In 1940, FDR ran on the New Deal. The South was so upset with socialism they voted for him

[Catherina]

In 1940, FDR ran on the New Deal. The South was so upset with *socialism* that they only gave him 78% of the vote.

[Skwmom]

1. Good post but I'd tailor your headline. 60% only read the headline. n/t

[Catherina]

2. Better now?

Thanks

[olddots]

3. wow things have changed

hard to undetstand .

[arcane1]

103. The Southern Strategy convinced white people that those New Deal programs benefit non-white people

Suddenly, those programs lost popularity in the South. Even today, that pattern holds: oppose any form of social spending because the "wrong" people benefit.

[HooptieWagon]

4. What a cool find!

And a bit more info...in case people forgot, white southerners had been solidly Democratic and conservative since the Civil War. So those are southern conservatives supporting New Deal socialism. AAs were solidly Republican, but Jim Crow laws were still in effect then, and they were often blocked from registering or voting.

[bvar22]

6. ...Then how do you explain this?

Share the Wealth

[appalachiablue]

17. +1. Populism and progressivism grew in the south & midwest in the 1880s even before H. Long.

Among small farmers, merchants and others, populist discontent rose against the banks, railroads, industrialists and monopolies who were exploiting and ripping off the common man.

People need to study more real history. Duh.

[appalachiablue]

5. K & R a zillion! Do Not Underestimate Bernie Sanders.

[enid602]

7. Excellent point

Excellent point you raise. But remember, in 11/32 we were in rhe midst of the greatest depression the country had ever experienced. Not so today. That's why Bernie hasn't a snowbsll's chance in the genersl election.

[reformist2]

9. Watch the stock market... when it crashes, Bernie's appeal may grow even more.

[enid602]

11. end of the world scenarios

I think either the long promised stock market crash or the rapture would certainly affect the election. I would not count on either.

[reformist2]

18. The stock market charts look very sick indeed. A Dow below 10,000 by election day is likely, imo.

[okojo]

22. No it is not..

The US economy is in pretty good shape, foreign investment is still strong, there is nothing to show that the big red flags with the US economy right now, compare to 2008..

[reformist2]

37. There's a saying, the chart never lies. And it just rolled over. It's pointing down now.

[Capn Sunshine]

84. As a Trader, we have a saying

" A trend , and chart, are always right ----until they aren't"

[JDPriestly]

24. Actually, not end of the world. Actually, right now.

College graduates living in vans or their parents' homes because they can't get jobs that pay enough to support renting an apartment.

The layoffs and unemployment are much higher than the official statistics indicate.

The recession is still continuing. That's why the Fed is not raising interest rates.

The rich get richer by paying Americans sub-livable wages and then renting (that is loaning) money to those who try to live on the sub-livable wages. It is not a pretty reality in low-income neighborhoods, working class neighborhoods like mine.

Los Angeles is raising its minimum wage to $15 per hour over a period for a reason: you can't live here on less than that.

The average Social Security benefit is and I quote:

$1,294 average monthly benefit

http://www.ssa.gov/news/press/basicfact.html

That's less than $7.50 per hour if you figure a 40 hour week for 52 weeks or 2080 hours per year.

And that is just the beginning on how bad the discrepancies in incomes are in this country. Add the joblessness, not the official figures, but what is really going on is hurting an entire generation, discouraging them, making them very nervous. No matter how hard they work or what they do, the jobs, the good paying jobs are very hard to get.

And Bernie is doing well.

All I can say, is when I wear my Bernie pin, what I hear is, "Oh, I love Bernie, but he can't win."

When you hear that over and over, you realize that, yes, people love Bernie, and because they love him, he can win.

It's a matter of our motivating voters to vote what they want and not what naysayers tell them they should vote.

Wages are too low. Jobs are too hard to get.

The Fed's policies back that up. It's not my imagination.

Bernie has solutions to the problems we face. Hillary is not conservative enough to win the Republican vote, not liberal and fired-up enough to get Democrats out to vote.

Bernie can win and I think he will.

[Moonwalk]

10. It's not an excellent point. They were dems voting for a democrat....

...now the South is not so uniformly Democrat Of course, they might well vote for Bernie because of his record on supporting gun ownership....or not because he's not Christian.

[eridani]

49. For the 99%, the recession never ended. Almost all income gains since--

--have gone to the 1%.

[Vincardog]

54. Tell the tens of millions of under and un-employed how well se are doing. Tell the seniors who have

Had their retirements stolen, that is why Bernie Sanders will win in a landslide.

[Catherina]

59. The only point is that people will indeed vote for New Deals despite the MSM's fearmongering

against *socialism* and *socialist programs*. That's all.

People are really hurting again today and looking for something different. The status quo won't cut it no matter how prettily the MSM and the corporate Dems repackage it. FDR went into the race with Henry Wallace, a VP the corporate dems hated because of his dreaded *socialist* sympathies.

It didn't work then and it won't work now. If you were closer, I'd wager you a dinner on this.

The person who doesn't have a snowball's chance in the general is Hillary Clinton.

