We need a candidate in 2008 who understands the south

[Blue_Roses]

That's why Bill Clinton did so well here--not just because he was from the south--but because he understood the south. Many people from the south support Democratic policies and don't even know it. Like jobs and healthcare. I'm not saying that the candidate necessarily has to be from the south, but one that definitely understands it. We are sinking here...

The south has the highest poverty rates:

* The poverty rate for Arkansas (18.5 percent) — although not different from the rates for New Mexico, Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virginia and the District of Columbia — was higher than the rates for the other 45 states when comparing three-year average poverty rates for 2001 to 2003. Conversely, New Hampshire’s rate (6.0 percent) — though not different from the rate for Minnesota — was lower than those of the other 48 states and the District of Columbia.

the highest without healthcare:

The South was the only region to show an increase in its uninsured rate in 2003, up from 17.5 percent in 2002 to 18.0 percent. The health insurance coverage rates of people in the South and in the West (17.6 percent) were not different in 2003. The percentages for the Northeast and Midwest were 12.9 percent and 12.0 percent, respectively.

the lowest income:

Real median household income remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 in three of the four census regions — Northeast ($46,742), Midwest ($44,732) and West ($46,820). The exception was the South, where income declined 1.5 percent. The South continued to have the lowest median household income of all four regions ($39,823). The difference between median household incomes in the Northeast and West was not statistically significant.

more here...
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html

_______________________________________



I've lived here all my life and never have I wanted to move to a blue state as much as I do now, but something tells me I need to stay and fight:banghead:

[Larkspur]

1. Hillary Clinton won't do the trick. She's the object of Reichwing hate

orgies.

If we get a Midwesterner, like Russ Feingold, we have a good shot at retaking the Midwest and the West, so if the South still goes Repuke, Dems could still win the WH in 2008.

[Blue_Roses]

5. It's not just about

winning--we really need someone to help us out down here. We're sinking here--my husband just came home yesterday with a paycheck that is getting shorter and shorter each week. The company is hurting. It's unbelievable how we are suffering here. Businesses are closing...it's really scarey.

[Clark2008]

29. I hear you, sister!

I've just been laid off for the second time in three years and it always takes me several months to find employment - usually to start out making the same pay I was making when I started the previous job.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. Let me ask you a question about those struggling financially

Considering you are a member of this website, I understand how you vote. But how do those around you in similar financial circumstances vote? Or what I am really getting at is, do they vote at all? We all like to say that the reason the south votes Republican is because of the poor evangelical christians who are stupidly voting against their own interests. While some of that is definately true, when half of the country doesn't vote, I think that we have to take into consideration that perhaps a lot of those people who are struggling financially did not vote at all because neither Kerry nor Bush appealed to them.

[Kipepeo]

78. I think a lot of people in the south who lean Dem.

don't vote b/c they think it won't count - whether because they think the system is rigged or because they think there are too many Republicans in their state that their vote won't matter.

One of my family members teaches at a school in the south where most of the teachers vote Dem. and the school is like 98% black (because of good ole racist white flight in the area) and most of the parents lean Dem. In fact they held a mock election in her class and the kids voted for Kerry 30 to only 1 for Bush. But most of them told her their parents weren't registered to vote b/c even though they "hated bush" (their words) they didn't think their vote would matter or count. "It's all fixed," one parent told her.

It doesn't help matters that Republicans in the state sent out FAKED "notices" claiming to be from prominent black organizations warning people not to go to the polls because if they had any outstanding parking tickets their kids could be taken away from them. No lie!! They circulate these bogus fear notices every election.

We need to get better at combating the hold that repukes have over southern voters who lean Dem but feel they are alone or ignored. I think part of what went wrong in the south this election is that according to some the Dems gave less money to black orgs for voter drives, choosing instead to give the money to organizations that did not focus on the black community. I'll try to dig up an old video file from like 2 months before the election that aired on CSPAN - it was a meeting of the black journalists association where they talked about the difference in money spent on voter drives between the Clinton & Gore races and the Kerry race.

[southlandshari]

80. Great post!

This goes to the heart of what I've been trying to say for a long time. And I for one do not want to see the Democratic Party join those who send the message to voters in the South (whatever their race) that their votes won't matter.

Because they do matter. Even if my state goes red for the next hundred years (and I admit it is one of the most likely to do just that), I will never accept the premise that it means blue votes here don't matter and aren't worth pursuing - vigorously!

Wouldn't it be better to work to close the margin between votes for Democrats and votes for Republican every election year here than to just give up and let my state and others sink into an abyss of neoconservatism and religious fundamentalism?

Before some say, "let them sink - we don't need 'em to win," keep in mind that whatever was created here as a result would not go softly into the night. The monster would inevitably come back to bite the rest of the country squarely in the ass. Much worse than what we are dealing with today.

Sorry, I digressed a bit from the topic of your post - you can tell this is an issue near and dear to my heart! Regarding the last part of your post, there were indeed complaints in many places that a big chunk of voter registration funding from the Democratic party that traditionally has been given to grassroots organizations within the black community was instead given to national groups like moveon.org and ACT. I'm not making a comment for or against this decision, just confirming that it did happen. I think I have a link to an old article from Black America Web on this. I'll see if I can find it!

[Kipepeo]

82. Great post as well

:) You didn't digress - I think that IS part of the problem in the south - writing off severely red states b/c they aren't "worth" spending money on in the short term (for XYZ election)...but in the long term we are losing more and more in those states b/c we aren't fighting for them or letting the Dem-leaning voters there know that the party knows they exist and cares about them. With that kind of cut-our-losses mentality we will continue to lose at greater margins in those areas I think. We need to be spending in those red states on smaller elections and working from the ground up.

I would like to see your article from Black America...I'm still looking for the CSPAN clip. I'll have it soon...

