Dems Can't Keep Losing Dixie

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Look, population-growth in the South can be actually in favor of Democrats.

1. Texas: it going to be a longtime process, like in Arizona, but growing Latino populations may cause that one day Lone Star State will be at least competentive in presidential races
2. Florida: It's not really a Dixie, much more not state like Alabama. Florida is swing with both strong conservative and strong liberal tendentions.
3. AR, TN, KY, WV: Obama lost all because of his race

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

3. AR, TN, KY, WV: Obama lost all because of his race

I disagree. Outer south has a long tradition of republican trend since 1996, and even 1980 if you exclude 92, which can be easily explained.

I remember very well 2006 Senate elections, in which Harold Ford leads at many points. And I remember relations after his defeat, including talks with people from heavily Democratic, but mostly white counties. One of local officials said: "we are loyal Democrats, but people here just don't want to vote for Black". This contributed significantly to Corker victory.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm responding a little late to this, so I apologize if I repeat anyone's talking points, but can't the same be said about how Republicans can't keep losing New England (I assume we're talking about the presidential level)?

I disagree that Democrats can't keep losing Dixie. Democrats can still win the White House without Dixie - all John Kerry needed was Ohio and he would have won. It'd be nice if we could win Dixie, but the realignment of the Solid South has destroyed that hope. Depending upon your definition of Dixie, I don't see Mississippi, Alabama or Georgia voting for a Democrat at the presidential level anytime soon. Yes, Jimmy Carter won Georgia (obviously, since he was from there), but even the WASP Southerner Bill Clinton lost Georgia both times, as did he lose Mississippi and Alabama. The racial polarization of voters is just too strong in Dixie, as unfortunate as that is, you have one party that's perceived as the white man's party and the other as the black man's party. That's my definition of Dixie - the Deep South, if you will - those three states. As for what other states I'd consider Southern United States, I'd put Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana and Florida in this category. Democrats have had some success in these states at the local and state level, but federal level is another story.

That being said, Democrats have won those states since the realignment of the Solid South, so that's evidence that those states are winnable. However, as has been mentioned on here before, "big city intellectual liberals" like John Kerry and Barack Obama do not fit the "mold" of a winnable Democrat in this area (I'd call them New Democrats) as opposed to a Bill (or Hillary) Clinton or a John Edwards (minus the adulterer and scumbag that he is) - a more traditional Democrat. Given the way things are going now, I'm not sure if Obama will carry Virginia, North Carolina and Florida again in 2012, so some may speculate that the South is turning away from the Democrats again.

Clinton won Georgia in 92.

I previously mentioned that.

even the WASP Southerner Bill Clinton lost Georgia both times

No, he didn't. Clinton won Georgia in 1992.

Clinton was not a WASP, ftr