[DavidDvorkin]

8. They weren't voting for socialism

They were voting for a Democrat.

[Duppers]

14. Yep. They vote party 1st, person 2nd, and policy...what's that?

As with W, they don't nuance...well, not much at all.



Note to other southern DUers: I was born and grew up here, y'all.

[jfern]

12. That maps shows socialism doesn't play well in Vermont. :P

[Moonwalk]

13. Of course, they made sure FDR's socialism only benefited whites...

When FDR tried to get Southern congressional represenative to vote for his programs, they refused until he made sure that they were whites only. So, for example, a man could get government assistance unless he worked in agriculture or as a domestic. As, in the south, the majority of such workers were black, they were excluded from any government assistance. It all went to the white folks.

The southern represenatives refused to vote for FDR's programs until he agreed to this. And he did, to get them passed. So, his socialism was...well, not so socialist. It benefited only a certain part of the population.

So, here's the queston: assuming the south would vote for a socialist again, would the represenatives in congress from those states pass his programs without alteration so they benefited all? Keep in mind that a lot of those reps are currently rrepublicans and teabaggers.

I'm only saying that getting the presidency is the beginning of the battle. It's not an instant victory.

[Duppers]

15. That's why I'm donating to Dems outside my district and state.

We've gotta change Congress, folks.

[Moonwalk]

38. Agreed. A president can do quite a bit with an intractable congress (as Obama has), but...

...it's very hard, and slow, and accomplishments are a great deal less.

[iandhr]

16. Jim Crow was still in full force then. Big difference.

[gladium et scutum]

104. As Long

As Roosevelt was willing to allow Jim Crow to reign in the South, the Southern Democrats were quite willing to vote his way. The President was willing to allow Jim Crow to continue its grip on life in the South. Southern Democrats voted for the New Deal.

[bobclark86]

19. Yup, all those Democrats...

Like this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace



Or this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond


Short list of stupid things to do at election time: Bring up, hint at or even vaguely allude to anything about Dixiecrats.

BTW, absolutely hilarious you have MLK in your tag line while posting this map -- he was a Republican being arrested by Democratic cops.

[TM99]

51. If you think the OP is not personally

aware of the affects of institutionalized racism in the US, then you are simply not paying attention.

[bobclark86]

62. Judging by how they trumpet Southern Democrats in the 1940s...

It's apparent they aren't.

[Catherina]

68. "trumpet Southern Democrats in the 1940s"

Sorry, that interpretation is just too dumb.

People all over the US are going to vote for this New Deal v2. I'm sorry if that displeases you so much that you resort to false accusations.

[NuclearDem]

88. Who the hell needs context?

Let's just ignore that the South had been solidly blue since Reconstruction, Wilkie being a weak candidate, nationwide revulsion against the party of Hoover, FDR favoring isolation over intervention in Europe, and FDR agreeing to look the other way on lynchings and civil rights violations in the South.

Sorry, this interpretation that the 1940s Jim Crow South primarily supported FDR because of the New Deal is just too dumb.

[TM99]

69. She is making a valid point

about the concept of 'socialism' and unelectability.

Way to miss it from an OP who is an African American herself.

[Uncle Joe]

56. A little more insight regarding George Wallace from your own link.

In the late 1970s, Wallace announced that he was a born-again Christian and apologized to black civil rights leaders for his past actions as a segregationist. He said that while he had once sought power and glory, he realized he needed to seek love and forgiveness.[note 2] In 1979, Wallace said of his stand in the schoolhouse door: "I was wrong. Those days are over, and they ought to be over."[3]

(snip)

During Wallace's final term as governor (1983–1987) he made a record number of black appointments to state positions,[56] including, for the first time, two black members in the same cabinet. This number has been equaled but never surpassed.

(snip)

During his final years, Wallace publicly recanted his racist views and asked for forgiveness from African Americans.[3][4]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1251&pid=608847

and from another.

A specter was haunting Charlotte over the past week: The specter of Shirley Chisholm, whose historic presidential campaign of 40 years ago was never mentioned (as far as I know) at this year’s Democratic National Convention. Beyond making occasional appearances in rap lyrics — which she almost certainly never heard — the church-lady-looking congresswoman from Brooklyn, N.Y., is a nearly forgotten figure in American political history, but one who casts a long and complicated shadow. On one side of the ledger, Chisholm is the unacknowledged grandma of today’s multiracial, multicultural, female-friendly Democratic Party, a direct antecedent to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. On the other side, Chisholm – and her unlikely friendship with segregationist George Wallace — represents a road not taken, a semi-impossible dream of activist, class-based, cross-racial, coalition politics that might, just might, have produced a much different America than the one we live in today.

