Politico: How Dems can catpure Dixie (again)

[DrScholl]

The under 50k income vote is almost certainly heavily weighed by black voters, and blacks fall well below the poverty line in Mississippi, so it's hard to tell just how poor whites voted, but it's highly likely it wasn't for Obama.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The under 50k income vote is almost certainly heavily weighed by black voters, and blacks fall well below the poverty line in Mississippi, so it's hard to tell just how poor whites voted, but it's highly likely it wasn't for Obama.

That's a valid point, so that then would indicate the strong likelihood of a racial divide among voters.  That's a far superior explanation to the argument that social issues like gay marriage and abortion dominate in Southern elections.

[7,052,770]

The under 50k income vote is almost certainly heavily weighed by black voters, and blacks fall well below the poverty line in Mississippi, so it's hard to tell just how poor whites voted, but it's highly likely it wasn't for Obama.

That's a valid point, so that then would indicate the strong likelihood of a racial divide among voters.  That's a far superior explanation to the argument that social issues like gay marriage and abortion dominate in Southern elections.

I wish they had a chart for income and race.  Also, a $50,000 cutoff for the lowest group doesn't make much sense -- that's well above average in Mississippi, especially for blacks.

If Obama got 96% of the black vote and around half of the under $50,000s are black, Obama wouldn't need 20% of the under-$50,000 white vote to get 54% of the total under $50,000 vote.  And he probably got less than that.

[7,052,770]

Democrats can occasionally win rural whites if they can establish themselves as anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage and can spin the race away from politics altogether (see Travis Childers 2008 or several state legislators in Mississippi).  But overall Democrats would be better off targeting educated suburban whites.

Why not do BOTH??

We can in state legislative elections, but we can't really in statewide elections.  Childers specifically can target northeastern rural whites and hope McDaniel's craziness scares off enough suburban whites to put him over the top.  But I don't think it's possible for a single Democratic candidate to appeal to both groups.

[illegaloperation]

What Southern Democrats need to do is find reasons that white moderate/conservative Southerners should vote for them and not the alternative.

Examples:

Right: You need me because I am a huge advocate of natural gas and oil industries which is a major employer in this state.

Wrong: You want me; I am not nearly half as crazy as my opponent.

[7,052,770]

While we're on the subject, I made this map a few months ago.  I took all of the county vote totals, exit poll data, and county racial stats and tried to back out a percentage of white voters who voted for Obama.



It's certainly not 100% valid -- I didn't have county by county racial turnout levels, so I had to assume they were uniform across the state.  I also had to assume Obama got 96% of the black vote in each county since there was no more precise information.  All of this probably balances out pretty well, so it's probably a good approximation of the real percentages, but it may not be exact.

Anyway, I think Democrats are maxing out what they're going to get in the northeast and dramatically underperforming in the suburbs.  The other half of the equation is get blacks to the polls even in mid-terms, and wait as demographic drift causes the black percentage to rise over the years.

[smoltchanov]

Democrats can occasionally win rural whites if they can establish themselves as anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage and can spin the race away from politics altogether (see Travis Childers 2008 or several state legislators in Mississippi).  But overall Democrats would be better off targeting educated suburban whites.

Why not do BOTH??

We can in state legislative elections, but we can't really in statewide elections.  Childers specifically can target northeastern rural whites and hope McDaniel's craziness scares off enough suburban whites to put him over the top.  But I don't think it's possible for a single Democratic candidate to appeal to both groups.

I agree and i meant different candidates for different offices (legislative, Congressional). In North-east - run populist social conservative, in suburbs - a more socially moderate fiscal conservative. Why not?

[IceSpear]

Republicans have been running on social conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage for so long, that low-income white Christian voters in the Deep South (despite the lack of progress any Republicans have actually made on such issues) have begun to assume Republicans are correct on everything.  As we saw in the recent Tennessee Volkswagen plant, legions of poor white Southerners are super anti-union, oppose minimum wage increases, support tax cuts for the rich, etc., and a whole host of policies that are flagrantly against their own interest simply because they have been fooled into thinking the anti-abortion party must be right on everything.

