Do Democrats need the South?

[kskiska]

The party is doing fine, winning the Northeast, the West and the Midwest. So why is James Carville still pushing a Southern strategy?

. 14, 2006 | If you look at a map of the 2006 election, you'll notice that the blue wave actually has a huge red Southern hole in it.

Five of the six Senate seats the Democrats picked up were outside the South. Five of the six new Democratic governors are from outside the South. Of the 30 or so House seats that Democrats wrested from Republicans, only five were Southern -- and two of those were gifts. Both Republican candidates were defending seats that had been held by disgraced pariahs –- Mark Foley and Tom DeLay –- and both were forced by the quirks of electoral law to run as write-ins. They still almost won.

The most telling races, however, were those in Tennessee and Georgia. In Tennessee, the Democrats fielded a nearly perfect Senate candidate, a smart, seasoned, well-financed congressman with strong name identification. Harold Ford Jr. ran hard to the right, talking incessantly about how powerful "my Jesus" was, filming a campaign ad in a church, boasting that he was pro-life, denouncing the New Jersey same-sex marriage ruling, and wearing a camouflage hunting cap on Election Day. He lost. In Georgia, in a year when Democrats enjoyed an advantage of more than 7 percent in the national vote for all House races, the Democrats in Georgia's 8th and 12th districts were only a few hundred votes away from becoming the only incumbents in their party to lose their jobs on Election Day.

Why, then, would James Carville respond to the 2006 election by offering Harold Ford a new job teaching Democrats how to win? Ford tried to woo the Southern white voter, and since that's the model Carville and much of the rest of the Democratic Party has pursued doggedly since the 1990s, Carville wants him to replace Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean. But the camo-capped Ford failed in his hunt for NASCAR man, and there's little evidence that the model works anyway. If anything, Election Day 2006 was striking proof that it does not. Perhaps Carville, a man with a vested interest in the Southern strategy, doesn't want to admit that it's a relic of another century, and that the Democrats might be better off without it.

more…
http://salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/11/14/no_south/

[lvx35]

1. Good points.

Whatever we do, we need to realize that the thing that annoys everybody is constant identity changing and flip flopping. If we really want to appeal to conservatives, we will draw hard lines and make honest stands about what we believe, not change.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[bemildred]

3. Carville is all about Carville.

Which doesn't really make him worse than his peers, but gives you no reason to listen to what he says.

[NoodleBoy]

4. I think what should be remembered here is that the Democratic Party is a ground-up organization

and not top-down.

so basically, the DNC might never spend another dime on Southern states, but the committed activists in the region might find another funding source, another campaign technique, and make some impressive wins.

aside from that, really, what real influence do these rantings on the internet have over the DNC?

and it's useful to remember that just because a state or region has a reputation as one ideology or the other, it won't always be that way, and that could change in a very short time. case in point: Arizona, often written off as "just another red state, except this one with salsa and a giant hole in the ground" has become the first state in the nation to defeat a gay marriage ban put before the people.

[ncteechur]

5. Yes, the democratic party NEEDS the south.

Perhaps not to win an election or two, but if the democratic party considers itself a national party it cannot pick and choose which parts it fights for. And as such, it must them represent the entire nation--not just the parts that whole-heartily agrees with it. That is easy. That doesn't take courage. What takes courage is to get in the trenches and fight for the parts of the country where winning isn't easy. There are plenty of good democrats in the south. Some are rednecks and some are not. Some are every bit as intelligent and elite and rich as their counterparts in the Northeast or the West Coast. There are cosmopolitan parts of the south and there are back-asswards parts of other parts of the country. There are homophobes in every state and region. There is corruption in every state and region. THere are racists in every state and region. And there are good, honest people who work hard and want the best for their families and also want other families, black, white, asian, hispanic, gay, straight, etc. to have the best for their families as well. However, the way to affect positive change in the south or whereever is to do so from within, not from without. If the democratic party simply retreats to a no-south stance--it has lost not just the battle but the war.

[USA_1]

7. Excellent Post

And the absolute truth.

Dems may be in a state of euphoria now but I guarantee that this will evaporate soon if efforts are not made to bring in people from throughout the entire USA into the fold. Up to a few decades ago the Republican party never thought it would make any inroads into the South. But after making a concerted effort it succeeded! Dems may feel that the South and that Indy votes may not be adequately significant to warrant much attention. I guarantee that this is a big mistake.

Democrats must get independent voters into the fold. Greens, disaffected conservatives, moderate Republicans, populists, and Southern states must be made welcomed into the party's rank and file. Naturally, locals from each state/region must take the lead in enlisting people from these groupings. As an example, Ralph Nader cost the Dems and the USA the loss of John Kerry in 2004. Can we afford that again? I think not.

The USA is outsourcing too many jobs which are being replaced with $ 8 per hour jobs. The South has suffered this every bit as much as has the North. And just think about how bad the consequences of Katrina were to the South. Yet, the Dems chose not to make it a significant issue in the present campaign. Why waste the opportunity?

It's time for the Dems to take back the South and to make it blue. This could tip the scale in favor of those who oppose the GOP candidate in 2007 and 2008.

[bemildred]

6. More important is the Democrats want the South.

We are all in this together.

[Eric J in MN]

8. self-delete

NT

[Frances]

9. Dean visited the South

I think Dean is right when he says that it is a sign of respect to ask a person for his/her vote. I think Dems should treat the South with respect and ask Southerners to give them their vote.

That said, I think the Dems should focus a much higher percentage of their efforts on the Western states with a strong libertarian bent like Montana and Arizona and New Mexico and Colorado. I think we should ask voters in Idaho and Utah for their votes just as we ask Southerners for theirs. But I don't think we should invest a lot of money in these 2 states.