Remarkably, there appears to be no scholarly or general-interest biography of Chisholm currently in print. I damn sure hope somebody is writing one. (You can find a reprint of her autobiography, “Unbought and Unbossed,” but that was originally published in 1970, before her presidential campaign.) Her Wikipedia entry is shockingly brief, poorly written and full of mistakes. Filmmaker Shola Lynch’s fine documentary “Chisholm ’72: Unbought & Unbossed” played on PBS in 2005, the year of Chisholm’s death, and went on to win a Peabody Award. But that film, which is available on DVD but not for on-demand or online viewing, remains the only coherent narrative account of Chisholm’s remarkable career and her 1972 campaign. Already the first African-American woman ever elected to Congress, Chisholm in that year became the first black person to run for a major party’s presidential nomination, and only the second woman. (Sen. Margaret Chase Smith of Maine had been a Republican candidate in 1964, running against Barry Goldwater’s Cold War extremism.)

(snip)

In video interviews conducted late in her life (which you can view in segments on YouTube), Chisholm reflected with bemusement on the unexpected outpouring of Alabamian love, and on the fact that arch-segregationist Alabama Gov. George Wallace, then a leading force in the Democratic Party’s right wing, had repeatedly expressed his admiration for her on the campaign trail. “For some strange, unknown reason, he liked me,” she said. “George Wallace went all over Florida [a state he would win overwhelmingly] and he said to the people, ‘If y’all can’t vote for me, don’t vote for those oval-headed lizards. Vote for Shirley Chisholm!’” (Presumably Wallace was describing his Northern liberal opponents.) Although Chisholm believed that Wallace’s remarks cost her votes in the Sunshine State among blacks who wondered whether she had made a secret covenant with a known racist cracker, she said she didn’t think the Alabama governor had any sinister or strategic intention.

It’s tempting to speculate about this phenomenon, which Chisholm herself said she wished she could understand. Did Wallace identify with Chisholm, on some level, as a political outsider who was sneered at by the Northeastern white establishment? Did he respond to her as a black woman who had good manners and did not raise her voice, and who may have reminded him of proper, churchgoing ladies he’d known growing up in the rural South? Did Chisholm – and this is the most seductive possibility – appeal to the better angels of Wallace’s nature? He had begun his career as a nonracist populist who opposed the Ku Klux Klan, and he would end it as a penitent integrationist. (By 1972, he already claimed to support voluntary integration, although he opposed school busing and his campaign was loaded with racial buzzwords.) But there was that long and dreadful detour in between into the politics of white supremacy, which would provide the Republican Party with a blueprint for Southern conquest.

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/09/shirley_chisholm_the_democrats_forgotten_hero/

[NuclearDem]

61. How does any of that relate to where George Wallace and the Dixiecrats

stood in 1940?

So what he asked for forgiveness almost 40 years later?

[Uncle Joe]

67. It relates to the notion that the South is static, doesn't change and can't be won

by the Democratic Party.

George Wallace changed 180 degrees and this was approximately 15 years before the revolutionary Internet came along and even longer before it became a major impact player.

[NuclearDem]

73. That's not evidence of changing voting trends.

That's one person recanting his views.

[Uncle Joe]

75. Here's another.

Byrd's seniority and leadership of the Appropriations Committee enabled him to steer a great deal of federal money toward projects in West Virginia.[9] Critics derided his efforts as pork spending[10] to appeal to his own constituents. He filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and supported the Vietnam War, but later backed civil rights measures and criticized the Iraq War.

(snip)

Ku Klux Klan[edit]
In the early 1940s, Byrd recruited 150 of his friends and associates to create a new chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in Sophia, West Virginia.[12][11]

According to Byrd, a Klan official told him, "You have a talent for leadership, Bob ... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation." Byrd later recalled, "Suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did."[12] Byrd became a recruiter and leader of his chapter.[12] When it came time to elect the top officer (Exalted Cyclops) in the local Klan unit, Byrd won unanimously.[12]

In 1946, Byrd wrote to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore G. Bilbo:[17]

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1946[12][18][19]
In 1946, Byrd wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard stating, "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."[20] However, when running for the United States House of Representatives in 1952, he announced "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." He said he had joined the Klan because he felt it offered excitement and was anti-communist.[12]

In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also warned, "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[21] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision — a jejune and immature outlook — seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[22] Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."[12]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

[NuclearDem]

77. For every one George Wallace or Robert Byrd who recanted

I can show you two Jesse Helms who went to their graves whistlin' Dixie.

Not that it really matters, because there's still a world of difference between not being a racist and voting for someone who identifies as a socialist.

[Uncle Joe]

82. Do you mean like this Evangelical Christian that has now become a Socialist Bernie activist

comparing him to John the Baptist?