This is the truth. After all, if the Republicans are Godly and Holy in their opposition to abortion and gay marriage, why wouldn't they be infallibly correct about unions and tax cuts for the rich too? Running populists won't help convert them, they've been indoctrinated into the GOP economic agenda through their religious beliefs.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Smoltchanov you are going up against a brick wall here.


If the Democrats could get the poor whites or even just 15% to 25% of them in the South who presently vote Republican to vote Progressive on economic issues, the map of the South would look much different. Nobody thinks bold anymore like that though.

I disagree politiely. Not every southern white is economic conservative. Social - yes, almost everyone. So suggest my personal experience with the Southern people.

Aren't we essentially saying the say thing though? I am saying there is a band of Republican voting whites that are economically to the left or at the very least willing to listen to a pro-union, pro-minimum wage, pro-single payer message and if you can get them to prioritize that over the social issues, yo ucan win those votes, secure GA, NC, and FL as well as make MS a swing state, maybe even Alabama once again.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

Easily. How on earth it's important, say, for a man in 7th disitrict of Washington (Seattle) whom Democrats run in 3rd district of Alabama? Or - Mississippi? Or - Louisiana? It's a foolishness to run exactly similar candidates in all places. Alabama's democratic party was ALWAYS substantially more conservative then National one (or Democratic party of Washington state). The same - for other Deep South states. The same, BTW, for Republicans, where, say, Republican party of Vermont or Massachusetts was almost always to the left of national one. The only axiom i have in politics - the party must run candidates, which are suitable for their districts. You adapt candidates (and party) to district and it's people, not vice versa.

Do you know what makes a Democrat a Democrat?  What do you think the Democratic Party stands for? You elect Democrats to sell a vision, to pass certain legislation that defines the party.  If we do what we did in 2006 and 2008 and recruit candidates (particularly in rural, predominately white districts) who must vote like moderate Republicans while perpetually looking over their shoulders lest the real more conservative version comes along to take that district away from them, what's the point of having a majority in Congress if you can't pass legislation, or have to water it down so much that it looks like something the GOP (when it wasn't insane) would have authored?  I learned my lesson from the 111th Congress, and never again will I back the likes of Gene Taylor, Travis Childers, Parker Griffith, etc.  I'm done with Blue Dogs.    

What makes a Democrat a Democrat is that he suppose to uplift those who are disconnected from society. For decades they were exclusionary, falling pray to the biases of its base at the time. Beginning with the New Deal on economics and the Great Societ in general terms, the Democratic Party had been finally one that sought to help all such people regardless of color. 

The problem is that you are rejecting the Blue Dogs, but in the process embracing the Clinton New Democratic Party. Which is just as much in bed with Wall Street as the Republicans, especailly now that you have tea party types alienating them as well. It would take a substantial shift in suburban demographics to bring them to a Progressive footing and whilst minorites will esnure Democratic majorities, those are gonna look far more like Bill Clinton and Obama then FDR and LBJ when you go for the surburban-upscale liberal dominated party.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Yankee, are you suggesting that the problem for Democrats is that they're too fiscally conservative?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yankee, are you suggesting that the problem for Democrats is that they're too fiscally conservative?

I approach the question from the perspective of what I would want as a Democrat and if so, yes definately. A Democratic Party that is bed with a nexus of Wall Street and DC is the definition of oxymoronic.

[freepcrusher]

Yankee, are you suggesting that the problem for Democrats is that they're too fiscally conservative?

I approach the question from the perspective of what I would want as a Democrat and if so, yes definately. A Democratic Party that is bed with a nexus of Wall Street and DC is the definition of oxymoronic.

I still think a Bloomberg type (if he were running as a dem) would do better in the south since he/she would be pro-law/order.

[smoltchanov]

Smoltchanov you are going up against a brick wall here.