[southlandshari]

85. Link to article

I know I read this on BAW (I'm a huge Tom Joyner fan) at the time it was initially published. I think it was picked up on many different sites - this link is to greaterdiversity.com, but it is the article to which I referred in my previous post:

When White Liberals Manage Black Voter Turnout
By Hazel Trice Edney
Washington Correspondent

September 30, 2004

http://www.greaterdiversity.com/mt_education/archives/2004/09/when_white_libe.html

[Kipepeo]

88. Link to CSPAN discussion

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04090804_nabob.rm

Coincidentally I finally found it by looking up an old thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1031731) where I'd posted it and found you had been there too! ;) I would say "small world," but it IS the interweb, and a DU interweb at that so I guess it's no biggie we've crossed paths. :)

The whole thing is worth a listen (I promise it's not boring!) but fast-forward to 1:12:05 if you folks want to hear specifically about the difference in $$ spent for black voter drives between the Clinton & Gore races and the Kerry race.

I'm going to look at your article now, shari...

[southlandshari]

91. Maybe not surprising, but still pretty cool in my book

that we've crossed paths again here - sorry I didn't remember you from your user name!

I appreciate you posting the link to the old DU thread, both because the comments there need to be revisited often by our fellow Dems, and because I'm glad there is proof out there that I'm not posting off the cuff here and now. I have always felt passionately about this issue - and I come from a privileged, white Southern background.

If someone like me can understand the potential for disconnect between the Democratic Party and black voters, anyone who calls themself a Democrat should be able to appreciate what we are saying here.

I'm glad we ran into each other (again!) here, Kipepeo!



:pals:

[Kipepeo]

92. Read your article

Agreed.

I don't think the transfer of $ from traditional Dem Black Orgs to more nonspecific Dem Orgs like ACT or Moveon was an intentional slight (of COURSE NOT - but I have to say that b/c I know some joe will take my comment as such) but I think it was simply a miscalculation. We have not reached a point where an umbrella group like Moveon or ACT is reaching the same people as the NAACP. Hopefully we can get there - but in the meantime we can't assume it has happened. Moveon is NOT reaching the parents at my friend's school - most of whom don't even have a computer to know who Moveon is...we have to work from the ground up to win control FIRST and THEN fix the classist-tied to-racist system so that people on our side aren't restricted by class concerns like access to computer-voter-drives.

[Hippo_Tron]

87. Shouldn't the NAACP be filing lawsuits against people who do that?

Voter intimidation is definately a crime.

[Kipepeo]

89. I don't know if they filed suit but here's the fake notice that they sent

This was in SC...but they sent similar letters in lots of states (this one in SC actually says you're subject to arrest if you show up (as if that's not enough)...but I DID see others from states that said they'd take your kids away...I'll try to dig those up too since I got them confused and claimed they were from my state). I saw posts about these on DU all during the election...

The SC letter (this link includes another link to a scan of the actual scare-letter falsely claiming to be from the NAACP):

http://www.scdp.org/blog.php?blog_id=73&PHPSESSID=4806cc9942c394f8ccb0ad127cb953d7

[Blue_Roses]

90. this is terrible

we can't let this happen again. I know here in Arkansas there was a flyer going around about "liberals getting rid of the bible if Kerry's elected," and I had heard about these letters that you speak of going around, but didn't realize it was in more than one state.

Geeze...this is awful. x(

[Kipepeo]

93. letters

Been trying to find the other fake intimidation letters...

In the process I came across some of these articles: http://www.southernstudies.org/news/fs20041101.htm

NAACP DECRIES ATTEMPT TO DISCOURAGE S.C. BLACK VOTE

Facing South/Southern Exposure
November 1, 2004

Rev. Joe Darby, the pastor of Morris Brown AME Church in Charleston, S.C., might have been more than a little surprised by the letter he received on Friday. Drafted on what appeared to be NAACP letterhead, it informed him he could face arrest when he votes Tuesday if he's behind on child support payments, has any unpaid traffic tickets, or has bad credit.

Not only was the information blatantly false, but Darby was in a position to know that the South Carolina NAACP wouldn't misinform black voters about fake restrictions of their voting rights. After all, he's the vice president of the state NAACP.

"I hope they weren't just sending letters to members of the NAACP," he said. "I certainly don't think they meant to send one to the vice president. It was pretty stupid."

Darby said he considers the letter an example of old-fashioned minority voter intimidation, a disinformation tactic that is insulting but not terribly intimidating in 2004.

CRAZY Flyer from WI called "some warnings for election time", claiming to be from the Milwaukee Black Voters League: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/28/201853/53 (must click on to see the fake letter)

[southlandshari]

55. "A midwesterner like Russ Feingold"

just might surprise you when election results in the South come in (should he run in 2008). Rather than treating the South as a region that should be avoided, Feingold has already shown more interest in listening to people living in the Deep South than Kerry ever did.

So perhaps we could all win WITH the South, rather than IN SPITE OF the South, in 2008. And I say it can done with a candidate from the South or from elsewhere, as long as he/she views this region as more than a cancer growing on the side of more "civilized" society.

[Hippo_Tron]

74. There's no reason that Feingold couldn't win Arkansas and Missouri

And being Jewish would give him a nice advantage in Florida. Feingold/Richardson would almost be a sure thing in Florida, although I'd probably rather have Clark as his VP.

[southlandshari]

81. I think he'd have a shot at Georgia, too

I am enough of a realist to admit he'd be unlikely to WIN in Alabama, but I honestly believe a Feingold/Clark ticket would close the gap for Dems here by several percentage points.

I have always been a big fan of Feingold, and his recent visit to Alabama was very well received by local and state media - and folks in most small towns around here are just happy when someone actually pays attention to what they have to say, no matter what their political affiliation. His efforts to connect here will not be forgotten.

I know several long-time Republicans here (including some of my own family) who would have voted for Clark over Bush had they had that choice.

I like the sound of that ticket!

[Hippo_Tron]

86. Louisiana and Tennesee come before Georgia

Georgia was a possibility a few years ago but the local Dem party is now in shambles after Barnes and Cleland lost. Also, that's a state that vote entirely on paperless diebold machines. I'm not a pessimist who says that elections are rigged to the point that it's impossible for a dem to win, but the Diebold machines in Georgia are definately a problem.

Louisiana at least has a relatively good Democratic party establishment and Tennesee has a dem gov.

Also, a state that we are gaining some good ground in is Virginia. Vriginia is a traditionally red state but I think Kerry did better there than any southern state (if you don't count Missouri as the south) except for Florida.

