Should Kerry Abandon The South In 2004?

I've seen it argued on DU that Kerry should forget the southern states, that it will take at least another generation to overcome the faults inherent in southern attitudes.

Is this smart? Is it even accurate?

My family comes from the south (not deep south), so I understand the frustration, but if we don't fight for every vote, how will we ever begin to win the south?

Isn't it better to take the fight to Bush in his home, make him battle for every last vote?

Edwards or Clark on the ticket would help in all of those areas...

I'm telling ya, TN is up for grabs. People here are NOT happy with * and some who voted for him 2000 are NOT voting for him 2004. TN will definitely go with Kerry if they aren't completely ignored. In 2000, the people here were voting *against* Gore more than they were voting *for* Dubya... This is a different ballgame. I hear of more and more people supporting Kerry in the south.

I think the southerners are heathens that can't be tamed and should be shipped back to where they came from.

:P

hard this year we can win Louisiana, we can't turn them into Liberal's but after seeing 3 and a half years of * vs. the first three and a half years worth of Clinton, they can be turned on to the Democrats.

:)

Better we should talk about whether Clark or Edwards would be the better VP.

If you were going to start a new and interesting thread topic, what would you write about?

flame bait DU question of "should we dump the south?" I has been done ad nauseam. How about Should We Dump the Midwest?"

instead of whining about this one? :)

then don't. I skip all the topics that I think are dumb or repetitive, can't you do the same?

Utah, Idaho, Montana,Wyoming and the Dakotas. Nobody rips those states and the unbelievable margins in which they voted for Chimpy last time around.

nor do we keep railing on about a war we lost 130+ years ago.

Besides, except for Indiana, the eternal aberration, the Midwest is blue.

If you look at various maps, the entire northeast, and most of the midwest except for Indiana, is coming in Blue. With the west coast, Kerry could take the election witohut a single southern state.

During the early primaries it was Kerry himself who brought up this issue, stating it was possible to win the election without winning a single souther state. Kerry will not abandon campaigning in the south, but he is not relying on it for his campaign strategy.

And since the polls and those analyzing the election are more often stating that Kerry will win with more electoral votes, his strategy doe not seem a bad one.

we dump the Great Plains states, they never vote Democratic and nobody lives there anyway!

LOL I'm just pointing that out. :-)

to stop a forest fire :)

"Shipped back to where they came from." That was funny. :)
In all seriousness, I think there are states we should write off and states we should fight for. There's no use spending time and money in Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and Georgia. I'm not bashing anyone, just looking at poll numbers. However, we should make at least some effort in most of the others.

Don't know about you, but my ancestors - at least half of them - were already here when the lily white Europeans came over.
;)

:)

With the right VP, Kerry could well compete (and possibly win) in VA, TN, AR, NC and LA. :)

seems he is interested in it. he met with west virginia senators byrd and rockefeller separately and privately to discuss the campaign. and he met with john breaux to get advice. breaux wants him to try to win at least in his home state. and kerry has plans to visit the state during the campaign. i'm guessing he will decide how much resources to put into the state a little later on.

Florida where the new ARG poll gives Bush only a 1-point lead is certainly a target. Might be interesting to see if it might help Bob Graham's chances of getting on the ticket.

Read the polls, test the waters. If it looks like there's no chance in Alabama, then don't campaign there. But if the polls make it look like Louisiana is winnable, then it would be a terrible mistake to write it off.

Kerry should abandon any state where a win is basically impossible. He's probably not going to win Mississippi, but he's also probably not going to win Idaho. So wherever a state is, if it's one that can be won, he's got to do whatever he can to win it. I don't care where it is.

That would be a disastarous strategy that would set the Democratic Party back a decade in the south. It sends an elitist message to southerners that we regard them as somehow less than Americans not worthy of our attention. That message would be compounded even further when it is a wealthy Massachusetts senator's campaign. There are 5 open seat Senate races in the South this year and if John Kerry simply hands the South to Bush on a silver platter Democratic voters in those states will not want to show up. Yes, Bush may sweep the South again, but you must make him earn it, rather than write off the south and free up Bush campaign resources for northern and western states. Some southern states will have to be written off: Texas, Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina. I would keep an eye on North Carolina and Georgia and make a decision on those states by Labor Day. I would launch a full campaign assault on Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas and Virginia.

