Write off the south.

[rogerashton]

I keep seeing posts that say the Dems have to win the south to win the GE. It seems to be the "Conventional Wisdom of the Dominant Group" (CoWDunG) around here. I don't think so.

I'm not a damnyankee myself. I spent the first 24 years of my life in the south and some of my family still live there. On the basis of that experience, I say this: what the Democratic party would have to do to win the south in 2004 would cost the party the rest of the country -- not to mention its soul.

The idea that Democrats have to win the south dates from the time (I remember it well!) when California was a Republican sinecure and the Middle West was predominantly Republican. That's no longer the case. The Democratic Party should target a solid West Coast, Northeast and Midwest, and try to crack the Mountain States. Isolate the South. Let the South fester as a solid-Republican small minority -- completing the Reversal of Fortune in American politics in the last century.

I'm not saying this would be easy, but it is a lot easier than "winning the south." Like mother said, in the south "Everybody with any get up and go has got up and went."

[lastknowngood]

1. Democrat campaigning in the south has a

better chance of getting shot than a vote. I'm from Arkansas and I know of what I speak. Ark, Tenn, and West Va. are possibles if we have a strong candidate but not a bush light or bush apologists.

[ButterflyBlood]

2. some southern states are winnable but yes

the south is not needed to win. in fact if we win Ohio and manage to hold onto to a few key states Gore won, Bush is toast.

[dae]

3. There's an excellent chance for the Dems to win Louisiana You write off

too much to quickly.
We just elected our first female Democratic Governor; re-elected a female Democratic Senator with the WH pulling out all the stops; and, took back a supposedly completely safe Republican Congressional seat in the '04 elections. We bucked the national trends my friend and plan on kicking some rear end this fall.

[BeatleBoot]

4. Go NOLA!

:7

[Hippo_Tron]

44. I'm from New Orleans as well..

And frankly the only Republican I've seen win around here in the last few years is state senator John Hainkel.

[rogerashton]

6. I'm from Shreveport.

Yes, Louisiana might be chipped off -- thank God it's not all Shreveport and Coushatta!

[dae]

7. I hear you, I live in Pointe Coupee Parish just northwest of Baton Rouge.

Always, glad to meet a fellow Louisianian at DU.
:toast:

[rockymountaindem]

5. I'd love to see the Democrats

take some mountain west states. Perhaps Montana is a possibility, as they have an all-democratic congressional representation. Colorado would be worth going after. In 2000 we elected a majority-democratic state senate. We should also try to solidify our hold on NM.

Speaking of which, e-mail Gary Hart and ask him to run for Senate in CO. He could win and take a seat for our side!

[ButterflyBlood]

9. Montana doesn't

Bauchus is the only Dem. You're probably thinking of North Dakota. And no, North Dakota can't be won. I used to live there and the only reason they keep electing Democrats to Congress is they've been big shots in ND politics since the 80s and keep bringing back agricultural pork.

[styersc]

8. I'm from SC and am likely running for a statehouse seat and I can say

that I absolutely agree with this idea. Not that I think Dems cannot win in the south (obviously- or I wouldn't waste my time), but I feel it would be a waste of resources for the Pres. nominee to make decisions based on the goal of changing minds in the south. Work like a dog in Florida as we have a chance there but the "confederate" south is steeped in Limbaugh like stupor that will take a lot of time to abate.

If the candidate is Kerry (flavor of the week)- he should concentrate on Hortheast, west coast, southwest and industrial midwest.

[Josh]

10. But then Bush will concentrate on those areas - exclusively -

so suddenly we're locked in a battle in the West and Midwest and if Bush wins just one or two of those states that we're trying to take, he's won the election because we already ceded the South. Bad mistake, in my humble opinion.

We learned from Gore that you have to compete in the South even if you don't win. Look how close Florida was, and Tennessee (granted, because it's Gore's home state). But if we don't campaign in the South, Bush will just camp out in Michigan.

[GOPBasher]

11. Well I mostly agree.

I think we should write off most of the south, but I do think we should fight for Florida (most important state), Arkansas, Missouri and West Virginia (the last two are sort of "southern").

[surfermaw]

12. Wrong,

The democrat party can take the south, or enough states to win..and to you the poster, I live in the south, and I have four children, I didn't turn tail and run, I educated my kids and they can match any of you Yankees,

South was once solid democratic, and it will be again as soon as they decide that being hungry and job losses, health insurance losses came about because some one from the north sold them on the idea of voting republican.

