Talk Elections

I heard on some news channels in both of those states 55% of the registered voters are Democrat.  How can a Dem possibly lose there?  Seems weird.  

Vote Democrat in local elections, Republican in Presidential.

Its interesting isn’t it… from 1968 till the late 1980’s you could accept that these where Dems who had originally voted Dem but after Civil Rights and the increasing social liberalism of the national Democratic Party turned to the GOP at the national level while they voted for the “Good old Boys” at the local level….

But these day’s aren’t most of these “good old boys” GOP rather than Dem? Perhaps it’s the classic Dem Economic Populism and Liberalism that leads so many to register as Democrats? I mean Blanco and Jinnal in LA where very close in their social conservatism and economic interventionism…

Having said all this I doubt that voter registration is that high for the Democrats… but it’s a fact that there a plenty of voters in the south who register as Dems and then vote GOP at a national level…. Cant really fathom it still being this way so long after the  old Democrat “Solid South” became the new Republican “Solid South”…        

Registered Dems by birth, haven't bothered to change it... ;)

BTW. Where I can find some statistics about voters registration?

Hockey Dude,

There's a HUGE difference between Southern Democrats and real Democrats. Southern Democrats are right wing on foreign policy issues, moderate on social issues and populists when it comes to economic issues...which is pretty much where the Democratic Party stood from 1932 to 1964 when they dominated American politics. But today's REAL Democrats are Internationalist appeasers on issues pertaining to foreign policy and far left on social issues, and neither of those positions will fly with Southern Democrats.

Southern Democrats seem to be Republicans to me, what's the difference?

Gustaf,

The Southern Democrats are less conservative on social issues than rank and file Republicans, and they might be more suspectible to class envy populism...that's the biggest difference.

But when it comes to foreign policy...yes...they are pretty much Republicans.

Take someone like Breaux, who I heard supported the Bush tax cuts. He's Republican on social issues. He's Republican on economy. He's Republican on foreign policy. I don't get all the "The Democrats are losing the Southern wing of the party"-talk, I mean are they really Democrats in any meaningful sense?

Gustaf,

Breaux may have voted with the Republicans on some issues, but he's not nearly as conservative overall on economic and social issues, though I would call him closer to the Republican base than he is to the Democratic base nationally.

It still seems to me like he, and many others, are closer to the GOP on all major issues, even though they night well be more moderate.

Two words: Zell Miller

Southern states are filled with Democrats who voted for Bush in 2000 and will vote for him this year. They've voted GOP since Nixon pretty much with only minor lapses.  They keep their registration because it makes them feel independent to be registered one way and vote another.

Let me break it down for all of yall, being from Louisiana. Southern Democrats are conservative on social issues. On economic issues they are more in line with the Democrats. But in a national election we cant choose a real Southern Democrat, so we go for the Republican, rather than the far left nutjob who could care less about the issues of the working man. Bill Clinton and Al Gore are not Southern Democrats. New Orleans is the only place in LA whose population is actually like the northern Democrats. Another reason is because you have to be registered Democrat to vote in primaries for Democrats. To vote in Republican primaries you can be either. Thats why people register that way.

Edit: 61% of Louisiana's voters are registered Democrats

How come Clinton won LA twice then, with 46% and 52% respectively? :)

Because Dole wasnt any sort of candidate, and the 1992 election was, as we all know, a special case

Perot only got 12% in LA in 92. That wasn't a huge amount, and 46% for a democrat in that election in that state was phenominal.

Most people in the South are Democrats... and a lot of them don't vote in national elections... but do sometimes at state and local level (example: the recent Lousiana gubernational election).
On the other hand a lot of them vote Democrat the further down the "political tree" while usually backing Republicans for federal offices (like Oklahoma)

It's also usually a family tradition to be a Democrat in the South (except in a few counties in each state where it's traditional to be a Republican), usually dating back to the Civil War.

Democrats can be very competitive for state offices down the ballot if they can portray themselve somewhere in the middle.  At the national level, it's tough for a Democratic Presidential candidate to portay himself as anything but a liberal.  Social issues kill them in the South.  In order to appeal to their base liberal constituencies they take positions that just can't fly in the South.

