GOP Has Lock on South, and Democrats Can't Find Key

so this is where the "values" rumors started ...

WASHINGTON — The generation-long political retreat of Democrats across the South is disintegrating into a rout.

President Bush dominated the South so completely in last month's presidential election that he carried nearly 85% of all the counties across the region — and more than 90% of counties where whites are a majority of the population, according to a Times analysis of election results and census data.

The Times' analysis, which provides the most detailed picture yet of the vote in Southern communities, shows that Bush's victory was even more comprehensive than his sweep of the region's 13 states would suggest.

His overwhelming performance left Sen. John F. Kerry clinging to a few scattered islands of support in a region that until the 1960s provided the foundation of the Democratic coalition in presidential politics. Kerry won fewer Southern counties than any Democratic nominee since the Depression except Walter F. Mondale in 1984 and George S. McGovern in 1972, according to data assembled by The Times and Polidata, a firm that specializes in political statistics.

In Southern counties without a substantial number of African American or Latino voters, Bush virtually obliterated Kerry. Across the 11 states of the old Confederacy, plus Kentucky and Oklahoma, whites constitute a majority of the population in 1,154 counties. Kerry won 90 of them.

By contrast, Bill Clinton won 510 white-majority counties in the South eight years ago.

more ...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&u=/latimests/20041215/ts_latimes/gophaslockonsouthanddemocratscantfindkey&printer=1

when you own the voting machines... :eyes:

in the South and what books have been promoted? I understand they pretty good control over what the folks read in the South.

223 librarians donated to Kerry for every 1 who voted for Bush. Even if librarians in the South were only half as liberal as those in the North, you need have no fear that rightwingers are going to exert control over what people read in public libraries.

Conservative influence on *school* curricula is definitely a national problem, not a regional one. Kansas was the last state to provoke a big controversy on that issue before a single Alabama legislator made a laughingstock of himself this month.

"you need have no fear that rightwingers are going to exert control over what people read in public libraries" Then how come ya can't buy certain Mark Twain books in Texas, which is a right wing state BTW?

You sound a little too sensitive yellow dog from the south!

Do tell!

and your anecdotes are awfully vague. People who call others too sensitive are usually too aggressive and in denial about their aggression problem.

These counties were tied up to give the Republicans a majority. These states were NOT 90% Bush overall, as the county figure would suggest. Gerrymandering is afoot, as is the age-old voter fraud.

I'm in California and I'm working to secede from Jesusland

Whatever love I had left for America died when my only child was killed in Iraq.

:hug:

to keep you from having to deal with people who annoy you. :eyes:

they have a lock on the federal govt and can enslave us all, while calling it "Constitutional."

better to have an underground railroad to destroy their economic system than cater to them.

actually, America's "original sin" was including the south in the first place. in order to do so, it was necessary to deny the very belief in "all men are created equal" with the 2/3rd compromise.

we're still reaping the sorrows such an action sowed.

The North would be much whiter now. And that would make a lot of people happy.

Jonathan Edwards sermons and hymn-singings down at the Grange. But I think that would also make a lot of people happy.

That's why Chicago is such a bland place.

Maybe you ought to get a little history behind that propaganda. Blacks left the south en masse to get away from the legacy of hate that defined the region because of its slave-holding past.

wish had happened, then they would never have made it to Chicago, now would they? Therefore Chicago blues, among many other things, would not have come into being.

no one stated that blacks should have been kept in slavery.

the south should not have been admitted to the union while holding slaves. if they had decided to continue slavery, it would have been no different than what actually happened, but the U.S. wouldn't have been identified as a slave-holding nation.

Lincoln did not fight the civil war to abolish slavery, but to preserve the union, and because the expansion into the west brought the issue to a head because some people finally said ENOUGH.

If the north had gone to war because they wanted to free the blacks, rather than preserve the union, maybe your accusations would matter, but they don't.

the underground railroad helped blacks long before the federal govt did.

if the south had then wanted to declare war because the north was interfering, then all the more reason to destroy that peculiar institution.

reconstruction didn't go far enough. too many white racists politicians were allowed to interfere with democracy, yet again, and we still have to deal with the facts that the south, as a region, has been an embarrassment to democracy since the outset of this nation.

Founding Fathers. It didn't just fall on North/South lines (the slavery issue)....and remember the whole bunch of them didn't give women the right to vote.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but at the time the Union was formed, most of the colonies practiced slavery. In fact, the first one to legislate slavery in its modern form (as opposed to indentured servitude) was Massachusetts (which is somewhat convenient, since that state and Rhode Island accounted for most of the slave trade). There were still slaves in New Jersey in 1860.

The 2/3 compromise was not a struggle over slavery so much as over the balance of political power.

the underground railroad helped blacks long before the federal govt did.

