Surviving Southern Democrats If Landrieu Goes Down

[smoltchanov]

How many of those Reps actually represent white, rural areas? Maybe Gwen Graham?

Does it matter? There are cities in the south, you know.

Yes, but calling Democrats elected there "Southern Democrats" is a bit disingenuous. They're more like "Democrats who happen to come from the South."

+100. The term "Southern Democrat" has clear political meaning, not only geographical. White (and non-Jew in addition to non-Hispanic), mostly rural, mostly conservative (especially - on social issues), and so on. In this sense even Graham, Murphy and Cooper doesn't come too close to this definition. There are few remaining in state legislatures, but i am not sure there will be any 10-15 years from now...

[smoltchanov]

Glorious news! The rednecks aren't welcome in the tent.

Republicans will gladly take them, as they do since 1940th.. And you can kiss goodbye to House majority for foreseable future..

[smoltchanov]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Republicans will gladly take them, as they do since 1940th.. And you can kiss goodbye to House majority for foreseable future..

the hank hill voters aren't the path to least resistance. The path to a majority involves taking seats like VA 10, PA 7, NJ 3 etc.

And when do you expect to win at least one of them?? Comstock just won, and won convincingly. The same about MacArthur. Meehan is strong and shows no desire to retire. IMHO - wishful thinking. Of course if we talk about near future. If we are ready to wait, say, until 2032, when demography will make what it must, and (may be) another Democratic wave happens - then yes, of course.. Are you sure that Democrats will gain another Governorships in 2018 to be competitive during next redistricting? And without BIG victories in 2018 2022 easily becomes 2032...

[smoltchanov]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
And when do you expect to win at least one of them?? Comstock just won, and won convincingly. The same about MacArthur. Meehan is strong and shows no desire to retire. IMHO - wishful thinking. Of course if we talk about near future. If we are ready to wait, say, until 2032, when demography will make what it must, and (may be) another Democratic wave happens - then yes, of course.. Are you sure that Democrats will gain another Governorships in 2018 to be competitive during next redistricting? And without BIG victories in 2018 2022 easily becomes 2032...
[/quote]

those type of seats aren't easy to win, but they're easier to win than dixiecrat seats like AL 5 or AR 1. Also, the next time a republican is in the white house, the dems should win it back. A lot of people aren't as tough incumbents as you think (Mark Warner for instance).
[/quote]

We shall see. Right now i don't see ANY chances for Democrats to win House majority at least until 2022, and, if redistricting in 2021-22 will not be good - until 2032. Democrats waste a lot of votes in VRA-districts and in some urban areas, where concentration of Democratic votes reaches absurd 95% (60% would be more then enough for guaranteed win). As a result i don't see more then 180 reliably Democratic districts. And to win a majority Democrats must win (especially - because Republicans also have it's share of talented politicians, able to win in Democratic districts) at least some red and some Southern districts. it's difficult to compensate -80 in the South in other places.

This year Republicans (IMHO) played smarter. They ran not only standard ultraconservatives, but some "unusual" candidates too. That didn't helped them much in House or Senate races, but it did in governor and state legislative ones. Look at AD-16 in your California: even i had doubts that Republicans can still win in Bay Area. But they did and Baker has two years to try to solidify her position (it will be very difficult, but still possible). But Democrats became so toxic in some areas (again - the South comes to mind immediately) that even conservative ones are routinely associated with Obama (i can't remember such hate as exist to him among many southern whites, and i am 57 years old) and routinely defeated. Even those like Griffith, Barrow or Dorman, who have very little common with Obama.

So there is a sort of dilemma: to get 218 seats Democrats must win some southern districts (and not only majority-minority), but with Obama (and may be some years after) they are utterly unable to do so...

[smoltchanov]

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.

[smoltchanov]

I wouldn't get too excited about a one term wonder in the state assembly.

And i will. Republicans couldn't win anything in Bay Area legislative races since 2006. Now Democrats will need to smear Baker and prove she is a "Tom Cruz in disguise"...

P.S. But it's really an off-topic..

[smoltchanov]

Democrats created those problems for themselves.  As much as they like to blame their civil rights stances, the South didn't really reject the party until the 1990s.  If Democrats talked about "kitchen table" issues more and stopped bringing up race and gender every chance they get, they'd be in much better shape.  I'm not a huge fan of the GOP's efforts to step up the social conservatism to try to convince these voters, but I guess Northern Democrats did just that for several decades.  They left the opportunity there, and the GOP capitalized - and much less of it was because of race than people suggest, IMO.

Partially agree, but only partially. Of course - race is not the only reason for polarized voting, which we observe now (as it, essentially, was in 1940th - 1950th), but it's an important reason. Some times it seems to me that many southern whites told itself at some moment: "we are law abiding citizens, and, exhausting all legal  means (we can't after all to go against Congress AND Supreme Court), we grudgingly accept integration, but no one can force us to stay in the party, which is mostly responsible for that, and which base became all sort of minorities (racial, religious, sexual and so on). So, we will go to where there are few blacks, few gays, few radical feminists and so on. This is a Republican party? Fine, even it contradict our "glorious past")....

Of course - leftward shift of Democratic party (especially on social and foreign policy issues) played it's role too, but race played it's part. Especially - Obama's person, who, on almost all points, is a polar opposite of what "typical southerners" (white, of course) usually cherish: black, northerner, "elitist" and liberal))))). Southern Democrats could (barely, probably) tolerate Bill Clinton's liberalism, but not Obama..

[smoltchanov]

Democrats created those problems for themselves.  As much as they like to blame their civil rights stances, the South didn't really reject the party until the 1990s.  If Democrats talked about "kitchen table" issues more and stopped bringing up race and gender every chance they get, they'd be in much better shape.  I'm not a huge fan of the GOP's efforts to step up the social conservatism to try to convince these voters, but I guess Northern Democrats did just that for several decades.  They left the opportunity there, and the GOP capitalized - and much less of it was because of race than people suggest, IMO.

Well, at least you're now admitting these voters are abandoned the Democrats and vote almost entirely Republican now. Progress!

The problem is - with South getting bigger and bigger share of US House seats it's almost impossible for Democratic party to win a majority in House (absent very radical gerrymandering). Essentially - Democrats begin with -80 in the South, and, with Democratic votes extremely heavily concentrated (and thus - a LOT of Democratic votes simply wasted: what for do Democrats need 95-97% Democratic districts in NYC, 60-62% would be just as fine?) AND with many suburbs being NOT as liberal as Westchester in NY or Montgomery in PA - chances become simply slim.

[smoltchanov]

Could you do Tennessee?

Meh, the detail I put into the one I did is something that one can really only do for their home state. I might be able to cobble together a basic list of white rural Dems who were and who are left, though.

And that would mean a lot. I have some data too, which i could add...

[smoltchanov]

Race being a factor doesn't mean it is the underlying factor or even necessarily the defining one. If culture dominates the politics, then culture will define the constraints of who is willing to vote for each party. That is the difference between Carter winning enough of the white vote in those Southern states to win them all except VA and today's Democrats.

I didn't said it's defining. But it's very important. Even now. And it was even more before - after all, the reason which almost "forced" many southerners to do what they didn't for 100 years (to look with interest on Republican party) were race-connected issues..

[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...

[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

[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...

[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.