It's the abortion, stupid.

[Dob Bole]

I have seen so many threads on DU about how the Democrats can win back the South. And for the most part, they're all pretty stupid. Here they are.

1) It's the gun control, stupid. Yep, all Southerners are extremely violent people with railroad spikes driven through their heads. If we let them catch food with AK-47s, they will surely vote for us.
Why this is stupid: Nobody in the South cares about gun laws except hunters. And they don't hunt with pistols or Uzzis.

2) It's the Civil War, stupid. That's right. Everyone has the Civil War ingrained into their memories, so if we mention waving confederate flags, we will win more votes.

Why this is stupid: Nobody knows about the Civil War because our education system sucks. Rednecks with Rebel Flags have rebel flags because they think they're rebels. Also, the era of the Solid South resulting from the Civil War ended in 1920. Nobody cares except for historians, who are not a substantial swing vote. By mentioning a rebel flag, you will likely alienate black voters who see it as a racial symbol moreso than attract voters who see it as a rebel symbol.

3) It's the abortion, stupid. We have already established that the swing voting Democrats in the South are evangelical Christians, not flag-waving drunk rednecks. These people are strongly pro-life, and they have no choice for President in the Democratic party next year. Besides picking off a state or two, (though that is all we need) whoever wins the nomination should forget any kind of Southern strategy and head out west, because it's just not going to happen for us this time.

Fred the Wise One

[prolesunited]

1. So, what are you suggesting here

banning abortion as an effective political strategy? :shrug:

[Dob Bole]

3. No....

Just as perhaps the only effective Southern strategy. The problem with this, however, is that California and other strong Dem states seem to vote solely on the Pro-Choice issue. So we might be in a pickle that we can't get out of. Clinton seemed to be able to do it with his moderate "legal, safe, and rare" position.

[prolesunited]

5. So are you suggesting

we ban abortion in the South and keep it legal elsewhere? I still don't get your point here. There isn't much gray here. Either abortions are legal or they aren't.

As it is, there is a stealth campaign to place more and more restrictions on abortions as well as fewer and fewer clinics performing them. The result is that it is getting increasingly difficult for women to gain access to safe and legal abortions, particularly in rural areas.

[0rganism]

20. No, he's suggesting the Dem candidates concentrate elsewhere

and it's a very strong argument. If the south, as a whole, is dominated by single-issue voting (e.g. abortion), then no amount of appeal to other causes is going to be efficient, even if it's effective.

It's unreasonable to expect to reverse Nixon's "southern strategy", which has been in effect for three decades now, on the basis of a single campaign season. But there are a lot of western states where it makes sense to redouble efforts. Arizona, for one, could swing around this time. Nevada is vulnerable. And the right candidate could bring in one or two southern states as a bonus, due to personality more than direct campaigning.

[GOPBasher]

38. He's saying to forget about the south.

Except for a few southern state, I totally agree with him. We can't win those without compromising on abortion, and I certainly don't think we should compromise on that issue. So, forget those states. We don't need them.

[Hippo_Tron]

2. It's the people, (that are) stupid.

I bet that if you asked most of the people you are talking about what abortion is, they'd say "baby-killing". They probably have no clue what the difference is between the different abortion procedures for different stages, or why people have abortions...

[Selwynn]

4. Someone said Democrats started losing the south....

after the Civil Rights movment, when southern democrats began voting republican. I don't know how much truth vs. speculation there is in that statment, but its interesting.

[Dob Bole]

6. True...and yet not...

Nixon won the South in 1972 because of the race issue. However, Carter won in it 1976. That supports the fact that racists do not make up a majority of voters in any Southern state. A combination of black/evangelical votes is always a winner for Democrats. Clinton won, for example, by the same amount of Southern Baptists that voted for him. Yet Gore moved to the left on the abortion issue, from "legal, safe, and rare" to "woman's right to choose." He lost every single state.

[spooky3]

17. Sorry, there are so many possible reasons why Gore didn't appeal

to conservative Southern voters, that it can't be said that they would have voted for him "but for" his views on abortion. You could poll 1000 people and I doubt that 5 of them could tell you the difference between Clinton's views or Gore's on abortion rights, or even a perceived difference.

[BallaFaseke]

7. We can't oppose the "partial birth" ban

at least not in the "Bible Belt" South.

The Democratic Party is a big tent with all kinds of people. We need them ALL to win.