Blue state guy.
Honestly - it is changing down here and I live in a very Republican district.
What the Dems need to do is stop whining about the South and come down here and meet us. Explain to the people here how Bush's tax policy, while giving them $1,000 bucks a kid, will come back to haunt them with higher property taxes, higher wheel taxes, higher state income taxes (for those who have them), not to mention the burden it will put on their children.
Explain to them that no one is taking away faith and family - it's just that it's that - faith belongs in the family, not in the government. No one's saying "don't pray," they're just saying, "don't force others to pray with you."
I agree with the person upthread who said Kerry should concentrate on the more moderate of the Southern states - the swing states. Clark and Cleland have been doing excellent jobs in the Deep South with their military histories and Clark's family values (not sure if Cleland has had but one wife - anyone know?)
Kerry has yet to come Tennessee. He didn't even come during the primaries, which frustrated me all the more when he carried the state - but that's water under the bridge FOR NOW. He needs to get his tall, skinny butt down here and make nice-nice with the Gov.

NC, SC, GA, MIss., AL. Everything else is fair game. Note, don't be insulted, he should also ignore ID and IN.

The have a Democrat as governor and Sen. Edwards is also from there. NC may well be competitive, according to the polls hypothesizing Edwards as Kerry's running mate.

Just not too much $$. We need to concentrate on the swing states. I'd say watch the polls in NC and go from there.

If turnout is high in Tidewater and NoVA, Kerry could take the state.

as more likely sources of electoral votes for Kerry

I know many here don't much care for Sen. Breaux, given his conservatism, but his selection would virtually assure LA and give us a hude leg up in AR; furthermore, he's a loyal Democrat, unlike Zell Miller.

NC- Home to Fort Bragg, and Camp Lejeune.
Military families are NOT very happy with the current administration.

NC- Home to LOTS of lost jobs- Textile jobs, other manufacturing jobs, furniture making, etc...

NC- John Edwards' home state. Even if he ISN'T on the ticket, a LOT of money was raised in NC - according to opensecrets.org, Money Total to Democrats for the 2004 cycle, $7,036,011- 13th in the nation.

economically it is in their best interest to vote democratic. It shouldn't be that hard with the damage * has done in the last 3 years. Instead of ignoring it, he should put quite a bit of focus on the south.

Keep in mind that much of the South has switched to the Republicans in recent times. Before that changeover, the Democrats were driving and had been since Reconstruction. It won't be an easy sell.

The margins in some places might be like 40-60, but remember if you take one point away then the gap narrows by 2 points. It doesn't look like that much when you look at it that way. He may not win the deep south but it could be worth something to the next one and the next one and so on to chip away at it. Plus it would be encouraging to those Democrats there, which could do a lot of good.

As if there is some mystery as to why the Republicans are now in control down here...

They've used racism and gun control as a wedge, and religion as the hammer to drive that wedge home.

Agreed?

The question was not how the Repugs have taken the south, but how we can ever hope to take it back if we don't fight for it, right?

...southern attitudes" you can never hope to change things here. You will be rejected like George Bush at a Moveon.org BBQ. And a less condescending attitude can't be reliably faked; we see through people fairly easily out this way.

I have been spending a lot of time on Kerry's website trying to get to know the guy. It has left me wondering just who all his advisors are. If he loses the South in a big way he should not be surprised.

The three issues you mention are issues only because the Democratic Party seems to want to see things from only one point of view. That won't work. The Party needs to set the ol' Big Tent back up and try and understand differences and not judge what should be right or wrong.

As for gun control, the Democratic Party reliably shoots itself in the foot over it. They need to realize that there is more than one "brand" of gun control and what we want down here is different, as the Republicans figured out to their advantage. On Kerry's webpage he uses the hysteria of the Brady Bunch and goes on rants against the NRA that appear like some type of personality disorder. He says things about firearms that, as a military man, he knows are untrue or misleading...then says we should trust him on his brand of gun control, and what he pushes as effective come across like he is saying he will solve the crime issues in America by tap dancing and farting. He needs to look at how WE want things done. Promoting something we will see as pointless does not help him any...and he needs to understand that the gun control issue in the South is not all about guns.

The South will come back when we feel welcomed back. I'm not sure when/if that is going to happen though.

you quote me saying "the faults inherent in southern attitudes,"
but you don't seem to understand that these are not my sentiments!