[pepsirum739]

59. the south

It could not hurt if the democrats understood the deep south better but it is not necessary for our future. If democrats want to have a chance at winning election we need to get Ohio and Florida to vote for us

[Firenze777]

2. Only if the elections are fair

The last governor's race in Alabama was fixed. Unless election reform is accomplished, nothing else matters.

[Blue_Roses]

6. yep--I agree

something has to done about that too...we are working through that in my county.

[southlandshari]

61. Need more info

I am an Alabama native, but didn't live in Alabama at the time of the last gubenatorial election, so I plead ignorance.

I'm not challenging your statement - Alabama state politics have historically been so dirty you need a shower after reading your local newspaper while the legislature is in session - just asking for a link or two to info on this.

If our last governor's race was rigged, the joke is on the right-wing nutjobs in my state. Riley has not proven himself to be their faithful lapdog since taking office.

[realFedUp]

3. Maybe Jesse is "reving" up a campaign

[southpaw]

4. I agree, pleurosis...

As a life-long resident of Alabama, I am fully aware of the need for candidates who can speak to southerners in a compelling, on-the-level manner that garners trust. I am also realistic enough about the majority of southern voters to recognize that the candidate in question would need to be a southerner him/herself.

Still, I wonder if healthcare, employment and economic issues will be enough to pull the average southern voter away from the politics of God, Guns and Gays...

I have almost reached the end of my rope with southern voters, but I, too, feel the need to stay in the fight.

[Blue_Roses]

8. I wonder that too

but if people are struggling like they are now, they won't care about God, Guns, and Gays. It's getting really scarey here. Maybe that's what we need--fear of how things are going to get if we don't get someone in office that cares about the "little people." I'm so frustrated I just want stand on the capitol building here in Arkansas and scream.

[Kipepeo]

94. Agreed

They need to be told over and over again how their financial crisis is linked to Bush's (Republican) cuts in state budgets.

My Rep. dad, for example, KNOWS the economy in his state sucks, but he doesn't hear the media telling him, "hey, guess what - your state had to raise state taxes to pay for police and firemen b/c bush cut federal funding for those things so he could fund his silly tax cut where you got HOW MUCH back? $300?? Didn't you spend that much and more already on increased college tuition for your kid and on property taxes so that your state could pay for the things Bush left you hanging for??"

No - instead he hears on the news about Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson and Terri Schiavo - NOTHING that relates to what he's going through now.

[Dinger]

7. Wes Clark, Period (nt)

[southpaw]

9. I second that!

Clark is the answer.

[Clark2008]

30. BINGO!

eom

[madfloridian]

10. It's ok. Don't worry.

The Democrats are giving up on abortion, probably the congressional Dems will give up on gay rights.

Then it will all be ok, then us ignorant southerners will vote for anyone.

Are you aware this is a little much right now?

[Blue_Roses]

11. "a little much"

of what? Hope? This isn't about just winning an election--we really need some help down here.

[southpaw]

13. Why wait?

Looking forward and developing strategy is something that should never stop... even after we WIN an election, we should always be looking ahead to future elections.

I don't see anyone advocating the abandonment of Democratic principles on this thread, BTW... nor did I hear anyone refer to ALL southerners as ignorant.

[styersc]

12. The Democratic Party's problems in the south have to be handled...

..at the local level. No National Messiah is going to bring the south back to the party without local concerns being addressed by local candidates.

[Blue_Roses]

14. Nobody wants a "national messiah"

we just want someone to understand why the hell we are having trouble making ends meet and why the hell our children have no healthcare. I agree it starts at the local level and believe me--MANY of us are doing that already--but it doesn't begin and end there.

[Mass]

15. A candidate will not help you understand why.

I think most Democrats understand why anyway.

He can help you find solutions to solve the problem by enacting policies that would help solving the problem if they are elected.

However, for that, we need a grassroot effort in the South to say people that the Democrats are not the Devil (and not only in the South). Republicans have an effort that goes 12 months a year and Democrats show up only during the elections. How do you expect Democrats to succeed.

[Blue_Roses]

18. Can we just all get on the same page here for a minute

rather than pick apart words. You live in a state I would love to live in--in fact we want to move to the northeast, but until that time, we desperately want solutions and that only comes with "putting it out there" and talking about it.

Bush definitely could care less about children having healthcare...

[Mass]

21. That is what the grassroots are about.

Organization and message propagation, not only volunteering three months every two years for an election.

Hopefully, Dean will succeed in his attempt to create a national movement with organizations everywhere that will run local candidates that can carry the national message while understanding the local circumstances.

Even with somebody from the South as the nominee, dont expect miracles. Clinton was president for 8 years and even if people liked him, from what you are saying, little has changed.

[Blue_Roses]

22. like I said--

it doesn't have to be someone from the south. Just someone who understands and is on the same page here. That will go along way to winning trust in many southerns who are stubborn to change.

And BTW Kerry was liked here--alot--contrary to what many may believe. It was after the debates that many saw what an idiot Bush is. The fundie teachers at the school that I teach at were very depressed the next day because their boy king looked like a fool next to Kerry. So yes, Virginia--there CAN be a Santa Claus through all this. Hope...

[southlandshari]

63. On the other hand

You said that "even with somebody from the South as the nominee, don't expect miracles."

I agree. I would expand that to include the flipside, "even with a strong grassroots effort in the South, don't expect miracles."

I know there were thousands of local Dems in Alabama who worked to get out the vote - I am guessing it was the largest concerted effort here in several decades for the Democratic Party. I say this without malice or ill will, but it is a point of fact that we got very little support from the DNC or from the Kerry-Edwards campaign, which sent frequent emails to Democrats across the Deep South urging us to focus our efforts in other "swing" states.

I don't think we need a candidate FROM the South to win the South. Just one that treats states below the Mason-Dixon line as worthy of attention, as part of the national debate.

[southpaw]

16. Examples, please...

True, all politics is local... but local and even state level Democratic politicians in the South often cow-tow to the religious majority on issues that should remain at the core of national Democratic policy... Equality for all, reproductive Choice, sensible Gun laws, separation of church and state...

[Blue_Roses]

20. Exactly...

"local and even state level Democratic politicians in the South often cow-tow to the religious majority on issues that should remain at the core of national Democratic policy..."

and here lies one of our biggest problems in our own party. :applause:

[ArtVandaley]

17. South is a lost cause, look at the electoral map in 2004, not 1992

Kerry didn't come within 10% of Bush in one southern state! However, he barely lost Ohio and came within 2-10% in Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado. WHy in God's name would we focus on an area that is only getting more conservative when we could be focussing on areas where the demographics are changing in our favor?
The southern strategy makes no sense to me.

