Why the South IS important

[ResistTheCoup]

Last night on "Now" with Bill Moyers he interviewed Dan T. Carter, a Southern historian. Moyers asks if it's possible for the Democrats to win the South.

Carter explains why tactically it may be very difficult for the Dems to carry the South but he goes on to explain why it's very important, strategically, to concentrate on the South: because it will force Bush to run a different kind of campaign. Instead of being able to run as a 'moderate' he'll be forced to hit the 'hot button' issues that play well in the South but tend to alienate moderates.

Here's the transcript and an excerpt (page down to the bottom to read the whole transcript - the bolds added are mine).

Moyers asks Carter if the Democrats can ignore the South in November.

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript305_full.html

DAN T. CARTER: They can. If you look at it from a purely tactical point of view, it's gonna be very difficult to carry the South...
I-- I mean Florida, obviously, is a state that's up for grabs, and Arkansas-- Louisiana, maybe. You know, there are a few southern states, possibly. But the reality is that given limited resources, given the states that are so on the borderline, often having more electoral votes-- that's where the Demos-- we're now into this tactical thing in which you concentrate resources. But I think it's a terrible mistake. And I think it's a mistake in two ways. In the first place, it's a mistake because it simply guarantees Republican dominance in the long run. You've got to think not beyond this election cycle, but to the next election cycle. I think there is a possibility of increasing dramatically the Democratic vote in the South. The economics-- lean that way.

But the second factor, and this is-- may seem strange. But I believe that if the Democrats don't make an effort to appeal to the South, it's going to allow the Bush administration to run a very elevated campaign. And if they're pressed on the South, they're gonna come back hard on some of these hard core social issues. And it may cement their control over the South. But it's gonna alienate a lot of moderate voters.

BILL MOYERS: You mean if the Democrats don't run a race in the South it allows George Bush and Karl Rove to appear to be moderates in the South?

DAN T. CARTER: That's right. That's right. And because they if they can take the South for granted they don't have to use some of these hot button issues that I think have greatest appeal in the South. And that allows them then to not terrify what I see. .. I'm not dividing up the electorate this way. But essentially moderate female voters-- who I think would be put off whatever their own views by a kind of hard edge attack on, say, the gay issue or school prayer or any of these other-- divisions of us and them. And I think-- I think it's important for Democrats-- for both those reasons. And for the long run because it'll make the Bush campaign run a different kind of-- adopt a different kind of strategy.

[sangha]

1. I saw that

and I agree 100%

[NV1962]

2. Exactly

That's what I argued yesterday here, too.

[uconnyc]

3. I agree too...

That is why my top 2 are Edwards and Clark.

But as I got to know Edwards and his policies more I truly love the guy. I think he is sincere and genuinly cares about poor americans.

[Maddy McCall]

4. Might we also add that the south is the birthplace of the Democratic party

And that there are MILLIONS of democrats in the south.

For those very reasons, it pisses me off to hear people talk about "the south" as if we are some outer entity and not a part of the party to which we have a very direct claim.

Don't talk about us as if we are "others." We aren't. Don't discuss us as if we aren't in the room and as if we don't have as much a right to decisions about this party as anyone from the north, west, or east.

We are here and we aren't going anywhere. Alienate us or throw us away at our party's detriment.

[Jerseycoa]

11. Go Dixie!

"the south is the birthplace of the Democratic party"

:toast:

[knight_of_the_star]

5. Exactly!!!

That is what I've been saying, challenge them on their home turf and they won't be able to fight us effectively in the battleground states.

[texasmom]

6. What excellent points!

Thanks for sharing them. It has disturbed me to read so many posts where people think we can afford to write off a whole region.

[Maddy McCall]

7. People who ponder or advocate doing so know little about our party

or the history of presidential politics.

[Redneck Socialist]

8. Interesting.

I have been thinking some about the what electoral strategy we Dems should take this year and have been leaning toward the "write off the south strategy," but this gives me pause. I will have to ponder this some more.

[ResistTheCoup]

10. Thanks for the thoughtful input Redneck

I think Mr. Carter really has a point about the strategy.

We can't let the the Bush Administration take the South for granted and then try to forge ahead with a supposed 'moderate' platform. Let's see if we can get them to have a replay of the hatefest of the RNC convention in 1992. We need to show them for the extremists they are.

