. Carter and Clinton won in the south.

[pstokely]

25. but they were southerners

nt

[AP]

58. I don't think the OP was making that distinction.

I believe the OP was saying Dems should write off the south regardless of regional origins of our candidates.

[chaska]

13. Forget the South. Forget the red states, period...

We averaged a 25 point gap between Bush and Kerry in the red states. We never will overcome that gap and don't need to. I heard a great interview on the Ian Masters show Sunday. Ian Masters is a kickass radio guy that does a show on Sundays on Pacifica (KPFK - google it for the live feed). Here's the link to the Nov 7 show http://www.ianmasters.org/. Check out the interview with Sperling about his book 'Retro vs Metro' (you'll need to fast forward - I wouldn't - the whole show is awesome). He makes a great case against the red (welfare) states. The blue states pay their way. Great stuff. Great religious debate on that show too.

[Tweed]

14. The South has the most electoral votes of any region

The states that voted for Bush (or red states as you decide to call them) outnumber the blue states in electoral votes. Your decision to focus on blue states only is not only disastrous and sucidial, it is purely illogical. We should focus on losing? Great idea! We should forfeit all House and Senate seats we have in those states? What better way to get more?

You do realize that we have 40% of the Southern congressional house seats, 66% of the Attorney Generals, 66% of the Secetary of States position and nearly half of the Governor spots. That's not a bad amount of power and not a bad place to start off with.

[offroader_101]

35. the south has always been republican

[Tweed]

37. Is this some kind of joke?

http://presidentelect.org/e1976.html

As recently as 1976, the entire South except for VA voted for a Democrat. Before that, the South was almost always Democratic. Play with the map, you'll learn alot. Welcome to the DU!

[MsTryska]

78. One caveat.....

the South was democratic in direct retaliation to Lincoln being a republican.


Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) right up until 1976 were virulently anti-civil rights.


so yes, a lot of people in the south would prefer to stay in the middle ages.

[southlandshari]

40. American history 101

The South was a Democratic stronghold for decades. Many states in the South still have Democratic governors and/or Democratic majorities in one or both branches of their state legislature.

On edit:

Link with maps on state government stats:

http://www.csg.org/CSG/States/elections/2004/post+statehouse+control.htm

[libertad]

41. I think Tweed means that the "values" the modern day repub embraces have

always been the "values" that the South has embraced. The Democratic Party used to be more like that before Civil Rights Movement, etc.

[southlandshari]

45. Those "values"

were "embraced" by millions of voters in states above the Mason Dixon line as well. And were NOT "embraced" by millions of us living in southern states.

Whoever made the statement about the South always "being Republican" (don't think it was Tweed) made the same generalization that has been made hundreds of times in the past week on DU, and it doesn't get any wiser or more productive with repetition.

Lots of us who thought we were fighting the good fight and were part of a team here are getting fed up with being lumped in with those we fought so hard to defeat in this election.

[Tweed]

62. Yeah, it wasn't me, thank you for pointing that out

Also, I couldn't agree with you more. The red state and blue state thing pisses the hell out of me. Many people in the South are not racist and many people in Boston still hate black people and they vote for the Democrats by overwhelming numbers.

I'm getting sick of this crap on the DU about the South. It's not only ingornant, but it's also bad strategy. As I've mentioned before, the South has more electoral votes, more senators and more house members than any other region. To leave it alone it to piss away 24% of the vote without even a speech.

[theboss]

79. The public schools are horrifyingly bad these days

Um, there was once a thing called The Solid South. It ALWAYS voted for Democrats.

[Selatius]

15. Get rid of the ELECTORAL COLLEGE

The South does not vote in a gigantic monolithic block. The only monolithic block that exists, exists in the College itself. Here in Mississippi, there are indeed blue enclaves, especially in the poorest areas of the state. The answer is simple: Get rid of the College and let individual voters decide who gets to be president, not this winner-take-all system we have now for the presidency. It should be the people's vote that counts, not the College's.

Just look at the map of counties in Mississippi that went to Kerry.



Or look here to get a better picture of the political makeup of the south.

[Tweed]

16. Bush won the popular vote....

[Selatius]

17. True

But that doesn't change the fact that people are being ignored in the south because of the dynamics of the College. People always assume it's a giant red zone, but that only applies to how the College votes, not the people. Regardless, what happened on Tues. may be a case of voter fraud as well as a lack of cohesive message coming from the Democratic leadership in this country. As I've said elsewhere, we need to return back to the progressive roots and find a message there.