[Gopens]

8. Not to nitpick or anything, Dob ...

... but please-please-PLEASE -- It's "anti-choice," not "pro-life."

Who among us isn't "pro-life?"

[BallaFaseke]

10. I'm not pro-life

Believe me I have enemies and people I dislike. I'm sure you do to.

[Gopens]

13. Sure I have people I dislike, even hate

But I don't wish death on them.

[BallaFaseke]

14. To each his own n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

25. Not to nitpick or anything, Gopens,

but if you want to win people over to the Democratic Party, you don't do it by telling them what they should call themselves, or by calling them by a name they don't use behind their backs.

[Woodstock]

39. We sure as hell can oppose it - and should

The wording of this ban is such that it can extend to other procedures and to all trimesters. This ban was written this way for the express purpose of achieving the goal of overturning Roe v. Wade. But Roe v. Wade is something the majority of Americans on both sides of the aisle support (and throw away the effects of right wing propaganda on this procedure, and you will find true public sentiment still, as always, supports Roe v. Wade - which, by the way, always restricted late term abortions but protected the health and life of the mother.) So it makes zero sense not to oppose this ban. And if that is not enough reason to oppose it, it is unconstitutional - there is no provision for the health of the mother.

The day we don't take a stand on an issue like this is the day we turn into small quivering masses of jelly. People don't vote for small quivering masses of jelly. Small quivering masses of jelly get ground into the pavement.

The Democratic party is the party of CHOICE. The day that changes is the day Democrats lose their most loyal base - the one that incidentally has made the difference again and again in them winning vs. losing elections.

Women polled (source: The Emerging Democratic Majority) said choice was the reason they chose Gore over Bush. Gore won thanks to the support of women. Choice is a still a BIG issue. And this ban was all about doing away with choice.

[pasadenaboy]

9. huh?

What makes you think they care more about abortion than gun rights, confederate flag, etc? What is your evidence for this conclusion

[Dob Bole]

12. Because I'm "they"

and I know a little bit about the habits of Southern people, having been born in Alabama and lived in the South my entire life. See post 6. If you think that people are so stupid that you can give them a condescending "look, here's your flag" or a "look, here's a gun" and get their votes, then you're not understanding the reasons that Southern Democrats voted for Bush in droves. In the South, pro-life Democrats win. Pro-choice Dems lose. Virginia is something of an anomaly in this regard, where gun control actually does matter because the NRA is based there.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. I'm also "they" and gun control is a big deal in Louisiana... n/t

[lastliberalintexas]

40. I'm also "they"

and gun control is a bigger issue in Texas than abortion.

You are right in that there are *some* people we will never get- not even if Jesus Christ himself were our candidate. The problem is that you, and every DNC operative out there, is only focusing on people who already vote. We could win the South (or at least several states) if we worked on the non-voters.

[Crowdance]

11. Go for it, Dob

and watch people like me abandon the party in droves. We are legion.

[Zynx]

15. I have always had a split view on abortion.

I firmly do not believe that it is a health right of the woman to have an abortion when it is convenient. I find it morally repugnant as a matter of fact to say such a thing.

However, my position is, and has always been, abortions are going to happen no matter what you do and we should allow safe and clean places to exist all over the nation so they are not forced into the back alleys where they can be killed by improper procedures. It is for this reason that I support the right of a woman to choose and not because it is an actual right as in a right to free speech. Of course health emergencies are a different matter for me and abortion should always be an option here because it is not a moral issue at that point. I have always found the Republicans to have an awkward position on abortion in that they say that it should only be legal in rape, incest, and when the woman's life is in danger. In the cases of rape and incest, it is still a life as far as I see it, and for the pro-lifers to say otherwise for political convenience is disgusting and hypocritical.

Now how does this relate to the topic? I say it relates because Democrats sometimes are a little too vocal on the abortion issue and stating it too bluntly when we simply say "I will support a woman's right to choose". This offends a lot of people because only 20 some percent of Americans support abortion in all cases and it is particularly poisonous in the South. What we should have instead is a position of abortion should be safe, legal, and rare while beefing up adoption agencies. That will quell a lot of these one issue Republicans who should be voting with us over economic issues.

