but I think you are right, we would get enough of the rest

Just trying a new strategy for the people.

People working two jobs know how hard they are working to put a roof over their head and food on their table and they know the stress of not always having enough for both. I think they know how much their masters hate them as well, but they believe they have a common enemy. I don't know how they came to believe that, not my problem I know when the 1% is pulling my leg. It's going to take a whole lot of understanding and patience to bring conservatives around to understanding that the enemy they perceive is the guy who writes their all too small checks and then blames them for all of societies problems.

who supports a democratic socialist...

I was born and raised near Atlanta...

I like the message you are bringing with this video, and it's true. But the lyrics are so primary and make so little sense at times = country hit.

I know, I know....I didn't have to watch it. I'm an FDR man 99%. He had some spine, and he did some damned good things for the country in some damn tough times. He was also responsible for some terrible mistakes and ignored some awful injustice at the time; but hey, he's only human, eh?

I didn't pick this randomly. I just thought is was important to know and to think.

In 1920, the South voted Democratic, even as the Democratic Party LOST the election:



The same with 1924:



And 1928:



Thus by the time of FDR first election, he knew he had the South, the actual election was in the rest of the Nation:



The South started to shift to the GOP in the 1948 election:



Return to the Democratic party in 1952, but you started to see the shift starting in the 1956 election, In 1964 the South split (Texas voted for a Democrat, South Carolina to Louisiana went GOP. All but Texas went GOP in 1968, but the South Returned to the Democratic Party in 1976.

For more election maps:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_maps

My point is the South went with FDR for the South had been solidly Democratic since 1876 (and in the 1876 election the GOP only won those Southern States still under Reconstruction occupation).

Now, that did not mean the South did not like what FDR did. When George Wallace and his fellow opponents of integration approached the GOP in 1964 for a Fusion Candidate against Johnson, he was told, the GOP would agree if they agree to abolish Social Security. Wallace rejected that right off the bat, he told the GOP that Social Security had massive support in the South and the South would reject any candidate that advocated its abolishment. At the same time the South was looking for someone to preserve they right to discriminate. In short, given a choice between Social Security AND Segregation, the South would give up Segregation first.

This has been a problem for the GOP ever since. The main backers of the GOP, the 1%, want Social Security Abolished for they believe it makes workers to independent (i.e. workers are NOT afraid of losing their jobs thus willing to fight their employers).

People in the South rely on Social Security to a much higher degree then the rest of the country, for even today, it is still the poorest part of the US (yes Native American Reservations and inner city slums are even poorer, but on a state to state basis, the South is still the poorest). Thus the South wants to preserve Social Security to an higher degree then the rest of the Nation. The GOP knows this, and knows the South will abandon the GOP if Social Security is attacked. Thus the GOP constant propaganda that Social Security is doomed and that it will NOT be around when young people retire. The problem with that program, is while the Young embrace it, by the time those young people start to vote (around age 30) they are seeing Social Security as the only retirement they will ever have, and thus support it (and this support INCREASES as they age, not only in the depth of the support, but in the number of people who start to see it as they only retirement option).

The GOP knows that any direct attack on Social Security will force these people to Vote Democratic. Thus the indirect attacks for the GOP hopes people do NOT connect the indirect attacks to the GOP.

The Democratic Party has to adopt a program aimed to help the lower half of the economy. Maybe even adopt a policy of guarantee income. i.e the US government send everyone a $1000 check each month. This would be paid by increasing taxes on people earning more then $100,000 a year. In the days of FDR, people earning what would now be over $1 million dollars a year were subject to a 45% effective tax rate (Technically the tax rate was 90%, but if the income was from "Long Term Capital Gains" it was subject to a 50% disregard, thus the effective tax rate was 45%. Remember people earning more then $1 million a year are rarely earning that via a salary or wages, but by buying and selling. If the difference between when the money was invested and when it produced income was more then five years, that was a "Long Term Capital Gain", but if it was the result of stock manipulation, which never involved that length of time, the tax rate was 90%).