Carter in 76 was perceived as a moderate conservative in the South and carried the entire South.  However, after governing as a liberal for 4 yrs his true colors came out and i believe he lost the entire South outside his native Georgia.

Clinton had some success as portraying himself as a "moderate" southern governor and siphoned off some Southern states.  No outside the South national Democrat has carried a single Southern state since Kennedy in 60.  It just can't be done and Kerry will have to put together his EV coalition outside the South.

Now here in Texas, over the last 10 years the Democratic Party has imploded all down the ballot.  Every state wide office from governor down to railroad commissioner, the entire Texas Supreme Court, and both houses of the state legislature are in complete GOP control.  Not one statewide office is held by a Democrat.  The closest race was for Lt Governor, the Dem candidate ran as a moderate cons. and came within 6 pts.  The rest of the state ticket just got buried.  HOWEVER, GOP dominance all the way down the ballot is the exception in the South, not the rule.  Exit polls showed in 2000 that a clear plurality of voters considered themselves Republicans.  That is NOT the case in the other southern states.

NH and northern New England is politically opposite from the south. We are socially liberal, have a high rate of college educated voters, and are fiscal conservatives. Southern democrats are fiscal moderates, social conservatives, and less educated in general.

The big problem the Dems have in the South is that a lot of natural Democrats in rural areas don't vote at all... they seem to be put off by wedge issues.
Most of them don't vote GOP... they just don't vote.
When they do (even in small amounts) they often swing the election to the Dems; see the (fairly) recent gubernational elections in Virginia and Lousiana.
What the Dems have got to do is concentrate on economic issues and ignore social issues, whilst taking moderate positions on them.

I'm not so sure that Southerners Democrats that vote Republican are generally that economically 'populist'. Certainly most of the Republican senators and representatives elected from the South, and even a few Democrats like Miller and Breaux, have managed to vote with the pro-capitalism, low-tax, free-trade vision of the national Republican party and not pay any price for it come election time back home.  
Probably these 'populist' democrats actually vote democrat.

Most Populist Democrats in the South don't vote at all... that's the problem...

As Zackman pointed out, big differences on social issues.  New England and the South would definitely be polar opposites in that area.

That's the way it appears when you just look at the Electoral map. Carter won all the South except Va. and Okla. in '76, yet retained only Maryland, DC, WV (which you maybe don't include under South, not everybody does) and Ga. there in 1980.
However, when you look at the swings involved the story looks quite different. All but five Southern states actually had underaverage swings away from Carter in 1980. It's just that he scored a number of close victories there in '76 and Reagan did the same in '80.
The five states are Georgia, Florida, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas. And Carter's 1976 results in Georgia and Arkansas were extremely high, very much unlike elsewhere in the South.

First of all, I am a senior at Northwestern Oklahoma State University, NAIA Div I in Alva, Oklahoma.

Secondly, I don't consider Oklahoma to be completely in the south.  Oklahoma is in the Southwest, Southcentral, Southeast, and Midwest.  Where I am at (Northwest Oklahoma) is in the High Plains of the Rocky Mountains.

It is true that Oklahoma is primarily Democratic in Nature.  We have had more Democratic Governor's than GOP Govenor's.  We recently elected a Democratic Governor in the 2002 Mid-Terms.

I grew up on the eastern side of Oklahoma City (the largest city in the USA) (Land-Area).  The Western 2/3 of the state are Republican and the eastern 1/3 are Democrat.

The Oklahoma Democrats seem to me to be a bit more liberal than the Southern Democrats, especially in the Northeastern Corner of the state.

A little bit of history, Oklahoma has only voted for 1 Democrat in the past 13 presidential elections, dating back to 1952.  That person was LBJ in 1964.

Oklahoma did not even vote for JFK, we voted for Richard Nixon.

Why that is, I am not quite sure, but several of the posts I have read I seem to agree with, that we vote GOP in Federal Offices (President, Senate, most House) and we vote Democrat at the lower levels (Governor, Lt. Governor, State Senate, State House, Sheriffs, etc.)

