Politico: How Dems can catpure Dixie (again)

[Miles]

Article.

Premises:

1) Democrats in the south really how nowhere to go but up.
2) Trends in states like NC and GA.
3) The south has always been, and still very much is, populist.

[7,052,770]

My suggestion: give the Republicans enough rope and hope they hang thenselves. It's worked in Nevada, Delaware, Indiana,  and Missouri,  so maybe it can work in Kentucky,  Georgia,  Mississippi,  or Texas this year. You never know...

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I must be missing something here, because the crux of the man's argument is that Democrats are better off talking about "effective and efficient government" instead of how big or small it should be.  Yet, is that not what Democrats capitalize when they campaign regardless of the state or region they're in?  Did Mark Warner and Tim Kaine build that strong coalition in Virginia all by themselves?  Or, did national Democrats decide to actually contest their races and get determined to turn Virginia into the next Florida or Ohio?

The problem is that Democrats have abandoned the 50-state strategy.  We don't bother contesting races in Wyoming or Kansas or Tennessee anymore - three states which, of course, had Democratic governors not too long ago.  We write off those states and more before campaign mode even begins.  2008 was the last year Democrats poured anything into hostile territory.  Indiana and North Carolina wouldn't have swung if those state parties were left on their own.  Democrats need to do more than talk about money - they need to spend money.

[Miles]

I must be missing something here, because the crux of the man's argument is that Democrats are better off talking about "effective and efficient government" instead of how big or small it should be.  

Which is where the populism comes in

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[free my dawg]

My suggestion: give the Republicans enough rope and hope they hang thenselves. It's worked in Nevada, Delaware, Indiana,  and Missouri,  so maybe it can work in Kentucky,  Georgia,  Mississippi,  or Texas this year. You never know...

Kentucky and Texas won't work. Generic Teabagger would win in these states, and even then Texas's Democrats are all Some Dudes. I'd rather face McConnell than Bevin because of his ties to Washington.

Georgia and MAYBE Mississippi? God yeah. No idea why Taylor isn't running for Senate as a D or even an I.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I must be missing something here, because the crux of the man's argument is that Democrats are better off talking about "effective and efficient government" instead of how big or small it should be.  

Which is where the populism comes in

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If that means talking about Obamacare instead of running away from it, then I can see the author's point.

[Zioneer]

Kind of wish Utah was in play. Or that we had some populists.

But good luck to the Southern Democrats, hope they can capture a few seats.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I must be missing something here, because the crux of the man's argument is that Democrats are better off talking about "effective and efficient government" instead of how big or small it should be.  Yet, is that not what Democrats capitalize when they campaign regardless of the state or region they're in?  Did Mark Warner and Tim Kaine build that strong coalition in Virginia all by themselves?  Or, did national Democrats decide to actually contest their races and get determined to turn Virginia into the next Florida or Ohio?

The problem is that Democrats have abandoned the 50-state strategy.  We don't bother contesting races in Wyoming or Kansas or Tennessee anymore - three states which, of course, had Democratic governors not too long ago.  We write off those states and more before campaign mode even begins.  2008 was the last year Democrats poured anything into hostile territory.  Indiana and North Carolina wouldn't have swung if those state parties were left on their own.  Democrats need to do more than talk about money - they need to spend money.

We are doing just that by focusing on key senate seats in KY, Ga and AK, the 50 state strategy, for senate control.

[Mr. Illini]

The day that the south goes back into the D category will be the day that the north goes back into the R category, and the day that I distance myself from the Democratic Party.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Democrats did it once before and didn't even need the demographic changes to do it back then, nor segregationism. I am speaking of course about the Democrat resurgence in the region in the 1970's. The problem is that they have since hitched themselves to elitists where anything not chiq in the UES is either a product of stupidity or corruption.

[Vega]

Contrary to what some think; running Blue Dogs in the south is not the answer to winning elections there.

[Horus]

Contrary to what some think; running Blue Dogs in the south is not the answer to winning elections there.

Correct. We need to focus on running moderate to liberal progressives in places like the Charlotte suburbs, Atlanta suburbs and other, more urbanized parts of the coastal south.

[Vega]

Contrary to what some think; running Blue Dogs in the south is not the answer to winning elections there.

