Politico: How Dems can catpure Dixie (again)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There are several mistakes in the article, that frankly underlie the present motivations not to play in the South. One is that the Democratic decline was guarranteed after 1965. It was not and much of that was self-imposed, particularly in the last twenty years as the article does state.

Also it states that Republicans began to make gains because of race in the South and not before. It is true that 1948 had an unlocking effect of sorts in that many were now freed to consider alternatives since the Democrats were no longer perfect on the issue as they had been, but the GOP was hardly any better and if so only from lack of effort on the part of Dewey (who had a strong record on civil rights) and Ike. To put it another way, voters who would have always been Republicans if not for the civil rights wedge and Civil War legacy, finally became so once the Democrats stopped being a Segregationist Party nationally. Drop the wedge, and the vote patterns normalize. The gains began in 1952 and continued, building up in the metropolitan areas, taking advantage of northern transplants and commercially oriented types who though previously Democratic. were more at home as Republicans. This trend included the Southwest as well and it is why you had the islands of GOP strength in areas like Charlotte, Tampa Bay-Pinnelas and Phoenix and so forth that didn't extend beyond the suburbs at least until the 1960's and then only on limited and sometimes temporary basis.

That is not so say that many rural voters and even urban ones were not motivated by race or did not switch because of it because there certainly are examples like the Jessecrats here in NC that could be attributed to such. Millions more remained Democrats, or returned to the fold and stayed there for two decades until they began to whither away in the 1990's and 2000s. Hence the problem with the narrative established.

[Frodo]

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. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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 highly doubt southern suburbs will produce the kind of tangibly progressive types you seek. Of course you have to consider what the priorties for Progressives are as well. The minorities might change that eventually to be true but msot of the surburban vote will be disaffected Republicans and thus likely not very Progressive Democrats. Not to mention the demographic of suburbia does not lend itself to Progressivism very well by design.

[Heimdal]

I have seen several articles on how the Democrats should take back the South. In my mind the biggest question is why. Florida, Virginia and North Carolina are already competitive in presidential elections. They don’t need any sort of “Southern Strategy” to win those states. The Democrats don’t really need Dixie to win.

Then there’s the idea that they might win places like Arkansas and Tennessee, if only they ran more “populist” or “culturally conservative” candidates. The problem is that the Republicans will be able to run even more populist or socially conservative candidates. If the Democrats actually managed to become a natural choice for white conservative Southerners, they would probably alienate some other constituencies, who would turn to the Republicans instead.

[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"....

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Frodo]

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.

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.    

[Frodo]

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"....

We have time -the GOP does 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.

[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.

[All Along The Watchtower]

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.

[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!

[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.

[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))))

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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

Let's put that myth to rest.  Again.

[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?)))))))

[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?

[windjammer]

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?

Maybe should MS democrats run a white?

[7,052,770]

 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.    

While I agree we should aspire to have 218 liberals in the House and not rely on Blue Dogs for a majority, but surely if it turns into a Childers vs. McDaniel race you won't be neutral?  Childers is still superior to almost any Republican, especially one who makes Steve Stockman look sane...

[7,052,770]

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?

Republicans have been running on social conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage for so long, that low-income white Christian voters in the Deep South (despite the lack of progress any Republicans have actually made on such issues) have begun to assume Republicans are correct on everything.  As we saw in the recent Tennessee Volkswagen plant, legions of poor white Southerners are super anti-union, oppose minimum wage increases, support tax cuts for the rich, etc., and a whole host of policies that are flagrantly against their own interest simply because they have been fooled into thinking the anti-abortion party must be right on everything.

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.

 

The map on the left is the 2012 presidential election. The map on the right is the Personhood Amendment from 2011.  Personhood failed in a 58-42 landslide, largely because the large white college-educated suburban counties that usually vote Republican (DeSoto, Madison, Rankin, and the 3 coast counties) all rejected the amendment.  Those are the people that might consider voting Democratic with the right candidate (and/or if the Republican candidate or Republican initiative is crazy enough).

ETA: Even these areas are pretty ingrained as Republican, and it will be difficult to flip any of these counties.  I'm just saying what would be most likely to work, even though it's still a tough road.

And, having said all of that, if we see a Childers vs. McDaniel race, Childers' strategy must include getting votes from all those Northeastern counties that voted for the Personhood Amendment.  Long-term, though, targeting the suburbs should be better.  Demographic drift will make Mississippi more reachable for Democrats as the years go by too.  The majority of babies born in Mississippi have been black for years.

[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??

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The thing is, although poors in the Deep South may be more Republican overall than their Northern counterparts, Obama still won them.  The often touted idea that "poors vote against their economic interests" is very much exaggerated.

It remains a mystery, to me at least, why 60% of voters in Mississippi said that Romney is more in touch with them.  But, I contest the notion that social issues is the defining factor.  Whether Democratic economic policies help these voters or not is irrelevant, because obviously the voters themselves don't think they do.  That is the problem here.