Currently, Oklahoma has
1 Democrat Governor,
1 Republican Lt. Governor,
2 Republican US Senators,
4 Republican US Representative,
1 Democrat US Representative.

Our lower level include Democrat Auditor/Inspector, Democrat Atty Gen, Democrat Treasurer, Democrat Sec of Education, Democrat Insurance Commissioner, Republican Labor Commish, 3 Republican GOP Corporation Commissioners

Welcome!  I'm most happy to see another OK Rep on the forum.  Or even another okie for that matter.

I might add that the Insurance Commissioner is a joke and for some odd reason thinks he can get elected to the Senate.  Must have been a drunken hallucination.

Ken

registered democrats int eh south are in no way like national democrats.  Gov Blanco ran very much to the right of the national Dem party.

Sh eis pro life and against gun control.

Same with Sen LAndrieau she ran saying she voted with President Buish like 70+% of the time.

In that case I simply don't understand why they're Democrats.  

Thank you! That's what I've been saying all along! :)

And on Oklahoma, I will agree with the local...it seems to me that OK follows the voting patterns of Western Farm States like Kansas and Nebraska rather than that of other Southern states.

But the Western Farm states and the South vote exactly alike don't they?

No they don't.

Well, they certainly are both very strongly Republican.  Are you saying they are different in the degree of the Republicanism?

No, not at all. The Western Farm states are much more Republican, for one thing. Bush got above 60% in NE, OK, ND and SD. As in WY, ID and UT. He didn't get above 60% in any Southern state.  

Gusaf, the reason why most Southerners goes back to the Civil War.
Most Southern Democrats are socially conservative, but on economic issues are social democrats.

BTW neither Blanco or Jindal ran on "national" platforms.

Oh right.  Well the farm states are almost exactly like the South except for the African-American population.  

Perhaps, but the majority of voters in the South are economic conservatives as well as social conservatives.

In 1976 Carter swept the South, but lost all the farm states. The farm states have not voted Democrat more than once since WWII, and that was in the LBJ landslide of 1964.

Yeah, I know, and I also thought that Southern Democrats were to the left on economy, but then I read that this guy Breaux appareantly supported Bush ecnomic policy, and then there seemed to be very little left...apart from nostalgia, I guess. ;)

The Western farm states are nothing like the South.
Look at some of Dave's maps...

And besides without the South, the House Democrats would be screwed.

Opebo... most Southern voters are Democrats... especially in rural areas.
But a lot don't usually vote and a lot vote on social issues.

KS and NE were the only states to give Nixon above 60% in 1960.

KS was the only state to give Dewey more than 60% in 1944.

And so on. The farm states have been Republican since WWI, the South doesn't belong to any party, they vote after more regional patterns, against the Northeast, which makes them GOP right now. But not even MS or AL are as heavily Republican as NE and WY, for example.

because that is what the dem party used to be, for tax cuts and strong nat'l defense ( ie John kennedy) but now they have shifted way left after the 60's.

What's the difference between that Democratic party and the Republican party of today? Or the Republican party of back then, for that matter...

Not a lot. A few more senior southerners in the Democratic party, a few more senior yankee's in the GOP.
Oh and Civil Rights of course...

Yeah, I would believe what you just said, but with differing opinon as to why. You guys are politically opposite from southerners because of the diluted values that have taken place in your region over the years. Your region also used to have the same values system 200 years ago, but who changed? Not us...In regards to each of your points;

SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE: Religion and morals do not take much stock in your platform, even though most of the country considers itself "religious". The South has always had respect for the structure and guidance given by morals and values.

EDUCATION: The reason you are more educated goes directly to your comment about being politically opposite. The education system is run by Liberals that program their beliefs into your learning. It has been going on for so long you don't even feel the change. You may have more educated people in New England than us southern "folk", but we are more closely aligned to what the rest of the country believes.

FISCAL: We are just as, if not more fiscally conservative than northerners. The tax and spend types come from the DEM party and your region, REMEMBER?

