Open letter to the Democratic Party: Hire Me!

To whom it may concern:

Scarcely over 20 years ago, my part of the country was known as the "Solid South." Democratic presidential candidates consistently carried it before Nixon, who thereafter lost it because of Watergate. Even when almost every other state in the country was voting Reagan, Georgia did not. But due to this geographical area being taken for granted by the Democrats over the years, race-baiting by Republican candidates, and bungling idocy and apathy as to the distinct culture of the South, it is now trending Republican in national elections.
Why, might I ask, is this happening? Despite the abounding number of concentrated Black voters, white voters who are ethnically Cajun or Native American, rural whites who participated enthusiastically in the Carter campaign, farmers who traditionally support agricultural aid, and an overwhelming majority of Democrats, Republicans still seem to be gaining an edge. What is the Party smoking? Why can't the national Party seem to get it together?
I have a little advice for the Democratic Party that I think to be a better idea than just handing the keys to a Democratic base over to Bush. First, call the people who are in charge of SouthPAC (if there is indeed anyone in charge of it besides a monkey.) Second, tell them that you are sending them more money. Then, after they give a happy response, tell them that they are fired. Finally, hire new people, people who are not from the 1% rich slaveholding background. You may include me in that list if you would like, but I would be happy to dole out advice for free.

Get Well Soon,

Freddie Odom

you're hired.

I think the Dems still do well in the South when it comes to registration.

And, if I recall right, a number of Southern states still have the Democrats in control of one or both of the houses in the various Southern statehouses.

I think the Great Plaines states and some of the Midwest (like Indiana and Ohio) are probably in a stronger GOP lock than the South might be....

Jimmy Carters 1970 gubinatorial primary opponent about "race-baiting."
the only thing new under the sun is the history you don't know.

from http://www.madison.com/captimes/features/stories/36064.php

Carter's words were clear and brave and out of left field to some, because Carter ran against a more progressive candidate in the Democratic primary. Indeed, Carter, who won less than 10 percent of the black vote, courted the segregationist voting block that backed his predecessor, Lester Maddox, the poster boy for old South separatism. One tactic was to call his opponent, Carl Sanders, a "Humphrey Democrat," and Carter refused to condemn the rhetoric of George Wallace. All the while he assured black colleagues from the state assembly to trust his heart, not his mouth.

Because he soon pissed the segregationists off when he became Governor, declared the end of racism in Georgia, and placed a large portrait of Martin Luther King, Jr. in the statehouse. I know old people who are still pissed about that.

I think that is what the problem is. If they appeal to the blacks they lose the white males, and vice versa. If I have a choice I prefer the blacks, because they are liberals. There was a strong progressive tradition in the south under Huey Long. Don't know what happened to it though.

The Democrats do have a problem with the white male vote. I do think that blue collar white men and working class white men should be targetted while ignoring white collar and educated white men who are hopelessly Republican.

The fact that white men went 67-33% in favor of Bush is unacceptable. If the Democrats could just get 1-5% of the white male vote they would win some of the close races they lost in 2002.

2000 are outright discouraged from doing so in teh South. I think we could get a lot of milage from increasing their numbers, rather than taking them for granted which encourages their Apathy. The Landrew campaign proved, that they respond to politicians that don't pretend they aren't important. Anyway the working class white men aren't going to be attracted by dlc yuppy issues like stock options.s I think we will do better with working class women than men. So long as the coalition you build makes up a majority, gonads are of little importants.

I think first we should reach out to people in our base who aren't turning out. You are right about that.

But at the same time losing the white male vote 67-33% is not acceptable.

yes, that will be the hot new campaign platform... We welcome people of ALL gonads...

?

I suspect most of them just won't vote for a candidate that appeals to minorities. We only need the blacks plus 33% of the whites in many Southern States. Reach out to women that number goes up. Landrew was a loser until she appealed to the black community. I think we could eventually win them over by strengthening the unions, but until they are strong it will probably mean doing something to offend the blacks.

I am not saying we should make a "Full court press" for white male votes. But we do need to do better than we have been. Losing the white vote 67-33% is just not acceptable. If we could get it up to 38% or maybe 40% we would have won many of the close races we have lost.

so we can increase the percentage with them, and I think it is easier frankly. The nascar campaings of 2002 were a failure. Landrew gave up the Nascar campaign started appealing the blacks and won, when she was way down in the polls.

That is what derailed Suzie Haik Terrell.

but is was also energizing the base. I just see a group that allows us to be democrats and votes for us anyway, and a group that won't. Many of the group that allows us to be democrats would push us over the top with an effort to encourage them to vote. If the laws on union organizing and the educational systems were changed I believe the other group would come around. Because the Unions are week in teh South their opinions are primarily influenced by their Employers, who as you have said are hopelessly republican.

I think the base needs to be taken care of first. Then you reach out to the swing vote.

South Carolina is a prime example. How do Dems get spade and neutered over and over again in a state that is 40% black? Louisiana is only 30% and they still win. Some major voter registration needs to go on in that state, and some calming of race relations.
Every state is a little different, though. Strengthening unions would definitely help in Alabama and Mississippi, where all the jobs are in power plants, paper mills, etc. Universal Health Care would go a really long way there.
In Georgia, there was never a switch to Republican during the 20th century. That's because of the large industrial center of Atlanta and the fact that, when a lot of white people were switching in the 70s, a Dem president came from Georgia.
Florida- fix the Katherine Harris voter rolls and the nightmare will be all over. Bush is the 1st Repub governor that I know of in that state, and there are a lot of retirees from the northeast. Cuban americans do vote Republican, though- they are the only Hispanic group to do so.

I don't have time to go through every state, but a large part of a long-term Southern strategy will be combatting right-wing "Christian" radio. Southerners are Christian by tradition-mostly protestant. So groups like the American Family Association ( http://www.afa.org) bankroll radio stations with Christian programming. The catch? Inbetween people's favorite programs you get to hear right-wing "news" that subtly tilts gullible listeners toward Republicanism. It's a nasty trick, but it's true- people end up voting against their own interests.

Bush is only the third GOP Governor in FL's history. The other two were

Claude Kirk
Bob Martinzez

The states you mention are often the most anti-union.

when we lived in Alabama. There aren't a lot of unions there, but lots of places that are ripe for unionizing.

I wonder why the RTW movement became so powerful in the south.

much in the same way that NAFTA enticed companies to northern Mexico. It's a definite problem that should be fought very heavily in the courts. At the same time, the fact that workers get paid less and stepped all over means that Democrats have an opportunity to exert influence there.

I was a regional organizer in the Claude Kirk campaign.

Claude was more progressive than some midwesterners back then. As a matter of fact all repubs in FLA in the 60's were progressives. When I moved to the midwest in the mid '70s I was shocked to find the two parties totally different! Became a dem in 78 and haven't left.

I don't remember many Republicans, but the ones that were there weren't wackos...

How did Claude Kirk win in 1966?