True, the Underground Railroad represents a glorious bit of goodness in a squalid time. But no one could seriously argue that they, alone, could have helped all of those 6,000,000 gain their freedom.

reconstruction didn't go far enough

Agreed.

the south, as a region, has been an embarrassment to democracy since the outset of this nation

It's more a mixed bag, actually, but that kind of grayness doesn't carry much weight on a discussion board that has become strongly tilted toward the kind of shrill, shouted, black-and-white, morality-play argument that you do so well.

But I quite agree that what I said above is agitprop. That's the proper response to the simpleminded "fuck the south" style of "argument" that has taken this place over. Why waste your time trying to have an honest discussion with those whose only interest is shouting and preening?

for me, the issue comes down to this:

other western nations have recognized that democracy entails evolving human rights for its citizens. (this includes the right to vote for women...child labor issues....all those liberal topics.)

for this reason, every other western democracy has moved toward a mixed economy and more, rather than less, unionization and enfranchisement over the decades since WW2...a social safety net.

...an educational system that is not hounded by religion, that doesn't have to "defend" evolution, for instance.

why does America still have to do this? because of the textbook controversies that are propelled by Texas and California, because of the pandering to this same fundamentalism by the republicans.

yes, I focus on the south. because that's where I'm from, and I know the people and the region.

if people vote their "morals" rather than their pocketbook, what choice do the dems have? embrace racism and homophobia in order to win? the fundamentalist position on these issues is, to me, an extension of the issue of slavery.

I don't want to be part of any party that does this.

If that's what it takes to win, I've also come to the conclusion that I don't want to be part of any nation that has such a core of voters at its base.

so excuse me for venting my frustration that I feel like my nation has betrayed its ideals.

"Reconstruction didn't go far enough"? That's absurd. I suspect you are not familiar with the history of Reconstruction. It is the Reconstruction that earned the animosity of the South towards the North. What is going on right now is payback for the Reconstruction not for The War.

FYI, for a modern model of the Reconstruction just look at the mess the Republicans are making of running Iraq. That sort of cronyism and war profiteering in the Republican party goes back to the Reconstruction. That the South supports the Iraqi occupation is a bit of irony missed by many people.

is hatred by white bigots against blacks. Those bigots view the National Democratic Party as being pro black to the detriment of whites. The National Republican Party uses a variety of coded messages to encourage the view that it’s pro white and the unstated message that it’s anti black.

Bubba and Bubbette are seduced by that message and close their ears to the Democrat’s messages to blue/gray collar voters about job outsourcing, minimum wage, overtime, Medicare, Medicaid, education, budget deficits, and other issues that affect their miserable lives every day they live. When enough Bubbas and Bubbettes grow beyond their bigotry, then the National Democratic Party will again dominate the South.

-over the rainbow
-soon

hogwash! These people will never change - it has been nearly 150 years since the Civil War, and nearly 50 since civil rights legislation - and the bigots are winning.

was Virginia, and the most segregated cities in the US are in the Great Lakes states. Anyone who uses "these people" in this manner is guilty of stereotyping and scapegoating. Having lived in Michigan for a year I saw no grounds for fingerpointing at the South re: racial attitudes.

Bubbettes" think too. I.e. its a 50-state strategy.

or perhaps both???

"In Southern counties without a substantial number of African American or Latino voters, Bush virtually obliterated Kerry. Across the 11 states of the old Confederacy, plus Kentucky and Oklahoma, whites constitute a majority of the population in 1,154 counties. Kerry won 90 of them."

That language doesn't seem very subtle.

Moreover as a progressive, I'd much rather see the Democrats losing than becoming racists.

...the Republican party that they so ardently support wants to cut the federal government down to nothing. Since most of those states get far more federal tax dollars back than they pay out, they are going to be screwed big time if the GOP gets their way. Can you imagine states like Alabama and Mississippi getting even poorer?

It's laying right in front of them. It's called "listening to the grassroots on the important stuff". And I don't mean moving to the center.

A populist message will be more popular than ever before, in the coming election. The pain will be deep and a populist message will speak to that pain.

no decent person dare touch it.

The Clinton vote statistic given here would point that out. However, every time something is run on tv depicting poverty, etc etc, the model used is almost always a minority or ethnic. Democrats need to include a few more bubbas and bubbettes in their literature in the South.

At our cores, Southerners are patriots. We know all about "defending our homeland." Taken as a group, we are quite simple and straightforward: it's Black or White, Good or Bad, With Us or Agin Us. We do not deal well--if at all--with gray areas.

Most of us still believe that "a man's word is his bond." (If we have only one Achilles' heel, there it is.) We (again referring to the whole) believe that what we see on the TV news is the truth "or they wouldn't let 'em put it on television."

We hunger for straight shooters. We cling to the fables of the Good Guy Sheriff Who's Gonna Clean Up This Town. We desperately crave Leadership. And we have been raised for generations on end to believe that our cause is Noble. We are pretty good judges of character, except when we vote. Then, we are largely fools.

It is for all these noble reasons that we are so vulnerable to charlatans who wrap themselves in the Flag and wave the Bible. And the GOP has been on to this (in my lifetime, anyway) since the days of Nixon. We have taken every goddam one of these hucksters at face value and we have invariably been violated anally without benefit of lubrication.