Get off you lazy hinnies and go into the south and get this story told and pounded into their heads...some in the south are taught from generation to generation, that all they need is religion, that they are wasting their time getting and education.

I know every thing says Kerry want carry the south, maybe I am nuts,but I think he will,especially if he has a man in place to help him carry the south.

Frankly who knows yet what will happen and who will be the nominee.

[surfermaw]

42. Yankee's move south in Numbers,

If you visit Charlotte, North Carolina and buy a Charlotte Observer Paper, you will see a battle between the transplanted Yankees and the native of North Caroling...now tell me why you would want to write the state off.. Go ahead and write the South off, Kerry will have a hell of a time carrying many states without the help of John Edwards.. and I am sure if Edwards is the winner he surely want write of the South. However I do think Kerry will do better than any of the other Yankees ruining. The only way you are going to win, is if there is a Southerner on the ticket

Who is taking N.H, or Iowa serious, since Clinton won with loosing both states...Better go for the whole thing , or wind up watching Bush take your jobs, your health care and starve your children, while getting your grandchild re killed in a war, he lied about, Now here you come wanting to leave the south out of the game, even though it has been their sons that have done most of the fighting in keeping this nation free...Shame on you.

[kwolf68]

13. Yee ha

The South “used” to be Democratic is not an argument when you consider the connection of racial discrimination and the idea of “Southern Democrats.”

I believe the South, for the most part, is a dead issue. States like Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina for instance are a proverbial waste of time and while we have our candidate speaking to 25 people in the middle of Georgia getting heckled by confederate-clad Ditto-heads, that candidate could be best used in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, etc…

We don’t have unlimited resources to spend pissing it away trying to get the Zel Miller crowd in Georgia. All you have to do to win an election down there is wave a rebel flag and fornicate with a gun.

So the idea was broached that if we don’t make a play at the South Bush will just camp out in Michigan. I honestly believe that will not happen. I believe Bush will make a play for…YOU GUESSED IT…California. Will he win? Not likely, however, the supreme arrogance of the Republican Party and their fanciful inbreds that long for the day of Democratic extinction will lead them to strong Democratic areas. Enter California.

I don’t believe Chimp will spend any time in Massachusetts, but I have a feeling he will make a run at a big Democratic State to “prove” how he has won EVERYONE over. I have no real reason to believe this other than the fact Republican arrogance is at an all-time high and winning the election while cashing in Cali would be the “blowout” The Bushitas long for.

WTBS-I personally believe the Repukes will waste money in a Democratic State which means if we are shwred with our money then our candidate can hit the middle-ground states (states that could go either way)…States like PA, Ohio, New Mex, Arizona, Mizzou, Florida).

Stay the hell out of Mississippi, Bama, Georgia, Texas, Okie, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Alaska, South Carolina, etc….

Southern States that I believe “could be interesting” include North Carolina and Tennessee meaning they are the only two Southern States (not including the decidedly NON-Southern Florida) I believe the Democrats have any chance in hell of winning.

If the Democrats invest a penny in the state of Georgia it will spell doom.

[surfermaw]

16. So much for your wrong thoughts

South Carolina and possibly North Carolina will go democrat under Kerry and Edwards...and the others will follow since they are hungry and without health care for their children..They are practically in the same boat now as they were after under Harding, Coolidge and Hoover..and then they idolized Roosevelt...and that is what this old person thinks they will do with Kerry and Edwards or Edwards and Kerry..When Clinton puts his approval on the ticket, watch it bring home a landslide. I lived the Roosevelt years, and I know what I speak of about the adoration given the man in the state of Georgia.

[surfermaw]

17. Go to South Carolina and North Carolina

Just in the days since Iowa, I have heard some hard shell republicans in the State of North Carolina saying they didn't like Bush's ideas on Immigration, and other policies.North Carolina will be harder to bring to the democrat party, they were almost split during the Civil War. On the other hand South Carolina was solid untill Strom Thurmond and segreation. Bush policies are against almost every thing the south is for , except his false religion and republican values,but they may drop by the wayside, when hung reaches their childrens door steps...The South is just about to change.

Wake up man make the republicans spend their money in the south, let him spend about 3 fourth of his 99 million here, while we go in and take other states such as Ohio..you write off the south and you have had it.

