Southern Democrats complain over lack of southern strategy

[wuushew]

“I’M NOT comfortable with our strategy as it relates to the South,” Georgia Democratic Party Chairman Calvin Smyre said at a meeting of the Democratic National Committee over the weekend in Washington.

-snip-

GRAND STRATEGY’ QUESTIONED
“This ‘grand strategy’ of targeting some states, particularly outside the South, is a mistake,” Alabama DNC member Joe L. Reed said as he emerged from the Southern Caucus meeting. “Unless we get this back on track, we’re not going to win the next election.”

“George Wallace used to say, ‘there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two,’ but there is a distinct difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. The big difference is how we treat poor areas. The Southern states are poor states, we need massive education, we need a massive infusion of federal money.”

http://www.msnbc.com/news/976026.asp?0cv=CB10

[jiacinto]

1. The South Needs to be Targeted

Key States

Florida
Louisiana
Arkansas
Missouri
Kentucky
Tennessee

Potential States but probably not competetive

North Carolina
Virginia
Georgia

Don't Bother

Texas
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Alabama
Mississippi

That's how I see the South.

[goobergunch]

5. I concur. (n/t)

[kayell]

10. Even South Carolina shouldn't be written off

This state is suffering horribly from job loss. Permanant job loss - textile jobs shipped overseas. A Dem candidate that is extremely good on concentrating on the economy could even take this state IMO.

[jiacinto]

15. I disagree

SC has not voted Democratic since 1976. And before that it had not voted Democratic since 1960.

The state is woefully Republican. If it is anywhere remotely competetive then Bush is in big trouble.

[kayell]

23. Bush is in big trouble

[jiacinto]

28. Don't underestimate Bush

nt

[kayell]

51. I don't underestimate him, he may well STEAL the election again

but I also hear the extreme dissatisfaction from even my most conservative neighbors. This state is not happy with $87 billion more being spent on Iraq when the people here, their neighbors, friends, relatives are out of work and nothing is visible on the horizon.

[jiacinto]

57. Yeah

But still come November 2004 I think they will be voting for Bush.

[leyton]

30. But a Senator...

There's a distinct possibility that SC will send a Democrat to the Senate next year. Inez Tannenbaum is expected to do well in the race to fill Fritz Hollings's seat.

[jiacinto]

37. Split Ticketing

Voters split their tickets all the time.

[Classical_Liberal]

12. Yes, but I am not going to target it by doing bad things to blacks and

women. That is why I won't latch on to the phrase "Southern Strategy" and no one else will either. I also don't beleive the South was neglected in 2000.

[kayell]

33. Dems don't have to do any such thing

They need to concentrate on economic issues down here. Making sure that people know that they will have a job. Asking where the jobs went. Having a real plan to tackle the poverty and unemployment problems here.

It's ridiculous to say that a "southern strategy" must be at the expense of women and blacks. More than 50% of the citizens in the south ARE women and blacks.

[Classical_Liberal]

44. Nixon's Southern Strategy was

and the appeals to "Bubba" worry me. Sorry. I makes me think they are going to appeal to white male resentment.

[Classical_Liberal]

2. This person claims the South was neglected in 2000

What was the point of nominating Gore?

[GainesT1958]

3. One thing that will change that mistake...

Is for our nominee--if he's not from the South--to put a Southerner on the ticket. Another way is to look at states that may well be WINABLE in the South--states like WVA, KY, ARK, TENN, LA, and maybe even my state (NC), and target efforts there. (And, of course, FLA!)It would suuure help the Dem. ticket in those states if the DNC does that--not to mention that maybe a handful of them WOULD go for the national ticket, too. Which would, of course, spell the definitive end of Dub's squatting.

Our strategy should be, essentially, the reverse of Repubs: take as many states as possibly which have been "inclined" toward us in recent years, and then "pick off" as many states inclined to them as possible. While we don't have a "Solid South" in our corner anymore, neither should we allow them to take it for granted that they WILL have it!

Let's "Get Real", as Dr. Phil would put it: without carrying at least SOME Southern states, the Dem nominee will NOT win in 2004--history has proven that, over and over again.


B-)

[Classical_Liberal]

4. We had a Southerner on the ticket in 2000.

.

[goobergunch]

6. /me confused

How do you know what will have happened in 2004?

[JVS]

7. I think 2000 is what was meant

[Classical_Liberal]

9. We had one on the ticket in 2000

so what mistake are we correcting?

[wuushew]

11. The Mason-Dixon line must have been moved north of Vermont

probably more GOP gerrymandering.