If the Democrats could get the poor whites or even just 15% to 25% of them in the South who presently vote Republican to vote Progressive on economic issues, the map of the South would look much different. Nobody thinks bold anymore like that though.

I disagree politiely. Not every southern white is economic conservative. Social - yes, almost everyone. So suggest my personal experience with the Southern people.

Aren't we essentially saying the say thing though? I am saying there is a band of Republican voting whites that are economically to the left or at the very least willing to listen to a pro-union, pro-minimum wage, pro-single payer message and if you can get them to prioritize that over the social issues, yo ucan win those votes, secure GA, NC, and FL as well as make MS a swing state, maybe even Alabama once again.

Yes

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yankee, are you suggesting that the problem for Democrats is that they're too fiscally conservative?

I approach the question from the perspective of what I would want as a Democrat and if so, yes definately. A Democratic Party that is bed with a nexus of Wall Street and DC is the definition of oxymoronic.

I still think a Bloomberg type (if he were running as a dem) would do better in the south since he/she would be pro-law/order.

I don't cannotate the notion of such well connected elites as opitomizing the notion of a "Democratic" Party. You got notions of majority, of people, and most people are poor and working people, especially amongst the very minorities the party is depending on to remake the electorate in its favor.

[illegaloperation]

A good read on him Jim Hood keeps winning:

http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-mississippi-ag-jim-hood-last-dem-in-dixie.html

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Best in the long term to continue the cleansing process by letting the GOP capture the remaining rural districts (completing the decades-old realignment of the rural South)

What if people in urban areas in otherwise rural states just don't want the GOP stinking up their state? Are they supposed to be out of luck?

[crash1984]

Republicans have been running on social conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage for so long, that low-income white Christian voters in the Deep South (despite the lack of progress any Republicans have actually made on such issues) have begun to assume Republicans are correct on everything.  As we saw in the recent Tennessee Volkswagen plant, legions of poor white Southerners are super anti-union, oppose minimum wage increases, support tax cuts for the rich, etc., and a whole host of policies that are flagrantly against their own interest simply because they have been fooled into thinking the anti-abortion party must be right on everything.

This is the truth. After all, if the Republicans are Godly and Holy in their opposition to abortion and gay marriage, why wouldn't they be infallibly correct about unions and tax cuts for the rich too? Running populists won't help convert them, they've been indoctrinated into the GOP economic agenda through their religious beliefs.

Correct. I consider myself a Christian and where I go to church it amazes me how many people think Republicans are always right and Democrats are always wrong. If I was talking to someone at church and took an anti-abortion or anti-homosexuality stance I don't think anyone would disagree with me. However if I mentioned some of my other political views that has nothing to do with morals I would easily get into a debate with nearly everyone I was talking to. Just a few of my other views are Obamacare is a good start to fixing a messed up healthcare system, minimum wage needs an increase (really for this one since I make less than the $10.10 proposed, but that is a different story), there should be limits on clip sizes and universal background checks (and I am a gun owner too),  and there is climate change.

When it comes time to vote I look at each candidate, their stances on all the issues, their past history and try to determine what is best. 2012 I wound up voting for all three Democrats when it came to national races, two of them were due to a poor performance by incumbents, and one was because I thought Obama to be the better of the two candidates. 2014 on the otherhand will be different. Democrats will likely get my Representative vote, but if the Tea Party does not oust Alexander I will vote for him again and also I will likely vote for Haslam for governor simply because both are doing a good job.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Republicans have been running on social conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage for so long, that low-income white Christian voters in the Deep South (despite the lack of progress any Republicans have actually made on such issues) have begun to assume Republicans are correct on everything.  As we saw in the recent Tennessee Volkswagen plant, legions of poor white Southerners are super anti-union, oppose minimum wage increases, support tax cuts for the rich, etc., and a whole host of policies that are flagrantly against their own interest simply because they have been fooled into thinking the anti-abortion party must be right on everything.

