Dems Can't Keep Losing Dixie

[Gustaf]

I think we might be actually be underestimating the Edwards effect a little. When you think of it Kerry had to deal with a) being a Northeastner with very bad Southern credentials and b) the fact that the number of Dixiecrats has been constantly diminshing in the past four decades. Still, when you compare him to Dukakis or McGovern he didnät do too shabby?

[jokerman]

Good points, Gustaf.  Had Edwards been our candidate, he would have most certainly won Missouri, Arkansas, and West Virginia among other Southern states.

[HardRCafé]

Most certainly?  Missouri?  John Edwards?

[memphis]

The article ignores the fact that Florida is super-competitive, and Virginia might become so soon due to huge DC metro growth. The rest of the South is pretty hopeless for the Dems in presidential elections barring a landslide in which it wouldn't matter anyway. Dems have lots of great local candidates in the South, but their national ticket will not do well in the rest of the South. The Republicans don't seem to worry too much about the West Coast, Mid-Atlantic or New England which have many electoral votes. Both parties would be wise to focus on the battleground states and not worry too much about those states that either Bush or Kerry won by more than five points.

[jokerman]

Democrats don't even really have to drop social liberalism to win in the south.  Maybe just stop shoving it up people's throats and focus on economics, and their margin in the south would surge.

[Gustaf]

It's not just about winning the presidency either. It's about winning congress and for that you need to be competitive on all levels of government in all states (or at least try to).

[ian]

Democrats don't even really have to drop social liberalism to win in the south.  Maybe just stop shoving it up people's throats and focus on economics, and their margin in the south would surge.

That's a very good point, P.
And that article is also very good.  Thanks for posting it, Sarah!

[Republican Michigander]

If there's one issue that just kills the democrats, it's gun control. It's a failure in the South, West, and most of the midwest outside of Illinois.

The trouble for the dems is that their biggest donors (Soros, Moveon) wear gun control on their sleeve.

[Flying Dog]

If there's one issue that just kills the democrats, it's gun control. It's a failure in the South, West, and most of the midwest outside of Illinois.

The trouble for the dems is that their biggest donors (Soros, Moveon) wear gun control on their sleeve.

I agree we have enough gun control. The dems position should be just to enforce the laws in the books already.

[dazzleman]

Democrats don't even really have to drop social liberalism to win in the south.  Maybe just stop shoving it up people's throats and focus on economics, and their margin in the south would surge.

That's a very good point, P.
And that article is also very good.  Thanks for posting it, Sarah!

The problem is that that's very difficult to do when your party is bankrolled by people who are most interested in radical social liberalism.

[Frodo]

Democrats don't even really have to drop social liberalism to win in the south.  Maybe just stop shoving it up people's throats and focus on economics, and their margin in the south would surge.

That's a very good point, P.
And that article is also very good.  Thanks for posting it, Sarah!

The problem is that that's very difficult to do when your party is bankrolled by people who are most interested in radical social liberalism.

Yes, the affluent urban liberal elite.....

I just read a very long NYTimes article on how difficult Mark Warner is finding it on trying to make himself into a viable 'Plan B' candidate should Hillary Clinton falter during the primaries, and the fact that the powers-that-be within the Democratic Party are more interested in candidates' views on cultural hot-button issues like abortion, gay marriage, and gun control (and whether those candidates pass their litmus test on those issues) than on bread-and-butter issues like health care and education.  It's depressing to say the least to read on how much of a juggernaught Hillary Clinton has amassed in her bid to win the nomination.  She has built such a steamroller that financial contributors are afraid of the dire consequences that could result if they did not pony up.   

On the flip-side, we have the internet which has democratized the process a little.  But Mark Warner hasn't yet developed enough of an online following the way Howard Dean had before the 2004 primaries. 

[Alcon]

I don't understand how being an urban, affluent liberal automatically makes one any more "elite" than rural populists.  They are both different lifestyles (or whatever you want to call them), and both of them have their close-minded snobs.  I don't see the exclusive rich social liberalism as any less snotty than the religion-centric social conservativism of populists.

[Frodo]

I don't understand how being an urban, affluent liberal automatically makes one any more "elite" than rural populists.  They are both different lifestyles (or whatever you want to call them), and both of them have their close-minded snobs.  I don't see the exclusive rich social liberalism as any less snotty than the religion-centric social conservativism of populists.

Because unlike the populists, it is often the urban, affuent liberals who have the deeper pockets and the greater following and power within the Democratic Party -and the fact that their values do not reflect those of most Americans who live in 'fly-over country'.  They are not called 'elitists' for nothing. 

[Alcon]

I don't understand how being an urban, affluent liberal automatically makes one any more "elite" than rural populists.  They are both different lifestyles (or whatever you want to call them), and both of them have their close-minded snobs.  I don't see the exclusive rich social liberalism as any less snotty than the religion-centric social conservativism of populists.

Because unlike the populists, it is often the urban, affuent liberals who have the deeper pockets and the greater following and power within the Democratic Party -and the fact that their values do not reflect those of most Americans who live in 'fly-over country'.  They are not called 'elitists' for nothing.