An Evangelical pastoral counselor and Liberty University graduate posted a short sermon about Bernie Sanders' speech at Liberty University to reddit yesterday:

Bernie is the voice of Justice crying out in the desert. Evangelicals like me are convicted by his message. (audio, a little under 17 minutes)

reddit thread

He was convicting the Christian leaders and the religious leaders in that university, and calling us out for being complicit in the abandonment of those who suffer, the least of these, and siding with the powerful and rich, the masters of this world. And he was convicting us and calling us out, and we scorned him, and we stared him down; and, with sour faces, we thought, "Who is this wacko, and why do all these people seem to follow him, seem to like him – this wild-haired Jew, crying out from the wilderness of the political left, in his hoarse voice?"
When I heard Bernie speaking in that way, when I saw that guy on stage at Liberty University, I saw John the Baptist...crying out to the religious leaders, the Pharisees of his day, calling them corrupt and complicit with those who have all the power and all the money and all the wealth, and abandoning the people that God loves, that God cares about...
As I heard Bernie Sanders crying out to the religious leaders at Liberty University, in his hoarse voice, with his wild hair – this Jew – and he proclaimed justice over us, he called us to account, for being complicit with those who are wealthy and those who are powerful, and for abandoning the poor, the least of these, who Jesus said he had come to bring good news to. And in that moment something occurred to me. As I saw Bernie Sanders up there, as I watched him, I realized Bernie Sanders for president is good news for the poor. Bernie Sanders for president is Good News for the poor. Bernie Sanders is gospel for the poor. And Jesus said "I have come to bring gospel" – good news – "to the poor."
And lightning hit my heart at that moment. And I realized that we are evangelical Christians. We believe the Bible. We believe in Jesus. We absolutely shun those who would attempt to find nuance and twisted and tortured interpretations of scripture that they would use to master all other broader interpretations, to find some kind of big message that they want to flout. We absolutely scorn such things, and yet somehow we commit to the mental gymnastics necessary that allows us to abandon the least of these, to abandon the poor, to abandon the immigrants, to abandon those who are in prison.

I listened to Bernie Sanders as he said he wanted to welcome the immigrants and give them dignity, as he said he wanted to care for the sick children and mothers and fathers who do not have health care, as he said he wanted to decrease the amount of human beings who are corralled like cattle in the prisons, as he said he wanted to do justice for those who have nothing and live homeless. And I remembered the words of Jesus who warned his disciples that there will be judgement, and on that day he will look to his friends, and he will say "Blessed are you for you cared for me, for I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you cared for me, I was hungry and you fed me, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was in prison and you came to visit me, I was homeless and you gave me shelter." And his disciples said, "When did we do any of those things for you?" And he said, "If you have done it for the least of these, you have done it for me."

Those words echoed in my heart as I listened to that crazy, hoarse-voiced, wild-haired Jew standing in front of the religous leaders of the Evangelical Movement, calling us to account, as a Jew once did before, telling us that he intends to care for the least of these, to clothe the naked, to shelter the homeless, to care for the sick, to set the prisoners free.

I wouldn't be much of a Christian if I didn't stand on the side of gospel for the poor, because, the last time I checked, that's where my master Jesus stood, and I'll stand with Him. And, for now, that means I stand with Bernie Sanders.
I'm leaving out a lot here. I'd really recommend listening to the whole thing.
-----
Update: reddit user How_Suspicious has posted a complete transcript on the SanderForPresident subreddit. (I could have saved myself a lot of work.)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/16/1421659/-An-Evangelical-responds-to-Sanders-speech-at-Liberty-U

Bernie struck a nerve and apparently the Republicans are afraid.

Bernie Sanders Outrages Evangelical Republicans With The Idea Of A Socialist Jesus

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/17/christian-columnist-feel-bern-jesus.html

[bobclark86]

63. Because saying he's sorry makes up for...

all of the horrible things he and other white southern Democrats did, like blocking desegregation, interfering with black voter registration, etc.

[Uncle Joe]

70. The post has nothing to do with that, it signifies the human spirit's ability to change even for

the most hardcore segregationists.

It also serves as an example of how people viewing an entire region of the nation as being static or unchanging are mistaken in writing it off, particularly in the age of the Internet.

[NonMetro]

20. The Map Tells Two Stories?

FDR won all but 11 states. He lost 2 in New England, 3 in the Midwest, and 6 in the West. But the rural areas in the north and midwest voted Republican, but the more numerous city folk voted for Roosevelt, and most carried their states for FDR. So, what this map also shows is the emerging rural/urban divide, especially in the north, that continues to this day.

[bluestateguy]

21. You know better

The South and FDR had a little deal: FDR does nothing about civil rights, and the South votes for him.

[okojo]

27. FDR couldn’t do much..

Bills like making Lynching a Federal Crime, were blocked by Southern Senators. (Jimmy Byrnes said lynching was necessary to keep Southern Blacks in check) The 2/3 majority were needed to get bills passed for votes, and Southern Senators could still block anything that seemed threatening to Segregation. One reason the 1957 Civil Rights Bill was the first Civil Rights Bill, (which was defanged by Southern Senators) for 82 years after the 1875 Civil Rights bill, which was gutted by the Supreme Court in 1883... Southern Senators blocked all meaningful civil rights legislation until the 1964 Civil Rights Bill.

[MannyGoldstein]

23. Awesome!

FDR rocked it, and so do you!

[Catherina]

41. Thanks my dear friend

[leftofcool]

25. I am still waiting for FDR's anti-lynching act/law.

Oh wait, he won the South.

[wyldwolf]

31. He won the south precisely because he wouldn't sign an anti-lynching act/law.

He compromised to get the votes.

