...without them, that's for sure.

Think about this.

The south for most of its political history was a democratic stronghold. This was because Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and he helped end slavery and save the country. Lincoln and the Republicans were so hated, that during the 1860 Presidential election, Lincoln's name wasn't even placed on the ballot in Alabama. For most of our history, there is nothing on earth meaner or or more blood-thristy than an old traditional southern Democrat. Because of Lincoln, from 1860 on, the Democrats controlled the south. In history, the south is even referred to as the "solid block" because it was so incredibly Democratic.

Then during the 1950s and 60s, a new breed of Democrats emerged. And YES THEY WERE PRIMARILY FROM THE NORTH. They supported civil rights, women's rights, the rights of workers etc. etc. etc.

And what happened?

From the 1960s to the 1980s the South went from a solid Democratic voting block to a southern Republican block! Old time dangerous southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond even changed parties in protest of equality for all! Today the south is solidly Republican. (What a coincidence!) Amazingly when I lived in South Carolina there were some very young people there who didn't even know that Thurmond spent the majority of his life as a Democrat. I had to explain to them that he only changed parties at the very end of his political career to try and stop people like his biracial daughter from having the opportunity for equal rights under the constitution. It is really amazing!

What ever side is in favor of education, science, equal rights, equality and social justice.... the south is on the other side.


Try this. Google a map of the 1860 Presidential election. And then google a map of the 2008 election. Look at the areas of the country where Lincoln and Obama did well (The North). Look where they did poorly (The South). It's almost scary how identical the two maps are for elections held 148 years apart.


Presidential Election 1860 (Lincoln in blue)



Presidential Election 2008 (Obama in red)


I often think I could get into a time machine and go off 500 years into the future. I would then look at a presidential political map of the last election. And with one look at the south, I would know which side is in the best interest of the country and all people. And which side is ignorant, racist, sexist, mean, etc. etc. etc.

Yes.. it is that simple. And for some reason, we are all suppose to dance around the giant pink elephant in the room and ignore how incredibly bad the south, its history, its culture and the political viewpoints of its people have been for America.


By definition, the confederate flag is the most anti-American symbol in the history of this country. To any historically accurate and objective American, (regardless of race) it should be far more offensive than even a Nazi war flag. But of course we can't correctly say that... because we have to protect THE HISTORIC TRUTH ABOUT THE SOUTH.

That is why the MidWest is even important than the South. The South cannot do it ALONE.

But even the midwest isn't close to as bad as the south.

As an example.

Democratic Presidential candidates in places like Alabama and Mississippi won't even get 10% of the white vote. It's that bad.

To put the numbers in proper perspective, in the 2004 Presidential election, Republican Presidential nominee George Bush had a greater percentage of the black vote in a battle ground state like Ohio, than John Kerry had of the white vote in Alabama and Mississippi.

And the problem is only getting worse.


When LBJ (who ironically was from Texas) said that by supporting equality for everyone he was giving the South away to the GOP for a generation he was wrong. He UNDERESTIMATED the hatred. It looks like he handed the South to the GOP for centuries beyond.

The reddest state is Utah... which is NOT in the South.

The South doesn't appear as red as it actually is because they have large black populations which vote democratically. Basically all the whites vote republican. All of the black vote democratically. This voting trend gives the South an artificial boost when final numbers are tallied.

By comparison, Utah's final state voting numbers appear worse than those found in the deep south because Utah doesn't have a large black minority population to boost the final totals.



But if we look at the white voting trends among Utah compared to the deep south we get a far different result.

Here are the numbers

In 2008 31% of white voters in Utah voted for Barack Obama. (by the way, that's actually a relatively good number)

Meanwhile here is his % of the white vote in the deep south



Alabama 10%
Arkansas 30%
Georgia 23%
Louisiana 14%
Mississippi 11%
Oklahoma 29%
S. Carolina 26%
Texas 26%
Utah 31%


Now, please take a good look at Utah and compare it to Alabama, Mississippi, and the other George Wallace segregationist states. Its really not even close. In fact if Obama had the white support in any of these southern states states that he had in Utah, he would have won all of the southern states GOING AWAY!