[Crowdance]

18. How about a position beefing up a WOMAN,

like universal health care, universal child care, equal pay for work of equal value? How in the world does support of adoption help WOMEN? Adoption is great when that's the preferred solution, but what about a party that does its utmost to provide a woman a truly equal role in society. If women were the economic, social and political equals of men, the laws, sciences and economies would provide us with ways to control our reproduction and to actually support our children when we have them. Watch the abortion rate plummet in such a society. But, I'm sure we'll never have a chance to see such a just society with positions like those expressed in this post.

[DemBones DemBones]

30. Dennis Kucinich wants such a society and that's one of the

reasons I support him. His approach might actually result in abortion becoming safe, legal, and rare. If we could get to that point, I think we could all stop arguing about it.

[Woodstock]

41. I disagree with your assessment

As for "only 20 some percent of Americans support abortion in all cases" - what in the world does that have to do with anything? The majority of Americans do and always have supported Roe v. Wade (and this is what Democrats support, including me.) The fact that you, and others, do not know that Roe v. Wade does NOT allow abortion "in all cases" but rather has specific restrictions that most Americans agree to, is a message that we as Democrats need to get out. The right wing has clearly put a greater effort into propaganda when someone on a Democratic forum says what you just did as though it actually means something.

Furthermore, this really makes no sense:

"I firmly do not believe that it is a health right of the woman to have an abortion when it is convenient."

What are you saying - it's OK to have an abortion to preserve her health, or not? When convenient - she should have it at 2 AM? You need to do some research and learn for what reasons women have abortions, and how often women have abortions for those reasons.

[annak110]

16. The South was Democratic (solidly)until at least the '50s-

remember the powerful southern senators of the time? Also, if people were told that the entire anti legal abortion "controversy" was cooked up by catholic bishops and passed through their "fundamentalist" shills (Jerry Fallwell is one of these) just after Roe v Wade, they might take a new look at it. The campaign is based on the intent to make the pope "infallable" since, after all, there is nothing disallowing abortion in your bible, only the pope has said this. The other reasons for mounting this campaign along with a campaign against contraceptives were to control the lives of 50% of the population and form a political wedge which could be used to gain support for their "corporative" bullshit.

[0rganism]

21. up until Goldwater and Nixon turned the Dixiecrats into republicans

Face it, by the time of LBJ's presidency, the Democrats were already on the wain in the south. By opposing AA "handouts" as "reverse discrimination", attacking abortion rights as "baby killing", and preaching "rugged individualism" over the common weal, the pukes have solidified a hold on the south that will be tough to break. You'd have to show some very racist, close-minded people that they've been voting against their best interests for decades.

It's true, but it's not pleasant. A lot of those folks will prefer to swallow the blue pill, thank you very much.

[annak110]

32. Here is a place for information

<http://www.population-security.org/swom-98-05.htm>

and

<http://www.population-security.org/swom-92-05.htm>

John Swomley is well respected everywhere for his research and his writing by honest and fair Catholic theologians as well as by others. If you doubt the influence of the Catholic Church in "our" government (as well as their influence on fundamentalists check out the list of rightwing enemies, you will find that the rightwing still has the same enemies it has had for 1300 years. Check out the idea that it has been announced that our elected officials should follow the dictates of the Vatican, of course, people like Henry Hyde (for example) always have been Vatican shills. The pope runs a country "The Holy See" in order to have access to a seat in the U.N. where the Vatican acts to destroy the lives of women everywhere. If one of our elected officials or most of our elected officials are following Vatican orders then they should be tried for treason because they are following the dictates of another country rather than the primary law of our Constitution.

The "issue" of again making abortions illegal comes from the Vatican and not the bible and even if it did come from the bible it shouldn't be a public issue since there are many in the country who don't follow a religion and many who follow other religions. We are supposed to have a Democracy in which (finally!) we all have choices, where racism and sexism may be defeated. Hasn't Western Culture had its fill of being ruled by a dangerous and murderous Theocracy?

BTW, I repeat here, Jerry Falwell was hired to run "The Moral Majority" but the script for that assinine organization was written by Paul Wyrich, rightwing Catholic author.

[Woodstock]

42. Bush & the Vatican are hand in hand in condemning condoms too

The thing to keep in mind is that a lot of Catholics oppose both Bush and the current pope's arch-conservative policies.

[annak110]

44. Exactly! Catholic women have been the most consistent supporters

of the right to choose. Also, Catholics for a Free Choice provide and excellent and thoughtful voice in this matter.