[leftofcool]

35. Exactly!

I guess that point escapes those who think Bernie=FDR

[mhatrw]

46. Sanders Supporters Love Lynchings!

SSLL!!!

[TM99]

52. Of course we do.

Especially us POC.

[zentrum]

26. Yes, but we really have

….to rebuild now that we are in late-stage Capitalism.

Unions were strong then.

Artists weren't just hip——they were politically left. Very left.

People didn't have FOX 24/7 on the tube in their living room.

FDR had Eleanor and Harry Hopkins.

And there was very little, almost nothing, for AA's. No one running for office was facing the real inequalities in this country.

We have to start again.

One hope I have is that BLM can begin to feel that Bernie's economic analysis is another word for reparations, which should have happened over a 100 years ago.

[SonderWoman]

28. Socialism for male whites.

[NonMetro]

34. Not Quite

At first, it was difficult, but by 1935 most relief programs were extended to blacks, but in the South, it did meet further resistance. But it's telling to note that blacks had voted for the Republicans since the Civil War, but in 1936 they voted heavily for FDR by wide majorities, and have voted for the Democrats ever since.

[still_one]

29. You do realize that the South was mostly Democratic then, and quite racist. After Nixon's Southern

Strategy, everything changed.

This is not comparable in today's environment.

Better arguments are those that voiced skepticism that Obama couldn't win, and look what happened.

The truth is no matter who the Democratic nominee is the South is going to be a challenge.

Looking at Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan, which in the past have been traditionally blue, that is also troubling with people like jErnst, Walker, Johnson, etc.

none of this is a given

[Uncle Joe]

39. You do realize that the nation was quite racist and that Roosevelt's policies of bringing a most

imporverished region into the 20th century had great effect as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is a federally owned corporation in the United States created by congressional charter in May 1933 to provide navigation, flood control, electricity generation, fertilizer manufacturing, and economic development in the Tennessee Valley, a region particularly affected by the Great Depression. The enterprise was a result of the efforts of Senator George W. Norris of Nebraska. TVA was envisioned not only as a provider, but also as a regional economic development agency that would use federal experts and electricity to rapidly modernize the region's economy and society.

(snip)

During the 1920s and the Great Depression years, Americans began to support the idea of public ownership of utilities, particularly hydroelectric power facilities. The concept of government-owned generation facilities selling to publicly owned distribution utilities was controversial and remains so today.[2] Many believed privately owned power companies were charging too much for power, did not employ fair operating practices, and were subject to abuse by their owners (utility holding companies), at the expense of consumers. During his presidential campaign, Roosevelt claimed that private utilities had "selfish purposes" and said, "Never shall the federal government part with its sovereignty or with its control of its power resources while I'm president of the United States." By forming utility holding companies, the private sector controlled 94 percent of generation by 1921, essentially unregulated. (This gave rise to the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA)). Many private companies in the Tennessee Valley were bought by the federal government. Others shut down, unable to compete with the TVA. Government regulations were also passed to prevent competition with TVA.

(snip)

Even by Depression standards, the Tennessee Valley was economically dismal in 1933. Thirty percent of the population was affected by malaria, and the average income was only $639 per year, with some families surviving on as little as $100 per year. Much of the land had been farmed too hard for too long, eroding and depleting the soil. Crop yields had fallen along with farm incomes. The best timber had been cut, with another 10% of forests being burnt each year.[7]

TVA was designed to modernize the region, using experts and electricity to combat human and economic problems.[8] TVA developed fertilizers, taught farmers ways to improve crop yields and helped replant forests, control forest fires, and improve habitat for fish and wildlife. The most dramatic change in Valley life came from TVA-generated electricity. Electric lights and modern home appliances made life easier and farms more productive. Electricity also drew industries into the region, providing desperately needed jobs.

• "Roosevelt is a socialist, not a Democrat," declared Republican Rep. Robert Rich of Pennsylvania during a debate on the House floor on July 23, 1935. That remark came after Republicans hinted they were considering a move to impeach Roosevelt, according to the New York Times .

• "The New Deal is now undisguised state socialism, declared Senator Simeon D. Fess (R-Ohio) today as he pictured President Roosevelt as the New Deal's leading socialist," reported the Chicago Daily Tribune on Aug. 7, 1934. "The president's recent statements," Fess said, "remove any doubt of his policy of state socialism, which necessitates increased activities of the government in either ownership or operation of industry, or both."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/22/barack-obama/obama-roosevelt-socialist-communist/

Bernie just as FDR did in the 1930s is looking to put major investments into our nation's crumbling infrastructure.

Likewise Bernie's message of representing the best interests of the American People vs the oligarchs and mega-corporations will and is resonating with the people, just as it did during Roosevelt's time.

For everything there is a season and Nixon's Southern Strategy is in the Autumn of its' year if not the winter.

[still_one]

43. You seemed to miss my point, that the South then, is not the South today. At the minimum it

is republican today, and very far right republican.

