Dems Can't Keep Losing Dixie

[Democratic Hawk]

The GOP do seem to have an effective lock on the South in presidential elections. I dare say the Democrats could win some states with a homegrown, and accomplished, southern moderate (like Clinton) as the nominee - but as things stand Dixie in the main will continue to elude them

Even on a state level, the Democrats are in retreat - just having a slight edge over the GOP - in the last elections. On a congressional level, I can't recall a time, in living memory, when the Democrats were weaker (4 Senators from 22 ain't good!)

I can't see Democrats getting headway in the South unless their presidential candidates reject out-and-out social liberalism or at least embrace moderate cultural conservatism. The fact of the matter is - Dixie just ain't voting against Sherman anymore!

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

We don't need the South to win the Presidency. the southwest (NV, NM, CO) and great lakes (IA, MN, WI, MI, OH, PA) give more than enough to win.

Granted. Should those states move perpetually into the Democratic column, then the party would be home and dry. So in this respect, they don't need the South

I'd like to see Democrats win in the South but while the national Democratic Party remains out of sync with the region on social issues, it's not going to happen

I agree with Ernest in that the Democrats can express their core message in religious terms. For a start, the Democrats could, and should emphatically, embrace the social gospel, which many evangelicals cherish (despite fundamentalism having emerged in reaction to it). Moral issues aren't merely confined to issues such as abortion, gay marriage, etc - they can equally be applied to the principles of social and economic justice

The Democratic Party needs to be a place where evangelical Christians can feel at home - but, as things stand, many moderate evangelicals feel ill at ease among uncompromising secularists.  That said, the GOP are welcome to the intolerant, sanctimonious and, often, hypocritical 'Talibangelicals'

The Democratic Party could become the acceptable face of Christian values, which they can embody in their politics - then they may get that electoral breakthrough throughout the Bible Belt, but it needs to be a finely tuned message, which will bring people on side instead of driving them away

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

I think it's laughable that the some of my fellow Democrats think they can win by keeping a libertarian-leaning ideology and take the Southwest or Midwest.  The Midwest goes with the south and a populist-leaning centrist could take both the south and the midwest.  And, within a few years, the Latino demographic will make the Southwest as populist as the South and Midwest.

As well, some have talked about Montana.  That's laughable as well.  You think because a small town, populist, small business owner can win as a Democrat in Montana that a out of touch national democrat could win there?

I'm with you on the merits of a populist Democratic centrist

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Bear in mind that voter turnout is generally lower in the South. Bush bearly won more than 30% of the electorate in many southern states in 2004, an improvement on 2000. (I can provide a map adjusted for turnout at some point...)

That's not to say that the Republicans would win had every eligable voter in the south voted, but it would be interesting to find out which sorts of people are less likely to vote, and how they could be won over.

Also remember that the "South" will always have lower voter turnout due to the dominance of Texas and Florida within the region and the high number of non-resident citizens present in both of those states. (Arizona always has the same problem).

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the voter turnout in the "South" as a whole is not lower than certain other areas of the country (upper Midwest, for instance), there are just more ineligible citizens who live in those two big states who overbalance everything else.

Yeah but turnout is low across the board in the south, not just those couple states.

Does low turnout in the South favour the GOP? Which demographics tend to stay away from the polls? Are the socio-economic groups most likely to support the Democrats less likely to vote?

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

To what extent has migration from the North East to the South benefitted the GOP or has it been more a case of widespread dissatisfaction among traditional (or ancestral) southern Democrats with the national Democratic Party that has swung the region in the GOP's favour?

It's just that my family (ancestral Georgia Democrats) have tended to remain pretty loyal Democrats

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

In my view, as long as the raving, looney, left wing of the Democratic Party keeps screaming about abortion and same sex marriage, they are doomed in the south, and well they should be.       

Quite

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Oh yes they can.

Best line of this entire thread, and very accurate.

Good one Soup 18!

Not necessarily.

What would happen in the South if the Democratic candidate was more socially conservative than the GOP candidate? It's a possibility; albeit an improbability

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Here's how I might do (were I a moderate, and immensely popular/successful Democratic governor of Georgia)



Dave