[charlie]

8. In 2004?

Wow. Did we win? :)

[w4rma]

13. Gov. Dean's 'southern strategy'

Gov. Howard Dean
South Carolina Democratic Party
Columbia, SC
May 3, 2003
T R A N S C R I PT
Special Thanks to Vermont Public Radio for Audio Assistance

Thank you. You know as most of you know I did not support the war in Iraq {applause}, but let me also remind you that the military that kicked Saddam Hussein out of Iraq was Bill Clinton's and Democrats', built by Bill Clinton and the Democrats, and let's not forget that. {applause}. And if the president keeps talking about a strong military, which I certainly support, he had better stop talking about $670 billion worth of tax cuts paid for by cutting veteran's health care benefits. {applause}.

I'm in this race because I want jobs back in America. I'm in this race because like Fritz Hollings, I want a balanced budget and I'm not kidding. I'm in this race because I want, like we have in Vermont, health insurance not just for everybody under 18, which we have, but I want health insurance for every single American, and we need to do that now. {applause}.

But when we come to the South, Democrats have got to start talking about race, because the Republicans always talk about race. They talk about it and try to keep people from voting; they talk about it by using divisive words like quotas, which are race-based words and race baiting words. But what I want to say is in the South we have discovered that when white voters and black voters vote together, we all make progress not here but everywhere in the country. {applause}.

And the message I want to give today, before I get gonged {laughter}, the message I want to give today is two-fold. We have an obligation to the African-American base in this party to be sure that we do not ignore them {applause} and we have an obligation at the same time to talk to white people in the South that have been voting Republican for 30 years, and this is what we're going to say.

There are 103,000 kids with no health in this state--most of 'em are white, there are an awful lot of people whose jobs are going to China, a lot of people that haven't had a raise in five years, a lot of people who need schools better--they're not just African-Americans, they're whites as well. And so I want to say to white Southerners, let's put aside those divisive issues that the Republicans always bring up, and let's vote together for a better future for our children {applause} because you started out here in the South voting together for a better future for our children.

We're going to build this party back and we're going to start right here today because this is an extraordinary opportunity for the Democratic party nationally to show we are serious about competing in the South, we are going to win in the South, we are going to make sure that our base does not feel neglected. It's time to inject some backbone into our party, to stand up for the things that we need to stand up for. {applause}.

But it's also time to talk to folks who haven't voted for us for 30 years and say this. You've been voting for Republicans for 30 years; what do you have to show for it? {applause}. Because as long as the Republican party's in power, none of our kids are going to have health insurance; as long as the Republican party's in power, none of us are going to have raises; as long as the Republican party's in power, none of us are going to have health insurance for adults. We can do better. We want jobs. We want health insurance. We want better education. White people and black people are going to vote together in the South and they're going to vote Democratic just like they did when Franklin Roosevelt was president, when Harry Truman was president. {applause}. We're going to stand up again for what we believe in in this country. Thank you very, very much. {applause}.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/sc0503/dean050303spt.html

…
That said, it was interesting to watch Dean in South Carolina. One of the shorter candidates, Dean somehow managed to appear exactly the right height to look every person he met in the eye. He was willing to engage almost anyone in a real discussion about real issues. Over the weekend, he was spontaneous and garrulous and seemed to really love campaigning. When he crossed paths with fish-fry attendee Joan Trezevant during a walk-through with supporters, she was dancing and he was just some politician in her way. So she asked him to dance, and then and there they did the shag, the South Carolina state dance. Let me be the first to report that the former governor of Vermont dances beautifully. Said a clearly thrilled Trezevant afterward, "He has the moves."

Nor is Dean afraid to take his campaign to venues that wouldn't, at first blush, seem to be his natural base, such as the South Carolina Democratic Leadership Council's (DLC) Saturday lunch. "In the South, Republicans always make sure that race is an issue," Dean told the assembled. "We're going to talk about race. I'm going to talk to southern whites who've been voting Republican since 1968. The way we win the South is that . . . we talk to white southern voters about the issues we care about as Democrats, because they're their issues, too." In his Saturday afternoon speech at the convention, he extended those remarks: We have "to talk to folks who haven't voted for us in 30 years and ask them, 'You've been voting for Republicans for 30 years. What do you have to show for it?'" At the same time, "We have an obligation to the African American base not to ignore them. . . . We are going to make sure that our base does not feel neglected."