The demographics of the country during FDR are also not comparable today in regard to extrapolating that Bernie is just another FDR.

The Congress under FDR had a majority of Democrats. In 3 out of 4 of FDR's first two terms, he had a filibuster-proof majority.
He had to deal with a lot of conservative Southern Democrats who would be considered republicans today, however, the Democrats had such a large majority in Congress that he didn't need all of Southern Democratic votes to win his legislation. That is not the way things are today, nor will it be for the next Democratic president, which hopefully it will be in 2016, or the country will be in deep yogurt.

Even assuming your premise that the Southern Strategy is near the end, that end is going to be an awfully long goodbye, especially in the house because of the Gerry Mandering. The Senate is doable, but it is sure isn't a given.

[Uncle Joe]

50. The Congress was split until Roosevelt's election; that and Hoover's disconnect with the

American People; long suffering from the Great Depression are what propelled the Democratic Party to control Congress beginning the same year that Roosevelt was elected.

FDR had long and strong coat tails, I believe the same will hold true for Bernie.

72nd 1931–1933 96 47 48 1 — 435 217 217 1 —
73rd 1933–1935 96 59 36 1 — 435 313 117 5 —

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (/ˈroʊzəvəlt/, his own pronunciation,[1] or /ˈroʊzəvɛlt/) (January 30, 1882 – April 12, 1945), commonly known by his initials FDR, was an American statesman and political leader who served as the 32nd President of the United States.[2] A Democrat, he won a record four elections and served from March 1933 to his death in April 1945. He was a central figure in world events during the mid-20th century, leading the United States during a time of worldwide economic depression and total war. His program for relief, recovery and reform, known as the New Deal, involved the great expansion of the role of the federal government in the economy. A dominant leader of the Democratic Party, he built the New Deal Coalition that united labor unions, big city machines, white ethnics, African Americans, and rural white Southerners. The Coalition realigned American politics after 1932, creating the Fifth Party System and defining American liberalism for the middle third of the 20th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

As for the South remaining Republican today, the Democratic Party is as much to blame for that, even to this day the head of the DNC has undermined at least two Democratic Candidates in the state of Florida because she was too personally close to their Republican opponents. This would be the same person that has cynically manipulated the number and schedule of primary debates in an attempt to restrict progressive and liberal messages from reaching the American People until it's too late.

The Democratic Party had all but given up fighting for the South after the Civil Rights Act and it wasn't in regard to a fictitious quote by LBJ 'about giving up the South for a generation' he never said it.

I believe the PTBs decided to split the nation along regional, racial, religious and gender lines all based on culture or identity as a means to share power along roughly equivalent lines in service to the "Deep State" their true masters.

The Deep State Hiding in Plain Sight

Everyone knows about the military-industrial complex, which, in his farewell address, President Eisenhower warned had the potential to “endanger our liberties or democratic process” but have you heard of the “Deep State?”

Mike Lofgren, a former GOP congressional staff member with the powerful House and Senate Budget Committees, joins Bill to talk about what he calls the Deep State, a hybrid of corporate America and the national security state, which is “out of control” and “unconstrained.” In it, Lofgren says, elected and unelected figures collude to protect and serve powerful vested interests. “It is … the red thread that runs through the history of the last three decades. It is how we had deregulation, financialization of the economy, the Wall Street bust, the erosion or our civil liberties and perpetual war,” Lofgren tells Bill.

Lofgren says the Deep State’s heart lies in Washington, DC, but its tentacles reach out to Wall Street, which Lofgren describes as “the ultimate backstop to the whole operation,” Silicon Valley and over 400,000 contractors, private citizens who have top-secret security clearances. Like any other bureaucracy, it’s groupthink that drives the Deep State.

In conjunction with this week’s show, Mike Lofgren has written an exclusive essay, “Anatomy of the Deep State.”

http://billmoyers.com/episode/the-deep-state-hiding-in-plain-sight

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016132673

Bernie's historic speech at Liberty University, the first of speech of a Democratic Presidential Candidate is a major sign that things can and are changing.

[still_one]

58. In the course of time we will see

[Uncle Joe]

60. On that we agree.

[still_one]

66. Oh, I do hope your assessment is right. It is far more positive than mine

[Uncle Joe]

71. Well then I believe that your hopes will be fulfilled.

[allan01]

30. and most of these people truly dont know what socialisim is

[former9thward]

32. FDR was a socialist?

Sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would say.

[Catherina]

40. If you say so. I suggest you reread the post

Nothing in it says FDR was a Socialist.

[dsc]

33. Oh they were all for socialism which helped whites

not so much on socialism that helped anyone else.

[jberryhill]

36. Today's older voters were weaned on 50's and 60's red baiting

In 1940, the US was yet to be gripped with anti-Communist hysteria.

[mhatrw]

47. How old are these voters today?

Do they currently support social security and medicare?

[jberryhill]

55. That's not really the point

You wouldn't find voters in 1940 who would be screaming about "socialism" as if it were some kind of venereal disease.

It's not until the Soviet Union got atomic weapons, and we proceeded to the Korean conflict, that red-baiting became an enduring feature of American politics.