The US Government has determined that it takes $741 dollars a month to "Survive". $741 is called the "Standard of Need", it goes up every year due to inflation. Thus $1000 a month would permit people to "survive". Business would hate it, for people would be more willing to join a Union and go on Strike, knowing they will still be able to buy food and other necessities during the Strike (And it is for that reason the 1% will oppose such a payment). If the Democrats wanted to avoid accusation that such payments will encourage people to have babies, just make it a rule that the payments start when you turn 21 OR graduate High School. Such a set of payments, along with Dental and Eye care in addition to the option of a Single Payer system run by the States would convince many in the South to vote Democratic. $1000 is NOT that much today, it is less then one will earn working Minimum wage 40 hours a week ($7.15 minimum wage x 40 hours x 4.1 weeks in a month equal 1172.60). If the Government would just send that to every American, it would be simple to run, no need to see if the recipient is on welfare or a member of the 1%, just send them the check (or deposit into what ever account their Income Tax Refund went to).

Also make the $1000 tax free, i.e. not subject to State or local taxes. The Federal Government can do that. I would not permit it to be attached for payment of Student loans or any attachments (I would also abolish student loans, the students getting those loans are becoming to indebted due to those loans, go back to grants, which was the norm in the mid 1970s when I was in Collage).

The Democratic Party has to do something to show it supports the lower half, but it is to busy getting campaign money from the 1% to do so. We have to change that, and hopefully Senator Sanders will lead that charge.

You are definitely value added.

nobody speaks ill of Roosevelt. The major breakup began with Nixon and the southern strategy. When I was young, the Republican Party was a marginal party in my state of NC.

But that is on the LOCAL and STATE LEVEL then on the national level. For Example in 2010 for the first time since reconstruction (136 years), both houses of the Alabama State Legislature come under GOP control. Thus till 2010 the Democratic Party controlled at least one house of the Alabama State Legislature since 1876 (and that included the time period since 1981 when Reagan became President and the South increasingly voted GOP on the national Level).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Legislature

Mississppi did not elected a GOP Governor till 1991 and did not elect ANY GOP State Senators till 1964:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Republican_Party

Mississippi has a slight GOP edge

Till 2003 Mississippi State Senate always had a Democratic Majority since 1876

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_State_Senate

Today 61% of State Senators for Members of the GOP but 37% of the State is African American and almost all of them vote Democratic today. Thus you only need a small percentage of white voters to switch for the Democrats to win Mississippi (about 8% of the WHITE Population, or 13% of the total population of Mississippi). Gerrymandering will force the Democratic party to need closer to 10% of the White population (or about 15% of the total population) but it is still doable.

Outside of those two states, the Democratic Party is even stronger on the local level. Texas voted Democratic in 1968 and may do so again within the next 10 years. Florida is returning to the Democratic Party as the retirees see the GOP as a threat to Social Security (and the grandchildren of the Cuban exiles stop thinking the main issue is returning to Cuba); Virginia is becoming a suburb of Washington DC (as is Maryland) and Norfolk and thus turning Democratic. Kentucky and Tennessee always had a strong GOP minority, mostly in the Mountains, but that group is seeing the Democratic Party as their best hope, as the Tea Party elite take over the rest of the GOP in those two states (Dayton Tennessee, where the Scopes Monkey Trial took place was a traditional GOP strong hold, but agreed to find a College named after three time Democratic presidential Candidate William Jennings Bryan and where the records of that trial are kept).

Remember all of the south went with Jimmy Carter in 1976, that is NOT that long ago.

Thus the South can vote Democratic, if it is clear that the Democratic Candidate will help the south, and the GOP candidate will not. That is hard to do as both parties have become to dependent on Wall Street for campaign money.

You are truly informed.

elected?

But I know now, gerrymandering has rendered fair elections impossible to the point it's all a lost cause unless it is addressed.

Thus, while I suspect cheating took place, it was no more then 2-3%, once results go above that percentage it becomes noticeable. Most local precincts have a rough idea how the people who comes into vote will vote, thus if the totals are NOT close to what they assume they will mention it objections will be made by those poll watchers. . On the other hand, a 2-3% difference would be dismissed a statistical error.