The message played surprisingly well with the DLC crowd. "I think that's a very brave statement he's making," said Ed Craig, a businessman who heard Dean at the lunch. "The issues in this state are graphically racial. This is a racially divided population. It's something we need to confess to and we need to stop." Mike Hawkins, an insurance agent from Prosperity, S.C., described himself as "surprised and pleased with what had to say." "He works for me," Hawkins said. "Is it going to work in the South? I hope so."
…
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/webfeatures/2003/05/franke-ruta-g-05-08.html

[dolstein]

43. Dean obviously needs to brush up on his Southern political history

<<White people and black people are going to vote together in the South and they're going to vote Democratic just like they did when Franklin Roosevelt was president, when Harry Truman was president.>>

Very few blacks were able to vote in the South when Roosevelt and Truman were running for president. It wasn't until passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the abolition of the poll tax that blacks were able to vote in substantial numbers.

[Classical_Liberal]

50. Are you claiming Dean was opposed to the 1965 Voting Rights Act?

Come on?

[AP]

14. Good comment on same-sex unions as campaign issue

 Asked if Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean’s support for legal same-sex unions would be a liability in the South, Cole said, “I’ve seen elections and political debate over the last few years dominated by stuff like the Rebel flag or a marble slab with the Ten Commandments carved on it, and I think issues like that are part of an upper-middle class conceit that we actually have time to talk about stuff like that.”
       “I live in the poorest state in the union,” Cole explained. “Every time the weather turns cold in Mississippi you will see the death of some children or elderly people because they had unsafe apparatus to provide heat in their homes. We have tens of thousands of Mississippians out of work and hundreds of thousands without health insurance. If we can deal with the bread and butter issues here at home, and the life and death issues abroad — instead of getting into some Starbucks coffeehouse debate about stuff that doesn’t matter to the average Americans — then we can win this election.”

[Classical_Liberal]

19. How do you account for the failure of the recent intiative in Alabama

to raise taxes on the wealthy?

[AP]

25. The tons of money that went into fighting it, the tiny amount of money

that went into supporting it, and the fact that the governor sabotaged the bill with a rider which suggested that money wouldn't go to education if the bill passed (thus creating a wedge issue among liberals who didn't understand that education would lose even more money if the bill wasn't passed).

Incidentally, this bill had the overwhelming support of black voters who, if I remember correctly, are statisitically underrepresented in Alabama, which is unusual for the south.

[Classical_Liberal]

31. The prochroney side had a funding advantage.

what would change that in the future?

[AP]

35. What interst group is going to take up the "pro" side of the tax issue?

The benefits of progressive taxation are way to diffuse and occur over such a long period of time that there's no organized support for it. However, the hurt of progressive taxation is felt accutely in the short term by a very few, very large corporations, so the anti-progressive taxes forces are easily organized and are, de facto, very powerful.

That's a little different from the presidential race. Republicans will outspend Democrats 2:1, but, at least, the Democrats will have 150 million to run a campaign. Unlike the tax issue, the issues will be stark, and the campaigns will be funded, and the populist message will sway voters.

[Gringo]

16. Excuse me, but I never hear

ANYONE fretting over the midwestern voter, the southwestern voter, or the northeastern voter. Every election, for as long as I remember, we have focused on the south. It ended us up with Carter, who I liked, but failed dismally as a leader, Reagan, Bush, Clinton (good centrist republican) and Bush the lesser. I realize that the south is important, but why is it that only the southern voter supposedly insists on having one of his own on the ticket. I never heard about people in California griping about the Clinton/Gore tickete or the Gore/Lieberman ticket not having a westerner. Isn't it kind of condescending to imply that southern voters are STUPID enough to vote on the basis of the candidates' region of origin?

[dolstein]

41. Well, there's a good reason for that

Bill Clinton and Al Gore were able to carry states in the northeast, the midwest and the southwest.

As soon as a northern Democrat manages to win big in the South (something that hasn't happened in over 40 years), all the talk about putting a Southerner on the ticket will die down.

[RandomUser]

45. There's a historical context

Southerners have more of an "Us against Them" mindset, that dates back to the Civil War, Reconstruction, Civil Rights, etc.

The south was absolutely demolished by the Civil War. Sherman's March to the Sea torched city after city. The same level of physical devastation was not wrought in the north. Ever since then, the south has hated the north. The north doesn't have the same feelings, because we won, after all. These anti-northerner feelings have become transmuted and carried over the decades.

They feel (and some still do) that the North(eastern)ers infringed on their soveriegn right to succeed from the Union, that we were bullies and agressors, and they were unfairly treated. Many southerners still glorify the confederate flag, and the fact that they were victims of the "bully north." The sheer devastation resulting from the end of slavery and the physical destruction was immense. Families with mansions and plantations suddenly had their economies wrecked, their genteel lifestyles crumbled, a generation of young men came home on coffins or defeated and ashamed, and the cities were burned to ashes and had to be rebuilt from scratch.