However, a lot of people have died under this pope's bs. And you are correct the bishops banned condoms worldwide and A.I.D.s went rampant.

What do you suppose the next fascist pope will be like and will it take our C.I.A. (filled with Opus Dei members) to get him elected? (See Martin A. Lee's "Their Will Be Done", Mother Jones Magazine, July (?) 1983

[cap]

22. sorry but abortion is a racial issue for the South

their view of abortion is a black woman whoppin' it up on a Saturday night and using abortion to clean up the consequences. They make an exception for their wife, daughter, sister when they get in the family way.

The abortion issue, like welfare, is a racial issue in the South. It is the unworthy them -- using your tax money -- to sanction immorality. Let's call it like it is.

How many of them would want their relative with a baby dying inside them NOT to have a partial birth abortion if that's the best option that their physician can give them?

[Maddy McCall]

26. No, you are wrong...

It is not a racial issue here (I agree that welfare might be.) If it is any bit racial, it is in inversely so to what you said.

Abortion is an issue here just like it is across the rest of the nation. It is grounded in fundamentalism, especially the "thou shall not kill" commandment.

Honestly, if anything, they DON'T mind black women having abortions as much as they do white women. See, those white babies are what they covet--they can adopt them out to infertile christian couples. A black baby is seen as nothing more than another drag on the system, according to the mindset here.

[Woodstock]

43. then why do they want to kill women?

they are hypocrites

[Blue_Roses]

27. well as someone

who has worked as a counselor with women and girls facing unplanned pregnancies, the statistics say otherwise. The number of abortions by white outnumber the black 2/1. You'd probably be surprised that many are from conservative--yes, I've seen a few church members(southern baptist at that) faced with that decision. Some have come in with their mothers. So, abortion being a "racial" issue is completely false.

[sandnsea]

34. attitude, not reality

Your reality is what the poster is talking about. You could throw welfare statistics in there and get the same reality. But the attitude is that 'those people' are on welfare or getting abortions, whether 'those people' are blacks in the south or Mexicans in California or trailer trash in Oklahoma. When it happens to 'them' it's because they have no morals. When it happens in the 'white Christian family', it's an understandable and forgiveable mistake.

[cally]

23. Well, give up the protection of women

over control of their bodies and you just lost many states. I would never vote for an anti-choice candidate. Look at how Dems win elections. Dems need a big gender gap and women's votes, they need african american voters and for a large turnout, and they need union voters. Give up the pro-choice issue and you just lost a large percentage of your base.

I could write a similar thread that we need the Nascar vote. We need the strong military vote. We need the patriotic vote. We need the latino vote. We need to increase the gender gap. All of this is somewhat true, but we mostly need a candidate with a strong message that calls the junta on their lies.

[loyalsister]

24. I beg to differ

Elected officials have told me that rural voters in Missouri are more worried about guns than abortion.

[farmbo]

28. It's ALL those issues, stupid...

Like their Northern & Western brotheren, (and sisteren) the South doesn't vote on a single issue... abortion or anything else.

Stereotypes do not apply. A comprehensive approach is required.

[MrSoundAndVision]

29. I'm in the South and...

let me tell you that those who drive pickup's with confederate flags in their windows also have stickers that show Calvin (the comic strip character) pissing on a Ford symbol and an RIP sticker dedicated to Dale Earnhardt, these people DON'T vote here (in KY at least), it's the religious fundamentalists, the rich Republicans that come from old money, and the liberals, whose numbers are far and great in fact. Usually old money teams with religious fundamentalism. However, I've been thinking about starting a group of lecturers who teach Socialism along side of Christianity...but have been told this is a very bad idea, as Christians are more concerned with exploiting Jesus' death than his life. Any input?

[DemBones DemBones]

31. Sometimes it's a Chevy symbol, but otherwise you're right on

about the stickers. And you're more likely to see the cars with fish symbols on them at your polling place. I've never seen a Rebel flag on a car when I've gone to the polls here in rural Georgia.

I don't know exactly what you have in mind, but I think the word "socialism" has very negative connotations in most parts of the country, and most people wouldn't want to follow anything labeled as socialist teachings. Some can't deal with any suggestion of socialist teaching within Christianity. But if you don't call it socialism, it's cool.