In most cases, error rates rarely go over 5%, thus a 5% difference between what is expected and what actually occurred would be accepted as innate to any system, but once you go over that number it indicates something is seriously wrong. Most poll counters would like the results to be 100% what they thought, but being human they will accept errors as high as 5%, but no higher, for higher error rates means something was up that they did not know and they would what to now what it was.

If cheating is occurring, it is at the 2-3 % rate, any higher you run a good risk of going over the 5% error rate if truly innate error in counting occurs.

Now, above the precinct level, you could add 1 to 2 percent without someone noticing it, or if they did it is not enough for most people to say it is the result of cheating as oppose to simple innate error. George Bush lost votes in Rural American in 2004 compared to the 2000 election, but made it up in urban eras, where he received more votes in 2004 then he had in 2000 (Bush did not win those urban areas, he just received more votes, enough votes to compensate for his lost of votes in rural America). One person said this increase was created by the computers that added to votes and sent them to the State Capitals for counting. Again possible, but such a plan has to restrict itself to 1 to 2% of the vote, any more to many people will question WHY. 1 to 2 % people will assume is the result of people at the precinct level miscounting, but the computer correcting adding the votes.

Cheating is thus only possible if it helps someone wins a marginal election. Thus the Gerrymandering of voting districts to create districts where a 1 to 2 % cheat will win it for your side. The massive spending on elections is also design to kept your candidate close.

I remember the 2002 Pennsylvania Governor Election. The GOP nominated a fairly popular moderate Republican, but someone who oppose expanding gambling in Pennsylvania. The Democratic Candidate was all for gambling. In the actual election Gambling expansion really was not a hot button issue with the voters, thus mostly ignored, but Mellon Scaife and the rest of the 1% of the Pennsylvania GOP wanted Gambling, so they just refused to give the GOP candidate any money. Thus all you heard in radio and Television was Randall, the Democratic Candidate. Fisher, the FOP candidate had no money to buy any radio or television time thus you did not hear him at all. The money to be wanted gambling and they got gambling.

I bring up the 2002 PA Governor Election to show, money can keep the candidates close enough for cheating to be a factor, but without money to get the vote close, cheating is NOT going to get someone elected.

As FDR once told his campaign managers, paraphrased "Never mention my opponents name, call him the Republican Candidate, the opposition Candidate etc, never mention his name. Some voters do not decide to whom to vote for till they get in the voting booth, and then they will pick the name they heard the most. Thus every time you mention my opponents name it brings that name to the mind of such voters and increase the changes the voter will vote for my opponent".

Thus the real fight is getting names of progressive candidates to the ears of the voters for the reason FDR said in the 1930s, the more people hear the name the more likely they will vote for that person. Corporate America understands this, for it is the whole basis of advertising. It is much more important factor then cheating for by advertising you can get your candidate close enough to the other side that cheating may even make the difference in the election. Excessive cheating would be to easy to prove, just get enough voters in one precinct to indicate who they voting for and show that that number is far in excess (or far short) of the numbers reported. A difference of less then 5% will be dismissed as people saying they voted one way, but in reality voted another, but once you start to get over 5% difference, that is fairly sold evidence of cheating and if a court finds that cheating occur the election is void. Worse, such a decision will make the precinct the center of a media circus when a vote is retaken.

Thus cheating is only done, if it is done at all, is at the margins of election, when the election is close. Elections are close if either the money for both candidates are close OR if the money is to GOP, the Democratic Party has labor and minority support (Mostly through the African American Churches and other Churches) to over come the GOP money advantage (if the GOP is short of money, they tend to lose big time, as Fisher, the GOP Candidate for PA Governor did in 2002). Money is the big factor, cheating can only be a factor in close elections.

We were Democratic for over 100 years until then. They can only hold it by minority party rule.

http://wunc.org/post/duke-mathematicians-investigate-2012-election-results-north-carolina

It is getting more apparent here in Wisconsin.

I'm re-posting this link. Wisconsin doesn't ck. a single ballot.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101732947

I want to thank some people from your state on showing up at some of our legislature protests. Solidarity is so important.