We need to give up on the South. We just need to mobilize the north

We lost some states with no southern ties because we didn't care about the voting. Let's go for the north and fix the voting in Ohio and we'll win.

shall we?

As is right now whatever they break is NOW their responsibilty... so lets make them RESPONSIBLE

You just lost five votes that I know of.

editing to add "and 5-6 more from my immediate family"

And dammit, Texas produced people such as Ann Richards and Dwight D. Eisenhower. You do not want to just "forget" about us - we'll make more noise than a Carolina exorcism if you try.

Can't leave him behind!

Just ignore the region of the country with the fastest-growing population and economy!

In one more generation the Democratic Party will be *completely* irrelevant.

Fastest growing population??? Could this be because the South doesn't teach "SAFE SEX" or support "Abortion", hence the extremely high teenage pregnancy rate throughout the South. Fastest growing economy??? Well... when the Blue States, where 90% of the tax money comes from, are subsidizing the defense industry and energy industry with our tax dollars; it shouldn't come as a surprise to see the South has the fastest growing economy. Especially, when this administration is on a profiteering venture for Southern defense industries and Southern energy companies.

So, Maybe if we stop teaching safe sex, stop abortions, start up military industries and energy companies; we'll have economic growth and population growth just like the South.

Fastest growing population isn't necessarily a good thing and the fastest growing economy in a time of war for oil doesn't bode well for the South's moral crusade either.

was primarily attributable to emigrants from... wait for it... the Blue states.
http://www.freddiemac.com/news/factbook/pdf/2004/42.pdf


Additionally, household size and %age of population under 20 was consistent with the National average, although NC had a greater decrease in family size.
http://census.state.nc.us/miniprofile_highlights.pdf


Increase in median income 1990-2000 (pre-war)

NC - 15.1%
US - 4.0%
http://www.demographia.com/db-stateinc2000.htm

..Hispanic? NOT trying to be racist, just the impression I got when this issue was discussed on local news. (Greensboro)

Most of the population growth of the south has been immigration.

It's city and poor rural voters against suburban and upper income rural christian voters. This really isn't a red state/blue state, north/south, issue.

You're making too much sense...

Because people move around from North to South. This isn't a homogenous country where everyone in a specific state thinks the same. Look at all the geographical diversity right here on DU. We have a chance to pick up voters in the south. We just have to convince them that it will benefit them, and that we won't take their guns away.

at us, more would/could have been done.

Tsk, tsk. Elitist. You probably read books, don't eat at Applebees, and shun NASCAR.

:eyes:

You bet I'm "bigoted" against rubes. And, every other form of ignorance.

I am one.

Interesting comment re: "every other form of ignorance"- I've always been a fan of irony.

Don't you think? I lived in the south in the '50s. My father was born and raised in Arkansas. Why does complaining about the south's voting patterns among whites annoy you? Do you really think that "the south" is likely to become a liberal base in the near (or distant) future?

Why did the "southern strategy" work? Because the whites were merely for "states rights"?

How many southern states did Gore or Kerry win?

How do you propose getting the "southern" vote? Moving more to the right?

Or, do you just want to claim it's bigotry to state the obvious.

Don't you think? I lived in the south in the '50s. My father was born and raised in Arkansas. Why does complaining about the south's voting patterns among whites annoy you? Do you really think that "the south" is likely to become a liberal base in the near (or distant) future?

"What? Give up pandering to the rubes and win elections?
Tsk, tsk. Elitist. You probably read books, don't eat at Applebees, and shun NASCAR" is merely complaining about the South's voting patterns, huh? And no, I don't see the South, in its entirety, becoming a liberal base at any point... nor do I believe it's necessary for it to do so. (but that's just my opinion- i've never been a big fan of dichotomies <saw that word in a book once>- in my experience, stark black/white contrasts seldom exist)


Why did the "southern strategy" work? Because the whites were merely for "states rights"?