[Sparkly]

19. Are you sure?

I thought Virginia was closer than that. Also, urban areas, regions on both sides of the Mississippi, and areas with high minority populations are all reachable, seems to me. It wasn't all that long ago that much of the South was Democratic territory; and Bill Clinton did alright there.

It may take some effort, but I don't think we should write it off; having said that, I don't think it should be either/or regarding the states you mentioned, either.

[ArtVandaley]

24. Correct, here are the stats:

Virginia: 54-46
Arkansas: 54-45
North Carolina: 56-44
South Carolina: 58-41
Kentucky: 60-40
Tennessee: 57-43
Georgia: 58-41
Alabama: 63-37
Mississippi: 60-40
Louisiana: 57-42


Here are Western/midwest/southwest states Kerry lost:
Ohio: 51-49
Iowa: 50-49
New Mexico: 50-49
Colorado: 52-47
Nevada: 51-48
Arizona: 55-44



Need to refocus our attention. Sure, it would be nice to win in the south, but that's not gonna happen unles we expect a landslide, 35+ state victory.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. Your stats don't include Florida and Missouri

Also, Arkansas and Virginia look to me like they could be in reach.

[one_true_leroy]

27. not so fast with the numbers....

i think something hidden in the numbers you quoted is the fact that SSSOOOO many Southerners stayed at home (or at work) on BLACK TUESDAY. The problem wasn't that so many of us support Bush as much as it was that so many didn't support Kerry. Political apathy seems much more rampant down here... unless people really want someone to win (or lose, for that matter), they're just not going to get up to vote. They just weren't inspired. Plus, you have to factor in religion... RWers have no qualms preaching from the pulpit, but more moderate pastors are also more restrained. I believe the South can be won.

[autorank]

47. You're right. VA was probably stolen so we'll start there.

I poll watched and saw totally bogus total vote statistics, I mean totally. If Kerry can get 40% in Alabama, Clark can get 50% and we can win some other key states. I'm afraid Florida is FUBAR. We'll never get a fair chance there and the people drank the Jebbie Cool Aid. But with the right candidate, I know we can win, most certainly in Virginia.

[southlandshari]

65. Autorank

You ROCK!

:yourock:

[Pepperbelly]

98. AR and VA both look better than AZ. nt

[Blue_Roses]

23. Once again--

it's not about strategy or WINNING--it's about truth in the fact that we are sinking here...believe it or not, we do really need a President who can understand the plight of the "little people." Maybe if we really focus on the problem and not the strategy, winning will be a given:kick:

[Hippo_Tron]

25. Actually he came within 10% in Virginia and Florida I believe

Interesting thing about Virginia and Florida is that those are the states that went to the GOP when the south was still more or less the "solid south". Now they are starting to become more Dem.

Also Arkansas was within 10 points I believe and Missouri (if you count it as the south) was pretty close as well.

[ArtVandaley]

50. I posted the stats

a couple responses above. I didn't count Florida because it is a swing state and not culturally the same as the rest of the south.

[Radical Activist]

37. Kerry made no effort in the South

A candidate who can appeal to Southerners and actually campaigns in the South would do much better.

[politicasista]

39. What about Gore?

Everyone wants to pick on how Kerry ignored the south but what about Gore? He was from here and lost his own home state.

[Radical Activist]

40. Gore pulled out of his home state

and sent all the people to Florida a few weeks before the election. I think it was a mistake. Kerry did similar things when he pulled out of Missouri and other states. The swing state strategy only works if you gamble right, and so far we aren't very good at gambling that way.

[leyton]

41. Also, the fundamentals of the election meant Bush would win the South.

(And I don't mean fundamentalists!)

Bush was, before he was POTUS, a southern governor with the ability to connect with the common man. On top of that, he was a wartime incumbent whose challenger was a Massachusetts aristocrat. The South is a place where patriotism includes supporting the military and its commanders, including the President. Bush was going to win the South. I think we are not lost there - outnumbered, perhaps, but it's not a lost cause. While I think we should focus on expanding in Colorado, Arizona, NM, and Nevada, as well as the midwest, the South remains a cornerstone of Presidential politics and we shouldn't ever let the GOP take it for granted again.

[Writer]

28. I hear the screams on the horizon...

"No! Not the DLC! Nooo!"

So are we going to change southern culture to fit Democratic politics, or change Democratic politics to fit southern culture?

That is the million dollar question.

Or we could just fight the Civil War again, you know.

[Lexingtonian]

31. Well, I wish that were the trouble

It's always sad to hear how things are- always a suffering- far behind enemy lines.

The story of the Right is that they're running on sheer willpower now, on desires that have largely run out of the support of facts. It's now a matter of the control of information and prevention of critical thinking that makes it possible for them keep up morale and belief in themselves and their belief system(s). It's all about the instilling/creating and maintaining of 'faith'. After all, aren't The Right Kind Of People running things, so that ultimately everything is going to turn out roses....right?

What you apparently don't see in the present situation is that in a conflict in which willpower is the principle means and internal measure of the one side, yielding or search for compromise is always construed as failure and weakness. In a climate of fear and hostility- easily generated these days- perceived weakness is politically fatal- indeed, considered worthy of contempt. That is where Democrats are presently are with Republicans in general, and as such additionally as Northerners with Southerners. And, to predict the future, there are two outcomes to battles of will. One is one side going crazy and disengaging with emotional (and often physical) violence. The other is one side 'cracking', being emotionally expended and turning helpless, giving in to demoralization.

So for your point about a Presidential candidate needing to "understand" the South, it's not that the point of view isn't understood. What you are asking for, in effect, is a political yielding against the faith-based aspects of Southern culture and life, and what is distinctively Southern in politics amounts to a caste-based privilege system. Democrats are the side that presently, though for the most part unwillingly, represents destruction of castes and undue privilege- because Republicans have chosen and completely monopolized the role of protectors of the privileged places of being white, being Christian, being male, and/or being (relatively) wealthy in the society. In a conflict of wills, this kind of yielding to the opposition earns contempt and scorn and delegitimation rather than respect and willingness to compromise.

