Whistling Past Dixie: should or could Democrats try to win White House without South?

[yurbud]

I just saw an advertisement for this book over at Buzzflash:

the South is no longer the "swing" region in American politics -- it has swung to the Republicans. Most of the South is beyond the Democrats' reach, and what remains is moving steadily into the Republican column. The twin effects of race and religion produce a socially conservative, electorally hostile environment for most Democratic candidates. What's wrong with Kansas is even more wrong in the South, where cultural issues matter most to voters.


Yet far too many politicians and pundits still subscribe to the idea that Democrats must recapture the South. This southern nostalgia goes beyond sentimentality: It is a dangerously self-destructive form of political myopia which, uncorrected, will only relegate the Democrats to minority-party status for a generation. The notion that Democrats should pin their hopes for revival on the tail of a southern donkey is no less absurd than witnessing the children's variant of the party game, for both involve desperate attempts to hit elusive targets while wandering around blindfolded.

Meanwhile, political attitudes and demographic changes in other parts of the country are more favorable to Democratic messages and messengers. The Midwest and Southwest are the nation's most competitive regions. There are opportunities to expand Democratic margins in the Mountain red states while consolidating control over the reliably blue northeastern and Pacific coast states. Before dreaming of forty-nine-state presidential landslides like those of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, the Democrats ought to first figure out how to win twenty-nine states. And that means capturing Arizona -- or even Alaska -- before targeting Alabama.


Republicans cannot win without the South, Schaller argues, but they also can't win with the South alone. Much as Democrats were confined to the South for decades prior to the New Deal, the Democrats should South but little else. After winning and governing successfully elsewhere, Democrats can then present their record of achievement to the South -- the nation's most conservative region, but one that is steadily assimilating with the politics of the rest of America and, therefore, will become more competitive in the future.

http://www.buzzflash.com/store/reviews/743

I have mixed feelings about this at best, but wonder what others think.

[IndianaJones]

1. the South is not needed to win the election. Nor should it be courted. nt.

[bunkerbuster1]

21. Some states in the South will come around. We don't have to pander to them.

If "playing to the South" is code for "hatin' on Teh Ghey," then fuck playing to the South.

However, I believe that demographics being what they are, my home state of GA will not remain Red for all that long. Very many transplants from the Northeast, LOTS of Hispanic immigrants (those who are undocumented workers can't vote, but their kids will be able to in a few years), and there's always the 30% or so who are African American and just need to be motivated to register and vote.

[BOSSHOG]

2. So you don't want my vote?

[yurbud]

4. I do. I'm wondering what others think

[BOSSHOG]

6. I do not think any state or region should be conceded

Place more emphasis in the state's with large electorates but totally ignore a state or region because of its past? I will vote (once again) straight party democrat when the time comes but if the DNC says fuck the south, I might have to fuck back.

[Hand]

3. 50-state strategy!

It worked in 2006, it can work even better in 2008. Doc Dean has it right, IMHO. :toast:

[dmallind]

9. I agree

50 states are there. 50 states vote. We run in all of them. You don't have to put a confederate flag on your gun-racked campaign pickup and talk about "heritage" to try to win the south. The south has unemployment. The south has a need for medical coverage. The south has trouble making ends meet. The south is losing their share (actually a lot more!) of lives in this pointless war of choice - like all regions. You compete in the south on those issues. Do you win? Probably not too often this time. Maybe - big maybe - Tennessee or NC - but unlikely to see any blue on the deep south map. But you sure as hell don't abandon, and it's not a zero sum game. Our candidate will NOT be short of cash this cycle - we know that for sure. It's not like we have to choose between chasing unlikely Mississippi and chasing doable Missouri, at least in 08. Abandoning the south means less money from the south too. Cash comes in from campaign events just as it flows out. Now no you don't spend as much in Georgia as you do in Ohio - that's silly. They are not as winnable and not as valuable either. But you sure as hell go to Georgia, and advertise in Georgia, and organize in Georgia.

[Selatius]

5. If you can win Ohio and Florida, you can forget about most other southern states.

The south, on a county by county basis, is shades of purple when we look at election results, but we don't count votes by the popular vote. We count Electoral Votes, in a winner-take-all system. The winner-take-all system ensures votes for the minority party are automatically disenfranchised, such as states like Mississippi with 55-45 spreads in favor of Republicans.

I'm saying this as a Mississippian. This is why I favor abolition of the Electoral College forever.

[BOSSHOG]

8. So how come the DNC, DSCC, DCCC don't forget us when it comes to soliciting money?

I'm a Mississippian too my friend and the abolition of the electoral college is a great idea. haley and trent and thad were down the road at Stennis yesterday breaking ground on a new test stand. Oh we were so blessed.

[Selatius]

13. As far as money goes in pay-to-play politics, you need all the cash you can get.

Donating money can still help the DSCC, the DCCC, and the umbrella DNC in other parts of the country, even if the Electoral College system disenfranchises your vote here at home. Until the College is abolished in favor of the popular vote, this won't change significantly.

[KingFlorez]

11. I agree

[David__77]

7. Southern Democrats need to focus on voter registration.

I don't think that the core thing should be running TV ads or anything like that - the main thing is to mobilze people to lay the infrastructure for future victories as old Dixie is diluted over time.

[Xipe Totec]

10. I don't agree with the premise

I think the South is a naturally democratic constituency; it is up to the Democratic party to return to its populist roots to capture it.

The South is giving up on Republican corruption and empty promises.

Red states have held their breath so long, they are turning blue.