After the war, the healing didn't work. During the Reconstruction, there was a lot of corruption, and many northeners (known as carpetbaggers) went down there to make a quick buck and fleece the south, kind of like the way Haliburton's treating Iraq. So the ill-will only hardened.

The Us vs. Them mindset has only been exacerbated by events such as the civil rights movement (southern states were last holdouts of Jim Crow), the social revolution, and more recently the Confederate flag bannings (which they view as part of their heritage).

Add to this the cultural differences that have developed with time, such as sweet tea, southern drawl, etc, and you begin to see the current situation. Many southerners still have an Us (patriotic, humble, gentlemenly, southerner) vs. Them (brutish, agressor, bible-hating, socially promiscous, northeners). This may not be an accurate reflection of all southerners or northerners, but it's undeniable that they trust one of their own more than someone who's not from the south. And if we want to win the general election, it's something we need to take into account.

California, the midwest, and the northeast have not suffered the same types of historical forces stemming from the Civil War. We don't have the same sense of Us vs. Them, because we have no reason to hold a grudge or cling to trusting our own more -- we won the war, after all, and didn't get all our cities burned.

Diabolically, the republicans have tapped into this southern atmosphere and associated themselves cultural in the minds of southernors. If we are to win a long lasting victory, we need to rearrange this association, so that southerners don't see republicans as one of them, and democrats as the enemy.

[AP]

17. Good comment about populism/Edwards

Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg agreed that Democrats can use economic populism to trump GOP social conservatism.
       “Where the Democrats have had a challenge is on the social issues and moral values,” Greenberg said after making a presentation to the Southern caucus.
       “But in this economy I think we can actually have something to say to some voters in the South. If you look at older white men — not generally a target group for Democrats — they are very anti-corporate, very populist, very worried about manufacturing jobs going overseas. I don’t think a Democrat is going to win without a populist message.”
       Seeking to capitalize on the discontent at the Southern Caucus meeting Saturday, presidential contender Sen. John Edwards stepped up to the podium and said, “We have never elected a president who was a Democrat without wining at least five Southern states and we’re not going to start this time. We need to compete in every Southern state.”

[wuushew]

22. Why did the DLC tell Gore not to be populist in 2000?

Barring 9-11 the country is very similar in many ways to what it was in 2000. If populism is a good general/southern strategy why does the DLC frown upon it?

[Classical_Liberal]

26. Look who contributes to the DLC

.

[AP]

32. I think Gore CHOSE not to run as a populist. Bush actually ran as populist

-- that's the way he presented himself central western, southern and midwestern voters.

Gore apparently thought that he needed to focus on Bush's inexperience, so he ran as an experienced policy wonk with a moral/ethical bent (to shake off the perceived bad feelings about Clinton).

I think they probably also thought that all of America was feeling rich, so they didn't need to focus on economic issues.

It was a bad strategy and easily manipulated by Bush and the media, and Gore was very slow in countering the attacks.

[dolstein]

18. The Dems probably need two Southernors on the ticket

in order to carry any Southern states. I don't think Clinton would have fared as well in the South if he had named a liberal Northernor to be his VP. And I think Gore would have faired better in the South had he chosen a Southern running mate, even one with positions slightly more liberal than Lieberman's. That's my opinion -- take it for what it's worth.

Clark/Edwards anyone?

[Classical_Liberal]

21. I'll bitch if that happens

I feel discriminated against. Are they part of my country or am I occupied territory?

[JVS]

24. The North must rise again, brother.

[leyton]

36. That would be disappointing.

As much as we need to carry the South, I'd hate to think that we're going to spend the next twenty or thirty years nominating Southerner after Southerner. At some point, we're going to have to do what the libertarians did and send thousands of democrats to Georgia :D or something, so we can have that state and stop worrying so much about breaking the Republican lock on the south.

[AP]

42. Honestly, who was disappointed by Clinton-Gore? I thought we loved Gore

here?

Seriously, did anyone think the interests of the north and coastal west and mountain west and southwest and midwest were being ignored between Jan 1993- Jan 2001?

If I recall, all those areas did really well during that time.

[Classical_Liberal]

47. If someone had stated the rule there would have been

.

[AP]

56. Huh?

??

[dolstein]

46. Four more years of Bush would be even more disappointing

NT

[leyton]

52. Let me clarify...

Let me clarify... I'm not saying a Southerner ousting Bush would be disappointing. That would be wonderful. I'm saying that focusing on southerners in the long term would be a mistake. I'd like to see some presidential candidates from the North or the West.