Additionally, economic dire straits strike some people as reason to reform the caste/privilege system- yet for others, caste privilege is what seems to them to protect them from worse. And if you say "well, it worked out for Jimmy Carter"- the thing is that the 'FDR Democrats' that elected him in the wake of the Nixon calamity no longer exist. The moderate center no longer exists, is no longer a center- it was a rational political place to be during the Cold War, when a partition of power (Democrats in domestic affairs, Republicans in fighting the Soviet designs) was taken to be necessary to the functioning and survival of the country as a whole. But at the end of the Cold War this system of partition and suppression of overly problematic dissent meant a big pile of issues considered improperly resolved and lots of resentments. This is the fuel that led to the Republican wave during the Nineties and present- the felt need to recapitulate and refight of all the arguments, domestic and international, of between 1947ish and 1989 without the restraint imposed by the Soviet threat. We have replayed Korea in the Kuwait war. McCarthyism as Gingrichism. Bob Dole as Eisenhower manque. The beatnik era and Friedan-era feminism as the Lewinsky affair. Civil Rights in the Bush/Gore campaign and Florida's election dispute. Cuba 1960/61 via '9/11' and Afghanistan, Vietnam via Iraq, Nixon via Dubya. Stonewall redux in the form of gay marriage. Now, perhaps the 1973ish arguments around Roe v Wade (i.e. 'activist judges' pretensions and what is private/personal/familial vs government's to regulate) in the Terri Schiavo dilemma. We've also reached the days of revisiting the Oil Crisis (1974), stagflation (1970-83), and in Baghdad perhaps a lesser fall of Saigon (1975) again, as I read the newspapers. Reversal of the 1978 Iranian coup by the Islamist mullahs and picking Eighties era fights with Castro allies and drug lords in Latin America is also known to be on the Bush peoples' calendars before the end of this presidential term.

There is an end in sight to this dreary and deeply stupid game of the Right of mining the past for reactionary resentments that are easily exploited, that's the good news. In fact, this game should within the next years reach where the 'backlashes' that result are largely liberal ones or liberal victories. The kind of sad thing is that we do have a few more years of this politics defined by a lot of the electorate participating in a reliving of the past. That includes an awful lot of Democrats, unfortunately. The party is presently split between people who can't reconcile two things in their minds, the way the society is unapologetically reliving its past and the way the society demands, via imposing a double standard at election time, of the Democratic Party to be the one of the better variety of people and ready and competent to guide the society into the Modern Age properly. That means conservative or conservative-leaning Democrats have no actual place.

So I'm personally convinced that the Party loses by further compromising to purported Southern values- it should simply sit and not greatly change its values, it should let the drift of the swing voters to more liberal/Left political views continue, perhaps even stoke the fires of controversy a little bit. Arguably, it could change its official positions on e.g. gay marriage or abortion to what conservatives claim them to be, if it does so pragmatically and without ideological pretensions. There is no need to preach or assert or defend liberalism these days- conservatism is on trial and doing a great job destroying its case all by itself. We should simply keep on raising the facts, that's almost enough.

Simply put, I think the Party should at present focus on majorities and seat gains in states north of the Ohio and Missouri rivers and along the Rockies and west of them. Florida would be the one Southern state to work on diligently. The electorates of the South and Plains are, to be blunt, overall the cultural-political laggards they have generally been and the true game in these regions is not about convincing swing voters to Democratic policy positions, it's about the imploding and discrediting of Republicanism and thus turning moderate Republicans at present into genuine swing voters.

I'm sorry to say it in this way. But I think you can agree that Democratic power nationally will not be won in the Deep South- and if we did, that would make it too precarious. Nonetheless, Republican power is presently overleveraged in such a way that a single real national-level defeat, i.e. solid Democratic takeover of the Senate or the House, means a disintegrating of their hold on all national branches and then breakup further down on the state level, even down to the grassroots, in fairly short order. You well may not trust us or the Party leadership to act in your best interests from afar- but do trust us that the national malaise of the present is felt everywhere and understood everywhere to have much the same roots in foolish overseas endeavors, bad social and fiscal policy, idiotic reactionary zealotry in public life, loss of dignity to labor and workers' rights, callousness about the natural environment, and the loss of middle and working class wealth while enrichment of the wealthiest few is obscenely facilitated. It's an grotesque intensification of the colonial social and economic order- hopefully its one last great day in the sun.

[Blue_Roses]

42. I mean no disrespect when I say this, but if you

were to say what you just said to the average Joe and Jane six pack--they would look at you with with an intense stare and then say :wtf: did you just say? Everyday people--those going to work, feeding the kids, washing the laundry, scrubbing red crayon off their white living room walls after their 3 year-old scribbles all over it, don't care about bureaucratic BS.

They just want to know how you are going to help them receive higher wages--higher minimum wages--so that when they spend those 3 or 4 dollars riding the bus, it won't dip into their already too short paycheck since minimum wage is barely over $5. Basics. Just the basics. People already have complicated lives, they don't want complicated candidates.

Peace:)

[Lexingtonian]

77. very true

But your real problem begins with their reply to your entreaty- it's "Oh, I voted Democrat before- but nothing ever changed." And then they tell you that they don't vote, or that they vote Republican because their preacher said it's right or better or because their cousin asked them to since he's worried about keeping his guns.

You then have to have a coherent explanation of what both sides really are, that Democrats have changed a lot since the early Nineties and why that is so much for the better while Republicans have stayed the same- in a bad way.

[candy331]

51. This side is what I expect we will see much more of in the very near

future, the Schiavo saga was a small scale illustration of what is to be felt soon.

"One is one side going crazy and disengaging with emotional (and often physical) violence."

[k j]

53. Lexingtonian...

fascinating pov. Explains much I've witnessed, but been unable to ground. I was a kid in the 60s... born into an extended family of Arch-Liberals mixed with staunch John Birchers... who loved nothing better than to argue politics.

Have been feeling the deja va, but didn't have the parallels connected.

All I know is "fighting" the right doesn't work in the red area I live in. Any attempt to win will take a subtleness that, to date, I've only seen a few politicans possess.