[Tweed]

19. I agree, if it weren't for the electoral college

the South would be much more competitive. I think not having Kerry around at all, keep things to the national media to report. Kerry can't go to Atlanta and enegerize the base there, get them out and canvassing or get that much media coverage. I agree that we need to get more progressive and get more populist. Believe me, I'm not one to see the South as an all red zone. Read my post further up for an example. Most of the time when people post that map though, they say we should go Metro v Retro which is a terrible idea for the reasons mentioned above as well. My reaction to your post came from that.

[arewenotdemo]

64. Those MS counties are probably 75-90% AA

Several are bright blue on the "purple map".

Unless the Demo candidate is a white Southerner, you can forget MS.

[ElizabethEdwards]

20. Think about recent Democratic governors in the South

And there have been plenty -- and in states we have not been winning at the national level. There are Democratic governors in Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, West Virginia, and border states Arkansas and Oklahoma. And until recently we had Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, and Kentucky. That about covers it. So we can win in these states with a progressive message. We are failing to do it on the national level.

Now part of the reason that they are successful on the state level is the messenger. But part is the money. The truth is clearr: we don't put money and visits into the South. So it is hard to say what would happen if fought on this ground. We came closer in Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina in 2004 than in 2000, without the investment of candidate time or campaign money. So I don't despair at all about this. In fact, if we expect to remain a national party, we have to fight for support here.

[Tweed]

22. Great post, if only people would look at the numbers in the South

They would change their mind. With the South having more electoral votes than any other region, giving up on the South is more than shooting ourselves in the foot. We have the upper hand on statewide elected positions in the South. People should wake up and start looking local.

[Donna Zen]

23. Agree with an exception:

Arkansas with two Dem senators has a wingnut governor.

I would like to see the Democratic party look at the South not red but purple in many places. Look at the demographics, the 2004 vote, and develop strong programs and candidates to push those footholds into strongholds.

The 40% who voted Democratic in SC are not losers; they are our base. Expanding the base not abandoning the base is the proper action.

Tennessee had an amazing turnout for Dems in the large metro areas. Arkansas can go "blue."

Some of the most progressive Democrats I know are from the south; isn't it time to lend them a hand?

[Julien Sorel]

26. Those governors are almost all conservative Democrats.

And quite frankly, I suspect the reason we did a little better in the two Carolinas this year was a combination of military families being unhappy about the war, and your husband.

As I said, we can pick off a state or two with the right candidate. At the risk of sounding like a panderer, I think your husband would make us competitive in his home region, the Carolinas, and give us an excellent shot at winning Florida, as our base is already strong there, and he has good mainstream and some crossover appeal. That would be enough to win. I'm intrigued by Mark Warner, who could deliver Virginia, give us a good shot at West Virginia, and again, might be enough to put us over the top in Florida.

I don't want to write off the entire South, because there are too many EC votes there, and it's also something of a moral bellwether for middle America, for better or for worse, and if we are totally uncompetitive there, it likely means we won't be competitive in rural areas elsewhere.

The point I was trying to make is that, I don't see the Democratic Party, as it is currently positioned, prying much of the South out of Republican hands any time soon. Progressives have been bit players down there since the Civil War, and that's not the sort of record that reverses itself easily, barring some catastrophe, economic or otherwise.

[JohnKleeb]

27. Warner would be a good nominee, I admit I am biased but its true

he could help big time.

[arewenotdemo]

65. As VP

With Clark as the presidential nominee.

Demos might win FL, VA, and AR.

[AlFrankenFan]

39. I completely agree

Democrats seem to not think the South is important, and that we cannot win the South because residents aren't exactly Democrats. Paul Wellstone was able to win Minnesota as a very liberal Democrat, and won most votes because he was honest and had the courage of convictions. We could win over more votes in the South if we had candidates like him. And I was very surprised about the Governors races in West Virginia, etc. We're making progress!

I know I might get impaled here if I suggest it, but Zell Miller's book was very good at explaining how we can remain a national party.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. The South Has 170 Electoral College Votes...