[Redneck Socialist]

14. The more we make them play to their base...

the better it will be for us. The more they talk about anti choice and spew their homophobic fundy crap the easier it will be for us to show what ultra radical spasmos they actually are.

My concern though is will we have the resources to run a strong campaign through out the south. I think it is going to come down to just one or two states this year and if we misidentify them and/or mis-allocate our undoubtedly limited resources we will be in real trouble.

[SharonAnn]

9. And you also want to tie up their resources (people and money)

Because if you don't keep them busy in the South, then they'll take thos resources and put them in the other states. We'll have a hard enough time as it is. Keep them spread out and very, very busy.

Besides, we've got local elections and state elections going on at the same time. We've got to get our people elected to those positions and it's hard to do that if we don't get good Democratic turnout.

So:
1. Tie up the Repugnant resources in every single state
2. Get out the Democratic vote for all the local and state positions.

[Jerseycoa]

12. Exactly right

"Tie up the Repugnant resources in every single state"

If we make it even a little bit easy on them, we're dead.

[Maddy McCall]

13. Oh, and while we are on the south, might I add that in that "lost cause"

state of Mississippi, a poll in November of voters in this state showed that the majority of the electorate here would NOT RE-ELECT GEORGE W. BUSH.

Ah, but forget us...we don't matter. :puke:

[texasmom]

16. I'm not delusional about Texas, but

I have been looking for Bush/Cheney bumper stickers for the past few weeks and have seen NONE. That has been very surprising to me, because usually I would see tons of them.

[Maddy McCall]

21. Same here...and I plan for there to be at least 50 Clark stickers here

because I am waiting for my order to arrive.

If the Dem nominee ends up being any of our present field, I will also order a bunch of those and pass 'em out.

[QC]

17. Have you got a link for that poll?

I would love to show it around!

[Maddy McCall]

20. It was in the state's largest daily in November

I read it in hard copy, not on the internet, but I will look around and see what I can find.

[Bok_Tukalo]

15. Interesting strategy

Campaign in the South to win the MidWest.

[NV1962]

19. And the Southwest!

Remember, if "only" electoral votes in AZ and NV are added to the same states Gore won in 2000, we'll inaugurate a Democratic President next year.

[mot78]

18. We better not write off the South

I'm glad that this guy understands. Forcing * to move to the right will make him weak in places like the Midwest and the Southwest (if he moves further to the right, he won't be able to tout his amnesty program for illegal aliens). BTW Ruy Teixeira has an interesting post on his blog about a non-Southern strategy....

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/index.shtml

[NV1962]

22. Another, excellent explanation why NOT to ignore the South

http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/2/phillips-k.html

Partial quote:

• Today's national Democrats need what, conversely, must be called a "Northern Strategy." In any tight presidential election, the overwhelming proportion of Democratic electoral votes is going to be tabulated in the Northeast, the Great Lakes and the West Coast. A Democratic presidential candidate winning, say, 51 percent of the popular vote would probably carry only one to three of the five southern and border states most in play -- West Virginia, Florida, Tennessee, Louisiana and Arkansas.
  
  The emerging Democratic dependence on the Northeast, Great Lakes and West Coast is an old story, having been obvious since the first years of the emerging Republican majority -- in the 1968 Hubert Humphrey vote and the 1972 George McGovern vote. Jimmy Carter provided only a very brief post-Watergate interruption. The weak Al Gore pattern in 2000 was more similar than might have been expected, a phenomenon to which I will shortly return.
  
  If Bill Clinton had half as much morality and fidelity to old Democratic constituencies as he had sheer intellect, he could have built a 1992 to 2004 Democratic mini-era. Indeed, the combined Gore and Ralph Nader vote in 2000 suggested the extension that should have been. In 1992, the old Richard Nixon-Ronald Reagan coalition was out of gas. The Democratic opportunity was there.
  
  The very notion of a mini-era raises an important point of chronology. The old 32- to 36-year presidential cycles are probably a thing of the past, what with weak party loyalties and ticket splitting. Under these circumstances, it makes even less sense for one of the two parties to write off a region. That is especially true because there are shrewder ways to play regional politics.

Please follow the link to read the rest, where he lays out his view of a possible strategy.