GOP MAN,

As a born and bred New Yorker who now chooses to live in the South, I totally agree with your last post. The Northeast Liberals feel they are "progressives" and people like you and I are living in the past. But the truth is that sometimes human beings can "progress" in the wrong direction and that's clearly what the Liberals have done since the 1960's. That's what the Reagan Revolution was all about, engaging in what I used to call "progressive regression." When my marxist professors used to rail against Reagan as trying to "go back in time" to an era best forgotten...I always responded by saying that Reagan wanted to keep the positive progress and engage in "progressive regression" and go back and fix the mistakes made in the 1960's and 1970's. It's like when you're in a maze and you hit a brick wall that prevents you from moving forward in a productive fashion...what do you do...you retrace your steps and take another path.

MARKDEL-

Sounds like we are not only of like "state", but like "mind". I have lived in several areas of the state, and the Jax area to me is great. How about you? Do you think Mel Martinez will be the guy to beat in the Senate?

GOP Man,

I live in Tampa, but have also lived in Miami and Saint Petersburg, never in Jacksonville, but I do like the J-ville area a great deal.

I much prefer the Western and Northern parts of the state to the East Coast/South Florida area. Miami is NOT fun.

I strongly agree that Mel Martinez is the man to beat in the US Senate race. The problem he faces is a challenge from the right in the form of guys like McCollum and Byrd within his own party. If he gets the nomination, he'll win in the general election. He would win by a small margin of Castor, a decent margin over Penelas and a large margin over Deutsch.

One thing the Democrats FAIL to realize is that rank and file Floridians blame the DEMOCRATS for the 2000 Election fiasco, not the Republicans. You talk to people here and they never mention Katherine Harris or Jeb Bush, but they always talk about Democratic Party officials in Palm Beach and Broward holding up ballots high in the air to check for "dented chads" to throw more votes into the Gore camp. The other issue they talk about when it comes to the 2000 Election is the Democrats filing lawsuits to prevent absentee military ballots from being counted.

Yet the Democrats feel that Florida 2000 is rallying cry for THEM...and they paid the price in the 2002 Elections here.

Suburbs in the South are very conservative, but they are a lost cause anyway.

Realpolitik,

You're right, the Southern suburbs ARE a lost cause for the Democratic Party. The Southern suburbs are primarily made up of hard working, two parent homes with people who don't like high taxes and actually love their own country. Not a good fit with the modern Democratic Party.

I don't see how I can read this and not respond to it.  are you suggesting that today's Democratic party does not love their own country?  That's more absurd than some of the things I was saying yesterday.

Miami,

I'll answer your question with a simple question...

Do you love your country? Even when George Bush is in the White House?

You and most Democrats will give me some bullsh*t qualified answer about how you love what our country "promises to be" or "can become" or some other similar statement.

I love my country. I love it now. I loved it when Ronald Reagan was in the White House. I loved it when Bill Clinton was in the White House. I even loved it when that fool Jimmy Carter was in the White House.

You guys may or may not love it, and if you do, it's a classic example of Republicans seeing the glass "half full" and you guys seeing the glass as "half empty"

I prefer the saying:

"A Democrat sees the glass of water as half full. A Republican looks at the same glass and wonders who the hell drank half his glass of water."

- Jeff Cesario

JFK,

LOL...how about this one:

The difference between the Democrats and Republicans is as follows: The Democrat comes across a starving man in front of a lake filled with fish. The Democrat takes a fishing pole, catches a fish and gives it to the man. He then tells him, "If you come back here every day at the same time, and vote for me in November, I'll give you a fish." The Democrat then tells the Republican fishermen that they must give 1 of every 2 fish they catch to the government. In the same scenario, the Republican comes across the starving man and says, "Hey, moron, come here and learn something." The Republican then teaches the man how to catch his OWN fish so the man can eat AND have his self-respect.

:)

If the guy is starving, how's he gonna manage to catch his own fish :P

That's a good answer...LOL

Maybe the Republican gives him a very small amount of fish so he regains his strength first...

ah, ok, what would work best would be a combination, if the first time he gave him a fish and then came back and gave him a fish and gradually taught the man to fish so that the guy would get good at it gradually and then be able to make it on his own without support but the person looks after him until he is firmly established in his ways.