[XemaSab]

13. There are democrats in elected office in Idaho and Utah

The first part of winning is showing up. I agree with you that we probably shouldn't make Utah a lynchpin of our strategy, but if we don't put people on the ground there then it's tantamount to writing off a whole state, which we can't afford to do. :shrug:

[qwlauren35]

10. Interesting...

My first thought was: how can anyone expect that a black Democrat is going to win over the NASCAR dads in the South? (Tennessee is only 17% black.)

And then I went and looked at the data.

Tennessee voted 48% for Ford, 50% for Corker.

And I find myself thinking, hmmm...

Is politics a win/lose, nothing in the middle race? Or does it have a "horseshoes" aspect? Does "close" matter? Which is more significant for Tennessee's future as a possible swing state? The fact that Ford lost? Or that he got 48% of the vote?

[depakid]

11. Pander to the South by pursuing Republican policies

and the Dems WILL lose the nation. Again.

It seems like some people learned absolutely nothing from the last 12 years.

[stevenleser]

15. Representatives attempting to represent the country isnt called pandering...

... it is called being a representative. I think you have it backwards.

[depakid]

18. I think you've not learned

Pandering to right wing policies and sensibilities in a vain attempt to win over certain sorts of voters is a PROVEN losing strategy....

As Dean has noted- Southerners need health care, education, fair taxation and a healthy environment, too. But we DO NOT need the prevailing -and abusive far right crap that passes for "policy" in much of the region.

[stevenleser]

19. Nope, your point is not proven, thus there is nothing to learn

There are at least four groups claiming, "Haven't you learned? The American people will only respect you if you follow OUR policies" They are:

1. The Republican Far right
2. Republican Moderates
3. Democratic Moderates
4. Democratic Progressives

If you want me to believe that only #4 is right, you are going to need to provide a lot of proof, not just your say so or interpretation of certain elections because you feel in your gut that is why it happened.

In the absence of empirical, scientific and impartial information proving one of 1-4 above, I will always defer to basic democratic principles. We have exit polling data where people who voted explained what was foremost on their minds. It does not indicate what you would like it to indicate. Perhaps you and only you and people like you know what people really want. Forgive me if I am skeptical.

[depakid]

21. Be skeptical -that's exactly what we need

Critical thinking.

More power to you for that.

[Uncle Joe]

12. A better question would be. Does the South need Democrats?

I would contend every Southerner needs the Democratic Party whether they know it or not. For so long as we are the United States of America and not the Kurds, Shiites or Sunnis. I believe the major political parties whoever they should be, represent the entire nation, to do otherwise is the equivalent of Bush's response to Katrina.

[KitSileya]

14. Need and need.....

I think it is vital that the Democratic Party continues its 50 State Strategy in the Southern states, for all the reasons mentioned in this thread. I betcha there'll be some pretty large shocks coming when the Democrats all around the South see that they are not alone, and they have a party apparatus around which to join - there'll be a lot more of them than you would believe, I think.

That said, I don't think the recent pandering to the (mythical) Southern potential voters especially when it comes to POTUS and VPOTUS candidates is very healthy, or beneficial. It makes for candidates and policy decisions that are too timid. They have this idea of having to be republican in all but name to win over the South, and as has been pointed out on this site over and over again, voters go for the real republican rather than the 'I can't believe it's not butter' republican - and what's more, this fawning pi$$es off the real Democrats. It just reinfoces the talking points that there is no difference between the parties - which insecure repukes use as an excuse to vote R - as well as the claim that the Dems have no plans and no backbone.

[stevenleser]

16. If Democrats write off the south it will destroy the party...

... and Dean realized that. It allows the GOP to spend all their campaign money in a Presidential Race in the midwest and swing states, and it starts them off with a 15 or so state handicap.

I know people would prefer not to do it, but the unfortunate reality is that we have to represent the people in the south and their wants and needs too. If that means we have to tack to the right on some issues or in some races, that is the way it has to be. That is the nature of representative democracy. You have to represent the people. If you cant do that, pick another line of work.

[texanwitch]

17. I read this post and almost passed it by but I had to answer.

Do ya'll have any idea how many Democrats live in the south.

Why would any group want to write off such a large number of people.

I write it off to some people from the northern states looking down on people in the southern states.

My precinct is very Democratic, Chris Bell who ran for Governor carried my precinct.

The voters in my precinct voted straight Democratic 2 to 1.

If we are going to take the White House and keep both Houses this country needs the south.

The Democratic Party has ignored the south, and the Republicans took over.

It is a major mistake to write off the south, do you ever listen to Mike Malloy's radio program.

There are plenty of Republicans in the northern states, do we write off the north.

[alarimer]

20. And the South is not a monolithic entity either

There are pockets (like Austin) that are far more progressive than the surrounding areas. I have also read of the "emerging Democratic majority" in which the increasing numbers of Hispanic voters will turn places like Texas into blue states eventually. So I don't the "Old South" is long for this world, myself.

[classysassy]

22. The south

Let the dixicans rule their beloved region,the rethugs have restored old slick head,old mumbling mouth,and the a new clown to the club,one of the ten best senators in america KKKyle,where are the moderate republicans?The party Of Lincoln has been taken over completly by southerners.You never hear the rethugs refer to their party as the party of Lincoln,thats disgracefull.

[MasonJar]

23. As Howard Dean has said, the Dems need all 50 states. Here in

Kentucky we elected the very liberal John Yarmuth for Congress. Of course Mitch "no campaign finance reform" McConnell is now in charge of the Repug Senate, but at least it is in the minority.

[tom_paine]

24. Finally someone mentions Dr. Dean and THE FIFTY STATE STRATEGY

I would say that practical experience renders this thread absolutely moot.

Democrats need to maintain a functional infrastructure in EVERY state.