[blindpig]

20. beggin' your pardon,

but I've been in Spartanburg SC for 22 yrs and there's no way in hell that SC will vote for a Dem this year. Fact is it's hard to find a white person under 50 who will admit to being a democrat. Yes, the immigration issue is causing some discomfort among conservatives but that won't matter unless the Dems come out against immigration, and that ain't gonna happen. These folks will continue to vote against their best interest because of ingrained misconceptions about guns, taxes, to mention a few issues. You know how hardheaded they are about that stupid flag. Things will have to get worse before they "get it", and we can't hope for that. Not that the Dems should give up on the south, its just going to be a long reeducation project.

[surfermaw]

26. Nail on Head Blindpig

That is the very thing rep. in North Carolina object to. We have Congressman in our district in North Carolina, who has for years brought in Mexican to work for him,this is a district that has been so strong republican,that you were wasting time and money to run on the Democrat party...he was on C span bragging about he could do any thing he wanted because he liven a heavily democrat district..he was also telling his employees (Grape Vine) if they complained, they could quit he would bring in another Mexican to take their place...now this year he isn't going to run, I think due to pressure, we have a good many republicans running in his place...that proves republicans are disturbed over immigration, much more than Democrats, always have been that is one reason they voted republican.Bush has hit them hard on things in the south they are against. Several have said they were going to vote democrat since his announcement on immigration.

[deminflorida]

14. Yeah well if they did go, they went to Florida, like a good 1/4

of the Northeast....

Please realize that Florida is not the old South, it quiet frankly represents a broad spectrum of American society. We have people from everywhere down here and 27 electoral votes.

Trust me, any candidate that intentionally ignores us will be a damn fool and a certain loser in the general election.

Bet on it.


P.S.

I wouldn't take Louisiana for granted neither, unless your GOP or Anti-French.

[davidinalameda]

15. we need to compete in every damn state in the union!

make Bush spend his money and have him answer the questions

I'll be damned if my party is going to let Bush/Rove think that they have any state locked up.

of course, I think that having Clark at the top of the ticket is the best way to accomplish that but even if he's not the nominee, whoever is has to go to Wyoming--has to go to Texas and let people know that we're not giving up on those places

this is going to be the most expensive presidential race in history and we're going to win!

and we're going to take Democrats back to Washington with us in the House and in the Senate.

[surfermaw]

18. Get out the vote

I am too old to get out and go door to door, but you young people aren't, I know from experience what it takes to get the vote..you need to go into the south find people at the lower level with good reputations and well liked buy their area, they should be paid to communicate with the lower level voters.

This should take place in every county,every corner of the county.all over the U.S...we don't have the money but we do have the votes...Republican got every vote they had in the last election, yet Gore, won the election...that vote that has not been cast in the past could be our winning ticket.

[Courtney_P]

19. Fornicate with a gun?

I take some offense to this characterization of the South. I am a born and raised southerner. I hate the rebel flag. My family is a group of southern democrats turned republicans. None of them are racist by any stretch of the imagination. Do I think the South is a lost cause? Yes, I hate to say but they love GW there. Does it make the south racist? Hardly. Yes, there are pockets of racism in the south just as there are here in Toledo, but don't judge an entire population because the biggots are the loudest.

[surfermaw]

21. Most people in the South who turned Republican were the Bigots

I to was raised in one Southern state and now live in another southern state, the once time solid democratic south, turned Republican following the bigot Strom Thurmond, now what would you think they were thinking when they switched parties. If you will notice the only way the Republican party can gleem enough voted to win and election is to use race, abortion, guns, and their so called religion and values...What Bush is going to have to realize,is Democrats in the South have began to realize that most of democrats have values equal to any of the values of a draft dodging , admited alcholic and his followers.

[many a good man]

22. Left turn will win South

I am of the opinion that moving our party center-right in the dim hopes of winning southern votes does much more harm than good. Its hypocritical and not believable. Just what are the positions needed to pick up white southern voters? no on affirmative action; no on gay rights; no on sustainable tax policy? no on unjustifiable wars? no on gun control? no on abortion?

The only way to win the south is to turn left (populist) and campaign on principles. Let them come to us, not vice verse. It may take a few years but it'll be worth it. Show them that voting Republican means voting against their own economic interests and further weakens the nation.