Correct. We need to focus on running moderate to liberal progressives in places like the Charlotte suburbs, Atlanta suburbs and other, more urbanized parts of the coastal south.

Aye. There is nary a chance of any Democrat winning in the more rural section of the south, or most any state.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Both Grimes and Nunn are at an advantage over inc Landrieu or Pryor, not being incumbents, but running as outsiders, like not taking hard votes on banning abortions after 20 weeks.

[Vega]

Landrieu is no stranger to a tough campaign; all her Senate campaigns have been. But she will win; barring in any major gaffes on her end.

[hopper]

The Democrats did it once before and didn't even need the demographic changes to do it back then, nor segregationism. I am speaking of course about the Democrat resurgence in the region in the 1970's. The problem is that they have since hitched themselves to elitists where anything not chiq in the UES is either a product of stupidity or corruption.

Well Carter did well in the South in the 1976 Presidential Election sure because he was a Southerner!

[badgate]

The Democrats did it once before and didn't even need the demographic changes to do it back then, nor segregationism. I am speaking of course about the Democrat resurgence in the region in the 1970's. The problem is that they have since hitched themselves to elitists where anything not chiq in the UES is either a product of stupidity or corruption.

Somebody got excluded from the cool kids table...

[Meeker]

This isn't rocket science. White Southerners have always supported culturally conservative politicians. Today's Democratic Party is anything but. Unless we're willing and able to change that perception, we're wasting our time down there. The populist stuff is all fine and dandy if you can finance a campaign while using that rhetoric (good luck), but voters aren't going to forget about abortion, Obamacare, food stamps, etc. just because we try to change the subject.

The exception to this all is in statewide races where changing demographics allow us to cobble together a winning coalition thanks to non-white voters. But in states like Alabama and Tennessee or in exurban Atlanta? Forget about it.

[smoltchanov]

This isn't rocket science. White Southerners have always supported culturally conservative politicians. Today's Democratic Party is anything but. Unless we're willing and able to change that perception, we're wasting our time down there. The populist stuff is all fine and dandy if you can finance a campaign while using that rhetoric (good luck), but voters aren't going to forget about abortion, Obamacare, food stamps, etc. just because we try to change the subject.

The exception to this all is in statewide races where changing demographics allow us to cobble together a winning coalition thanks to non-white voters. But in states like Alabama and Tennessee or in exurban Atlanta? Forget about it.

Run very socially conservative Southern populists there. Louisiana state Senator Ben Nevers immediately comes to my mind as an example : he is more socially conservative then most Republicans in Legislature, but absolutely not bad on economy. As a result - he was reelected in almost 70% Romney district. He is too old to run for anything else, but still - a good example

[Meeker]

This isn't rocket science. White Southerners have always supported culturally conservative politicians. Today's Democratic Party is anything but. Unless we're willing and able to change that perception, we're wasting our time down there. The populist stuff is all fine and dandy if you can finance a campaign while using that rhetoric (good luck), but voters aren't going to forget about abortion, Obamacare, food stamps, etc. just because we try to change the subject.

The exception to this all is in statewide races where changing demographics allow us to cobble together a winning coalition thanks to non-white voters. But in states like Alabama and Tennessee or in exurban Atlanta? Forget about it.

Run very socially conservative Southern populists there. Louisiana state Senator Ben Nevers immediately comes to my mind as an example : he is more socially conservative then most Republicans in Legislature, but absolutely not bad on economy. As a result - he was reelected in almost 70% Romney district. He is too old to run for anything else, but still - a good example

Nevers is a relic of a past era. Most Southern Democrats like him have either retired, been defeated, become Republicans, or died. Those few that hang on are able to do so because of their personal reputations and name recognition. Even Nevers only won by two percentage points in his last re-election.

You could probably count on one hand the number of white, Southern Democrats who have been newly-elected over the past five years to Southern state legislatures. For the most part, the Democratic Party label has become too toxic down there, no matter who the candidate is.

[Beezer]

I don't get articles like these at all. If Democrats want to win the South they'll have to do so by abandoning their base in the rest of the nation. We now have 2 ideologically cohesive parties precisely because white Southerners have switched their partisan allegiance over the past few decades (and the general sorting trend of course). How on earth does the author think that the Dems will be able to sell racially and socially conservative small government candidates to their socially liberal young and economically liberal minority voters in the non-South? Of course the GOP Solid South is fraying at the edges (VA and NC) but I don't see that many potential inroads in the Deep South and some other parts, particularly in congressional races.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Democrats did it once before and didn't even need the demographic changes to do it back then, nor segregationism. I am speaking of course about the Democrat resurgence in the region in the 1970's. The problem is that they have since hitched themselves to elitists where anything not chiq in the UES is either a product of stupidity or corruption.