If we cede them all to the Pugs that means they can troll among the other states with three hundred sixty five Electoral College Votes to find the last one hundred...



That also means they can troll in the close blue states such as PN, WI, and MI...

[Julien Sorel]

33. See my post #26 above.

If we give up on the entire South, I don't think we will ever have more than a 1/3 chance of winning the presidency, ceteris paribus. It basically means trying to win the Gore states + Ohio and/or Florida over and over and over, which means the Republicans will essentially be on the offensive.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. A Warner-Richardson Ticket Puts VA, NC and FL in Play..

Especially VA and FL...

An Hispanic on the ticket in FL would be sweet...

[shawmut]

28. 1928

Kinda crazy.

[Julien Sorel]

30. Smith was a Catholic,

and there was a lot of anti-Catholic feeling down there. It was a different time.

[JohnKleeb]

31. was? still is some

I hate to say it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. WI Had As Many EC Votes as CA

That's wild...

[Skittles]

29. ignorance in the south is RAMPANT

I should know, I've been here almost 30 years

[libertad]

43. I've been in the South for 12 years and I concur!

[Fifth of Five]

34. I agree

I have lived my entire life in the South, and there is no hope of ever getting through to enough of these folks to win with any regularity.

As my husband said the other day, "A lot of people down here are still fighting the Civil War."

Southerners have a huge inferiority complex. That's why a Southerner like Clinton or Carter can win in the South, but a Southerner like Gore cannot. Clinton was always talking about Arkansas, was proud of his hometown, had a well-known (excuse this) "white-trash" family.

Carter was also openly proud of his Southern heritage.

Gore was rarely seen in Tennessee, and never really seemed to be a Southerner to most people down here. He hadn't lived in Tennessee for years (Senate/Veep). It seemed to people that he was embarrassed to be from Tennessee.

Bush seems to be more like them, that's why Southerners vote in large numbers for him.

Recent history paints a pretty clear picture of what you need to do to get the Southern vote. Logic and facts have no appeal to the Southern psyche.

[Mr_Spock]

42. Ho-hum - another "we can't compete" thread.

We'll move on from this stage shortly. I hope.

[madfloridian]

44. "these people" "out-bubba"

Unbelievable.
Thanks for not accusing ALL of us for being racists.

[Lone Pawn]

46. We can too compete!

We need to redefine the values war. What they push are sick facsimiles of actual American values. We need to start redefining the values debate, and we need to start today. We need to push our Democratic values as American values--which they are. Charity is a value. Compassion is a value. Acceptance is a value. Equality is a value. Peace is a value.

War, hate, and exploitation are not values. We need to stop this "family values" crap and replace the values debate with American Values. Tax cuts are handouts to the wealthy. Invest in our future instead. Defense of Marriage is homophobia and hatred. Accept equality for all Americans instead. Fear and hatred of the mideast is petty and narrowminded. Work for lasting peace instead. It won't be easy, but we can do this.

[Joe the Revelator]

47. Your theory just doesn't hold water..

Look at recent history and Carter,Clinton and Clinton. The south WILL vote for democrats who come from the south.

[Julien Sorel]

53. Let's take a peek at them.

Clinton was a conservative Democrat: pro death penalty, pro Confederate flag, and so on. He was also tremendously charismatic, and may have been the most gifted natural politician we see in our lifetime. He was running against Bush I, who had angered and disappointed the southern conservatives by being too moderate, and who wasn't really considered "one of them," anyway. The economy was also shaky.

Clinton took five of the "Solid South" states, plus West Virginia. That was it. And Clinton was about as southern as you can get.


Let's look at Carter next.

Carter was a prominent born again Christian. He was running after Watergate. He was running against a Yankee, and a moderate Yankee at that, in Jerry Ford. Carter had a reputation as being a moderate to conservative governor. He swept the South in 1976, excepting OK and VA, in his first run. In 1980, however, after he revealed himself to have a moderate strain, he got swept in the South, against a non-southerner in Reagan, holding only his home state of Georgia.


Now, Carter was also running at a time before all the Dixiecrats had fully switched allegiances to Republican, and many of them likely saw in Carter an old-style, Southern Democrat.


So, do Carter and Clinton really destroy my theory, or do they support it? I say a politician with Clinton's gifts who was a Republican would have swept the South without breaking a sweat. I also think Carter was an exception, running under extremely unusual circumstances, and an exception that didn't last long at that.