I don't think many people are aware that Obama has a greater percentage of white support in even a place like Utah, than he does in Texas, Georgia or other more traditional deep southern states.


Why does Obama get 31% of the white vote in a rural, heavily mormon state like Utah. But only 10% of the white vote in Alabama? And only 11% of the white vote in Mississippi? Only 14% of the white vote in Louisiana?

lovely. just stunning.

I believe this thread was sent to a jury, who voted 3-3.

However I do question some of the threads all of the GD hosts have allowed to remain open in comparison to the ones all of you have chosen to lock. Seems, arbitrary at best and at worst it would appear that there is an agenda . . . ymmv.

The SoP is broadly interpreted to say the least.

Last edited Sun Jan 29, 2012, 01:27 AM - Edit history (1)

If you got rid of the South, those problems would disappear. After all, those problems you mentioned ONLY exist in the South. It's only in the South that you see creationism in schools. You don't see racism anywhere else. For example, you would NEVER see a bunch of white police savagely beating a black man in California, sparking a massive riot after those officers were acquited.

Of course there are issues with racism, homophobia, sexism, wage disparity, inequality etc. in all parts of the country. But when it comes to political discourse and voting patterns, to say these elements (as well as many more) don't dominate the south more than other regions of the country is to DENY REALITY.

When the GOP saw the Southern Presidential success of George Wallace in the 1968 Presidential election, they decided to move the party in the direction of the Wallace supporters. GOP operatives called it "The Southern Strategy." Does it work in the North. YES. Does it work in the MidWest. YES. Does it work in California. YES. But there is a reason it is called the "The Southern Strategy" and not the "Boston Strategy" or the "California Strategy."

Arguments like what you stated in your post represent a "red herring." And in my experience they are made by individuals who don't really wish to engage in the blatant reality staring us all in the face with regard to this issue.



Question.

On a per capita basis... do more people who believe Obama is a socialist muslim live in Alabama or Los Angeles County? (See my point?)

Carter swept EVERY state in the South. Clinton and Obama have both picked up Southern states. We've elected progressive Democrats to Congress.

So yes, you are broad-brushing.

people will not get how you are saying this, right?

I thought it would have been obvious, but you are correct. Sometimes I forget how many people are sarcasm-challenged

Another please delete. This South bashing serves no useful purpose.

truly, -I- am the one being bashed. Please, do read on.

Bless your heart.

bless Your heart, dahlin

Which is strange, but at least she knows how to delete. Now let's see if she realizes south bashing is a form of bigotry.

where, I would think it would belong . . . This, however is a question posted concerning current events on DU and in the nation.

of extreme small mindedness and bigotry.

attack against a Region of the country.

trust me, Tuesday is NOT bashing the south, she is sick and tired of others on DU doing the bashing.

The vast majority of Southern whites always vote for the pro-racism party. Before 1964 that was the Democrats, after 1964 it was the Republicans.

Broad-brush attacks on the South seem to be jut fine here on DU

Wallace took 5 Southern states in 1968. Nixon took most of the others. Interestingly, Texas went for Humphrey (possibly because of the Johnson connection).

Region bashing isn't very nice. Thank you.

I am still waiting for my response. Good luck to you.

Fed up with this region-bashing garbage.

Thank you for your concern.

There are some very beautiful parts of the South. Environmentally fascinating. Agriculturally rich.

Just needs some educating.

Oh wait.....

Who then immediately moved back after voting for Carter.

Then some of them moved back to vote for Clinton.

That sound right?

I can't believe I overlooked that! I got NC and GA confused. This is what happens when you are moving to fast. I should probably shut it down after 8pm!