We can accelerate the process by diluting the wedge issues. In practical terms, the culture wars are over. Civil rights and choice are now enshrined in common law. Blustering for or against is nothing but hot air. We can concede by showing a willingness to compromise on the Second amendment. Affirm the constitutionality of gun ownership and promise that tinkering will only be minor and directed solely at criminals.

The real question is how are we going to secure people's safety and economic security. The social compact has been broken and we see the middle class weakening. We need a political party that will stand up for the interests of the common man and promote his freedom. That's the only message that will prosper in all parts of this country...

[MikeG]

23. We don't need the frigging South.

It's the Republicans who have gotten the least amount of votes in the last THREE presidential elections. Why is that??? It is they who need the NORTHEAST.

[surfermaw]

24. If you don't think you need the South you need your head examined

We have to fight then all over the nation, not just in the area, you wish. Otherwise the republicans will slam you,Some factions will get very angry and vote with the opposite party in the states you concentrate on...It isn't going to happen....wish all you want.If you don't get a couple of Southern states in the end you may come up short,if Bush is allowed to spend 99 million dollars in fewer states,he and Carl rove will come up with something to win en ought states to take the election.. It is always better to have your eggs in as many baskets as you can...Don't put your eggs in one basket and after all there are 50 states in the Union, I remember having just 48, Let me state this again, John Kerry & John Edwards or Edwards and Dean ..any combination of the three is going to score in the South, My dad an old time paid political consultant, said it was hard to sell JFK to the south,but once in office he became as popular as Franklin Roosevelt. Kerry has enough connection to JFK..to get southern votes. I know I was born and raised in one southern state and live in another. The South is going democratic again,hunger,unemployment, health care is knocking on the door, and they will see the pretense of the republican party is just what it is crap.

[ngGale]

29. Yes, there is hope for the South again so...

don't try and take it away. John Edwards has lots of appeal in the Carolina's. Mill towns are now 'dust pits' and I've always been a democrat. Not off topic, but there has been a lot hanky panky with the redistricting of the South especially in Dem. counties...

[surfermaw]

25. I am here, and my children are here and we have get up and go

Edwards speaks , plenty as to what is in the south, he is going to win the nomination...put your money on it.. I have 4 children who hold degrees from Carolina & some graduate degrees from State..so stop your silly mouth...I live on one of the most beautiful man made lakes in the nation, like to buy a couple of lots.

[NewJerseyDem]

27. We can't completely write off the south

If you just concede the 13 southern state (11 of the confederacy, Oklahoma and Kentucky) then there isn't much else left to deal with. The democrats only have New Hampshire, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia, Arizona and Nevada that can really be targeted for a pick up from 2000. We have a good shot at NH, OH, NV,and AZ but I think that MO is moving towards the republicans and so is West Virginia. That basically means that we have to only a few states to deal with and there is very little margin for error.

The democratic party isn't going to sweep the South any time soon and when Edwards points out that no democrat has won without at least 5 southern state he is just living in the past. However, Florida is clearly competitive and is moving towards the democratic party. It certainly should be targeted and it has 27 electoral votes that would be very helpful. Virginia is slowly moving towards the democrats and we can't just ignore it. Even if we don't win it this time we should spend some time there so we can further move it toward our column. Louisiana has shown some democratic strength and should be targeted as a long shot and so should Arkansas. While a southern nominee would help or at least a southern VP I think that they are still within reach if the ticket lacks a southerner. Tennessee appears to be pretty republican if Gore couldn't even win there and North Carolina voted heavily for Bush. The rest of the South is solidly republican for now and we should concede defeat there, but not the entire south. It is just too much of the country to not compete in.

[surfermaw]

31. Edward won the Senate and was 11 percent ahead when he decided not to run

He is winning in South Carolina by 50 percent..he will carry North Carolina, and has some connections to Georgia...the South is ready to wake up and vote for the party that brung them from the old South to the new South. You have got to remember in Charlotte North Carolina,half the county and town are Yankees.. Met this lady in a restaurant last week, she said she had been here for several years and we were the only native of North Carolina p she had met..actually I am from Georgia, my husbnd is a member of the first people to settle in this state.

Edwards Polls were showing him winning in N.C. by eleven points when he decided to run for President.