We keep thinking that if we do "the right thing," there will be Stars in our Crown when we get to Heaven. (Damn the Baptist Church for that, by the way!) Though you wouldn't think it unless you had lived among us for a few decades, we are a very forgiving people. Trouble is, we always forgive the biggest of the Sinners, the worst offenders, the vilest of the Carpetbaggers.

If a presidential candidate should ever tell us, in so many words, "My opponent is a lying son of a bitch who wants to rob you blind so his rich Yankee friends can buy more jet planes," we would vote for him overwhelmingly.

The way for Democrats to re-take the South is to (appear to) talk as straight to us as bu$h did.

:hi:
dbt
Friendship AR
Population 206, not counting dogs.

Kerry did shoot straight and Bush said he was the lying sob who wanted to rob them blind and give the money to the welfare queens and "insert slur here". So, so much for your theory. I understand the south completely, duty, honor, integrity. You couldn't find an American who exemplified those values more than John Kerry. And the south said, nah, we'll stick with the AWOL corporate ass-kissing warmonger.

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

My deleted message proves my point...

All the more reason to get my children to a place that practices democracy.

Thanks for that.

It is so much easier to "blame the South", but your post "explains" the South as well as any I've seen here on DU.

I guess I must really be a Democrat because I tend to see the good in people first and then recognize that we all have flaws. Your post seems to see things the same way. And you said it so well.

While you didn't specifically address racism (which I suspect we can agree does, indeed, exist), you did address the key to reaching the (whole) South.

Straight talk.

"I voted for the $87B before I voted against it" just won't cut it in the South.

In many ways, Howard Dean may have played better than John Kerry.

All the "Fuck the South" talk that goes on is pointless and a waste of perfectly good, perfectly righteous anger. In the reality based world, the South is there. It isn't going anywhere. We damn well better learn to "talk Southern" .... not in accent, but in message. Not in position - our positions are actually right - but in framing.

I'm not a Southerner, but I've lived below the Mason Dixon line for most of my adult life. I believe we can win the South on our merits. We just need to speak to the South. Plainly.

As a footnote, it should be noted that the Plains and Mountain states actually voted more solidly Republican (60%-70%) this last election than did the South (51%-55%). Why do we not hear "Fuck the Plains" or Fuck the Mountains"?

Thanks for the cogent insight. I hope others are listening.

Yep. That "rebel yell" of his would have proved very popular! I'm kidding, but as a lifelong Southerner I have to say that though I wasn't a Dean supporter, I liked his yell. I admire passion and Dean has it. I've been known to raise my voice, er, on occasion...."I yell because I care." :)

And even though I'm a Southerner, I hate that the Democrats have to run a candidate that will appeal to the South, but that seems to be the way it works, at least for now. Many of us know exactly which candidate would have done just that this last time around. ;)

We need to look at why Bill Clinton succeeded and Al Gore didn't. My theory is that Bill knows how to talk to Southerners. He "felt our pain." And, Lord knows, it's painful being a Southerner what with the soft, gooey inferiority complex with the hard candy ego-shell we all lug around.

And the guns. Those guns we tote get heavy too.

I actually think that scream could become a rallying cry for Dems. Time will soften the image and the manufactured (by the media) circumstances. Indeed, we may already be there. The good doctor has not run away from it. He's taken full and complete ownership of it. The scream is so in your face that for all Dems to use it is a way to say "We're here and we ain't goin' away".

I for one would be proud to use the scream.

Yeeeeeeeeaaaaaarrrrrgh!!!!!

than Kerry.

It makes a LOT of sense (especially to me, a life-long Catholic from California who was taught at length about comparative religion) who has tremendous difficulty "grokking" the South). And from what I can see, it always seems to break not so much on any racial thing as on "the religion thing."

There's just one thing that doesn't seem to fit. One word, actually. Clinton. Forgiveness never seems to want to extend to him. I'd appreciate your take on this.

And BTW, all the Howard Dean talk? You BET! The scream could have, and SHOULD HAVE been turned to our advantage, especially the way he's handled it, straightforward, with humor, and with full ownership (who else in our "leadership" is taking responsibility for anything? bush? rummy? cheney? contradicta? anybody?). Makes ME wanna scream, too. Gets straight down into the gut, where a lot of these genuinely-felt emotions live.

And we have been raised for generations on end to believe that our cause is Noble.

Absolutely. But not just a particular cause. It's not our patriotism or or views on race relations. It's the essence of Southernness, the way of life, that is noble.

If a presidential candidate should ever tell us, in so many words, "My opponent is a lying son of a bitch who wants to rob you blind so his rich Yankee friends can buy more jet planes," we would vote for him overwhelmingly.

ROTFLMAO!!
Indeed. If only Huey or Earl K. Long were still around.