[Moonwalk]

42. BOGUS argument. The Dems who voted for FDR in the '30's did so because his polices favored them...

...but not anyone they didn't want favored (like blacks). And, alas, not a lot has changed. White voters all over the U.S. vote in candidates that favor their racial biases first and foremost. There's a new book out on Thurgood Marshall and how difficult a time he had getting the Supreme Court nomination. He was nominated by LBJ, as "socialist" a dem as there ever was in the White House with his desire to end poverty in America; a southern democrat himself, beloved of other southern democrats. And yet Marshall was interrogated and boycotted by every single southern democrat in congress. It took republicans and northern democrats to get him on the Supreme Court. That these southern dems favored LBJ didn't mean they favored universal socialism. They favored whites only socialism.

And that is an incredibly important thing to remember. There's a newscast segment in the documentary "White Like Me" where a newscaster asks a white democrat why he's voting for McCain. And he says, "I'll never vote for a black man." So, it seems to me that we're making the wrong assumption either way (America will vote for a socialist/American won't). What a certain, aggressive segment of American voters will vote for, is to maintain the racial status quo. Thus, Bernie may electable in the South as Obama was if enough non-white voters vote for him. But if he's can't be elected in the South, it's won't be because he's a socialist. It will be because he doesn't hold the right racial biases.

This "evidence" of FDR's popularity in the south as proof that a socialist can win the vote is, I say again: a BOGUS argument. What southern voters wanted then, and, alas, many want now, is racial inequality. And any candidate that promises them that (or at least assures them that he won't interfere with how they do things), gets their vote. Socialist or not.

[book_worm]

44. The solid south is no longer a democratic domain

it had nothing to do with socialism in 1940--the south would have voted for Democrat as long as they didn't push civil rights.

[Catherina]

98. This has nothing to do with democratic domains

The New Deal appealed to many American voters which will be the same case with Bernie's platform that the Clinton camp is trying hard to paint as scary *socialist*, linked to Hugo Chavez a *Socialist*, too expensive and other bullshit.

Working familes across political factions are seriously pissed off about the terrible economic straits we're in thanks to the duplicity and betrayal of neoconservatives and neoliberals.

That is all.

[brooklynite]

45. ...and FDR immediately nationalized all means of production.

Right?

[TM99]

53. And when did Sanders

suggest we should nationalize all means of production?

Oh, yeah, that's right, he didn't. He is a Democratic Socialist.

[RufusTFirefly]

83. What possible motivation can you have for asking such a question?

Hmmm... lemme guess.

I honestly wonder how some people can even look at themselves in the mirror.

[treestar]

97. What is socialism?

Real socialism, as opposed to right winger of today's "socialism."

Right wingers calls Hillary or Obama, "socialists" "communists" "Marxists" you name it. It's all the same to them. Yet the government does not own the means of production and Hillary or Obama,etc., don't even advocate that.

So the OP has a level of agreeing with that. FDR is another one right wingers will refer to as "socialist" "communist" etc. Yet FDR was not one - and in that day it would have been a lot worse - before the McCarthy Era but still a time when those words were pretty scary to people.

[treestar]

96. it is like they are agreeing with right wingers

when they call Hillary or Obama "socialists." They refuse to see any difference between liberalism and socialism.

I know from endless debating with right wingers that when you tell them the means of production are not owned by the government, they know they are wrong. They usually refuse to admit it and double down with theories that any government restrictions amounts to government owning your company. Insane theory, but that's where I've seen them go.

[JI7]

48. that was before civil rights

[Catherina]

64. That's not the point. The point is people will support *socialist* (eeek) programs n/t

[JI7]

76. the point is they don't support it for all. just white people

[Catherina]

79. That's a totally different discussion.

This one is about US voters actually liking and voting for *socialist* ideas.

[JI7]

80. it is the issue if they don't support those programs for all people

[Catherina]

87. Hahaha, like the majority of voters in this country support programs for all people

If they did, we wouldn't be where we are now would we? With neoliberalism run amok dismantling our social safety nets, destroying the working class, privatizing city assets like schools and mental health facilities in poor neighborhoods, totally neglecting the poor and supporting increased militarism and corporate welfare.

BLM wouldn't be screaming its head off right now if modern voters had been supporting programs for all people.

Does the destruction and privatization of Detroit ring a bell? Are you watching what's going on in Chicago? How about the neoliberalism of the last 2 Democratic administrations?

Just judging by your posts in this thread, we don't have anything to discuss.

[NuclearDem]

57. Holy shit, this is one of the most spectacular fails I've ever seen here.

First, a major boon for FDR in the election was that he had publicly promised an isolationist approach to the potential war in Europe at the time. His opponent, on the other hand, was very much an interventionalist.

Second, the Republican brand was extraordinarily damaged by Hoover's inability to respond to the crash. Most of the country still rightly blamed the Republicans for making the Depression as bad as it had become.

