Surviving Southern Democrats If Landrieu Goes Down

[free my dawg]

3) A conflict of conscience on economics. Southern Democrats dealt with the moral conflicts in the party through the 1970s and 1980s with little to no issue, in large part because Southern working whites felt and knew that their local and state Democratic Parties (and even the national party to a large degree) had their backs when it came to their bottom line. Once national Democrats embraced neoliberalism and concepts like NAFTA, though, it was the last straw. Although probably not consciously, Southern white working Democrats came to a collective conclusion: "I didn't agree with Democrats on the moral issues, but I agreed with them on the economics. But today, they're acting like immoral heathens on social issues AND now like Republicans on economics? There's no difference between the two when it comes to my bottom line, so I'll vote my morals from here on out". Running to the right on economics had the opposite effect that was intended; Democrats keep thinking they'll win the South back by acting like Republicans on economics; what the working South really wants, deep down, is a populist (dare I say socialist) approach to governance, but they think they don't because that is part of the uniform message that is sold with the Republicans' relatively new "moral argument" ("God hates socialism").

Couldn't have hit it on the head better. Neoliberalism is the cancer that is killing the Democratic Party, and the South is the microcosm of what this cancer has done to its electoral chances. I would know - that's why I left it.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I think simplified issue is do Democrats care more about social issues or economic issues?  I'd argue there's rarely if ever been a time that the GOP - as socially conservative as it might get - has ever cared more about social issues.  It seems Democrats were willing to happily unite on economic issues until relatively recently (see: comments from forum Dems ala "Good riddance" on Pryor getting the boot).

[Suburbia]

Underestimate Southern Democrats. They will be back. In 2018. I'm an independent, but you'll see Blue Dogs elected again if the Republicans run mediocre candidates down South.

[memphis]

It seems Democrats were willing to happily unite on economic issues until relatively recently

This is not true at all. The Dems have always had an odd jumble of ideologies. From the Progressive Age to the New Deal to the Great Society and beyond the Democratic Party has always been divided between the economic progressives and the conservatives. If anything, the Democrats are much more united today because the conservatives have mostly left.

[Skill and Chance]

It should be noted that in non majority-minority districts, all but Graham represent islands of non-Southern culture.  And even in Graham's case, about 40% of her district is culturally non-Southern.

[rbt48]

Scott DesJarlais and Mark Sanford are good examples of just how bad things are for Southern Democrats.

Yes, I agree it is an important distinction between Southern Democrats and Democrats from the South.  For the former, think of Robert Byrd, Richard Russell, Dale Bumpers, Lloyd Bentsen, J. Mendel Rivers, George Smathers, Lawton Chiles, Rueben Askew, Huey Long, Lyndon Johnson, etc.  If Mary Landrieu loses, really none left in the Senate (well perhaps one could count Bill Nelson), and just a few in the House.

In state legislatures, except for the Mississippi and Louisiana State Houses of Representatives, there are not many Southern Democrats left holding office.  Even if you look for "Democrats from the South," things are really grim except for the Virginia State Senate (and Mississippi and Louisiana State Houses of Representatives).

[Indy Texas]

Does anyone know how many white rural Democrats are left in the old Confederacy, particularly in the legislatures?  I imagine most would be concentrated in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas, as well as a few in the Virginia Senate (Creigh Deeds, John Edwards, Lynwood Lewis).  

Difficult to say exactly, but i can almost guarantee dozens in Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas and few scattered (2-5) in most other states except Florida and Texas, where there are almost none (1-2 at most). The problem is they are gradually replaced by Republicans (or, in some cases, switch). Right now Democratic caucus in, say, Louisiana and Mississippi legislatures is majority-black, and there are considerable chances it will be almost "Black only" rather soon.

Just checked Texas, these are our white Democrats of any kind (I left out the ones whose terms ended after this election, including the infamous Once and Future Governor Wendy Davis)...

Senate: (2 out of 31)
Kirk Watson (Austin)
John Whitmire (Houston)

House: (5 out of 150)
Donna Howard (Austin) -- standard issue urban white Austin liberal
Tracy King (Batesville) -- probably the closest you'll get these days: older white guy representing a rural area of West Texas that is fairly Hispanic but not monolithically so
Elliott Naishtat (Austin) -- Yankee transplant representing the People's Republic of Austin; no dice
Joe Pickett (El Paso) -- not Southern
Chris Turner (Grand Prairie) -- represents an ethnically diverse Dallas suburb

tl;dr There are no rural, white Southern Democrats in the Texas Legislature.