Somebody got excluded from the cool kids table...

Somebody missed the point.

The problem for the Democrats is not the specific issues, but the cultural narrative and rather than resist and seek to be a party of working people of all backgrounds, they have developed a degree of exclusivity that is hampering progressive causes. Of the previous coalitions of Progressive Democrats, did any exclude the rural south? No, or at the very least not entirely. Instead the party is becoming more and more interwined with its own breed of business interests. 

In elite circles there is a view that certain segments of the country are undesirable and that has precluded even attempts to reallign these voters to a more Progressive footing. Look at this thread, they are being written off. You could destroy the Republican Party and move the country to the left once again, but instead the answer is to wait for the Suburbs to diversify more. Even if it does, it won't produce the type of result a coaltion of urban and rural working people could in terms of economic issues.

The Democrats did it once before and didn't even need the demographic changes to do it back then, nor segregationism. I am speaking of course about the Democrat resurgence in the region in the 1970's. The problem is that they have since hitched themselves to elitists where anything not chiq in the UES is either a product of stupidity or corruption.

Well Carter did well in the South in the 1976 Presidential Election sure because he was a Southerner!

Which proves my point. It took neither demography or racism for the Dems to recover after the Civil Rights battles. All it took was making a statement of inclusion that included poor whites in the South. Think of how moderates and Democrats in New Jersey voted for Christie even has he rejected their policies on gays, minimum wage and the like. Does anyone consider the possibility that the same can happen in reverse? You don't have to even go as far as the example smolthchanov mentioned, but at least he is seeing the overal point?

Contrary to what some think; running Blue Dogs in the south is not the answer to winning elections there.

Correct. We need to focus on running moderate to liberal progressives in places like the Charlotte suburbs, Atlanta suburbs and other, more urbanized parts of the coastal south.

Correct, "Liberal", a suburban party based Democratic Party will always be liberal, neoliberal. People need to differentiate between "liberal" and "progressive" and until such is the case, most will be dissappointed with the Democratic Party.

[Beezer]

Which proves my point. It took neither demography or racism for the Dems to recover after the Civil Rights battles. All it took was making a statement of inclusion that included poor whites in the South.

I'd make the point that this happened 40 years ago when many Southerners still voted for local Democratic candidates. The threshold for voting Democratic in presidential elections was far lower back then, particulalry with one of their own on the ticket (and let's not forget the scandal that preceded the election) but so much has changed since. I really doubt that if Jimmy Carter ran today he'd get very far in the South either.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Which proves my point. It took neither demography or racism for the Dems to recover after the Civil Rights battles. All it took was making a statement of inclusion that included poor whites in the South.

I'd make the point that this happened 40 years ago when many Southerners still voted for local Democratic candidates. The threshold for voting Democratic in presidential elections was far lower back then, particulalry with one of their own on the ticket (and let's not forget the scandal that preceded the election) but so much has changed since. I really doubt that if Jimmy Carter ran today he'd get very far in the South either.

That is because the atrophy has gone unchecked for so long. It has to be rebuilt obviously.

Some in this thread seem to think it is a choice? Who would be lost or what would be lost from trying to get these people to vote on the economy? Some preconcieved notions? The minorities are going to vote Dem as are all these new and younger voters as well that are improving the Party's standing as it is. Grab just 10% or 15% of the white vote, and even MS begins to get interesting.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

To put it another way, it would be an inverse of the 1970's, but the mix or result would be the same so to the speak. Back then you were in a period when these people were Democrats, considered themselves such and voted as such at nearly all levels, but were slowly eroding even then. Over the next three decades, The Democrats ran Southerners nationally, whilst advocating neither social nor economic issues that they shared in order to obtain their votes through intangible connections, charisma and background. Does anyone wonder why they left? It is not just the gays, but that they are getting gays and Wall Street (Post Clinton) with the Democrats and at least with the GOP they get something of what they want or at least thing they do.