Your analysis is not bad, and I agree that there is a culture of naive trust, perhaps southern hospitality. However, "we" do not all manifest that by voting for reactionaries. I have a huge Catholic extended family here, very close, at least four generations of proud anti-war FDR/Stevenson/McGovern liberals, with the bare exception of a couple libertarian cousins who hate both parties. We collectively contributed dozens of votes for Kerry.


:hi:
American Tragedy
Louisville KY

Show them that they can't be Christians because they're racists. Show them that they can't be humanitarian because they voted for a President who gave them $300.00 for their vote. And that's $300.00 he took away from social programs. Show them that they can't be moral & ethical because they're stealing from the public every opportunity they can get by breaching fiduciary responsibilities whenever they get into public office.

Most importantly, go after the big Republican names. God! You people have riches in local areas in Florida. People don't go around stealing elections unless they've gotten away with some pretty bad stuff at a local level and think they can get away with it on a national one. Accept that you may have to censure some of your own, but the big GOP fish can be pushed of their game if you expose their civil improprieties. Sift through the public records, do FOIA requests from the FBI. There is a lot the public should have known about, but the media kept quiet. It's time to open the Republican's Pandora's Box.

this was done with Bush, even over the impediment of the media - and these folks still did not care. The South makes up shit ("Blacks were happy during slavery, and loved to serenade their beloved masters" and "Bush is a Patriot") and then believes it.

They mirror the line from THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE: "when the legend becomes bigger than the truth, print to legend"

Problem is: the disease has now spread to much of the rest of the country.

You are right about one thing, Democrats CAN win in the south based on values.

They just have to do a better job selling the party as the one with southern values.

Dixiecrat. No? Aren't these people voting Republican anyways?

what I mean is, the democrats can win in the south, based on the values of the party...Clinton did, and AA's and southern whites both liked him.

I have found that southern whites detest being told what they should do when it comes to the issue of race. They can't stand someone from another region of the country telling them what to do (even if, given the 60s and prior it is warranted). And in a sense, if the democrats allow the discussion to devolve into what flag should sit at the top of the courthouse (or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin) they **deserve** to lose...

Clinton didn't focus on that stuff...if asked about the flag, he'd respond, but he didn't dwell on it...he talked the economy, jobs and hope for the future...education...southerners respond to these issues, and Democratic policies are very strong in these areas.

the American people are the same ones who have high profiles in their local communities. The disease that you're talking about didn't begin with Bush. It's been here all along. It started when the Dem business-interested bigwigs began forging alliances with the Republicans who are already pro-business.

They all forgot one important thing: That business gets the protection of the law because someone interpreted a case to include the definition of businesses to mean "individual." THAT can be challenged. But until then, they have another weakness. Government is suppose to provide equal protection under the law to all individuals, and right now, businesses and people with large property holdings are the ones that are getting better protection than the individuals.

So, you want to get at the disease? Go to where it started. At the local level.

I think our only hope is to increase the electoral vote #s by increasing the population in the blue states. Because the only other way for Dems to win one or more red states is to adopt red values. The Dems have done enough of that already! Fuck that.

Let's blue-up the blue states. We already have a population advantage in those states; let's work to increase it.

you cannot reason with a fundamentalist. they are working to destroy our environment, our social contract, and all those values that were the basis of the American govt (Enlightenment based, reasoned rule).

My ex-pastor signed on to some gawd-awful paper basically saying that, because god gave man (underscore man) dominion over the eath, it's okay to rape her, environmentally, rather than view such a belief in Genesis as an idea of stewardship.

the leadership in the south is so fucked up, a progressive would do the entire world a favor to get out of there.

I'm a Texan living in Michigan and I've never been happier. I do miss my family down in Texas, and I get homesick for our family farm. I'm trying to convince them to come up here and live with me... they're Dems and they're miserable down there!

Blue state living is the way to go for blue voters. I know that y'all think you can perhaps stay in the red states and change minds and educate people: nope. Won't happen. Every word you speak to the Repubs is wasted breath. They think you're Satan's minions, why would they ever listen to you? It is their belief that voting Dem is a ticket to Hell. And as long as the EC remains, your vote in the red states is entirely wasted.

Increase the population of the blue states!
:bounce:

Let's see how well their (mostly Democratic) legislature is able to stand up to the Nazi moron they elected Governor.

Another one of those discomfiting realities that seldom gets discussed.

he was also helped by an effort from enron and el paso to discredit Gray Davis.

and he certainly isn't religious.

as a matter of fact, he initiated a big push for stem cell research at the state level to offset the southern voters who have quashed this research at the federal level.

because of this effort, lots of money will flow to universities and new jobs will result from Ahnuld telling the Bush republicans to go to hell.

...and as far as moving blue, CA isn't the only blue state.

OK, so he's a Republican and he campaigns for Bush and he thinks the rich people aren't rich enough and he wants to throw more poor people out on the streets and he's got a sexual past that makes Bill Clinton look like St. Francis and he's a serial sexual predator, but he's not in the Klan, so he's OK!

Arnold is a Repuke, but he's a good Repuke cuz he ain't one of dem Southerners.