[smoltchanov]

It seems Democrats were willing to happily unite on economic issues until relatively recently

This is not true at all. The Dems have always had an odd jumble of ideologies. From the Progressive Age to the New Deal to the Great Society and beyond the Democratic Party has always been divided between the economic progressives and the conservatives. If anything, the Democrats are much more united today because the conservatives have mostly left.

Yes. And it's exactly that "unity"that kills them. There are simply not enough economic and social liberal districts for majority now, and minority wing of party (Blue Dogs and similar) was (and IS) ostracized (especially by so called "activists") for decades. When Democratic party ran Bella Abzug in New York and James Eastland in Mississippi at the same time - it managed to win both...

[smoltchanov]

It should be noted that in non majority-minority districts, all but Graham represent islands of non-Southern culture.  And even in Graham's case, about 40% of her district is culturally non-Southern.

+100. "Real" southerners seldom vote for Democrats now (if only for local sheriff....). Post Civil war situation in reverse...

[smoltchanov]

Scott DesJarlais and Mark Sanford are good examples of just how bad things are for Southern Democrats.

Yes, I agree it is an important distinction between Southern Democrats and Democrats from the South.  For the former, think of Robert Byrd, Richard Russell, Dale Bumpers, Lloyd Bentsen, J. Mendel Rivers, George Smathers, Lawton Chiles, Rueben Askew, Huey Long, Lyndon Johnson, etc.  If Mary Landrieu loses, really none left in the Senate (well perhaps one could count Bill Nelson), and just a few in the House.

In state legislatures, except for the Mississippi and Louisiana State Houses of Representatives, there are not many Southern Democrats left holding office.  Even if you look for "Democrats from the South," things are really grim except for the Virginia State Senate (and Mississippi and Louisiana State Houses of Representatives).

Even more so: in Virginia most non-black Democratic state Senators represent essentially "non-southern" North Virginia, and Democratic caucuses in Louisiana and Mississippi will become even more heavily Black after next election then they are now. If my count is correct - in Alabama only 1 white state Senator (from majority black district) remains, and only 7 white democrats are elected to Alabama's house from majority-white districts.. Comapre that with 20-25 black state representatives... Democrats simply collapsed with whites (especially - in the South) and their "new base" (all sort of minorities, hippies and so on) requires an extremely big motivation (as Obama was in 2008, when he was much more popular then now) to even simply vote. Almost all areas of Democratic strength in the South are either minority-majority or "people's republics" lke the above mentioned Austin...

[The Mikado]

In the long run, I think the far more sharp partisan ideological divide between the two parties is a good thing for voter choice. Today more than any time in decades, the R or D actually means something, and that sort of concrete choice produces a far more active political climate and more true voter choice between two substantially different parties. Honestly, I'm not sure that the deeply entrenched GOP majority in the House is even all that much of a problem for the Democrats. I'd much rather take the current political climate over the one of thirty years ago.

[smoltchanov]

In the long run, I think the far more sharp partisan ideological divide between the two parties is a good thing for voter choice. Today more than any time in decades, the R or D actually means something, and that sort of concrete choice produces a far more active political climate and more true voter choice between two substantially different parties. Honestly, I'm not sure that the deeply entrenched GOP majority in the House is even all that much of a problem for the Democrats. I'd much rather take the current political climate over the one of thirty years ago.

And i - absolutely no. You had VARIETY then. Conservative Democrats, liberal Republicans, unpredictability of election results, because they were much more candidate-based then party-based. And now???!! 90+% of races are predictable (and thus - abdsolutely boring) even before they began. Hundreds of Pelosi-clones running against hundreds of Boehner (or, if you prefer, Cruz) clones. Democrats idiotically running "progressives" in conservative districts, where they have zero chances, and vice versa for Republicans. "Big tent" long forgotten by BOTH parties for the sake of "ideological purity" (which would be normal, if US would have 4-5 ideologically different parties, but not when there are only 2). I really hate present American party system, and BOTH political parties as they are

[Rockefeller GOP]

In the long run, I think the far more sharp partisan ideological divide between the two parties is a good thing for voter choice. Today more than any time in decades, the R or D actually means something, and that sort of concrete choice produces a far more active political climate and more true voter choice between two substantially different parties. Honestly, I'm not sure that the deeply entrenched GOP majority in the House is even all that much of a problem for the Democrats. I'd much rather take the current political climate over the one of thirty years ago.