This is the truth. After all, if the Republicans are Godly and Holy in their opposition to abortion and gay marriage, why wouldn't they be infallibly correct about unions and tax cuts for the rich too? Running populists won't help convert them, they've been indoctrinated into the GOP economic agenda through their religious beliefs.

Correct. I consider myself a Christian and where I go to church it amazes me how many people think Republicans are always right and Democrats are always wrong. If I was talking to someone at church and took an anti-abortion or anti-homosexuality stance I don't think anyone would disagree with me. However if I mentioned some of my other political views that has nothing to do with morals I would easily get into a debate with nearly everyone I was talking to. Just a few of my other views are Obamacare is a good start to fixing a messed up healthcare system, minimum wage needs an increase (really for this one since I make less than the $10.10 proposed, but that is a different story), there should be limits on clip sizes and universal background checks (and I am a gun owner too),  and there is climate change.

I don't think the clip size limits are worth much for they can be modified rather easily. I do agree on background checks though. My high is for a $9 minimum wage since that has a minimal impact on jobs (100,000 as opposed to 500,000) and if tied with a tax cut for job creation and a bump up in the EITC you can accomplish the same objective as $10.10 with gains in jobs, not loses.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

When it comes time to vote I look at each candidate, their stances on all the issues, their past history and try to determine what is best. 2012 I wound up voting for all three Democrats when it came to national races, two of them were due to a poor performance by incumbents, and one was because I thought Obama to be the better of the two candidates. 2014 on the otherhand will be different. Democrats will likely get my Representative vote, but if the Tea Party does not oust Alexander I will vote for him again and also I will likely vote for Haslam for governor simply because both are doing a good job.

I liked Haslaam too, and I used to like Alexander, but that was before he voted for the Immigration bill. I am all for immigration, possibly at higher levels, but the comprehensive model is a proven failure as is a generalized path to legalization.

[windjammer]

North Carolina Yankee, I have a question for you. Why Immigration is a big issue for you? I really don't understand. You still speak about the Gang of Eight's plan whereas everybody has forgotten. The Gang of Eight's plan won't probably an issue in 2014 you know. I don't think that the GOP will attack the democrats with that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

North Carolina Yankee, I have a question for you. Why Immigration is a big issue for you? I really don't understand. You still speak about the Gang of Eight's plan whereas everybody has forgotten. The Gang of Eight's plan won't probably an issue in 2014 you know. I don't think that the GOP will attack the democrats with that.

Illegal Immigration has been a factor for me since 2005. The economy, corruption and illegal immigration have almost invariably been my top three issues. It motivated me to jump from McCain to Romney in 2006 for instance.

I just see it as an issue where past attempts to fix it have all failed and we seem unable to take any different course because of political necessity and or political gain being a factor. It is a critical issue both in terms of defense related issues as well as economic ones. Mass population shifts can be devastating, an argument even those who support a pathway use as a justificatio nfor doing so I would add. In my view though you must have a system that works, but a system nonethelss to assert some kind of control and/or limit and if we are constantly undermining those limits as a matter of policy we are thus encouraging future such violations. The status quo continues thus, even after it has been "reformed".

I think there are ways to legalize some of those that are here. I was hoping a way could be found for all of tem without creating this mal-incentive but such didn't materialize in the debate and we ended up with a bill that is little different then previous such reforms and thus the result will likely be similar.

[windjammer]

So if I have understood, you want to fix this problem, right? So why are you so hostile to the former Gang of Eight's plan? This plan isn't a pro-immigration plan at all, it's a compromise. As pro immigration reform, I consider the part "strengthen our borders" completely stupid and too expensive, but I would have voted for this plan because I consider it as a "compromise".

So yes really, I don't understand your opposition to this plan. As you probably know, it's impossible to oust all illegal immigrants from the country, it would be expensive too. So why do you oppose this compromise? After all, it would have fixed US borders, and I believe you support it.

You're an interesting and a great poster NC Yankee, but I fail to understand your massive opposition to Immigration. You're not only against immigration, but at least 2/3 of your message in congressional Elections speak about immigration, and I just understand. So if you could explain me!