The part of the quote you left out explains it all:

"I've seen it argued on DU that Kerry should forget the southern states, that it will take at least another generation to overcome the faults inherent in southern attitudes."

I'm trying to discuss the fact that some argue that Kerry should ignore the south because they are too ___ (use your imagination to fill in that blank) vote Dem in this election. Then I question whether that attitude is either smart or even correct.

Granted, "inherent in southern attitutdes" were my choice of words, as I was using a direct quote, but those words were not my sentiments. I was trying to tone it down, so as not to offend our southern members on DU. :)

Furthermore, I'm not anti-gun. I own a few. I'm a pretty good shot. I think personal ownership of most firearms is a great protective barrier against a tyrannical government.

But the GOP has used guns as a wedge. Honestly, do you think Bush feels safer knowing that the population is well armed? Hell no.

Let the Patriot Act grow, and you'll lose those guns in the interest of national security. Then, god help us. But how many GOPers do you hear using this tactic? Nope, they want us to believe that Dems want your guns so that they can install a totalitarian government without fear of popular unrest.

I agree that the south will come back when it feel welcome, but how will it ever feel welcome if we ignore it or stereotype it.

Agreed?

...GOP does like to bring up the gun issue...because they know the Democratic Party will fall for their trap every time. It is like the Democratic Party gets its tactics from old Wylie E. Coyote cartoons. And we do have a couple of vocal anti-gun types that will get quoted, and quoted, and quoted...

if you "see through people fairly easily out this way" then why do ya'll keep voting for republicans when you know they don't have your best interests at heart?

...South. In many ways it all boils down to voting for who you dislike the least.

Other reasons that get bantied about:

*The Democrats got complacent as they knew they would always be elected and no longer had to work for the vote.

*The Democrats have been largely in charge since Reconstruction. If they wanted to do something about conditions down here they would have done so by now. (They have done lots...but it is "what have you done for me today" that counts)

*The Republicans, in some areas, seized on some things that the people wanted that the Democrats would not provide. Some in my area, Texas, that they appropriated were the Concealed Handgun License issue, (we lost a Democratic Governor over this one and gave the world Bush) stopping the practice of locking people up for petty drug offenses, (still working on this) and changing to a "brand" of gun control that targets the criminal.

There are lots more but these are the first that come to mind.

my "southern attitude" is and how it's a fault.

:)

The Party can definitely take back the south, but Kerry won't be the one who dismantles Nixon's Southern Strategy. But "abandoning" the south would be a very bad move since it could also be viewed as a slight towards one of the Party's most loyal and impassioned group of supporters--Southern African Americans.

And the last thing Kerry needs is anything that weakens the support from the black community nationwide. Bill Clinton was able to criticize singer Sister Souljah in his speech to the NAACP--Kerry is nowhere near being in such a comfort position to do anyting similar.

The Democrats lost a Congressional seat because the DCCC wimped out in Alabama's 3rd District two years ago. It was a very close race, with the Republican National Committee pouring in millions to absolutely slime the Democratic candidate. Although promised support, the National Dems reneged, and he lost by a very narrow margin to an absolute nothing who is nothing but a toady to Bush*.

I know the Dems in my county will be working hard to campaign and GOTV. In fact I'm going to a meeting tonight to set some strategy. The more the Republicans have to spend keeping their "safe' states the less they have for the closer battlegrounds.

Hell no!!!!!

Outside of Fl. Forget it

Not a smart strategy. And that's to say nothing of the impact of control of Congress.

are you kidding me? The point of winning is to take what Bush thinks belongs to him. We who live in the South are in the same boat as all across the heartland. For once, Bush has nothing to throw to the South except an unemployment check. The 'Bible Belt' may have kept him afloat, but the small churches frown on sodomy.
There is no way to rationalize the prison scandal and that combined with job loss is the key. Kerry and the DNC better not give up the South. I think the polls are skewed enough to give the impression that Bush is way up there. Propaganda, giving up the South, BIG BIG BIG MISTAKE in 2004. Boot Bush, the South is going BLUE.

