"Do Democrats need the South?"

[Crankie Avalon]

Do Democrats need the South?
The party is doing fine, winning the Northeast, the West and the Midwest. So why is James Carville still pushing a Southern strategy?
By Tom Schaller

Nov. 14, 2006 | If you look at a map of the 2006 election, you'll notice that the blue wave actually has a huge red Southern hole in it.

Five of the six Senate seats the Democrats picked up were outside the South. Five of the six new Democratic governors are from outside the South. Of the 30 or so House seats that Democrats wrested from Republicans, only five were Southern -- and two of those were gifts. Both Republican candidates were defending seats that had been held by disgraced pariahs –- Mark Foley and Tom DeLay –- and both were forced by the quirks of electoral law to run as write-ins. They still almost won.

The most telling races, however, were those in Tennessee and Georgia. In Tennessee, the Democrats fielded a nearly perfect Senate candidate, a smart, seasoned, well-financed congressman with strong name identification. Harold Ford Jr. ran hard to the right, talking incessantly about how powerful "my Jesus" was, filming a campaign ad in a church, boasting that he was pro-life, denouncing the New Jersey same-sex marriage ruling, and wearing a camouflage hunting cap on Election Day. He lost. In Georgia, in a year when Democrats enjoyed an advantage of more than 7 percent in the national vote for all House races, the Democrats in Georgia's 8th and 12th districts were only a few hundred votes away from becoming the only incumbents in their party to lose their jobs on Election Day.

Why, then, would James Carville respond to the 2006 election by offering Harold Ford a new job teaching Democrats how to win? Ford tried to woo the Southern white voter, and since that's the model Carville and much of the rest of the Democratic Party has pursued doggedly since the 1990s, Carville wants him to replace Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean. But the camo-capped Ford failed in his hunt for NASCAR man, and there's little evidence that the model works anyway. If anything, Election Day 2006 was striking proof that it does not. Perhaps Carville, a man with a vested interest in the Southern strategy, doesn't want to admit that it's a relic of another century, and that the Democrats might be better off without it...

More: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/11/14/no_south/print.html

[SCDem]

1. 50 State Strategy

What about Shuler's win in NC?
What about the 2 Democratic strongholds in SC with Spratt and Clyburn?
What about when Elizabeth Dole's seat is up? Should we not put the strongest Dem candidate in there and successfully reclaim that seat?

I believe in Dean's 50 State Strategy - We should be trying to build the party everywhere.

[rpannier]

5. Gotta agree with you

Saying we don't need the south, puts us back onto the road of saying we can't win Montana, Utah, Arizona, Kansas, etc. Same concept new locations.
Winning is more than the Senate and the House. It's Governor races, state houses, mayor races, etc

We need to be a national Party and that means challenging for as many seats in as many areas at as many levels as possible. If 'Dog Catcher' is on the ballot then I want a Democrat running.

[TomClash]

2. Plus Ford used the wrong strategy

You can't "out-right" the Republicans. The only strategy for getting southern white voters is economic populism, which incidently should appeal to low and middle income African-Americans and other minorities as well.

[demnan]

3. I like your answer

I haven't investigated that Senate race, but I can tell you something about NASCAR Dads - they know a phoney when they see one. You don't have to be just like them to get their vote either. Virginia and Missouri proved that.

[Hav]

4. .

Maybe we don't "need" the South (we would have won with Ohio in 2004) but it surely wouldn't hurt being competitive there. Even if it only meant that the Repubs have to waste some ressources there.

[9119495]

8. You beat me to it. I think our attitude should be "NO! but we'll

take it anyway."

Our Southern DU folks work hard to convince their neighbors we represent their interests and it may soon pay off. If not, we should be able to send the republicans further into the wilderness.

[SCDem]

9. Populism works in the South

and the Democrats were successful in the south when they ran on populism. I do believe the Republicans tried to trump the populism effort with their own "values" voters. But clearly that failed when people finally realized their only value is winning and power. Populism can win the South. We just need to work hard and not stop for a minute.

[9119495]

11. I agree...but there is a history of that failing

Okay, Im' going back a bit (but then I am a historian so forgive me), but when the Populist party tried to take off in the late 1800s and early 1900s it was done in by old sectionalism concerns. For example, the South still had concerns about race, an anti-Northern attitude and thus ended up voting Democratic instead of Populist Party. Of course the Dems then were so different from now, but the point is still the same. I would think we should try economic populism in the South. Hell, it is working in Montana--look at Tester's brilliant message. He got many votes for his defense of the middle class. But if it fails, I do think that there is no point to "out righting" the right.

I hope Cleland goes after Chambliss in 08 with the very type of campaign you describe.

[KKKarl is an idiot]

6. My disappoinment

in this election was the conservative democrats. They won in states like VA & MT but they have values that have to pander to their constituents. Time for the real democratic party to stand up. We do not need repubs diguised as democrats. I really see no reason for the democratic party needing the south. The only swing states in future presidential elections are going to be OH & FL. I know Florida is in the South but over the years it has been heavily populated by people from the North. So that is all they need.

[whistle]

7. Do you mean all of those truck stop Glory Hole Booths? Uhmmm!

[Dhalgren]

10. There are three things that make it very hard to win in the South

if you want to be progressive and honest: ignorance, bigotry, and fundamentalism. That is a killer triad to get past. The Republicans do it by blatantly lying and hoodwinking the simps and by co-opting through greed those who actually know better. There is a hard shell of callousness in the South, a cruelty that is barely beneath the surface; I see it every day. I hear it in the snide, race-baiting and cold indifference to the suffering of anyone deemed "the other". I would like to say that we could actually sway the population down here with the Truth, but I don't believe it. If we are willing to stoop to lying and pandering, then maybe, but if we want to be honest and above board and work for the improvement of all citizens' lives, then I don't see it happening...

[loyalsister]

12. I think the larger question is "should Democrats care about winning in the south?"

My answer would be a resounding yes! It is a multicultural, inclusive approach to America.
I think Democrats need to prove to the south that they care what they think.
Democrats need to be invested and interested in every piece of the country not just the parts that they are sure will help them elected.