[AP]

20. Incidentally, the way I read this article, it's basically arguing, stay

away from NE Dems who are going to argue about issues unrelated to economics. Pick a Dem who is competitive in the south and has a populist message. This is probably Edwards, however, some southerners are also taking a look at Clark.

[cprise]

27. How about an American strategy?

FWIW, the Southern states already get a massive infusion of Federal money (and still they accuse liberals and northerners of being welfare leeches). The least-productive (bible-belt) part of the country preaches to the rest of us about the Protestant work-ethic. They don't want to consider how a repressive culture hurts business.

I'm generalizing, but so is saying that they're poor.

I don't want to see another campaign that panders to some of the South's worse instincts.

[JVS]

29. We should give them what they want and cut off their aid

[AP]

39. This article isn't about a Southern-only strategy. It's reporting on

Dems who want a Southern strategy as part of a national strategy.

If you read it, you'll see that they're arguing that the Dems lost 2000 because they abandoned the South. Donna Brazille says they didn't abandon it, they just ran out of money. (I say, they wasted all their money on FL which wasn't going to go Dem even if Gore won 70% of the votes there.)

They're saying, run a candidate who won't run out of money trying to campaign in the South because he'll have a more natural advantage (ie, he runs as a populist, and, perhaps, has a southern accent). This doesn't preclude a national strategy -- it's just acknowledging that over 60% of the electoral votes needed to win are in the south, and you HAVE to have a southern strategy.

[cprise]

53. There's your answer:

" (I say, they wasted all their money on FL which wasn't going to go Dem even if Gore won 70% of the votes there.)"


Don't assume this hasn't already spread beyond Florida.

[AP]

55. Jeb isn't the governor of the south. He's just the governor of FL. Gore

wasn't going to win FL because Jeb fixed it.

Gore could have won TN and Ark. (and NH) if he had spent the money he spent in FL on those states.

[Capn Sunshine]

34. we can win without the south.

But face it, we can win with the south too. I still fail to see why directional geography defines this region as a voting bloc.

There's no "northeast vote". There's no "west coast vote" There's no "Northern vote"

Why is there a "southern vote"? We would be better served targeting states we can win, like Florida , Louisiana, Virginia, and S Carolina.

[jiacinto]

38. Yeah we could

But we would have to win almost every other swing state to do it. And that doesn't sound like a realistic possibility.

[dolstein]

48. Theoretically? Yes. Realistically? No.

Sure, it's theoretically possible for a Democrat to win without carrying any Southern state. But if the Democrats completely write off the South, they'll be put in a situation where they would have to carry each and every toss-up state in order to win. And Bush would be in the enviable position of being able to focus all his resources on picking off one or two large industrial states.

[jburton]

40. Oh please

I'm a Southerner, but geez. A Southerner on the ticket is not the end-all and be-all of winning 2004.

Why not nominate somebody from Arizona or Nevada? Or New Hampshire? Or Colorado? Or another state Gore was moderately competitive in 2000?

[LoneStarLiberal]

49. Possibilities If Done Right

I do think it would be possible for the Democratic Party to win the 2004 elections without really trying in the South.

I do not think that is an advisable tactic, however. As jiacinto pointed out in a posting above, the Democratic Party can ignore the South but in doing so will have to capture a broad number of swing states to compensate which is not a great strategy from a probability-point-of-view.

The Republican Party has spun a dark web of rhetoric in the South that has many Southerners poisoned against anyone other than Republicans. But bad economic times and corporate cronyism have a way of rousing these people from their slumber.

If the eventual Democratic candidate will speak to this disillusionment, we have a chance to make more inroads in the South than we have since 1996.

[Dob Bole]

54. Not Comfortable with our Southern Strategy either...electoral maps

He is a reprinted section of an earlier post I wrote:

'I live in one of the safest areas for Democrats in the country: Southwest Georgia. 58% black, Jimmy Carter smackdab in the middle of my congressional district.

Check out these electoral maps:
http://pava.purdue.edu/pol101/Text/BOOK/Screens/scr3-5.html

Democrats have always won states in the southeast, the exception being 2 landslides, in which Democrats also won no states from the West or Midwest either. It has the highest regional percentage of minorities in the country, and even some of the white people are traditionally Democrats. Southern Democrats voted for Bush in 2000 because he claimed to be a "compassionate conservative," which most people now know to be a crock.'

Bush will not fare as well in 2004 in the South. In fact, I think the map may look more like 1992 or 1996, but that depends on a lot of factors. To win the South come up with ideas. Economic ones.