[NewJerseyDem]

38. He was polling under 50%

That means that he was vulnerable. The polls showed him beating a largely unknown congressman. People in a vast majority of the state never heard of Richard Burr so obviously Edwards is going to beat him in the poll if they didn't even know who the other guy was. And he was only winning by 8 percentage points according to Research 2000 in July of last year, so that is quite close.

He's winning the DEMOCRATIC primary in SC. That doesn't mean that he will beat Bush. Both of these states are pretty solidly republican and are very unlikely to vote for a democratic nominee no matter who it is. Arkansas, on the other hand, is competitive.

Charlotte is only one area. There is a lot more to North Carolina and those areas are voting for the republicans.

[michaud]

28. might as well

if kerry is the nominee

[ngGale]

30. Don't know of one person that likes Kerry in the South, but...

being a ABB, may have to take the blue pill. In the South the people are changing. Seeing through all the bull-crap that I myself keep telling people. Being used by Bush and company, I see light at the end of the tunnel. How hungry and jobless can people get without waking up?

[oscar111]

43. ABB? Blue pill?

Also, i am in the south, and love kerry.

Nice post, but i mystified by ABB.
oscar

[kid_nz]

32. I'm from the South...

...Florida, actually. The part of Florida that's REALLY 'southern'.

And I refuse to give up on it. Which is part of the reason a group of us started a new website with a different kind of approach to persuading people to use their heads and their votes this election.

Vote Your Conscience

I really think you can make a difference if you try persuading people in different ways. I'd like to get this website rolling and see what kind of impact it can make, anyway.

[rhite5]

33. I really like the e-cards idea!

That first one (upper left "Loyalty") brought tears to my eyes as it scanned the map and the music played .....

I played them all. They are all different.

btw - I think Goerring (sp?) was not head of Germany's armed forces. He was responsible for German domestic information (e.g. propaganda), not anything to do with the German military. Not sure what the title was, maybe Minister of Information? He would have had a role similar to Karl Rove's in the U.S. today.

Good luck! Those cards will be especially useful in the month before Nov. 2nd. But I think they COULD be used in Primary elections just to get more to participate. (Just hope they make good choices!)

(edited for sentence left out)

[kid_nz]

34. Great feedback!

I did some checking, though. And ONE of Goering's jobs while he was with Hitler was head of the armed forces (earlier on). But it's worth exploring what title has the best impact in the context of the card. Let me know if you think I should change it.

We're hoping that the site will get some legs and keep it's momentum through to November. I agree that the impact for this may still be early. But we wanted to get it out there and part of the election discussion. We wanted to stir it up a bit. Hopefully people will see that.

The other thing, I suppose, is adding a mailing list or discussion board. But honestly, I think maybe DU and places similar are better at that sort of thing...

Anyway, thanks again for the feedback! I'll pass it on...

[Kellanved]

35. nope

Göring was commander of the German Air Force and (later)of all German Forces .
That's as much as one could possibly have to do with the German military.
In addition he was minister of aviation, Prussian minister of the interior and the governor of Prussia. He was responsible for the first concentration camps.


The person you're referring to is Goebbels. His title was "Reichsminister für Volkaufklärung und Propaganda", or "Imperial minister for public education and propaganda "

:hi:

[kid_nz]

37. ahh... I see...

You seem to have some info that we didn't get. I'll get the team to change the card, but can you point me to some reference that we can use for corroboration? When we looked it up online, (from what we thought was a credible source) 'head of armed forces' was what we got. So if you could help us out, that would be great!

Thanks for keeping us honest & legit!

[Kellanved]

39. well

To be honest, I must have overlooked the reference on your site (which looks great BTW). Anyway 'head of armed forces' is a perfectly correct description of Göring.

This looks pretty complete, just minor inaccuracies in the translation of the titles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_G%F6ring

And the other guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels

[kid_nz]

40. Wow. Great.

We've made a change to the Goering card now. It says, "founder and head of Adolf Hitler's Gestapo". Even if the occasional viewer doesn't know what the Gestapo actually was (:eyes:), it still sounds scary enough.

Appreciate your help, thanks!

[rhite5]

41. My mistake. I reversed the two names. However .....

the quotation seems the same or similar to one I have seen attributed to the Minister of Propaganda. (of course that attribution could have been a mistake!). Anyway, Thanks! It's important to get the facts in our memory banks straight. :)

Kellanved, the reference on the site is in the middle card in bottom row, ("Danger").