And I agree with you... time. Time for the right to crash and burn. And take many of the rest of us along with them, unfortunately.

[LimpingLib]

32. So we can loose by 19 points instead of 20.Great idea there.

And FYO Kerry did worse than Gore in New York , New Jersey , Conn, Rhode Island,and Maryland in addition to most Southern States.

All the rest he did better in. One of the Southern states he did better in was Virginia,the only important one.

Kerry really rebuilt the party in Montana and Colorado as well as many other states.


Wes Clark wll kick ass in the North East (win much larger margins than Kerry) and narrow our southern looses from 20% blowouts to "close" 18 point losses.

Wes Clark will kill our chances in Wisconsin , Minnesota , New Mexico , Nevada, Iowa, etc.

Reject Wes Clark. He is a step in the wrong direction. WE need to rebuild our party and not take the worst elements of electoral strategies and blend them with total failure of a much higher order.WE cant screw around any more or else more voters will stop voting and potential new progressive voters will never bother with voting due to being turned off.

[Blue_Roses]

43. Hmmm...did I miss something

this isn't a John Kerry or Wes Clark thread. It's a thread about solutions to problems that are increasingly ignored in a region of the country that desperately is reaching out for some help.

[cire4]

33. We need a candidate that understands the Southwest

...Since thats where the political battleground will be for the next 30 years. Arizona...New Mexico...Nevada...Colorado. If we can get an agenda that appeals to voters in these states, then we will be in mighty fine shape for the next few decades.

[Radical Activist]

36. That will eventually be true for the next 30 years

but in '08 there are a lot more electoral college votes in the South than in the Southwest.

[Blue_Roses]

44. there's that word again

"agenda" :eyes: addressing the problems first takes pressure off the "agenda" ...this is not a game. It's our lives, our futures and livelihoods that we are talking about.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. I saw "Deliverance" several years ago.

Will that cover it?

[Blue_Roses]

45. nope

not even:eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

48. Apparently the sense of humor is alive and well

and living in Dixie.

:eyes:, yourself.

[Radical Activist]

35. That's what I like about Edwards and Feingold.

Edwards understands the South, and its a shame he was better used during the general election. The Kerry campaign and DNC just made no effort in the South.
Feingold has at least campaigned in rural agrarian areas and he's been making an effort in the South. His two recent trips to Alabama make me think that maybe he gets it.

[politicasista]

38. And Kerry is a "northeastern liberal" loser

who cared nothing about his supporters in the South.
:sarcasm: I guess he was doomed from the start. Too bad cause he would have made a good president. :cry:

[Blue_Roses]

46. Kerry was liked in the south

it wasn't right out of the gate, but as people got to know him, they begin to give him a chance...the debates changed everything. Many conversations were held over water-coolers after dim son made his fiery outbursts. Too bad it couldn't have happened earlier in the "game."

[Warren DeMontague]

49. How about someone who speaks to the best parts of the Red States

instead of pandering to the worst parts?

Unfortunately, too often pleas about how we need to "appeal to Red State voters" are code for "abandon the gays, the pro-choicers, the urban secular voters and the people who give a shit about separation of church and state". I happen to think that is the wrong tack to take.

What I DO think we need is to field candidates who can enunciate clear consistent moral positions- and by "moral" I don't mean emulating Pat Robertson, I mean sticking up for notions like the right to privacy, the right of consenting adults to do what they damn well please with their own bodies in their own homes, that kind of thing.. and we need people who will do it without sounding apologetic or mealy-mouthed.

Economically, the south is clearly getting socked- and yet we can't seem to make the case that, for example, 45 million Americans with no health insurance is a MORAL failure and a MORAL issue. Part of the problem, however, is an ever-increasingly consolidated corporate media in the bag of conservative interests. Until that changes I fear Ma and Pa Kettle may be essentially unreachable, because any candidate we field will be portrayed as a blow-dried elitist wimp.. (They did that to a War Hero, ferchrissakes).

Clinton bypassed it by the sheer radiance of his personality and his political skill-- but you can't count on having a new Michael Jordan show up every few years... sooner or later you need to learn how to play team basketball.

[Hippo_Tron]

54. self delete n/t

[Hidden Stillness]

52. All Americans Need These Problems Solved

I think this whole issue, and others like it, will have to be studied by Howard Dean and the "new" DNC, and any Democratic think tanks they may invent to really get some understanding of these things that have slipped away from us. This is the inevitable end of all these years of DLC corporate pandering, taking us away from our real country. The problems of the South are the problems of the poor and middle-class across the country, and they are never addressed anymore, by anybody. There is no talk of rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, because rich people don't "drive" to "work"; there is only concern about income (not payroll) taxes or stocks, and corporate profits. All lawsuits by individuals against corporations are treated as nuisances. This is one part of the problem--the general condition that applied elsewhere.

The other part is to really try to understand the (good/great) Southern Democratic mind-set. Some of the greatest Dems ever have come from the South, and one of them, Lyndon Johnson, was one of the greatest Presidents ever, and accomplished more toward alleviating poverty than anyone other than FDR. The greatest moral voice against Bush's wars has been Sen. Robt. Byrd, and this is perhaps Byrd's finest hour. Other Southerners, such as Fritz Hollings etc., have also been very straightforward critics of Bush, on the insane "budget," etc. There is a lot of good, courageous honesty to learn from.

There is also all "the rest" of the Southern attitude we have to study and learn how we will deal with. We should never sacrifice our ideals to an attempt to win elections by making stereotypes of this region of people--better to lose by being right. We will eventually win again; but if we won elections by implementing the Republican, anti-American agenda, then where are we all? One thing we have to do is get rid of the DLC attitude that these are "Red States" and that Southerners are "frightening aliens" that "we" can only approach after months of careful planning of "frames," and hiding everything that we are--this horrible attitude has got to go, and we have to approach each other honestly and reunite! I am old enough to remember, as a kid, Robert Kennedy going to the South, bringing a film crew, and exposing the Nation to the most extreme rural poverty existing here, with the intent of addressing it as President. Kennedy did not "hide" being from Massachusetts, or any of this shit, and by the end of this tour of discovery, was loved and revered by these poor people who at last had hope. They still wait for help. Learning what people actually live like, and what their problems really are, eliminates the need for cheesy "framing."