I believe we should all have an obligation to be as factually accurate as possible when we are in the forums. As often as I look at and study Presidential elections, I still can't believe I missed such an apparent and easy mistake.


Again, thank you for help.

I know that was 30+ years ago, but it shows it can be done.

Also, Clinton and Obama both picked up some Southern states

They're into home-schooling, creationism, etc.

Coming from a country where Quebec gets itchy feet every 20 years. no. Idiots abound north and south, but in the end there is strength and common values in unity.

Are there GOP assholes by the truckloads and bigots here? Yes. Are there educated liberals? Yes.
Different from elsewhere in the US? No.

Stop with the South bashing.

Why don't you give up being a bigot and go back to your day job?

post #50. don't worry, I don't alert and I don't vote. your insinutiations about me are slightly insulting.

If you don't want to have people respond to insulting posts, you have 2 options:

1- Don't Post

2- Or make your intentions clear. Because obviously, I'm not the only one who had an issue with what you wrote.

As for "alerts". I don't really care one way or the other what you choose to do.

post?

May I suggest that you have chosen a very apt and approriate username.

Go figure.

Last edited Sun Jan 29, 2012, 01:18 AM - Edit history (1)

Also I can order a Pimm's Cup without getting a puzzled expression from the bar.

::sigh::

I truly wish it could, at least, get its own group and get off the main scroll.

Well, that's very different. My apologies.

Here's a suggestion: when you non-southerners actually integrate your neighborhoods, finally get rid of your ghettos, stop electing winners like Pete Wilson (remember him?) and Peter King, stop exploiting low-wage immigrant labor (especially nannies, construction, and lawn care), take hold of the corporations incorporated in YOUR states, and work on the massive environmental disasters in your backyards, then you get to criticize us.

I must have missed the part where all those things I mentioned had happened. Oh, I get it. It's cool if you berate us for our problems, but if we deign to point out not all is well in your parts, we're not telling the truth. Good to know.

Yeah, I don't know that the rest of the country is much different. If that were true, reliably blue states wouldn't be slashing education and health care funding due to short-sighted fiscal policies, the homeless in those areas would never be marginalized or mistreated, massive foreclosures would not be swamping their housing markets, there wouldn't be massive giveaways to attract companies as part of the nationwide race to the bottom, there would be no gang problems, and those areas wouldn't be gigantic markets for illegal drugs. I guess none of that is a problem, though, right?

You can talk about us all day long, but our problems are out in the open. We were forced to deal with them and we are. Can you honestly say the same?

Only ignorant rubes in the south would try to introduce creationism into public schools. You'll never see that in states like Indiana or Minnesota.

Oh yeah...

Or Pennsylvania!

Many Minnesota Republicans are to the LEFT of many southern "Democrats". My own state rep, Morrie Lanning, is one of them. Around here he is considered a moderate conservative. Down south he would be called an evil commie because he opposed Pawlenty's cuts to the HHS budget.

The Democratic Party barely represents the white working class. Yes, I do mean barely. The viewpoint of the national party tends to be that whatever is good for professionals is good for the country at large. That's why Democrats have issues in the deep south and the midwest. By forsaking an older lunch-pail liberalism, the party has given racism space to breathe.

You know, it was inevitable that the south would be lost for a time after the Civil and Voting Rights Acts. It wasn't inevitable that it would be as long as it has. The south has always been winnable when you talk about winnable issues. Harping on evil southerners and racism would probably go over a lot better if it was tied to improved work conditions and pay rather than free trade and a revolving door between Wall Street and the White House.

By the way, the south isn't monolithic. There are huge differences between a state like North Carolina and a state like Alabama.

Last edited Mon Jan 30, 2012, 03:18 AM - Edit history (2)

The GOP doesn't represent any economic interest except for the very wealthy and professionals somewhat. The trouble is that, with some exceptions, the Democratic Party really isn't very different except that it's more professional oriented. I suspect the major issue with the Democratic Party is the source of funds. If you don't toe the predominant neoliberal line, it gets hard to get funded.