[BOSSHOG]

14. You are right my friend

because residents of southern states sure as hell haven't benefited from the christian conservative gop. Is sad but usually all a republican has to do is say "values" over and over again to win an election.

[Selatius]

15. And that's the problem, gays and abortion and guns as wedge issues

They would naturally vote Democratic if it weren't for Republicans doing that, and the Repubs will never stop it with the wedge issues; they've got nothing else to work on.

[Johonny]

27. I agree

What's wrong with Kansas is even more wrong in the South, where cultural issues matter most to voters.

The southern states have to often recently been swayed to vote based on cultural non-issues like you list. If the Dems could control get a campaign year that actually focused on real cultural issues, then they would win these voters hand over fist.

[wuushew]

12. Kerry + IA + OH

maybe NV and NM too.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. At a presidential level, the whistling past dixie approach is good

It's not inconsistent with the 50 state approach. We should still build a robust organization in the south to win local and state races. A conservative dem senator is less a handicap to a progressive president than is a conservative repub senator.

The presidential candidates don't need to pander to people who won't vote for them anyway.

Before passing judgment on the strategy, it's important to read the book.

... which you can do, if I can finish it and get it back to the library. :)

[BlooInBloo]

17. We don't need the south. The south needs us. Fuck em. Our policies...

... will be good for them, so there's simply no need for us to so much as acknowledge their existence campaign-wise.

*Convincing* people to not vote for evil? Fuck that. They should want to avoid that without convincing. But they don't. So fuck 'em.


EDIT: I'm speaking purely about Presidential politics. For Congress, yah, go for each and every one. Out with the evil, in with the slightly-more-reasonable. One day, the south will have good people in office. (Let a guy dream)

[IndianaJones]

20. truth. nt.

[TahitiNut]

18. Would the South vote for a Democratic ticket without a Southerner if the GOP has one?

Puzzling. Just what 'requirements' exist to gain support in the SOuth?

[bunkerbuster1]

22. Patience.

That's the only requirement to gain support in the South. As currently configured, the former Confederacy (save Florida) is mostly a write-off in the Presidential elections. It won't always be that way, but for now it is.

And there's no reason to go nuts about it. (Nor should we ignore a bunch of Congressional districts in play).

It will come around; I don't think the much-ballyhooed religious right will ever have more power than they have right now.

[IDemo]

19. I would bet there is a much better chance of picking up any southern state

than my neon red one here in the Mountain West. "Opportunities to expand Democratic margins" may exist some places, but Idaho makes a good argument for a 49-state strategy.

[yurbud]

25. isn't it also the whitest state in the union?

[IDemo]

26. Maine or Vermont, depending on which Google result you believe

[Bill McBlueState]

23. This is why the electoral college sucks.

If we had a direct election for President, we could campaign everywhere for the votes of Democrats and other progressives. We'd get liberals in Athens and Atlanta to vote for us, and the rest of Georgia wouldn't matter so much.

Instead, we have to tweak our message five thousand different ways in order to get a majority to vote for us in enough states. What an artificial, anti-democratic construction.

[marions ghost]

24. Dunno

Isn't it a toss-up between the Midwest/Rocky Mountain zone and The South right now? I'd say both regions can do better than expected for the Dems after the disastrous reign of the Bushbutts. It's somewhat unpredictable. I mean if Freedom Fries Jones can come off the kool-aid...anybody can. "Courting" the South may not be as important as convincing the whole country than ANYBODY is going to change ANYTHING. There's a pessimistic mindset out there. The Dems chances are good because of Repug failures. This regional thing has suddenly become rather academic IMO. Volatile situation.

I'd also like to see the evidence for the South "moving steadily into the Republican column." Guess it's in the book. There are a lot of newcomers in the South and I'd like to know for a fact how their voting breaks down at this point. Many from the Northeast seemed to be R when they got to the South and voted in 2000, while those from California seem to register D or I more often. That's just anecdotal observation from having been a registrar. Nothing definitive. I'd like to know how much migration affects the South now, for 2008 implications.

[Aristus]

28. Stick with Dean's proven 50-State strategy.

Treat the Southern States like all the others: as one among fifty. No state more important than any other. Let the Repukes squander their money in Ohio and Florida. Let's pick up all the others.

[wuushew]

30. The "Dean strategy" has never been tried at a Presidential level.

n/t

[flaminbats]

29. everyone suffers when one party has a monopoly..

everyone..blacks and whites suffered when Democrats used segregation to control the south until the 60's, and everyone..black, white, and hispanic voters will suffer if Republicans go unchallenged in the south.

I know many new Democrats, who once became Republicans when they were young. some of these voters considered politicians like Tom Murphy, John Stennis, and the Talmadges to be nothing more than fundamentalist, money laundering crooks! now many of these older Republicans are returning to our party in droves. most of the younger white males are fanatical Republican neocons who never understood the New Deal. but my Republican grandfather..who backed Democrats like Ellis Arnall and Carl Sanders until the 60's, recently attended a local Democratic meeting for the first time in decades!

minorities make up the base of our party in the south, while older white males and women of all ages are now the swing voters of the south. most of these older swing voters don't want Republicans like Sonny Perdue and Saxby Chambliss to have the power and ineluctable control in the south that DINOs like the Talmadges and Strom Thurmond once had! southern women, regardless of age and race, are in sync with Democrats on nearly every issue. I realize a 50 state strategy isn't practical for winning the White House. yet in state and Congressional elections..a 50 state strategy is the least we can do to guarantee that our party doesn't just dissolve even as growing numbers, frustrated with the incumbents, seek an alternative they can turn to in future elections.