Of course not. That was also 1968- much has changed since then. Racial views have improved significantly, just as I assume they have in Boston, Minnesota and New York. But race is not the be-all-end-all of Southern politics (I'll also add that race wasn't the entirety of Nixon's Southern strategy). The Raygun revolution, f'rinstance, used many other issues - and not just God-guns-gays - to win over disaffected voters in the South *and elsewhere*. Do I believe that many voters here - of all races - vote against their own interests? Absolutely- just as they do elsewhere.

How many southern states did Gore or Kerry win?

What was the per capita expenditure of each of those campaigns in Southern states - time, energy, $$? How many campaign trips did the candidates make to Southern states? How did Gore’s/Kerry’s approach to Southern states compare to, say, the Midwest or Great Lakes states?

How do you propose getting the "southern" vote? Moving more to the right?

First, there's no such thing as "the Southern vote." Realizing that would be Step One. Second, assuming that Southerners are averse to folks who "read books, don't eat at Applebees, and shun NASCAR" doesn't help. Third, perhaps having candidates actually come down here and court the vote would help. I could go on but, absent these 3, nothing else would do an awful lot of good.

Or, do you just want to claim it's bigotry to state the obvious.

Depends on what the "obvious" is that you're stating, doesn't it? What appears obvious to a bigot would likely be considered bigoted to someone else, right? F'rinstance, I believe that implying that the South is populated primarily by ignorant, inbred, Talibornagain racists is bigoted. Of course, YMMV.

I was hoping some of the south-bashing stuff was going to stop. Just because we "talk funny" doesn't mean we're ignorant, or racists, or homophobes, or chauvinists, or related to other family members several different ways. There are good people here just like there are good people all over the US, and the sooner we all find ways to accept each other, the sooner we can bring some sense into our political structures as well. Feeling superior to a whole group of people based on geographic notions is just as unacceptable (at least to me) as feeling superior based on any other characteristic. There.

In fact, it needs repeating:

Feeling superior to a whole group of people based on geographic notions is just as unacceptable (at least to me) as feeling superior based on any other characteristic.

Funny, isn't it, that so many folks here spend an inordinate amount of time slamming members of an opposing website for demonstrating that need to feel superior by running down whichever group they choose as "them", yet we have so much of the same thing here~

And BTW, welcome to DU, neighbor!

amen brother

I'm perfectly aware that there are liberals even radicals in the white community of the south.

Here's something to ponder.

Who voted for Bush in overwhelming numbers in the south? The white liberals? The white radicals? The blacks? The "enlightened" moderates of the "New South"?

Seems pretty "obvious" to me who was voting Republican in overwhelming numbers. If the south really isn't "populated primarily by ignorant, inbred, Talibornagain racists", who did all the voting for Bush?

"Court the vote". How? Was Kerry too moderate for the South? How could a liberal persuade white southerners to vote for him/her? By becoming more liberal?

As for the money spent. I don't know, but I'll wager that Bush spent no more, and probably less, "courting" the southern vote. How come they voted for him?

I'm not against "southerners" as a group. But, I'm sure as hell against the rubes who voted for Bush. And, the same goes for the rubes in the midwest, the rocky mountain west, and even in my home state of Washington. The difference being, that in some of those states the liberals have a chance of winning.

Call me a bigot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was a country man & unable to read.

But he led the fight for Tierra y Libertad that you reference.

Sounds like another book-readin' Southerner :scared:

"...ignorance and obscurantism have never produced anything other than flocks of slaves for tyranny..." Emiliano Zapata. Hardly illiterate. And, he surrounded himself with urban intellectuals as advisors. One of which wrote the "Plan de Ayala". Nor was Zapata a peon. He was decidedly middle class, like most revolutionary leaders.

How about trying some other anarchists? Gandhi? No. Kropotkin? No. Bakunin? No. Durrutti? No. Emma Goldman? Hardly. Makhno? No. Proudhon? No. How about Leo Tolstoy? "War & Peace", "Anna Karenina". Guess not.