I did highlight the difference between him and the southerners who are a voting block.

there were different reasons for voting for him than the reasons the southerners vote republican...the similar reason, of course, is the bullshit veneer.

obviously the majority of voting Californians, just as the majority of voting Americans, didn't care if Arnold or Clinton screwed around...and it's none of their biz, is it? Nor does it have anything to do with political ability.

what people cared about was economic performance.

and if you look at Bush's real base this time around, it wasn't the moral vote that won for him, it was the perception that he's going to make people richer, even if that perception is based on a vast distortion of the facts about the distribution of tax shifting, or how those taxes get picked up in other ways.

as far as I'm concerned, I give up on America. I think it's hopeless anymore, unless some huge economic disaster wakes up people and helps them see where their interests are served.

I don't wish this, but I think this will be a consequence of Bush's term in office.

In fact, I'm sick of politics. I'm sick of the idea that dems have to move to the right, or pander to mental midgets to win.

In other words, I give up. You're right, you're all right. The south is a great place and democrats should only run southern candidates because those great people are such assholes they will only vote for someone from their clan.

I'm not talking about problems at the state level, or governorships. At this point in time, California still goes blue for president. Any state that goes blue, or leans blue, needs to increase its EC value. We already have a huge advantage in this area -- let's build on it. They want a divided nation? Let's give it to them.

And surely you're not equating California's red-hued problems (which I think are repairable) with those of a state like, say, Texas, or Alabama (non-repairable for the foreseeable future)? There's red, and then there's RED.

Start moving to the states that were barely red and change 'em to blue.
Ohio, anyone?

to make them solid blue. I've been contemplating doing so myself.

Is there any way we could somehow organize an exodus from states that are effectively lost to the Democratic party? I know it sounds drastic, but it may be our best hope of competing with the red domination in the South and Midwest.

Some locks aren't worth opening.

Minnesota used to be one of the more reliably Democratic states, but we took it with only 51.9% in this election.

And then there's Norm Coleman....

(From the article) "...under a Southern Republican president, the South has become an electoral fortress for the GOP. OUTSIDE THE SOUTH, DEMOCRATS HOLD MORE HOUSE AND SENATE SEATS AND WON MANY MORE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES THAN THE GOP LAST MONTH. But the GOP's advantage in the region has been large enough to overcome those deficits and create Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress and the electoral college."

political strategists here advocated, is such a lousy idea. It hands the Republicans, absolutely uncontested, more than half the electoral votes needed to win. It's like giving your opponent a 50-yard head start in the 100 yard dash.

in Arkansas. The Kerry campaign sent a loud and clear message that they KNEW they couldn't compete here.

If you want to win, you write off nothing. You fight on every front.

We'll show you how.

Arkansas in 2002 was the only Senate seat to change
from Republican to Dem.

Sen Landrieu copied Sen Pryor's campaign-
look where she is today.

Arkansas has one Republican Representative in DC now.

And I can think of worse things than a Rockefeller
Republican Guv right now.

take the governor's race, I know Win Paul will be difficult to beat. If he's like his dad (and I think he is) I accept him. Anything's better than the RevGov we have now.


You make an excellent point. Democrats still dominate in local and state offices as well as 3/4 of the congressional delegation and both U.S. senators being Dems. But they color us "red" because Bush won here in 2000 and 2004?

I can remember somebody here on DU saying we just didn't work hard enough in Arkansas to make it close enough for Kerry to consider coming here. Bullshit. Total bullshit. Because this came from someone from PA where Rick Santorum is allowed to roam free. EVERY state has some blue and some red.

The Bumpers, Fulbright, Pryor (Mark), Clinton
Party is still alive and well.

A yellow dog could run on their combined, overlapping
platform and when everything but Benton (WalMart),
Sebastion(Ft Smith), and Baxter (Mt Home) Co's.

...when a Democratic president signed the Civil Rights Act. Most southern democrats fled the party and the South has hated the 'liberals' ever since.

This isn't rocket science. The split in the country is all based on racism.

same reason, only they didn't do it until 1980 and became "Reagan" democrats. Believe me, I saw this happening in my own family and with many of the people I grew up with and it totally disgusted me.

Come and take a look at the southwest suburbs of Chicago. While they are predominantly Roman Catholic, it's the same mindset. It's all about the "white flight" from the South and Southwest Side of Chicago during the late 1960's and early 1970's.

Yeah, it's ALL about racism.

after Frank Rizzo the former mayor and police chief who led our racists to the the Republican party.

it conflicts with the comforting--and popular--myth that everything that is wrong in America is the fault of the South, without which this country would be a liberal paradise, a land flowing with soymilk and organic honey. So don't expect the ones who depend on that myth to respond to you.

It would be far too uncomfortable to ask, for example, why once reliably Democratic states like Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin are becoming redder with each election, or how you can win a presidential election while conceding more than 150 electoral votes without a fight.

So, we default to the myth that somehow a bunch of trailer-dwellers in Mississippi who can barely afford their rent are in control of the whole world, holding the virtuous urbanites at their mercy. It's easier that way.

but Nixon's southern strategy and the democrat's passage of the civil rights act is an important part of the electoral equation.