Third, this was in the era before the Northern/Southern Democrat split. FDR was good on a lot of things, but civil rights was absolutely not one of them. It wasn't until later that the Dixiecrat and George Wallace portion split from the civil rights portion of the party and eventually defected to the Republicans with the Southern Strategy.

Fourth, AAs, who had been polling about evenly-split between Democrats and Republicans, were all-but forbidden from voting in the South--which was a major contributor to the region being so dark blue and other major population areas being a much lighter blue.

So, fine, if you completely ignore any other issues, strip the election out of any sort of historical context, assume the Democratic and Republican parties are anywhere near similar to what they are today, and ignore one of the most despicable civil rights atrocities this country's ever committed, then the South voted for socialism.

[Cali_Democrat]

65. Great post, ND!

[TM99]

72. Whoosh!

You missed the point.

It is not about pre civil rights governance. It is about the concepts that are now being called 'socialism' which are nothing more than traditional FDR New Deal policies which American's in general had no problems with them.

Not everything is about revisionist history and racial identity politics.

[NuclearDem]

74. If you think the Jim Crow South voted for FDR because they were fans of "socialism"

And not because the South had been solidly blue since Reconstruction, favored FDR looking the other way on lynchings, despised the Republicans even further because of Hoover, and favored his views on isolation, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Historical context is important, even if it doesn't fit your narrative.

[TM99]

78. You are still missing the point.

But really at this point, I am not surprised, as it doesn't fit your narrative.

[NuclearDem]

81. Even if you ignore all every bit of context that went into the 1940 election

then what it does it matter what people voted for in 1940?

1940 was pre-Cold War, pre-McCarthy, and pre-Southern Strategy. Arguing that FDR was popular in the South in 1940 makes about as much sense as the virulently racist Republican Party calling themselves the party of Lincoln.

This OP is nothing but ridiculous revisionism that any historian worth their salt would laugh down.

[TM99]

86. Yes, because the OP absolutely

made her post posing as a serious historian discussing the finer points of 1940's electoral politics and social psychology!

Don't y'all ever get tired of attacking all of the strawman arguments y'all keep creating?

[NuclearDem]

90. When one is discussing electoral politics, it's necessary to look at all factors.

One could look at Obama winning Indiana in 2008 as evidence of Hoosiers being anti-war. While it's true that Obama opposed the Iraq War, it's ridiculous to suggest that was the driving force, when the near collapse of the auto industry, one of Indiana's largest sectors, likely played the largest role in getting people to vote against the incumbent party.

Context is important. Simplistic, Facebook-meme level "analyses" lack it.

[TM99]

91. If you really want to compare

educational credentials and begin a serious discussion on electoral politics, let's start another thread shall we?

Sometimes Facebook level meme's reach those without our graduate level training in various fields.

[JI7]

92. i don't have graduate level training and I'm able to see it easily

[NuclearDem]

93. The bottom line is that this is a terrible riposte to the issue of Sanders' electoral chances

in the 2016 South. Suggesting Sanders would be able to take the South in 2016 because FDR with similar ideas took it in 1940 ignores so many factors in both years it's ridiculous.

If you want to believe this, then knock yourself out, and advocate all you want, but you'd be in for a rude awakening next November if you think the South is going to be even remotely competitive.

[TM99]

94. Nothing is set in stone.

Conventional wisdom is generally wrong. History teaches us that. Even immediate history has shown us that Carter, Clinton, GW Bush, and Obama ALL won despite prognostications from very intelligent people that they would not, could not, no not ever.

We shall see.

[JI7]

99. what intelligent people said those candidates could not ever win ?

[TM99]

100. Seriously?

[JI7]

101. yes I'm looking for names

[TM99]

107. They are there.

Just go look.

[JI7]

85. And California voted for nixon and Reagan. if only republicans

Would nominate another Reagan they can win California again.

[Catherina]

89. Drool-worthy n/t

[treestar]

95. It wasn't called 'socialism' then and if it had been

FDR would have lost.

[Uncle Joe]

102. Yes it was.

• "Roosevelt is a socialist, not a Democrat," declared Republican Rep. Robert Rich of Pennsylvania during a debate on the House floor on July 23, 1935. That remark came after Republicans hinted they were considering a move to impeach Roosevelt, according to the New York Times .

• "The New Deal is now undisguised state socialism, declared Senator Simeon D. Fess (R-Ohio) today as he pictured President Roosevelt as the New Deal's leading socialist," reported the Chicago Daily Tribune on Aug. 7, 1934. "The president's recent statements," Fess said, "remove any doubt of his policy of state socialism, which necessitates increased activities of the government in either ownership or operation of industry, or both."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/22/barack-obama/obama-roosevelt-socialist-communist/

[Tommy2Tone]

105. Well here we go again.

First Bernie was Obama because Obama was behind Hillary about the same amount Bernie was behind Hillary.

Now the South voted for FDR so now Bernie is FDR?

Breaking news. Bernie is not FDR or Obama.

[Uncle Joe]

106. What's your point nobody is saying that Bernie is either? We're talking about political analogies

and general movements.

No one is anybody else but themselves.