Really, a combination of both works best.

JFK,

Sounds sensible to me. Unfortunately, that is NOT what has happened in this country since we expanded the Welfare State in the 1960's...and it is NOT what has happened in European nations that have even broader Welfare States.

Well, it would be nice if it happened, the state supported the individual through the hard times bolstering their morale and giving them the abilities they needed to get back out to work.

Unfortunately lots of people on welfare here cheat the system by going out and doing cash-in-hand jobs so they get welfare but also money they make from those.

JFK,

You know what? Our discussion at this point should evolve into an introspection on the nature of mankind...LOL

Personally, I'd argue that if you give people something for nothing, it destroys their dignity and they end up "resenting the hand that feeds them" over the long haul.

JFK,

By the way, YOU may be an exception to my observations about Democrats seeing the glass as "half empty"

You sound more like what Democrats USED TO sound like in this country...positive...and not full of hate, anger and class/cultural resentment.

The reason why the suburbs are a lost cause is because they are the only parts of the South where the GOP leads voter registration... in other words the problem in the suburbs is not that our voters are not voting (which is the problem in rural areas) or that they are ticket-splitters (which also happens a lot in rural areas) but that they are not our voters *at all*...
Which is why the redistricting in GA last time was so mindlessly stupid...

thank you MarkDel, I like to think I am positive, some Democrats seem positive still to me, I would argue that that is the type of campaign that John Edwards is running.

I see what you mean about dignity, but some people, to be brutally honest, don't mind sitting around doing nothing and getting a pay-off from the government, if I ran the country (God willing someday I will run britain :D) I would implement a new welfare system, where people are given benefits, but are also given the opportunity to learn new skills at classes organised by the government to help them get back into society and become fully functioning members of it. It would be good for the economy, however, I would keep the benefits as many people on benefits are those who couldn't go out to work such as single parents who can't afford the costs of child care.

JFK,

The system you describe is essentially what we DO have in the US since the Welfare Reform of the 1990's.

Now Realpolitik...he's definitely part of the "half empty" crowd....LOL

Are people who are unemployed, along with receiving benefits, encouraged to attend government funded classes to learn new skills to help them keep up with the world today?

Not in every state, but in many states that is in fact a requirement called "workfare"

Personally I think it could use a lot of improvement. The way I see it, if we are going to spend the money, let's really teach welfare recipients useful skills. That's a sensible reinvestment in human capital.

By new skills I meant useful skills not things like teaching them to be a better checkers player ;).

JFK,

No...LOL...they do try to teach them useful skills, it's just that the world is changing so fast now that the government doesn't always reach the right conclusion as to what constitutes "useful" skills.

A large proportion of unemployed people are illiterate and innumerate I believe, yes?

teaching them to read and write and count would be the most useful thing.

Other useful skills would be computer skills and academic skills but also manual skills, such as mechanics and things like that.

The unemployed should be helped by the Government (Federal, State and Local) to get back to work in Good Jobs. Dealing with longterm unemployment (which often blights entire regions) should be high on any governments list of priorities.

But how do we define good jobs?

I personally believe that there should be a wide range of skills, available for the unemployed to learn and that they should be given the choice of government course which they do to help them get back into work, some jobs just aren't suited to people and so they should have the right to choose the job that they try to get back into society doing.

By a "good job" I mean something that pays the bills and isn't soul destroying.
And preferably not a menial job in the service sector...

Since Bush was born in the Northeast you mean? ;)

In North carolina, Democrats outnumber Republican 2,388,679 to 1,712,992 (48-24%)

Your math's not so good, miami.  Those numbers/percentages don't make sense, maybe you meant 48%-34%?

If the total is about 4 millions, as these nubmers indicate, 2.3 millions would be more than 50%. If you don't know the total you can't tell the percentages...only that the Dem number can't be twice that of the Rep number so 48-24 must be wrong.

nc state board of elections 10/03 says 48%-34%

OK...then I guess it probably is... ;)

I typed 2 instead of 3, sorry