Reagan's FCC ruling that allowed Fox News to flourish is another problem.

as is the pandering to extreme right wing groups by the republicans (c.f. Chip Berlet: Old Nazis, New Right, and the Republican Party...another Reagan legacy.)

as is the history of the CIA, that recruited Nazis for intel. and, because of Rudolph Gehlen, believed the most far right propaganda about the Soviets and set us on a course that empowered the John Birchers of American society, along with a defense industry that sucks the federal budget that could go to programs to enhance the lives of Americans, in areas such as education and a social safety net for its least enfranchised.

religious fundamentalism could not flourish in a nation that recognized it for the anti-intellectual, anti-enlightenment doctrine that it is, and talked about this on national tv, rather than having "concerned women of america" as talk show guests.

It amazes me that people will vote their jobs away, vote against better education for their kids....and all based on Gods, Guns and Nationalism...

Well when they are tired of the GOP screwing them ...well perhaps they may see the light...

begin to die in Iraq.

funny isn't it?

between the two parties.

When both parties advocate things like "free trade" (shipping your job out of the country) and tax "relief" for millionaires and the rest of the corporate agenda, then so-called "social issues" become the only dramatic difference between the parties.

That is what has happened. Populist appeals still work--witness how Gore's numbers jumped in 2000 when he began talking about his "the people vs. the powerful" theme. But then the corporate media and the GOP accused him of "class warfare" and Gore tucked his tail and ran like a scalded dog. And consider this election: Edwards's "two Americas" theme played very well in the primaries, but then when Kerry brought Edwards onto the ticket we ended up with yet another blandly inoffensive corporate campaign with nary a hint of populism about it.

And then we wonder why working people do not think the Democratic Party is particularly interested in their needs.

His only fault in my opinion was his second debate performance, way too much "I agree" with the idiot. Remember, for a country that was goaded into thinking that the Clenis' whereabouts were important indicators of morality, Gore did pretty well, winning both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote.

Listen, none of this (our hand-wringing on how best to appease the idiots -- those who vote against their own enlightened self-interest -- into voting for Dems) will matter much, if the media keeps up a wing-nut/stupid agenda.

The first step towards starting to win is to have Dem media counterbalance the lies that are spewed daily -- you give people (North, South, East, West) the unadulterated truth, they will, in their collective wisdom choose the right path. There will always be idiots, no guarding against that, but we will at least have a comfortable majority voting the right way.

The second step is to get Dems to stand up for each other. I dont recall seeing even one good push-back against the 87b dollar charge from any prominent Dem. Kerry himself was the only one who came close, but he is too old-school patrician for a street fight that the media wants. We need to have our own scrappy media liaisons -- clone Barney (Frank)!

The South is solidly on the stupid side only because most of the poor people are here and they do not have the means that we do of learning what it is that the Rethugs actually do, as opposed to what they say. The reason the coasts are more enlightened I think is because of the relative affluence and attendant access to better news sources, coupled with relatively higher levels of education, which I think is the surest path...

accoplishments of the Clinton administration...DUMB, da-Dumb, Dumb.

And when the wingnut chorus started up the class warfare talk, he should have owned up to it and claimed it for his own.

I very much agree that Democrats should defend their own, and that applies to DU as well, where we have spent way too much time and energy these past few weeks arguing over who is and is not worthy to belong to "my party."

addresses this.

I'm serious. My father-in-law is in a super Red state but is a devout Democrat. He loves Lou Dobb's show. Lou presents the kind of populism that appeals to the Southern working class. Kerry tried to address some of those issues but was drowned out by the fear mongering rhetoric of Shrub Inc. If we make issues that Dobb's regularly reports on our platform in the South we'll take back some seats. However, I don't see us gaining in the South until there is some sort of economic downturn. Unfortunately, we'll probably have a downturn soon.

than just populism... Maybe populism as a start of something else... but unions never made it in the South.

I think the Southern whites do like a patriarchal society where the boss man takes care of you. An appeal to their economic interest never worked with the unions and I don't think it is going to work by itself in politics. It's cultural and rests on patriotism and religion and order. Bill Clinton could be competitive because he promised populism, religion (he spoke to people in their code) and order.

My only thought is that with an influx of people into the area, the people with these attitudes will become a minority. The question is can Latinos, blacks and ex-Northerners work together. Or will ex-Northerners adopt Southern conservatism.

One of the problems that unions had in the South was that Southerners view themselves still as independent self-reliant farmers. They viewed unions as some sort of communist northern influence. IMHO, we can present a populist view of protecting US jobs and providing financial independence as a true american value. We can present the Republicans as supporting the loss of that independence.

many MORONS from the left scream that there's not much difference between the two parties, so too many unread moderate morons shrug their shoulders and vote Republican.

Maybe you should run our campaign in 08...you seem to know exactly what you are talking about...