Seems like those Anarchists who fought for "Tierra_y_Libertad" weren't likely to be sitting around crushin' beer cans and watching machinery go in circles.

I find this funny because, even though my neighborhood went Kerry, my workplace is somewhat different.
I often get accused of being an egghead because I always have a book up my nose, haven't eaten in an Applebee's in... um... have I eaten at an Applebee's, and I absolutely abhor NASCAR.

That said, my hard-working-yet-still-poor step-father loves NASCAR and isn't a voracious reader and he voted for the first time EVER this year - for Kerry.

Guess the stereotype just walked out the door with a Bobby LeBonte green jacket on... ;)

Build me a house and get me a solar-powered internet connection. I'm good to go.

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

They didn't leave the land of magnolias because they found it so benign. Nor do I see a mass migration from the northern "ghettoes" to the sunny southland.

Not to mention the the white vote in the southern states that just happen to be Republican.

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

The migration of African Americans from the South to the North began after emancipation and ended in the '60s.

For the past couple decades the reverse has been happening:


Blacks ended the 20th century by returning to the region that they spent most of the century leaving. Their return reinforces the South's distinct racial profile as a mostly white-black region.

Census 2000 numbers show that the non-Hispanic black population of the South surged in the 1990s by 3,575,211 people — more than in the other three regions of the United States combined. This number represents 58 percent of the total increase in the country's black population. It is roughly double the number of blacks that the South gained in the 1980s (1.7 million) and well above the gain for the 1970s (1.9 million), when blacks began returning to the South.*

The black populations of Florida and Georgia gained 674,000 and 632,000 people, respectively. Texas gained 454,000 blacks, and Maryland and North Carolina each gained over 300,000 blacks, reflecting the South's renewed 1990s allure.

Like whites, blacks were attracted by the South's booming economy, low density living, and warmer climate. Other pull factors included historic roots in the region, the existence of a growing middle-class black population, and an improved racial climate. Segregation studies show a decline in black-nonblack neighborhood segregation (using the index of dissimilarity) over the last 20 years for Atlanta (-13 points), Orlando (-24 points), Jacksonville (-15 points), Norfolk (-13 points), and Houston (-16 points).



Figure 1
Black Migration, by Region 1990–2000



Source: William H. Frey's analysis of CPS migration data.

http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PT_articles/April-June_2001/Migration_to_the_South_Brings_U_S__Blacks_Full_Circle.htm

i can only point to cities such as atlanta and richmond as proof of what you write.

Once again, Google = friend!

(Check out some of the other charts at the link I posted above- interesting stuff, IMO!)

difficult than winning an equal share of Southern electoral votes.
...O...

Don't you want to win back the House & Senate?

Ignore the South, & you relegate yourself to minority status.

Because the South votes just like parts of the Midwest & Rocky Mountain States.

This isn't about the South at all.

Let's ENCOURAGE division within the country!

...should move to red states. We are almost there, people! Let's not give up!

Born in NYC now in Florida. I wonder what the whites who were AGAINST slavery did when the Union invaded the South during the Civil War. I wonder what I will do when fellow Blues invade my town! Paint me and my house and my family (and my cat of course) blue I guess.
Since hearing all of this about the Blue states wanting to secede I wish I hadn't moved down here. BUT, the election was close all over (kind of). Even in the Red states Kerry had a lot of supporters and we did a lot to mobilize and increase Dem voters. Don't blame us! And PLEASE if you Blue Northerners ever do "close the doors" on us, give us warning!
It's scary living down here now.

Give up on ANY part of America? Not me.
I see the South as a plum ripe for picking.
The divide is not that great.
The correct response to ignorance is knowledge.
Spending time and money in the South would benefit the Nation, and if done with humility, benefit the Democratic Party.