Again, and I want to stress this, it isn't impossible for us to take some states down there. But we don't have the kind of appeal there that will allow us to consistently win. As long as the Republicans don't run another Jerry Ford against us, we have an uphill fight on our hands.

[arewenotdemo]

66. Another Ford? What about a Guiliani?

[Julien Sorel]

70. Giuliani would probably get a a lot of inertia support --

people who are used to voting Republican just pull the lever for him because of the "R" by his name. Would that be enough? In 1976, the current voting pattern hadn't fully set it yet; Carter slipped through a window that was closing, but it didn't fully close until Reagan in 1980. Now, loyalties have hardened. That makes it tough.

That being said,Giuliani is an odd candidate for the Republicans. They run Giuliani, we run Edwards or Warner, maybe Easley, and the South becomes a real battleground, while California would stay blue, and New York either stays blue or becomes a battleground along the lines of Pennsylvania. It would really shake things up, and I like the Democrats' chances when the Republicans can't count on a huge bloc of electoral votes right out of the gates. We have some super talent on our side that is being held back by geography, while the Republicans are so thin talent wise Bush actually looks good to them. Giuliani, with his marital issues, support for abortion and gun control, effectively throws away the cultural issues that drive southern politics, and throws the race to one of personality and voting habits. There, he would win the habit vote, but lose the personality vote. Look at a picture of Giuliani, then one of Edwards or Easley....


Well, my real dream candidate for the Republicans would be Steve Forbes, but that won't happen :/

[fujiyama]

69. I mostly agree

Also, don't forget that '92 was a three person race. Perot drew quite a bit of support from Bush I. I really doubt Clinton would have taken GA without Perot. Clinton won the state by less than 1% I think.

It may just be that I'm a pessimist, but I think our electoral map is narrowing and the near future seems to be about taking the Gore states + OH and FL, which keeps us on the desfensive. The margins in WV, MO, LA, and some other states absolutely stunned me. WV and MO had been considered battleground states earlier on, but we simply got blown away in those states. Bush won WV by double digits. MO by around 9.

The deep south may be written off for the time being. It's unfortunate but even LA has trended republican. They got their first republican senator - EVER this election. We couldn't even force that race to a run off. At the time being, MS, AL, GA, and most likely SC can be written off. Winning those states is about as likely as OK, Nebraska, and the Dakotas, etc. I'm not sure about TN and KY as well. The margins were lopsided in both states. They are definetely trending toward the republicans. In many southern states, especially in rural areas, I think evangelicism is playing the biggest role. As long as the debate is about gay rights and abortion, we will lose. Also, we as a party shouldn't give up on gay rights and our pro choice stance so it makes it tougher.

That's not to say there was absolutely not encouraging signs. CO did narrow considerably and we picked up seats in the state legislature, and they elected a Dem as senator. New Mexico is a true battleground and was within a few thousand votes. I think people were overly optimistic about AZ earlier on. That state will be tough in the near future, but there may be some chance.

VA and NC should be constested in future elections, especially with a moderate southerner. I think Clark, Warner, and the southern governors would give us a small shot at those states. I still think NC will be a longshot in the near term though, considering Bowles lost as well. That was a real disappointment, but it shouldn't have been too surprising, as Burr probably rode on Bush's coattails (as might some others like Bunning, DeMint, etc).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. The Hostage Crisis And Inflation Destroyed Carter...

We will never know if he lost the south because of his moderation...

[xequals]

48. Agree completely. The Southern moderates are in denial.

They've grown up with these reactionary conservatives and just see them as everyday people. They see the humanity in them. They think they can change them. This makes it difficult for the good Southern moderates who post here to come to grips with the hard cold facts you outlined.

The South only voted solid Dem because the party was basically the mouthpiece of slave owners, and to oppose Lincoln's Repubs after the Civil War. They didn't mind FDR's New Deal even if non-whites benefited because it was emergency time and not time for quibbling. But they started to rebel against the party as early as 1948, if not earlier.

Put it this way: the south is to the right of the Bush's GOP. Their vision of America is very conservative, very white and very theocratic.

The only way for Dems to win over a Southern state is to overwhelm with the city/metro vote, not pander to the rural vote. Many southern cities are growing rapidly, and their populations will soon be larger than the rest of their respective states. That's where the Democratic victories lie.