Authentically religious liberals can use religious language, scriptural quotes, etc., naturally and it will come across well, because it will come from a real base. There is no need to equate any of this with arch-conservatism, theocracy, or any of these hells; if it came from a real place, it will sound fine. Referring to rich people cutting their own taxes and heartlessly leaving the weakest among us destitute, and never heeding our cries to correct the injustice, is a case that makes itself.

There is another attitude about this issue, that believes that we should actually ignore the "ignorant/archcon" South, and gear our real efforts to the more liberal but similar-economically Midwest, as more likely to succeed. Ther is a lot of merit to that (I am from a Democratic, Upper Midwestern state); one good result might be that Dems might finally again help middle class and poor people as part of a Midwestern strategy, and, helping also the similar problems of the corporate-oppressed South, might re-introduce us as the Party that will help the American people with their real concerns, and make the case for us by example.

[Totally Committed]

56. Dare I say it?...

Wes Clark is the ideal candidate for 2008.

YC

[politicasista]

57. You love Clark, but yet you slam Kerry

for doing positive things like Clark.

[politicasista]

58. Never mind.

[Totally Committed]

62. I will say this one last time:

I have known Kerry since the early seventies. Over the years, I have contributed more money to him than I will be able to leave my children when I die. I have campaigned for him, supported him, and voted for him for about 28 years.

Even if all that were not true, I would have a right to say I'm disappointed in the Senator he's become. I have a right to say I am disgusted that he conceded the election only hours after the last vote was cast. But, since I have done all those things and lived under his representation, I will say them when and if the time and the place warrants it. I had no intention of doing so in this thread, but since you threw that little gauntlet, and then retreated behind a "never mind", I thought I'd repeat myself for you.

I don't go around looking for opportunities to slam Kerry. (And I didn't here... if you notice.) 95% of the pro-Kerry threads here go unopened by me, let alone commented on. You happened onto a thread where I was asked directly about my feelings for Kerry since I was a constituent of his, and still backed Clark. That was the only reason I commented as I did, and all I said was that Kerry had become a disppointment to me over the years. Period.

TC

[woodleydem]

60. All we need is to compete in the South, not necessarily win the South

Let's be honest--Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, etc.. aren't states that a Democrat is going to win. (And Massachusetts, Maryland, Illinois, etc.. aren't states that a Republican is going to win.) But that doesn't mean we shouldn't compete there. I believe that states like Arkansas, Tennessee, and Louisiana have strong state Democratic parties and therefore, an infrastructure in place to get a lot of votes. But you have to compete there, meaning putting money and visits into the states to get the message out. If nothing else, it forces Republicans to divert resources into traditionally Republican areas. Rove and Co. used this strategy with New Jersey, a state that realistically they knew they weren't going to win, but they put money and made visits there, which in turn forced both Kerry and Edwards to campaign there. I believe that there are two key issues that can get a lot of votes in the South: guns and illegal immigration, two areas that Hillary is staking out decidedly conservative positions on in order to appeal to some Southern voters. Also, if we don't compete or try to connect with Southern voters, it hurts us in certain Midwestern states as well, (i.e. Ohio) mainly because socially, Southerners and Midwesterners share common values.

[Radical Activist]

64. Jesse Jackson made a great point

the weekend after the last election about how it hurts Democrats in other ways when the DNC and Presidential campaigns ignore the South. It means Democrats are more likely to lose and the state and local government level.

Democrats lost seats in the US Senate, Congress, state legislatures, and local government all across the South in '04. Some of that could have been avoided if the DNC or Kerry had put a little bit of money and resources into Southern states.
That hurts the party in the long run because it means we don't have a farm team of minor elected officials who can run for bigger offices in the future. The swing state strategy might make sense if you're only thinking about this election, but in the long run it is killing the party in some states.

[woodleydem]

95. Good point. North and South Carolina could have used some of that

ridiculous amount of money that Kerry brought in, if for nothing else to help Bowles and Tenenbaum in their races. You have to give Southerners a chance to hear what you have to say before writing them off. I also believe that the 2004 Presidential election shifted the money paradigm in favor of Democrats: never again will money be a problem for a Democratic Presidential candidate. It's up to the candidate to use the money wisely, something that I believe Kerry didn't do. I know Hillary isn't all that well-liked around here at DU, but one thing is certain: the Clinton's are EXTREMELY politically savvy, and they will never let any opponent define them. (like Kerry let Bush define him) I'm not saying Hillary could win any southern states that Kerry lost, but she will compete better in them, and that's all you can ask.

[southlandshari]

97. Kick

for your mastery of the art of the long view!

:thumbsup:

[MominTN]

66. the South

Most of your red area on the map is more conservative than the blue, quite obviously. You can't win Florida by just appealing to a few large cities. I have lived in Florida, Alabama, and
Tennessee. There isn't that much difference. There are all kinds of people everywhere.
Corrupt and fraudulent elections are what have turned off voters. Also, the government votes itself a raise at the beginning of the session and then rarely gets much else done but to spend us into debt. People say it doesn't matter who wins nor which party.
Kerry may have actually won the election. If he did, than it doesn't really matter who the next candidate is, because they will lose too. I hope someone is smart enough to begin registering democrats and counting votes separately from the national election. Otherwise we will never know. Alot of people are ready to vote now, and it doesn't matter who the candidate is. That would be interesting. If the country could vote today, which party would they vote for.
Ok, let's say Bush really won. Then what went wrong? Well for one thing, there was a line of Democrat candidates but people didn't know any of them as well as Bush. They didn't know Kerry at all in the South. The Democrats didn't inform the South either who he was.
The media cut off most of his speeches, maybe replayed a line, and then gave the Bush rebuttal. The media always played Bush's statement last. The one thing that they did know about Kerry is that he was in Vietnam. Too much time was spent at the convention trying to show him as a war hero without addressing his peace mission to end the war up front as a plus. He could have said that those times were different, now he is older, and we need to stay with Iraq until we finished. However that didn't happen until the swiftboat ads started, and they were played in the South just about every commercial. The only other commercials we saw were from aflcio which only made matters worse. Then the gays were on the news for weeks right up until the election. If the Democrats are so concerned about the gays, then why didn't all the gays vote for Kerry? Do you think you will win the election with the gay vote? Do you think there are more gays than Christians? By the way, Kerry never stepped foot in Tennessee. What we need is someone to run who bests represents the entire country including the red area, and who doesn't set off alarms or fall into Rove's smear tactics, and has Kerry's good characteristics. If Kerry would continue to campaign for his beliefs throughout the nation, including the South, now that he is known and respected, he might get more votes. It seems to me, after all that has gone wrong with the economy and the war, someone known by all would win by a landslide. However he just never is seen on the news and doesn't seem to be much of a fighter. Hope the Democrats come to the weekend in Nashville on voting, because they need to be seen here in the south.