And i - absolutely no. You had VARIETY then. Conservative Democrats, liberal Republicans, unpredictability of election results, because they were much more candidate-based then party-based. And now???!! 90+% of races are predictable (and thus - abdsolutely boring) even before they began. Hundreds of Pelosi-clones running against hundreds of Boehner (or, if you prefer, Cruz) clones. Democrats idiotically running "progressives" in conservative districts, where they have zero chances, and vice versa for Republicans. "Big tent" long forgotten by BOTH parties for the sake of "ideological purity" (which would be normal, if US would have 4-5 ideologically different parties, but not when there are only 2). I really hate present American party system, and BOTH political parties as they are

Amen.  I don't particularly care if Democrats try outreach in the form you just described; that's their problem.  However, I'd love to see Republicans actively run candidates fit for the region and strongly discourage primary challengers.  2014 was a good start.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democrats are happy to write-off the south and despise the South and what it stands for. Why should we be surprised that the party that actually respects the south would win here?

[smoltchanov]

In the long run, I think the far more sharp partisan ideological divide between the two parties is a good thing for voter choice. Today more than any time in decades, the R or D actually means something, and that sort of concrete choice produces a far more active political climate and more true voter choice between two substantially different parties. Honestly, I'm not sure that the deeply entrenched GOP majority in the House is even all that much of a problem for the Democrats. I'd much rather take the current political climate over the one of thirty years ago.

And i - absolutely no. You had VARIETY then. Conservative Democrats, liberal Republicans, unpredictability of election results, because they were much more candidate-based then party-based. And now???!! 90+% of races are predictable (and thus - abdsolutely boring) even before they began. Hundreds of Pelosi-clones running against hundreds of Boehner (or, if you prefer, Cruz) clones. Democrats idiotically running "progressives" in conservative districts, where they have zero chances, and vice versa for Republicans. "Big tent" long forgotten by BOTH parties for the sake of "ideological purity" (which would be normal, if US would have 4-5 ideologically different parties, but not when there are only 2). I really hate present American party system, and BOTH political parties as they are

Amen.  I don't particularly care if Democrats try outreach in the form you just described; that's their problem.  However, I'd love to see Republicans actively run candidates fit for the region and strongly discourage primary challengers.  2014 was a good start.

More in governor races then in congressional. Among new Republican governors Baker, and, at least partially, Rauner and Hogan are surely not tea-party extremists. But "moderates" among freshmen in Congress? - Capito in Senate, and God knows who in House. Dold - for sure, Jenkins, Curbello, Katko, MacArthur and Costello - may be (no data so far). Other - surely no...

[The Mikado]

And i - absolutely no. You had VARIETY then. Conservative Democrats, liberal Republicans, unpredictability of election results, because they were much more candidate-based then party-based.

Why is that desirable? Government by a bunch of individuals unaccountable to party power structures is basically the worst case situation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Big Tent is the worst possible thing for both parties. It clouds the ideological basis of either party and reduces the meaning of the party label to an irrelevancy. The party label is supposed to be useful, it's supposed to allow you to tell "this person probably shares position X, Y, and Z." If it didn't, why even have parties to begin with? Politics is supposed to be the interaction of the political parties' leaders, loose-cannon politicians undermine the authority of figures like Boehner and Pelosi and make  their majorities hollow and false and limit the ability of a majority to actually do anything. More party-line voting is one of the main keys to restoring elections that actually mean something.

[smoltchanov]

And i - absolutely no. You had VARIETY then. Conservative Democrats, liberal Republicans, unpredictability of election results, because they were much more candidate-based then party-based.

Why is that desirable? Government by a bunch of individuals unaccountable to party power structures is basically the worst case situation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Big Tent is the worst possible thing for both parties. It clouds the ideological basis of either party and reduces the meaning of the party label to an irrelevancy. The party label is supposed to be useful, it's supposed to allow you to tell "this person probably shares position X, Y, and Z." If it didn't, why even have parties to begin with? Politics is supposed to be the interaction of the political parties' leaders, loose-cannon politicians undermine the authority of figures like Boehner and Pelosi and make  their majorities hollow and false and limit the ability of a majority to actually do anything. More party-line voting is one of the main keys to restoring elections that actually mean something.

I don't care about parties. At all. But i care about independent-thinking politicians. There was a lot of them in the past. Now what i see reminds me "the war of clones". And it's both disgusting and boring. And i care about myself - i want to have a CHOICE!

As i said - i could tolerate multiparty European style political system. Then, please, have radical left Democratic party, radical right Republican, big center in the middle and so on (even Communists and Nationalists). But when there are only 2 - i feel myself robbed of real choice and forced to root not for whom i like most, but - whom i hate least. And i am not alone in that. That's a robbery of 40% of population, who call himself moderates, but are barely represented in both parties.