[southlandshari]

49. You are wrong six ways to Sunday

to use a good ole' southernism.

If you are from the South or have family here, I'm surprised you use the generalization "reactionary conservatives" so lightly. Sure, some southern Republicans are frightful. But many southerners who voted for Bush last week are thoughtful and intelligent people. They made a very poor choice in my mind, but before we condemn them, let's remember that neither our national party nor our national candidates lifted a f#%^ing pinkie to try to convince them to vote otherwise, right?

Bias and stereotyping aside, there is one glaring factual error in your post. Look at any election results map that shows county results and the ONE thing that is clear in the South is that it was some of the most rural and impoverished counties (usually with a largely African American population) that went blue.

So is it really good advice to say we ought to forget the voters in the rural South? I don't think so. Hell, we are lucky we are still getting the votes we're getting from these counties as it is.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

55. I agree. If we want to WIN the south then we need to set up viable

organizations and become PART of the community. I noticed Texas Du'ers were organizing well and they gained ( not that Texas is the south) . I think it was a HUGE mistake not to BE THERE MORE. The candidates themselves could have made more appearances the energize Dems down there

[xequals]

59. Dems getting the white rural vote is as unrealistic as Repubs

getting the minority urban vote. It's just not going to happen, regardless of whatever strategies are employed. Sometimes achieving something is not really possible, regardless of how well intentioned or determined one is. Dem's would be wise to attempt to expand and strengthen their metro base - before latinos and other natural Dem voting blocs slip away from them.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

60. Dems getting SOME districts beats Dems getting none

we lost many Dem state governments during the 90's. Just getting an EDGE does make a difference in the game. Nobody said spend a billion on it, but a PRESENCE would make a difference in some states..Louisina for instance could be a bit more in play

[arewenotdemo]

67. I agree completely

and wonder why * scored big with Latinos this time?

[Fifth of Five]

75. I completely agree with this post.

Unless the Democratic Party moves significantly to the center, and risks losing its natural base, we will never be able to compete in the rural South.

I personally hope we don't do that. However, the problem is that there is a real rural/urban division in the US, and ignoring the rural vote is also not a tenable position.

The answer is probably in the grass-roots movement. Any time you try to push an agenda from the "outside," you will meet with great resistance, even if it is a popular view. That is why the Republicans have been so successful - they are active in the local organizations (i.e. churches) in the rural South.

In the South, and I suspect in other rural areas, the first question you are asked when being introduced to someone is "Where do you go to church?" Church is the most important social structure in the South. On those rare occasions I admit to not going to church, the conversation stops. They literally cannot think of how to relate to me anymore, and frankly, I have the same problem with them as I don't really like college football either. :7

[OnionPatch]

50. I just can't see saying forget the south!

I used to live in the "rust belt" and a lot of people from those northern coal mining (Democratic) cities, have been moving south. Florida is filling up with northerners! I know, I lived there for ten years and watched it. I can see admiting that the south is not our strong point and not counting on it, but I can't ever see just giving up on it. That would ensure that we'd never get it! It would also make us look like the snobs that they say we are.
A lot of people down there are just under-informed about the government, etc. Maybe when the internet catches on more they will come around a little. I'm not giving up hope yet. I know a lot of good people down there.

[mitchum]

51. Because ignorance, fear, and pulpit-dwelling grifters rule the south

I have lived my entire life here

[CBHagman]

52. Don't be silly.

We ought to be able to find a candidate to appeal to various Southern voters, rural, suburban and urban. And don't forget that demographics play a role here. The Hispanic vote, as long as we keep trying to increase our percentage of it, will be more and more representative of certain parts of the South.

Also, we have got to spend the next two years really reaching voters in all areas -- on the issues (health care, law and order, security, etc.). Yes, this can be done.

[lawladyprof]

56. O'h yes we can-it will be painfully slow but here is an idea

Now note the purpose is not win back the South but to make inroads.

I have a radical suggestion to begin to undo the negative perceptions that many conservatives have of progressives and blue state folks generally. The aim is not to pull all conservatives and red state people but to peel away enough and blunt/begin to reverse the effect of all the vitriol that has been hurled at us progressives (dare I say liberals?) over the years.