Absorb what is actually posted before you reply to what you THINK was posted.

I have been meaning to say this myself: we have to stop this nonsense meme of "they are all the same" w.r.t. the two parties. They are palpably not the same -- the Dem "leaders" for some unfathomable reason try to blur the lines in public (TV shows etc), but their Senate/House statements, and by and large, their votes are solid gold! Some of their well performances are positively tear-inducing! My heart sometimes aches to think that their real goodness never gets to see the light of the day and even we on the left tend to have such contempt for them...

Watch C-SPAN -- learn more about what the Dems in Congress are doing, before passing judgement on them. Votes alone are not very good representations of the fights and causes they are championing.

That said, though, they do need to get away from chasing corporate dollars and therefore blurring the lines sometimes in word and deed...

and it is so refreshing to hear you yankees know so much about us.Were did you find that wisdom? Dukes of Hazard?
The hypocrits are you!
People like some of you are the reason we don't feel like we belong to the same nation.
I would never live up North again,ever! I found more racism there than down here.
Give us a break,will you!

born and raised in the buckle of the bible belt.

I'm not speaking as an "outsider."

Bush (and contrary to what some of the people on this board think, many are intelligent, articulate, trustworhty people) did so in part, because they think the democrat party has abandoned them.

If Democrats continue to look down upon their southern brothers, we will never win there again...

Where have you gone Bill Clinton....

I am a lifelong Southerner as well. How specifically did the Democratic party "abandon" those former Democrats?

publicy stating things like "We don't need the south to win." Maybe that is true, but why in the hell would you publicly state that?

Secondly, the Kerry campaign made zero effort in winable states like Arkansas.

...most Southern people that are former-Dems that I would no were victims of Nixon's Southern Strategy. They would say the party abandoned them with the McGovern nomination. (and, know I don't agree with this).

anectdotal experience of friends (yes, friends) who voted for Clinton and then turned around and voted for Bush, something caused this to happen...and I think the Dems just lost the war of rhetoric...

It really boils down to lousy campaigning (in my opinion).

and voted for Bush...but then again, by then, I somewhat shut myself unfortunately from those possibly susceptible to that. I think that recent election results are a blip compared to the bigger shift that happened between 1968-1988.

"we" continue to make statements like, "Oh, we don't need the south to win."

...helpful hint from a true, blue Texan woman

and I know firsthand that non city Southerners are far more racist and intolerent than Yankees. At the end of the day every conversation about politics comes back to race in the South and it just isn't that way in other parts of the country. In fact the driving force for what little integration there is in the South often is from Yankees.

The only hope in the South is for a national movement that challenges Southern "values", tells the South that it's immoral and punishes them for it. Where are the liberal Christians?

..often is from Yankees"

Please cite evidence to support this.

could to screw over blacks and minorities. Often they would back it up with the bible. There were a few exceptions, often Southerners who had lived up North or California.

I think everyone has to admit that Yankee businesses opened up hiring minorities in the South.

typically had one thing in mind and that was making money. I, as a minority, have never had a problem with any white southern business people.

Have I sued some of them? Yes. Have I been sued by some of them? Yes. That's business.

But by and large, southerners, in my opinion, are just like evryone else in this country, except thier food is better and they speak slower.

...and Southerners you must have talked to, to make the sweeping generalizations you make. I am truly humbled at your social skills.

On edit: Took out some unnecessary snarkiness. Left in some other unnecessary snarkiness.

are more racist oriented than Yankees or Hispanics or any other group I've met. Why won't some Southerners just admit that racism is one of most the defining features of Southern culture and let it go? The perfect metaphor for all this is the Confederate battle flag being promoted as part of the Southern heritage and not being recognized that the vast majority of minorities see it as equivalent as a Nazi swastika. Most Southerners will argue for days about this. Now the new meme is that slavery was actually good treatment of blacks.

I guess what I'm getting at, is that while the rest of America may be racist they aren't racist enough to consistantly vote against their own self interest on this basis of race like the Southern working class almost always does. Otherwise the rest of country would be red. Lyndon Johnson predicted this when he signed the Civil rights bills but I don't think could have predicted how pervasive it would be. I think he underestimated the role of religion in the South to keep the masses backward.

I've lived in the south most of my life (although born in Philly, most family still there) and the differences really are between city and suburb / exurb.

I've lived in all major cities ('cept Austin) in Texas, and their suburbs / exurbs. The differences between city dwellers and suburb / exurb dwellers are STARK.

My most recent move was from the exurbs of Dallas to the city of Houston and it was a huge psychic shift and a breath of fresh air.

I lived in Charlotte, NC not so long ago (suburbs), and it didn't have any appreciable difference between city / suburb mindset, but Charlotte is the smallest metro area I have ever lived in, so the differences may be minimal due to that.

I have resolved to never live in the suburbs / exurbs again, I can't take it out there. Instead of trying to get good folks to move from red states to blue states, we should encourage them to move from suburbs/exurbs to the nearest city proper. It really is way better in the cities too! More fun, more convenient, more diverse, more to do, more people to meet.