Most Southerners are great people who are typically more culturally conservative than the rest of the country as a whole. Play up the economic issues to them, like Howard Dean said. Explain to them how George Bush has destroyed the education system in our country. Show them how health care premiums are going up and how devastating this can be. Show them the job loss reports and the outsourcing. Kerry needs to hit on these issues instead of dancing around issues like abortion and whether or not someone did or not serve honorably in some part of the military.

Not one bit of Kerry organization in this important battleground state.

And the Kerry supporter I know has tried to flatter me (Dean supporter) into trying to do for Kerry what I and fellow Deanies did for Dean up here.

Pretty damn sad.

Where's the passion? The organization?

Ugh.

Julie

Ugh.

he has a responsibility to campaign in the South. Of course he has to be realistic and smart with his resources, but he can't just write off a region of the nation he wants to govern.

If only one side of the political dialog is ever heard, things will never change here. People who buy into the right-wing stuff will never change if they are never exposed to better ideas and rational solutions to the problems the country faces.

Sure, Kerry will be President, and he will make many of the changes needed. But he will meet severe resistance from the right, and after the election people in the south will only hear the extreme right wing view of what Kerry is trying to do. They will resist with everything they have, becaue it's what they are conditioned to do.

But if Kerry presents his ideas to them during the campaign, he has a much greater opportunity to change minds. They won't be so resistant because the choice is theirs at that point.

Every time Kerry speaks in the South, or has someone speak for him here, he reaches people who might reach someone else, who might reach someone else. Some of those someone elses might just be swayed to vote for him, and even those who don't might have a better picture of who Kerry is so that they can better withstand the right-wing onslaught of lies that will come when Kerry is President.

Democratic ideas are better. We don't win hearts and minds by shunning a group of people and withholding those ideas from them.

Veto all pork, close down superfluous military bases, the whole bit. The entire country is going to have to make sacrifices for a decade to reverse the damage done by the Bush Administration. I see no reason why the South should be exempt from such sacrifices; in fact, I see few reasons why the South should not be the first to make such sacrifices.

I remember during the 2002 elections, someone posted (can't remember who) that they had called the GA Democratic Party to volunteer, and the person they talked to stated that they didn't use volunteers.

If the Democratic Party won't try, they won't ever get the South back.

But Edwards is better positioned to help Kerry in the South than Clark.

At least that is what I hear from my moderate Southern friends down here.

He's keynoting the Mississippi Jeff-Jack dinner next week.

Still...I don't think he can bring as many Southern voters to Kerry as Edwards can.

Actually, I don't want either as the VP. I'm holding out for McCain...

{Just kidding! Don't flame! :D}

:)

Edwards will deliver a lot more Southern votes than anyone else. Of course if Edwards asks JFK if he wants to go riding around Dallas in a convertable....he should decline.

I like Clark, as any long-time member here will affirm, but he's not 10 feet-tall or Teflon-coated. He would help in the South, to be sure, but so would at least 2 others.

It may not be a fair attack, but it'll come, as surely as mushrooms after a spring rain. That's how the Republicans play, dontcha know? :hi:

and NC if Edwards is VP and polls continue to show he might have a chance.

He should not ignore those and he should ignore FLA.

Probably should ignore GA but the Dem party as a whole has a better chance in GA that in other deep South states and should target that area for effort in the upcoming years.

_

I live in the southeast of NC almost on the border of SC. Many around here are not going to vote for Bush. I have also seen a few Kerry ads as well. He should continue to run ads here and elsewhere in the south.

energize the Black Vote. They could turn even the Redest States to Blue if you get 80-90% of them voting.

should be written off...Here's a list:

AL, MS, ID, UT, NE, AK, WY, ND, SD, MT, and KS

Otherwise, nothing is out of play. For God's sake, some in the Bush camp think CA and NJ are in play. We need the same attitude -- and we know that Bush is hated by many.

but I have always thought Ann Richards would make a wonderful VP... love her...

I don't see a democrat carrying that state anytime soon...though demographics changes in the long run may favor us.

because when Shrub was governor, he certainly didn't help Texans out that much...

Kerry is going to change the look of the south, especially if Edwards is on the ticket, being from the south there are many here who was brought up to like and respect men with few words and poise as Kerry displays. Bush is exactly what the south used to dislike, he just fooled the south and the religious idiots.

Check out the petition, its recent, and needs a few signatures to get it going, so help it out!

Fight for America, Fight for the South!

http://www.democraticwing.us/petitions.html