Please bear with me while I set the context of my idea. Recently, a DU thread described the planned closing of the Tyler Refrigeration Company in Waxahachie, Texas with the loss of 500 jobs (outsourced to Mexico). People who posted to the thread were very hostile. "This is a red state. They voted for Bush." "They deserve it." "Let ‘em stew in their own juice." "They got what they deserve." You get the idea. But this is 180 degrees the opposite of what the progressive community should do to make inroads into "Bush country." I have two concrete suggestions about what action we could take.

My first suggestion is to place an advertisement in the local paper that expresses the sorrow the progressive community feels about what has befallen their community. Something along the lines of

Dear Citizens of Waxahachie, Texas: "We were afraid this would happen to our fellow Americans and that's why we couldn't bring ourselves to vote for President Bush (note someone would have to make sure the town/county went for Bush in a fairly substantial way, but it is Texas–south of Dallas). We know how scared you must be and we are aware that the closing of the Tyler Refrigeration Company will cause you and your families much hardship and even deprivation. Your county voted for President Bush by a substantial margin, but even we on the other side don't want our fellow citizens to suffer. We really believed his re-election (note no sense getting their backs up over 2000--one battle at a time) would mean this kind of outsourcing. We are sorry for you and your town. We'd really like to help, but we also have work hard now to make sure this doesn't happen to more and more people in our country. One of the principals of the progressive community is that, although people can experience economic hardship because of laziness or lack of ambition or other personal failings, many, many times it happens because of something in the structure of our system. And it appears that that is exactly what has happened to the workers at the Tyler Refrigeration Company and to the citizens of your town whose well-being and livelihoods depend on those workers earning a decent living. We would like to help, but our means are limited because we are just ordinary people with families and jobs like yours and because we also have to contribute to groups that are working to reduce the chances that this will happen in other American towns and cities. However we are setting up a fund to help you as best we can or we have X dollars we are donating to the workers at Tyler Refrigeration Company to help you at this time."

Now, a number of people have said we need to get back the moral values high ground and retake religion from the Republicans (or at least give them a run for their money). So I would suggest that the ad (Texas is in the Bible belt) contain something along the lines of

"We are mindful of Jesus's admonition to do good to those who have harmed you. We honestly believe your vote for President Bush harmed us, but we are genuinely sorry for your troubles and hardship."

Second, we set up a fund in the town and solicit donations. Just 5000 people sending five dollars would send a powerful message. And I'd go further and suggest that there be a way for the donors to identify themselves by occupation ("we progressive are hard working people just like you and your neighbors") and state ("hey, some of us are even from Taxachussetts and the People's Republic of Vermont" (Bob Novack ugh!)).

First, if we want to teach compassion for others we have to model it. Sadly, I find that empathy and compassion are in short supply in America today and especially among conservatives and in the red states. And you are not modeling compassion if you are striking out in anger. Second, gloating or being too overtly political is counterproductive. Third, the outpouring of support from anonymous progressive people (many of them hopefully in the much maligned blue states) will stand in stark contrast to the "let ‘em eat cake attitude of the Bushes and Republicans in general. This absolutely cannot help Bush (unless they give our contributions to the Republican Party or it makes them work harder for the conservative cause). Fourth, it is harder (although not impossible to be sure) to malign those who have extended sympathy, compassion, and helping hand ("put their money where their mouth is"). How can the minister(s) who administers the fund "bad mouth" them "Yankee libruls." If he does so, then some of his flock are going to be struck by the hypocrisy. Which, again, only redounds to our credit. Fifth, the purpose is not just to influence the people in that town to a more favorable attitude toward progressives and their ideas (economic hardship caused by structural problems as opposed to "sinful" ways, individual failings or weakness) but also people in surrounding areas. Sixth, I believe this would generate considerable local and state publicity (perhaps national) in a sort of "man bites dog" way, and it would do so "on the cheap."

The very power of this idea lies in its radicalism, its unexpectedness, its being the very antithesis of "They voted for Bush. Let ‘em suffer the results." And its power, especially a Southern state, is further magnified by the fact that it would be a tangible expression of Biblical principles.

[choicevoice]

57. I think with a little attention Kerry could have taken Louisiana

Anyone wonder why we went Clinton both times? Because he came to our state and asked us for our vote. In our area the first time he came through campaigning we filled a huge airplane manufacturing hanger the second time he came through we filled the airfield.

