Politico: How Dems can catpure Dixie (again)

[Beezer]

I don't get articles like these at all. If Democrats want to win the South they'll have to do so by abandoning their base in the rest of the nation. We now have 2 ideologically cohesive parties precisely because white Southerners have switched their partisan allegiance over the past few decades (and the general sorting trend of course). How on earth does the author think that the Dems will be able to sell racially and socially conservative small government candidates to their socially liberal young and economically liberal minority voters in the non-South? Of course the GOP Solid South is fraying at the edges (VA and NC) but I don't see that many potential inroads in the Deep South and some other parts, particularly in congressional races.

[Beezer]

Which proves my point. It took neither demography or racism for the Dems to recover after the Civil Rights battles. All it took was making a statement of inclusion that included poor whites in the South.

I'd make the point that this happened 40 years ago when many Southerners still voted for local Democratic candidates. The threshold for voting Democratic in presidential elections was far lower back then, particulalry with one of their own on the ticket (and let's not forget the scandal that preceded the election) but so much has changed since. I really doubt that if Jimmy Carter ran today he'd get very far in the South either.

[Beezer]

Easily. How on earth it's important, say, for a man in 7th disitrict of Washington (Seattle) whom Democrats run in 3rd district of Alabama? Or - Mississippi? Or - Louisiana? It's a foolishness to run exactly similar candidates in all places. Alabama's democratic party was ALWAYS substantially more conservative then National one (or Democratic party of Washington state). The same - for other Deep South states. The same, BTW, for Republicans, where, say, Republican party of Vermont or Massachusetts was almost always to the left of national one. The only axiom i have in politics - the party must run candidates, which are suitable for their districts. You adapt candidates (and party) to district and it's people, not vice versa.

Well, politics is more nationalized today than it was a couple of decades ago so the conservative views of a Democratic candidate in Alabama's 3rd district may very well have an effect on how somebody in Washington's 7th perceives the wider party. Why do you think so many fiscal conservatives have abandoned the GOP in areas of the nation that used to be Republican strongholds? Even in congressional races the general position of the party matters today.

What's more, why would a liberal party be interested in swelling its ranks with cultural conservatives for the sole purpose of getting past 218? The main goal of most voters is to see policies they care about enacted. A cultural liberal from Seattle isn't going to see that happen if the Democratic caucus is full of white Southerners.

[Beezer]

Some people here seem to be under the impression that people only vote on social issues.

Let's put that myth to rest.  Again.

True, but then again 90% of white Mississippians voted for Romney in 2012. Did they do so because they liked his economic policies? How can Democrats possibly appeal to these kinds of voters?