Does anyone else see the inherent hypocrisy of pointing a finger at the South and screaming IGNORANT BIGOTS ?

and had missed it. Thanks for pointing it out!

every day in the South.

For the information of the people on the blog who want to "give up" on the South, keep this in mind - my neighborhood in Republican East Tennessee - and several neighborhoods next to me - voted for Kerry.

While I can understand the anger of the citizens of the so-called "blue" states who pay more in taxes and get less in services whilst the "red" states pay less and receive more - the fact remains is that we are poor down here. Our education system is failing and those of us who overcome this do so because of the love of learning.

Want to turn the South more blue? Give us education, better-paying jobs, the ability to pay more in taxes and we'll go blue. We're really no different in that the more educated of us tended to voted Kerry, while the less educated went for Bush. The difference? There's more of us who are less educated because of our failing educational system (honestly, people making $20,000 a year, even in the South, cannot pay much in income taxes - it's all eaten up by our 9.5 percent SALES tax!)

the south NEEDS organizing. REmember how during the Civil Rights movement folks came out of the woodwork to organize and march?
Yea, it was tough but it worked. There are many who relate to us and to progressive causes. Don't give up the dream...
Where were John and Elizabeth Edwards from? The south.

*

from?

Not originally, but from the time he was 4 years old.

Giving up on any region is a dumb strategy. Some southern states were fairly close to being evenly divided.

I am a Southerner living in a "blue" county in a "purple" state. Kerry visited here ONE time in May. That's no way to turn my state blue.

How you win is about as important as winning itself. If we abandon, ignore, and cut off any section of the country the folks there will just become more polarized. Our political climate will just get nastier and nastier, and what will we have won? Just a big mess of squabbling mean spiritedness.

I don't think it's time for the duct-tape line between the north and south just yet. :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2681423

perhaps those blue collar southerners would have something to weigh against the emotional appeals of the pulpit and history.

The real split is a large uban center/rural one (in most cases, not all). Take California, for instance:

http://vote2004.ss.ca.gov/Returns/pres/mapAN.htm

No, it is not time for a civil war. It's time to figure out what we as Americans have in common, and reframe the language the right-wing has so effectively stolen from us.

Excuse me but the South has produced some very good people! Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, J. William Fulbright, Martin Luther King, Gen. Wesley Clark (my personal hero), Andrew Young, Max Cleland,...well, you get the drift. Oh yeah, and Elvis LOL!

I wouldn't be prepared to cede the south, nor any other region for that matter. Democrats stand on the truth and, while our message bearer may at times be less than efficient, this truth will eventually get through.

I know that the southerners on this board are not going to want to hear this, but the fact is, most of the cultural South IS gone for a generation. A concerted effort in 2008 or even 2012 to win them back at the presidential election level would not only be futile, but possibly disasterous. Besides, I am getting a little sick of being told that as a Northerner, I can never be president because Bubba won't let me. The fact is, if not for 9/11, Kerry would have won Ohio, Florida and probably Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada. The road to our restoration is in solidifying the upper Midwest and making gains in the Southwest. Dixie would be a detour.

Eventually, we may be able to nip at the margins in some of these states and will ocassionally win places like Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina (maybe), and Virginia, but sadly, we are currently losing most of the old Confederate states by huge 65-35 margins - folks, that means that they are out of reach and will not be coming back into the fold.

A smarter strategy is to win a beachhead at the local level - counties, state houses, and congressional seats. Texas and Virginia are early examples of this beginning to happen. Only then, can we hope to have something from which to carry ANY Deep South states. Until then, I for one am tired of chasing windmills south of Mason-Dixon.

The Democratic Party shouldn't wait until 2008, but should start TODAY focusing on House and Senate seats for 2006.
Mary Landrieu (D) won a Senate in Louisiana in a runoff in 2002 against the entire might of the bush* machine.

Keep ignoring the South, and keep losing the South.