Politico: How Dems can catpure Dixie (again)

[smoltchanov]

This isn't rocket science. White Southerners have always supported culturally conservative politicians. Today's Democratic Party is anything but. Unless we're willing and able to change that perception, we're wasting our time down there. The populist stuff is all fine and dandy if you can finance a campaign while using that rhetoric (good luck), but voters aren't going to forget about abortion, Obamacare, food stamps, etc. just because we try to change the subject.

The exception to this all is in statewide races where changing demographics allow us to cobble together a winning coalition thanks to non-white voters. But in states like Alabama and Tennessee or in exurban Atlanta? Forget about it.

Run very socially conservative Southern populists there. Louisiana state Senator Ben Nevers immediately comes to my mind as an example : he is more socially conservative then most Republicans in Legislature, but absolutely not bad on economy. As a result - he was reelected in almost 70% Romney district. He is too old to run for anything else, but still - a good example

[smoltchanov]

Nevers is a relic of a past era. Most Southern Democrats like him have either retired, been defeated, become Republicans, or died. Those few that hang on are able to do so because of their personal reputations and name recognition. Even Nevers only won by two percentage points in his last re-election.

You could probably count on one hand the number of white, Southern Democrats who have been newly-elected over the past five years to Southern state legislatures. For the most part, the Democratic Party label has become too toxic down there, no matter who the candidate is.

Yes, he is relic. And he really won by couple of percentage. BUT - in EXTREMELY Republican and EXTREMELY conservative district. There is substantial number of similar districts in the South. IMHO - Democrats must run a candidates i describe in ALL of them. They will lose in 80% of such districts, but 20% is better then 0%. I don't advise to run such candidates in more moderate districts - only in such, where all other types of democrat lose with guarantee...

[smoltchanov]

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.

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.

[smoltchanov]

Contrary to what some think; running Blue Dogs in the south is not the answer to winning elections there.

Correct. We need to focus on running moderate to liberal progressives in places like the Charlotte suburbs, Atlanta suburbs and other, more urbanized parts of the coastal south.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I have no desire for another hollow Democratic majority in the House (and in state legislatures throughout the region) when it comes to progressive legislation.  Best in the long term to continue the cleansing process by letting the GOP capture the remaining rural districts (completing the decades-old realignment of the rural South), and then base our comeback on the growing metropolitan areas already mentioned, as well as minorities and immigrants. 

We should present ourselves as the party of the future, the New South if you will, while casting the GOP as the party of the past, the dying remnant of the Old South. 

I have extreme doubts that you will be able to achieve your goals anywhere in the South, except Virginia, Florida, and, may be, North Carolina in reasonable period of time with politics you formulated. Simply because you intentionaly "abandon too much" - in other Southern states the areas, which can elect "national Democrats", comprise too small part of state population. You are ready to abandon that all for the sake of "ideological purity"?? If so - you are a carbon copy of extreme far-right tea-partiers, whi also would better lose elections "en masse" then win with "not absolutely pure" candidates. I would say - a "mirror copy"....

[smoltchanov]

Smoltchanov you are going up against a brick wall here.


If the Democrats could get the poor whites or even just 15% to 25% of them in the South who presently vote Republican to vote Progressive on economic issues, the map of the South would look much different. Nobody thinks bold anymore like that though.

I disagree politiely. Not every southern white is economic conservative. Social - yes, almost everyone. So suggest my personal experience with the Southern people.

[smoltchanov]

We have time -the GOP does not. 

You are ready to give them absolute power for next 20-25 years, hoping for gains after? I am not. Simply because i am not sure i will be alive then. So, i have great interest about what will happen DURING next 20-25 years, and almost none - abiut what will happen AFTER that.

[smoltchanov]

Do you know what makes a Democrat a Democrat?  What do you think the Democratic Party stands for? You elect Democrats to sell a vision, to pass certain legislation that defines the party.  If we do what we did in 2006 and 2008 and recruit candidates (particularly in rural, predominately white districts) who must vote like moderate Republicans while perpetually looking over their shoulders lest the real more conservative version comes along to take that district away from them, what's the point of having a majority in Congress if you can't pass legislation, or have to water it down so much that it looks like something the GOP (when it wasn't insane) would have authored?  I learned my lesson from the 111th Congress, and never again will I back the likes of Gene Taylor, Travis Childers, Parker Griffith, etc.  I'm done with Blue Dogs.    