Come to town y'all!

I'm a native Virginian who has lived in Michigan and Ohio, as well as Alabama and Louisiana, and now North Carolina. My brother lives in Boston, and my racially mixed half-sisters went to college in Massachusetts. Based on *my* life experience and that of my siblings I "know firsthand" that "Yankees are far more racist and intolerant than Southerners." THAT IS NOT FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE AND NEITHER IS YOURS. It's an interpretation based on a non-random sample. My observation is that Virginia and North Carolina have far better race relations than the Northeast, Great Lakes states, OR Deep South.

So I think you might be overgeneralizing a bit here. In my experience, quite a few of the transplants here are Limbaugh-listening, megachurch-belonging wingnuts.

I know firsthand that non city Southerners are far more racist and intolerent than Yankees. At the end of the day every conversation about politics comes back to race in the South.

You got that right. I had cousins visit a few months ago, and their arguement for why they supported Bush was the most racist I had seen. BTW, they are from the burbs near Atlanta. Basically they said, "the niggars in the city are sucking up my tax dollars (Niggars are lazy and rather draw welfare than work for their money), queers are getting married threatening my marriage (John Kerry supports queers), Bush cut my taxes (John Kerry wants to raise my taxes), and John Kerry is a liberal flip flopper." Sounded just like the rightwing talking points.

So you have cousins that are racists sooo everyone is a racist. Hmmm...isn't that what true racism is rooted in? Stereotypes based on sweeping generalizations?

Post 102 said: "I know firsthand that non city Southerners are far more racist and intolerent than Yankees. At the end of the day every conversation about politics comes back to race in the South."

I give a specific example where a non city southerner made racist remarks in a conversation about politics, supporting his statement.

Somehow you take from my comment: So you have cousins that are racists sooo everyone is a racist?

Here ya go: Phonics and Kindergarten Reading Comprehensions

You would have every right to say:

"I know firsthand that a few (or however many cousins there are) non-city Southerners are far more racist..."

But you said:

"I know firsthand that non-city Southerners are far more racist..."

In other words, based on a single example you imply that in general non-city Southerners are far more racist....

personally anyone who votes GOP in my opinion votes against their own interests...

I live in a red county in a blue state...there are a lot of racists and morons all over the country.

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

Vegas gamblers and drunks who most likely have mob ties....

How does it feel to be stereotyped?

runs vegas! nice try.

and missed the entire point. Sheez...

"Vegas gamblers and drunks who most likely have mob ties...."
did I miss?

1) You stereotyped the south.
2) Texas stereotyped Vegas.
3) You were offended and pointed out it wasn't true (essentially, the same way we feel).
4) Point should have been made.

1. I was not in the least offended. As a retired executive
I love it here, money and Vegas is a wonderful combination.

2.I grew up in the South, even though I have spent all of
my adult life out of it. I am well aware of the mentality
of folks there. My family still lives in the south.

Thanks for the response, I didn't realize you thought that
I was offended.

What exactly are you trying to say?

sterotyping and thought i was offended when you responded
i guess. I certainly am not arguing that all people
who live in the south are ignorant, there are some
wonderful people there. But you do have to admit
that there is a reason that the sterotype exists.

I was not attacking you personally tx-dem, I spent a
few great years in Austin.

1. I never said I thought you were offended. That was someone else.

2. Why do you use a stereotype, if you are "not arguing that all people who live in the south are ignorant"?

when you said, "you said it perfectly Bono" that you
thought I was offended. A stereotype in my definition
is about something that is indicative of a general trend.
I've never heard stereotype used in the sense that it means
ALL elements of a set must be in congruence.

mullet-headed rednecks?

Do you think that blacks GENERALLY like watermelon and fried chicken and are criminals?

Do you think that gays are GENERALLY pedophiles?

Do you think that Italians are GENERALLY mob-tied?

I mean...these are all stereotypes that must reflect GENERAL trends.

ON EDIT: Added to this post (after "rednecks?") at the same time the next post was being written. His post should not be considered a response to this entire post.

Do you think that blacks are GENERALLY like watermelon and fried chicken and are criminals?

Do you think that gays are GENERALLY pedophiles?

Do you think that Italians are GENERALLY mob-tied?

I mean...these are all stereotypes that must reflect GENERAL trends.

for Bush.

before the civil rights issue. They all switched en masse
when black people were allowed to use the same restrooms.
Here's the new Dem plank, blacks must use designated
restrooms, pro-life, and teach creationism in every
public school.

So it would have been completely impossible for Carter or Clinton to get elected as Southern governors, let alone president. Thanks for denying the existence of tens of millions of loyal Southern Democrats. Reading that on a daily basis really makes us feel warm and fuzzy.

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

using such a stereotype....I mean don't you guys also have sex with your relatives when you aren't going around barefoot and toothless?

So...how does it feel to be sterotyped?

One idea keeps resurfacing....A GUN SHOW....Sponsored by our county party....

nothing constructive going on in there