[brainwashed_youth]

36. don't write us off man

Hey, the south is a big place with alot of voters, don't write us off. The last 4(i think) presidents have been from the south. However, my suggestion for the south is campaigning in a few key states, mainly Georiga, Florida, and the Virginias. But hey, that's just my opinion.

[JohnnyFianna1]

46. No subject

Too many Democrats in general write off the South. My Louisianan grandfather (who thinks the Roosevelt's and Nixon are the greatest Presidents in history) always votes Democratic. As for the south being racist, there is some truth to this (though it's a huge and dangerous stereotype. Do you know why Roosevelt is viewed as the greatest president ever in the south? Simple, he was great, and he ignored civil rights issues up till 1944, when his personal conversations with Truman talk of cutting off the more conservative South from the Democratic Party (conservatives like Limbaugh like to point out that these personal conversations also reveal that he was having an affair) and making he civil rights movement an "important issue." His failure to do this makes him a great among almost everyone who can remember him, remember that anyone who opposed the changes he made probably wasn't around before he made helped bring about the "New Deal." Alas, great men die young and seem to always have affairs with multiple women. Ironically they have great wives, Eleanor, Jackie, and Hillary to name a few. This brings us to Lyndon Johnson. LBJ sweeps the country, and it looks like the entire country has agreed with the progressive dream (this is the final nail in the coffin for paleo-conservatives by the way). Then, he signs the civil rights act. The Democratic Party NEVER wins more than 2 southern states without running a southerner, EVER.
Paul Mulshine, a favorite Conservative columnist of mine, points out that there are very few actual Non-neo conservatives in the South, maximizing personal liberties, opposing handouts, those people have all fled to the libertarian party. Instead they've have been replaced by religious, Neo, and racist conservatives that we've all come to know an loathe.
From this we an learn a few lessons. First, the conservative movement in the south is dead. It died when the Roosevelts' made it obsolete and Herbert's "government shouldn't interfere with anything except morals was proved obsolete there is no use trying to pretend that we are conservative because there is NO paleo or neo conservative policy we can compromise on without abandoning our core values. Second, we can use the libertarian movement to split the Republican party, emphasize the Second Amendment, and try to propose as little reform as possible. Because, for some reason, gun owners in general are well informed about issues that affect them, they will vote for the "handout" party if we maximize their personal liberties. This is probably the only way we can become truly compete in the South Third, if Bill Clinton (compromises by adopting social conservatism, though I think he is living proof that it doesn't work) was willing to make compromises and so should we. 2004 should not be one of those compromises. That year will be the next 1933 for us, either we can run a strong centrist candidate (John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean if he can cool off, Dennis Kucinich if he can break out of his 1-2% polling numbers, Wesley Clark) and govern like a liberal, set up for Hillary or Gore in 2012 (who will truly put the progressive dream forward). Or we can vote Nader. Let's go with Nader. sarcasm

[Mikhale]

45. The Bigot-Base

Writing off the South means that the Bushite Regime of Prince George the Usurper is able to ignore it too. Finding a message which pushes buttons in the South means that * has to actively appeal to his bigoted base in the South (especially with the Massachusetts ruling in play). Now think about *'s prejudiced comments being aired everywhere else in the country. Enjoy that visual.
Only Dennis Kucinich is in a position to take up the attack on full GLBT rights anywhere in the country. None of that half-*ssed civil unions bull. No seperate but equal, thanks. That stuff won't fly in Massachusetts, so it's irrelevant. It's an issue; get smart and make it THE issue.
Go Dennis!

[UncleJoe]

47. Let's face it: southern conservatives are scum

Okay, I'm gonna fo further than most people here and say I'd rather lose in 2004 than win by being sinking so low we get the votes of Southern conservatives. They're not dumb - they know the Repugs dont give a **** about them. But they still vote against their own interests because they want to hurt blacks and GLBTs. They can't lynch any more, so they are WILLING TO ACCEPT lousyt or no healthcare and poor education just to see things made worse for the blacks.

Like Stanley Fish has said, everything Repugs say in the south is designed to appeal to racism: state's rights, tax cuts, illegitimacy, crime, education vouchers, even business regulation or agriculture subsidies.

Is that the kind of support we want? Is that the kind of support we can win without the party losing its soul? The first post was damn right. **** the south. Lincoln should have finished the job.