[MollyStark]

67. We need the SOUTH TO UNDERSTAND THE SOUTH

You have the "highest poverty rates:" "highest without healthcare:"
"the lowest income:"

Maybe instead of politicians trying to pander to the south we should ask southerners to talk to each other about why they keep voting for republicans.

[Sparkly]

68. From what I understand from other DUers, it's because they're convinced

that Democrats are anti-military, anti-religion, anti-integrity, anti-marriage, anti-family, anti-life, anti-THEM.

Democrats can explain issues to them til the cows come home, it seems. It won't get through until we can penetrate past the veil of stereotypes the right has drilled into their minds so successfully.

[MominTN]

70. Pick it apart

How good do the Republicans do?
They short change the military and send them off to die without justification.
They use religion to justify their position even when the Bible's teaching doesn't agree.
Who has integrity? Corporations? The wealthy?
Who in America stays married to their spouse?
Who in America has seniors and children's best interests in their platforms?
Who wants to really preserve life by curing diseases?
Who allows people to debate and disagree and unite for the common good?
I don't think it's the Republicans.

[Sparkly]

71. You're preachin' to the choir

I know that, and you know that, but somehow an awful lot of people have become convinced that up is down and bad is good and Republicans are better for their own interests than Democrats. It's something the GOP has spent decades and tons of money on.

I'd add, too, that it's not only the south -- it tends to be in more sparsely populated, rural areas, in general; people in urban areas tend to vote Democratic.

[MominTN]

69. We have the wealthy too

I live in one of the wealthiest counties in the nation. Of course it's Republican.
One reason the pay scale is so low here in the south is that the cost of living is lower. So if you had a choice of making a median salary of $45k up north or making $39K in the south, you would probably have a nicer house with lower utilities to make up the difference if you lived here. Insurance doesn't take that into consideration, so you won't have as many paying the high price for medical insurance. Upto now, we have had Tenncare pick up the bill for the poor and uninsured children including prescriptions, so I'm sure that makes our uninsured number quite high.

[Blue_Roses]

83. I had this conversation with my in-laws

and my mother-in-law said she was voting for Bush because she liked Laura. She didn't like Teresa, so that's what she was basing her vote on. :banghead: Ridiculous.

And then there was my neighbor who said he didn't like the way Kerry acted when he returned home from Vietnam. Never mind the fact that he is struggling to feed his family, he just didn't want a man in office that spoke out against a political war.:eyes:

And of course I can't forget my own fundie sister who believes Bush is a "Godly man" who God wants leading our nation:puke:

Yes, I agree, we need to talk to our neighbors, but as long as they watch Fox news, it's redundant. I think people stick with a core system of voting until they are affected personally--whether it be financially, physically, or emotionally--that forces them to look in another direction.

I refuse to give up though. Hope...

:)

[Mel Brennan]

72. What we need...

we need a candidate willing to connect the grassroots, wherever they may be found, and, if need be, in refutation of the corporate conception of what business can be.

[sellitman]

75. Sounds like Dean to me.

I like a Dean / Boxer ticket or a Conyers / Boxer ticket.

Imagine that!

[southlandshari]

76. Another important - often overlooked - statistic about the South

The South is home to the majority of black Americans - 55%, according to the 2002 census, more than all other regions of the U.S. combined.

So I guess if "we can win without the South," perhaps we can just start chanting "we can win without black folks" as well.

Yeah, right. African Americans have long been the most reliable voting bloc for Democrats year in and year out. It won't always be that way if blacks - wherever they live - are ignored or marginalized by our party leadership.

No group of people is expendable if we are truly members of the party that advocates inclusion and diversity. Those who advocate going around entire regions of the U.S. to insure a "win" take a short-sighted view of progress. "Forget the South" may be today's mantra - what will it be tomorrow? Seems like quite a slippery slope to tread.

Good original post, Blue Roses. Glad you aren't planning to move any time soon - we need you down here!

[Blue_Roses]

84. thanks...

:) and I agree. African Americans are forgotten until election time when candidates come out of the woodwork touting change...

There's still alot of oppression and bigotry in the south and this just shouldn't be. Those days should be long gone, but sadly they're not. We need more black leaders and mentors to help our youth. I am optomistic about Barrack Obama and hope many others will follow him to succeed to lead.

[nickshepDEM]

79. MARK WARNER. MARK WARNER. MARK WARNER. PERIOD.

[AntiCoup2K4]

96. Nope. No DLC candidates whatsoever

We have to WIN this time.

[nickshepDEM]

99. Your right. Last time we won? DLC candidate, Bill Clinton.

Who are you supporting?

[Totally Committed]

100. Last time we lost --

DLC Candidate, John Kerry. Just a fact. This Party needs to unify, and have less factions, period, if we are ever going to win again.

TC

[nickshepDEM]

101. John Kerry. A DLC candidate with a liberal voting record a mile long...

No more senators. We need a strong, successful, governor.

"This Party needs to unify, and have less factions, period, if we are ever going to win again."

I agree with that statement. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Nominate a center/center-left candidate and the far left will run to the Green party in droves. Nominate a far left candidate and the moderates/centrists will run to the Republican party or not vote at all. Thats one thing you have to admire about the Republican party. They are disciplined. They vote their heart in the primary, but fall inline when the general election rolls around.

[kineneb]

102. from the left coast here

I think we need to target the voters in the South that will vote for progressive ideas. It would not be writing off the South, but better allocation of resources. The Rich will vote for the Rs no matter what, but if we can reach those who have lost jobs and health care, we stand a chance. And we can even use Biblical language... just use the appropriate passages in the Synoptic gospels to point out what Jesus really stood for.