Racism, xenophobia, and general extremism rise in direct proportion to economic instability (instability is not the word I want, but I'm blanking on the correct word). People are more willing to buy into these ideals when they don't feel that they're on firm ground. Racism is tried and true way of assigning false blame while hiding the real culprits. I think of that end speech of "The American President" where Michael Douglas talks about taking a group of middle class voters and telling them that some scapegoat is responsible for their problems. Sorkin really nailed that one perfectly.

We're cool. I don't like seeing the south singled out for national problems because I think it's a cop-out. All too often it's been used as a means of showing one's liberal credentials, by south bashing, while conveniently ignoring the same problems outside the south. I don't mind if people address these issues on a national scale, but scapegoating will never be productive if we really want to address the actual problems.

Read economic instability as economic insecurity. Wow, it took a long while for that word to finally come to me.

I do.

I've been through 47 states. (Alaska, Maine, and Hawaii, I'll visit soon!)

You know what the north calls it when a gay, transvestite, mayor takes a black man, out on a date, in Oregon?

We call it Friday, or "date night".

Yes, the south is forced to confront their past.

As is the north.

The north isn't as defensive about it.

Yes, racism exists everywhere. Homophobia exists everywhere. Sexism exists everywhere.

The south is defensive about it. The south is haunted by it. The south is bothered by "regionalism".

It's kind of like the difference between accusing two men of racism and getting the following answers:
1. I'm not a racist, I have black friends!
2. I try to fight my racist cultural history, and learn from my friends!
3. Race doesn't matter to me!

The first is a racist. The second also is, but is aware of it. The third is also a racist.

It's soooo cute, in that childlike way of your kid "putting on a play". Portland, Oregon had an openly gay Mayor in 2009, and he rose up like Parker, been elected since 2005.

Aside from that:
"acceptance and understanding and LOVE also exists everywhere too" It's a great message, and it matters. A lot. It's HELLA HARD for GLBTQ folks to find support in the south, but if you can find them before you kill yourself, the south has some of the best GTBTQ networks, but I think this is because the south is so harsh.

It's a bit like claiming the south is a great place for black people, because they've built up so many systems to deal with the hatred, violence, cruelty and oppression, of the south.

It's a bit like claiming you have the best underground railroad.

For GLBTQ.

#195

The only reason we get defensive is because we get condescended to about our past with no recognition of your own. Where have most of the race riots in American history occurred? I'll give you a hint: it's not the south. Where was the worst rioting over busing? Again, it wasn't the south. Didn't California just pass a big, old amendment to ban gay marriage? Why, yes, I believe they did! Doesn't liberal Oregon ban same-sex marriage? Why yes it does! Sure, they have the separate-but-equal version called civil unions, but, as we're always reminded, separate but equal is unequal.

Fix your own backyard, then feel free to lecture us. When your environment is clean, when your people aren't exploited, when bigotry isn't common place, when your ghettos are gone, and everything is just utopia, feel free to lecture us.

You can bash us all day long, but you won't change shit in this country without us. You make not like that, but reality doesn't care what you like.

Same with bus riots.

The south has less of those.

"Fix your own backyard, then feel free to lecture us. When your environment is clean, when your people aren't exploited, when bigotry isn't common place, when your ghettos are gone, and everything is just utopia, feel free to lecture us. "

Feel free to visit.

Cities may have been the localized site, but the region sure wasn't the south. Nice dodge. I appreciate the effort, but the fact remains that race riots and busing riots were all about how those good, nonsouthern upstanding citizens felt about the black people in their midst. One can pretend that it's all sweetness and light outside the south, but a long, long history of rioting and oppression indicates otherwise.

I've visited. Color me less than impressed when it comes to your version of societal harmony.

where did I say that?

I am one of them.