How many times did he go to Ohio? Couldn't he have just one time come down south? One trip to New Orleans and we could have pulled voters from surrounding states just a short drive away. This gets in statewide papers and gets peoples attention.

Don't ignore us and then wonder why you don't get votes. And I don't mean you have to court us. Give us one good yank and we will pump it the rest of the way. Excuse the analogy but it seemed apropos.

[xequals]

61. No way Kerry could've taken LA

David Vitter -- with David Duke's endorsement-- just won the open Senate seat.

LA is not a moderate state, despite it's recent history of moderate Dems.

LA, like most southern states, simply vote for moderate and conservative Dems out of purely nostalgic reasons. The old Southern Dems ("Dixiecrats") truly reflected the beliefs of the South - fundamentalist, racist and reactionary. The South will never have such a "perfect" party to vote for. Even the GOP doesn't measure up to the Dixiecrats.

[Dr Fate]

68. My VERY conservative hometown in GA went Kerry.-56.60% What a suprise!!

I have hope, actually.

[Gore1FL]

71. Mississipi and Alabama are in grasp

If the African American vote is energized.

The get-out-the-vote strategy is ultimately the key for Democratic victory. Our margin of victory is with non-voters rather than between the 40 yeard lines.

[auburngrad82]

72. We just need to work on changing Southerners' perceptions of

The GOP and the Democratic party. The GOP has painted the Democratic party in terms of good and evil and we haven't done anything to combat this. We need to start working now to subtly change people's perceptions by painting the GOP in negative terms EVERYTIME we talk about the GOP.

For example:

Abortions have increased during Bush's term because the economy is in such dire straits that many people feel they can't afford to bring a child into the world. Also, because of the GOP's catering to the healthcare industry, the healthcare costs associated with childbirth have increased astronomically and some people just can't afford to pay the costs. More than a million people have lost jobs during Bush's term and if they can't afford to pay their rent and have no healthcare insurance, they will do things they might not do during better times.

If the GOP truly cared about abortion as an issue, they would make having and raising a child more affordable by reining in the healthcare and insurance industries, by creating more jobs through the invest and spend economy that worked so well during the 90s rather than sticking with the failed "trickle down" strategy that has never worked in the past and only puts money in wealthy contributor's pockets, and by reducing the need for late term abortions by making sure that lower income families have adequate healthcare so that the possibility of complications don't make abortions necessary.

The GOP doesn't want to get rid of or reduce the number of abortions because they have used the issue as a wedge issue. If abortion were banned then they wouldn't be able to raise the massive amount of money and to votes by using the "possibility" of an abortion. To them it's just a tool to keep their supporters happy. Besides, they've been in control of all the branches of government for 4 years now, and all branches except the Presidency for 10 years. Why haven't they already done something about abortion?

See, I've attempted to make one of the GOP's wedge issues work against them by showing people how the GOP doesn't really care about it, they just want votes. We have to frame the issues that are important to people so that they see things in a different light. If we can convince them that the only thing the GOP is interested in is their votes, then we can bring people back from "the Dark Side."

Maybe.

[Bridget Burke]

73. Who tried to compete? When did Kerry campaign down here?

I know both he & Edwards came for private meetings & contributions. The Democrats are especially fond of collecting money in Texas while giving up on campaigning here--or supporting local Democrats. And I don't mean tailoring their message for the South, but speaking with conviction about Democrat policies--jobs, health, education, the environment.

I live in Houston, Texas. Where do you live?

[Julien Sorel]

80. Without going into the "I live here, so I know,"

stuff, perhaps you could explain the South's historical voting patterns, then?

Did the whole Dixiecrat thing happen because the Democrats weren't spending money on Southern campaigning?

[bluedonkey]

76. IMHO

and I read the whole post/replies,with a few exceptions y'all are arrogant.The only time anybody cares about the South is in National elections.
The South has a democratic history!
Kerry din't even come here because he thought it a lost cause!He was wrong!No money was spent here!He was wrong and so are most of you!

You don't know how people feel here and you don't bother finding out.It's complicated here,nothing is ever what it seems and that's why you lose elections down here.
I found more racists and 'Bubbas' up 'North'then down here,You people don't know what you're talking about!

[southlandshari]

81. kick

n/t