I don't see why their using their money to support what they believe in is "elitist."  If they are socially liberal, why would they use their money to support socially conservative causes?  That isn't elitist, really;  it's logical.

[Frodo]

I don't understand how being an urban, affluent liberal automatically makes one any more "elite" than rural populists.  They are both different lifestyles (or whatever you want to call them), and both of them have their close-minded snobs.  I don't see the exclusive rich social liberalism as any less snotty than the religion-centric social conservativism of populists.

Because unlike the populists, it is often the urban, affuent liberals who have the deeper pockets and the greater following and power within the Democratic Party -and the fact that their values do not reflect those of most Americans who live in 'fly-over country'.  They are not called 'elitists' for nothing.

I don't see why their using their money to support what they believe in is "elitist."  If they are socially liberal, why would they use their money to support socially conservative causes?  That isn't elitist, really;  it's logical.

It's not a matter of what they do -it's a matter of who they are.  Simply put -if you are rich and have great political power, you are an elitist.  It doesn't matter whether you are Ken Lay or Teresa Heniz Kerry -you are  a part of the same class.   

[Alcon]

I don't understand how being an urban, affluent liberal automatically makes one any more "elite" than rural populists.  They are both different lifestyles (or whatever you want to call them), and both of them have their close-minded snobs.  I don't see the exclusive rich social liberalism as any less snotty than the religion-centric social conservativism of populists.

Because unlike the populists, it is often the urban, affuent liberals who have the deeper pockets and the greater following and power within the Democratic Party -and the fact that their values do not reflect those of most Americans who live in 'fly-over country'.  They are not called 'elitists' for nothing.

I don't see why their using their money to support what they believe in is "elitist."  If they are socially liberal, why would they use their money to support socially conservative causes?  That isn't elitist, really;  it's logical.

It's not a matter of what they do -it's a matter of who they are.  Simply put -if you are rich and have great political power, you are an elitist.  It doesn't matter whether you are Ken Lay or Teresa Heniz Kerry -you are  a part of the same class.   

Elitism is defined as "the belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favoured treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources."  How does just being rich make you elitist?

[Gustaf]

If there's one issue that just kills the democrats, it's gun control. It's a failure in the South, West, and most of the midwest outside of Illinois.

The trouble for the dems is that their biggest donors (Soros, Moveon) wear gun control on their sleeve.

I agree we have enough gun control. The dems position should be just to enforce the laws in the books already.

That is a very clever Republican trick, taking a defensive position on an issue and then using that to attack your opponent. On social issues Democrats shuold definitely adopt it. In effect, you accuse your opponent of wanting to change the status quo and step up to stop that. That both energizes your own base and brings the moderates home.

[Хahar 🤔]

Hilarious material here.

2005 was a bleak time.

[Scam of God]

Whistle past Dixie: ditch the South, aim for the West.

[Psychic Octopus]

Rofl

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Interesting; even after what has happened, I do still agree that we cannot write off the South.  We may not need it every time, but it is never a good idea to write off an entire region, especially one that is growing as quickly as the South.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Interesting; even after what has happened, I do still agree that we cannot write off the South.  We may not need it every time, but it is never a good idea to write off an entire region, especially one that is growing as quickly as the South.

Why is that? The Dems in 2008 could have written off every Southern state and still have taken in 300+ electoral votes.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Interesting; even after what has happened, I do still agree that we cannot write off the South.  We may not need it every time, but it is never a good idea to write off an entire region, especially one that is growing as quickly as the South.

Why is that? The Dems in 2008 could have written off every Southern state and still have taken in 300+ electoral votes.

In 2008, sure.  That doesn't mean the same will be true in 2012, or 2016, or 2024.  The South is gaining people, and that means it's gaining electoral votes, largely at the expense of the Northern states that are traditionally Democratic.  We'll be forfeiting more and more electoral votes by ignoring the South.  Ignoring the South, too, means ignoring Congressional pick-up opportunities in states like North Carolina, Florida, and, eventually, Texas.  We've made great strides in 2006 and 2008; let's not waste them down the line.

[Deldem]

Interesting; even after what has happened, I do still agree that we cannot write off the South.  We may not need it every time, but it is never a good idea to write off an entire region, especially one that is growing as quickly as the South.

Why is that? The Dems in 2008 could have written off every Southern state and still have taken in 300+ electoral votes.

In 2008, sure.  That doesn't mean the same will be true in 2012, or 2016, or 2024.  The South is gaining people, and that means it's gaining electoral votes, largely at the expense of the Northern states that are traditionally Democratic.  We'll be forfeiting more and more electoral votes by ignoring the South.  Ignoring the South, too, means ignoring Congressional pick-up opportunities in states like North Carolina, Florida, and, eventually, Texas.  We've made great strides in 2006 and 2008; let's not waste them down the line.

Of course, part of the gains made in the South are a result of changing demographics. Indeed, if more Northerners move down, North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas can become swing states quite regularly.

[Хahar 🤔]

Interesting; even after what has happened, I do still agree that we cannot write off the South.  We may not need it every time, but it is never a good idea to write off an entire region, especially one that is growing as quickly as the South.

The Republicans did that for a century and remained the dominant party, eh?