Exactly what i said - you are extremely ideological"tea-partier in reverse". Substitute "Democratic" for "Republican" - and every tea-partier will readily subscribe under your post. And I don't give a damn about parties - in fact i almost hate them BOTH, but i care very much about PEOPLE, who must have REAL choice (not 435 Pelosi-clones against 435 Cruz-clones). And parties may go to hell if they are unable to give people such choice.

[smoltchanov]

I do wonder how much of the Democrats' collapse among white Southerners has been a combination of old white Democrats dying off, whites who came of age in the 50s/60s and onward being an especially strong Republican bloc in the South (for a number of reasons), the shrinking of rural areas and the growth of suburbs and exurbs, the influence of the Religious Right in politics at every level of government, and finally, the remaining white Democrats being a downscale, low turnout  type.

Basically, all of these contribute, IMO. There are other reasons o/c. The nature of race relations in the South as they relate to politics, the growth of non union
 industries and white collar professional services, the corresponding collapse of the  New Deal political tradition...all of these matter.

In one word - ABSOLUTELY!

[smoltchanov]

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.

Both parties at least pretended to be a "big tent parties". So, Democratic party pretended to be mostly liberal with minority conservative (but, usually, still not so conservative as Republican alternative) faction. Republican - vice versa. If Democratic party wants to be "pure" liberal, and Republican - "pure" conservative, then about 40% of population, who doesn't classifty himself as "pure" and list himself as "moderates", need their own party, because they are not adequately represented by existing "big 2". Or country must change it's political system to multiparty parlamental. It's under this system that ideology-based political parties thrive.

And "to get past 218" is an ample reason to tolerate some intraparty dissent. It's better to be in majority and pass at least some legislation then to be in permanent minority and thus - utterly unable to pass anything.

P.S. The reason for my general dislike of BOTH existing political parties is exactly that - i am neither "solid left", nor "solid right", but left-of-center moderate))))

[smoltchanov]

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

Let's put that myth to rest.  Again.

Of course - not. But if i am at least somewhat fiscal conservative and rather solid social liberal - whom must i vote for?)))))))

[smoltchanov]

Democrats can occasionally win rural whites if they can establish themselves as anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage and can spin the race away from politics altogether (see Travis Childers 2008 or several state legislators in Mississippi).  But overall Democrats would be better off targeting educated suburban whites.

Why not do BOTH??

[smoltchanov]

Democrats can occasionally win rural whites if they can establish themselves as anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage and can spin the race away from politics altogether (see Travis Childers 2008 or several state legislators in Mississippi).  But overall Democrats would be better off targeting educated suburban whites.

Why not do BOTH??

We can in state legislative elections, but we can't really in statewide elections.  Childers specifically can target northeastern rural whites and hope McDaniel's craziness scares off enough suburban whites to put him over the top.  But I don't think it's possible for a single Democratic candidate to appeal to both groups.

I agree and i meant different candidates for different offices (legislative, Congressional). In North-east - run populist social conservative, in suburbs - a more socially moderate fiscal conservative. Why not?

[smoltchanov]

Smoltchanov you are going up against a brick wall here.


If the Democrats could get the poor whites or even just 15% to 25% of them in the South who presently vote Republican to vote Progressive on economic issues, the map of the South would look much different. Nobody thinks bold anymore like that though.

I disagree politiely. Not every southern white is economic conservative. Social - yes, almost everyone. So suggest my personal experience with the Southern people.

Aren't we essentially saying the say thing though? I am saying there is a band of Republican voting whites that are economically to the left or at the very least willing to listen to a pro-union, pro-minimum wage, pro-single payer message and if you can get them to prioritize that over the social issues, yo ucan win those votes, secure GA, NC, and FL as well as make MS a swing state, maybe even Alabama once again.

Yes