For the democrats, it's time to forget about the south and look west

[ringmastery]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/15/democrats_hoping_for_reprise_of_how_the_west_was_won/

Much of the South is all but lost to Democrats, falling away since the 1960s, when civil rights legislation alienated white voters there, and President Nixon coaxed them over to the GOP. The Democrats should direct their efforts elsewhere, they say: While they should concentrate on holding the states Vice President Al Gore won in 2000, and on states in the industrial Midwest (like Ohio, which Gore lost narrowly), the edge for Democrats lies in the West.

"One hundred forty years after the civil war, people are still preoccupied with the North-South relationship," said former US senator and onetime presidential hopeful Gary Hart of Colorado. "The Republicans skillfully turned the South into Republican territory and, in some cases, used the race card to do so. What I'm suggesting is that the Democratic Party has a strategy of converting the West to the Democratic Party, in much the same way as Republicans converted the South, but without using race or hate."

Even in the party's salad days, the South has not always been good to Democrats, said Thomas F. Schaller, assistant professor of political science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Nor did the region's previous lack of affection for the GOP hamper Republican candidates, he said.

"People forget that from 1860 to 1932, the Democrats dominated the South, and they only won the presidency four out of 18 elections," Schaller said.

Bill Clinton carried a handful of Southern states in 1992 and 1996, but he would have won the presidency both times without them, Schaller said. Gore lost every Southern state in 2000, yet won the popular vote nationwide and nearly took the White House. If he had carried any of the states Hart and others are saying should be higher on Democrats' priority lists this year -- like Arizona -- Gore would be president today.

"Gore basically had the White House within reach if he could have won any of the 30 states he lost," Schaller said. "Eighteen of those states are outside the South, and only 12 are inside the South."

[searchingforlight]

1. I agree. Bill Richardson for Vice - President!!! n/t

[searchingforlight]

4. The truth is with the mobility of this country, we are much the same

everywhere. Yes, we still have regional issues but I think it is a mistake to focus on one section of the country needing special attention. It is not much different than focusing on one group, i.e. the conservatives, over the good of all.

I think we need to emphasize the global picture and take regionalism out of play.

[mmonk]

2. In ways

the west and the south are close to the same. I think Bill Richardson would be a great choice. And I also think more southern states are going to be in play than most people think.

[harrison]

3. Gary Hart is wrong. The Repugs didn't use the race card in

some cases to win the South. The Repugs used the RACE CARD as a whole to win the South. With Nixon it was the "law and order" campaign of 68. Then, fast forward to 1980.

And I rarely call attention to something in my home state, but I hope everyone at DU will understand this. In 1980, the Repugs went down to the Crossroads and made their own deal with the devil. They sewed the wind that year, and at some point will reap the whirlwind.

In 1980, the Repugs trotted Ronald Reagan down to Philadelphia MS at the Neshoba County Fair, which is a big political grandstand, and Ronald Reagan stood up and made a speech about "states rights" 15 miles....FIFTEEN MILES from the place where the bodies of the three civil rights workers were found in 1963.

Of course, Repugs know how to use coded language. Reagan sent out the word far and wide to all the closet racists across the South, and the nation, that "he" was one of them.

Let us remember that in the 1960's, being a REpublican was much different than it is today. There were a number of REpublicans who supported civil rights and the civil rights act of 1965.

Yet, Reagan sold the soul of the Republican Party that day.

By the way, my understanding is that the architect of that plan was none other than Haley Barbour.

[La_Serpiente]

5. what a joke

But the Bush campaign is targeting the West this year, too, including those states on which Democrats have their eyes. The campaign will pour resources into Washington and Oregon, and into New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada, and into California, said Bush campaign chair and former Montana governor Marc Racicot.

The campaign will try to win over Latino voters in the region by focusing on Bush's proposal to give undocumented workers temporary permits, and to persuade all voters in the region that Bush is committed to education and affordable health care.

The momentum is clearly in the Democrat's favor. We may not win Arizona, but we will make headway into the Arizona & Nevada electorate. Bush has a very poor health care record as well. I would think that Westerners are very environmentally conscious and fiscally responsible.

Arizona Latinos are AWESOME at getting out the vote!!! If it wasn't for Arizona Latinos, Napoliano would not be sitting in the Governors seat right now.

Some statistics on Hispanics:

1. 25 percent of Arizona's population
   
2. Hispanics voted for Napoliano by a 4/5 margin.
   

There have also been some Democratic successes in electing Latinos to Congress, such as Raul Grijalva in 2002.

I would also like to note that the Latino vote is not some monolithic bloc of voters. They have their intra-ethnic issues as well that need to be addressed.

[charlie]

6. "Westerners are very environmentally conscious..."

Yep. Hunting sportsmen are discovering that Republican pandering to corporate interests is destroying the game habitats they love. We may soon enjoy alliances from conservatives on issues that are traditionally the province of liberals:

Conservative sportsmen turn against Bush

This groundswell of conservative opposition to the administration's environmental policies is not limited to the Tongass. Hunting and fishing conservation vs. resource development on public lands is a growing issue throughout traditional GOP enclaves in the American West. Along Montana's Rocky Mountain Front, for example, protests from sportsmen on natural gas exploration are ringing out. This area is revered by hunters and fishers for its world-class trout and large populations of big game.

"Areas like this should be last on the list," says Paul Hansen of the Izaak Walton League. "A lot of conservative-voting people are pretty unhappy over the Bush administration's record on issues like this." And that record was amplified by the ringing silence accorded environmental issues in last week's State of the Union message.

"What's happening now on public lands is forcing sportsmen to organize," adds Chris Wood, vice president for conservation at Trout Unlimited. "Never before have our interests been as at risk as they are now." His group boasts close to 150,000 members, fewer than 30% of whom say they are Democrats.

The political clout of the hook-and-bullet crowd is potentially staggering. According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service statistics, 47 million Americans over age 16 fished or hunted in the past year. Adding those who do so less regularly would mean millions more.

"This is a constituency that is slow to anger, but the administration is starting to see a backlash," Wood says. "The 'Sportsmen for Bush' bumper stickers ... might be pretty scarce in 2004."