Maybe the Democrats don't even need the South anymore

[Keseys Ghost]

From TalkLeft:

Maybe there's something I don't get about how special the South is. And that serves as a segue into talking about Tom Schaller's book, "Whistling Past Dixie". It's a point to which a southerner might reply as "typical yankee shit". It's a rather remarkable book though, using statistics to make the case that Democrats can win a majority without the south. And that's probably true, but it's Schaller's first recomendation on "The Path to a National Democratic Majority", that Democrats define the south in the most denigrate ways, to run against the south for an enduring majority, that is morally and strategically wrong.

http://www.talkleft.com/

[NoodleBoy]

1. no matter what, every region needs us

On the surface, it just seems a little arrogant to say "screw this region," but on the other side of it, you're saying, "you know what? we should give up trying to give these people a living wage or affordable health care, or protecting them from predatory corporate interests, because well, it's just too hard to get them to be as (insert one: pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-union, OR (not and) pro-sane international policies) as me and I like sleeping in on the weekends so I can't be bothered to knock on my neighbors doors or organize my block so I'm going to give up."

[wake.up.america]

4. It is a matter of education. Showing people that being a die hard...

Republican red neck is not to their advantage should be the approach.

[Syrinx]

2. And I'm here to say the South needs the Democrats

And I'm in love with Howard Dean's fifty-state strategy. Make the Republic bastards fight for every vote and every position they get.

By the way, in Alabama's third congressional district, challenger Greg Pierce got 41% of the vote against incumbent Mike Rogers. And Pierce had NO money, no political experience, and no support from the DCCC or the DNC. With just a little bit of financial and campaign support, Pierce could have taken that seat for humanity.

[DixieBlue]

14. I really don't understand why the Repubs don't

fight harder for Alabama's 3rd. It's a House District that could easily be won if the Dems would sink some money into it. They abandoned one candidate in the last weeks of the race two or three election cycles ago, then the election before this one gave virtually no support to the candidate.

I would hope, in my idealistic little heart, that no region would be written off. How are we ever supposed to heal our nation if we continue to say this region's a no-go and that region's where we have to go.

I'm with you, I really like Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy. Alabama might be red, but that doesn't mean Repubs shouldn't work for the vote or that Democrats can't win here. Look at the state legislature, it's been dominated by Dems for years.

[DixieBlue]

18. The above subject line is supposed to read "Dems"

not Repubs. That's what I get for posting on no coffee.

[Erika]

3. Chambliss from Georgia lost Agriculture to Harkin in Iowa

and a certain loss of subsidies to the South when the committees change. As Charlie Rangel said, Mississippi, has taken in far more federal money than they've paid. The South needs to pick up on the messages.

[loyalsister]

5. hmmmmm

As a friend of some southern split ticket voters, I would say "typical yankee shit" is about right.

Along with our gain in the Senate.

This time, Republicans lost 5 outstate districts deats (a few in southern districts)and 2 Senate seats. They also had several races come in closer than might have been expected.

Voters are clearly ready to forgive the Democratic party here to some extent. It changes the dynamic nationally and within Missouri which is sort of a Southern state in parts.
There is still loyalty to Republicans but the fact that Dems have been forgiven in any way is significant.
For dems to show disregard for that step however small it is would be a monumental devaluation of voters that have moved towards them.

Democrats should care about these voters.

[jaysunb]

6. We never did, but

what's really needed is honest dialog.
Poor Southerners need to be publicly educated about the consequences of their actions....Their children will continue to receive a poor education, whether it's home schooling, Christian Academy's, or poorly funded integrated public schools.
They will continue to be in need of health care at clinics designed for and staffed by African American doctors.
They need to be apprised of the fact that, tax cuts mean nothing to those making less than 200K a year.

In other words...we're all in this together, and , their " way of life " is antiquated and out of step with reality.

[whirlygigspin]

7. catapult the propaganda

What the South needs is more Liberal and Progressive radio, so they can get something else besides Rush Limpballs and the Hallelujia chorus.

[eridani]

8. Ignoring progressives and Dems in the South is just plain wrong

Let's here it one more time for the 50 state strategy.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. As far as the 2008 electoral vote is concerned, I am tending to think that way, BUT...

I am by no means interested in giving up on the south in the long term. I am a big supporter of Dr. Dean's 50 state strategy and 50 states means 50 states, including the south. Some states will just take a little longer than others.

Also, in the short term I'd be very interested to see how Virginia goes in the next election after Webb's victory out of nowhere.

[sandnsea]

10. It's a strategic mistake

You can't win a war when you abdicate whole swaths of the battlefield. We need to be fighting in the south for the simple reason it forces Republicans to fight there too. In addition, when we make little wins like minimum wage or classroom size, it clarifies what people really think about the issues.

I feel like we've made a huge shift against Republicanism. We need to keep connecting the party with bad policies, and pushing further and further into red areas. I would like to see the main parties be between socially liberal globalists and traditional values populists. Republicans should get shoved off with the Constitution Party. We can't do that unless we're fighting in the south.

[Major Hogwash]

11. Shelby used to be a Democrat, as did Zell Miller.

So, the real question is - why did the South leave the Democratic party?

[Tesha]

12. Racism. Fear of women and gays. Fear of being castrated via gun control. NT

[Bridget Burke]

15. A Southerner--LBJ--lost the South for the Democrats....

When he pushed Civil Rights through.

But he didn't think it was permanent. Neither do I.

[greeneggs708]

13. Oh God

Is this all we got. Maybe we don't any more left handers. Can we get rid of all red heads. How about Catholics, should we burn them at the stake.


Democrats cannot govern. They can only fight and divide.

So if all Dems don't agree with your great civil war plan.

Will you go running to Nader, Gulliani.

[slackmaster]

16. Not this crap again

:argh:

[karynnj]

17. It depends what you mean

The 50 state policy makes sense as there are potencially blue areas in all red states. Getting a congressional seat or even local city/town level offices is important. This last election showed this - there were wins in areas that were not likely to be promising.

For the Presidency, though it is unlikely that we will take Alabama unless there's a complete landslide - in which case Alabama is extra as opposed to needed. In any election, the candidate's time and money will be scarce resources. Whoever the candidate is in 2008, if a strategic decision most be made to put the candidate in Alabama for a day or in Colorado or Missouri, the latter two would win as they are states that are almost swing states - 2004 (or now swing states, 2006).

These two views are not contradictory and they need to done together. For the national race, the 50 state policy (even without the Presidential candidate) will lead to increased turnout in the red states. This improves the chance of winniong the popular vote, which is important even though it doesn't determine the election.

Notice the Republicans are not concerned with whether something plays in Massachusetts. They would though be concerned if it couldn't play in ME(which they think of like I positioned MO for us) or PA.