I disagree with those who told you that "Christians are more concerned with exploiting Jesus' death than his life." Of course Christians vary widely in beliefs and level of commitment to their faith. People who take Christianity seriously are very interested in what Jesus taught and how to follow his example. That's why you find them working in soup kitchens, delivering Meals on Wheels, working in all sorts of charitable endeavors that help the poor, the sick, the elderly. And there are communal Christian groups, for those truly dedicated to sharing, such as Koinonia, the Bruderhof, the Catholic Worker movement.

[no name no slogan]

33. Democrats and the white male vote

You know what's really humorous about this? Democrats are so obsessed with winning the white male vote that we'd alienate our other constituencies to do it.

Most of the issues we're talking about on this thread have to do with how white males view them. Abortion, guns, religion, etc. with little or no regard for women or non-white men.

IIRC, the last winning Democratic presidential candidate to win the majority of the white male vote was Truman back in 1948. Since then, we've achieved victory by assembling a coalition of racial/ethnic minorities and women-- which we still draw in greater numbers than the Repubs-- plus a fair number of white males. THIS is how we have won, and will continue to win.

But somehow we're still obsessed with this white male vote...

Let's face it: white male votes are important, but they're quickly becoming a minority group in this country (if they haven't already). Yes, they may still hold a lot of power, but we have the numbers. Sure, it would be nice if more of them voted for our candidates, but we SHOULD NOT sell out our core constituencies just to win the over.

[sandnsea]

35. Yep

But, good lord, don't start a thread on it! I tried that once and was beat up pretty good and got very little support. I asked why white males think they need their own party. It's obvious to me that many of them do, but I guess not quite obvious to the general population yet.

[DoNotRefill]

36. Riiiiight....

Point #1: That's why EVERY Southern State has a CCW law in place. I don't hunt. The vast majority of my gun owning friends don't hunt. I can think of only 2 gun owning firends who hunt, out of 30-50 gun owners that I know. And if nobody but hunters care about gun control, then please explain why Mary Sue Terry got her ass kicked so badly in Virginia.

[LoneStarLiberal]

37. Wrong, Wrong, and Partially Right

1)Why this is stupid: Nobody in the South cares about gun laws except hunters. And they don't hunt with pistols or Uzzis.

Umm, wrong. Gun control is an issue in the South not because of hunting or rednecks or anything beyond the fact that conservatives and the NRA have engrained the idea that gun control is a proxy for the goverment, ATF, and the black helicopters to come take away your "rights" and your ability to protect yourself from them.

It's got nothing to do with hunting.

Moving on...

2) Why this is stupid: Nobody knows about the Civil War because our education system sucks. Rednecks with Rebel Flags have rebel flags because they think they're rebels. Also, the era of the Solid South resulting from the Civil War ended in 1920. Nobody cares except for historians, who are not a substantial swing vote. By mentioning a rebel flag, you will likely alienate black voters who see it as a racial symbol moreso than attract voters who see it as a rebel symbol.

Wrong again. You're not going to "get" votes by dry humping the Stars and Bars. To the FEW people down here who actually think that way, everyone except Clark and Edwards are Yankees. Nothing that any of the other candidates says or does will ever change that.

More importantly, the point you're missing is that it's not the FORMAL (if you can call it that) education people receive in schools that inculcates Southern romanticism into people in the South; it's family traditions passed down from the Civil War, it's social organizations, and it's a history that both right (Patrick Cleburne) and wrong (Nathan Bedford Forrest) is inexorably woven into the fabric of Southern existence.

Most people I know who count themselves as "Southerners" don't expect candidates to pander to the glorious defeat of the Civil War or promise them states' rights or to defend their flying of the Confederate Battle Flag (important note: the "flag of the Confederacy," the political flag, ain't the Stars and Bars, y'all).

The only thing they want is NOT to be treated like a bunch of bigoted, shine-distilling, banjo-picking hillbillies.

3) It's the abortion, stupid. We have already established that the swing voting Democrats in the South are evangelical Christians, not flag-waving drunk rednecks. These people are strongly pro-life, and they have no choice for President in the Democratic party next year.

As long as you distinguish between evangelicals and fundamentalists, I'd agree on this point. Evangelicals might vote Republican because while the tenets of their faith are important, for many evangelicals there are other secular things like national defense, health care, and taxes that are more important.

Fundies flat out don't give a shit about themselves or anything else besides their headlong rush to put others through the American Inquisition and speeding up the end of the world.