Southern Democrats Urge a Return to Basics

[free my dawg]

I wonder if it would serve Democrats better in the South/Appalachia if they moved to the right on immigration?

You can make a case for opposing immigration for a left perspective also.

Democrats shouldn't antagonize the fastest-growing demographic group in the electorate to appeal a bunch of old racists.

Then again, if the party actually offers an alternative on economics, they won't have to vote on race.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I wonder if it would serve Democrats better in the South/Appalachia if they moved to the right on immigration?

You can make a case for opposing immigration for a left perspective also.

Democrats shouldn't antagonize the fastest-growing demographic group in the electorate to appeal a bunch of old racists.

Why would Hispanics in CA or TX care what a Democrat is saying in Arkansas or Tennessee?

[GaussLaw]

I wonder if it would serve Democrats better in the South/Appalachia if they moved to the right on immigration?

You can make a case for opposing immigration for a left perspective also.

Democrats shouldn't antagonize the fastest-growing demographic group in the electorate to appeal a bunch of old racists.

Why would Hispanics in CA or TX care what a Democrat is saying in Arkansas or Tennessee?

It doesn't make the party look good and opens a pathway for the GOP.  Just as Cruz hurts the GOP outside of TX, the opposite can be true.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If you can get a Jim Webb economically speaking, in a state that wil otherwise elect Tom Cotton, isn't it worth sacrificing some unity on the issue.

Democrats have always been the party of immigrants and that shouldn't change overal, nor would any localized change on this issue in Appalachia effect it anymore then the presence of Russ Long, Landrieu, Johnston or any number of oil Democrats effected green support for Democrats nationwide.

Keep in mind Republicans will always be there to "help" as Schumer sarcastically put it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I wonder if it would serve Democrats better in the South/Appalachia if they moved to the right on immigration?

You can make a case for opposing immigration for a left perspective also.

Democrats shouldn't antagonize the fastest-growing demographic group in the electorate to appeal a bunch of old racists.

Why would Hispanics in CA or TX care what a Democrat is saying in Arkansas or Tennessee?

It doesn't make the party look good and opens a pathway for the GOP.  Just as Cruz hurts the GOP outside of TX, the opposite can be true.

Sixteen Democrats from Ben Nelson to Bernie Sanders voted no in 2007 for varying reasons. One year later, 67% of Hispanics voted for Obama against John McCain. Nobody is going to care.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I still think guns and abortion are the biggest sticking points for Dems in the South. Religion is a huge factor in the region and gun rights (hunting, defense etc.) is essential down there. If Dems embrace guns and play up their faith along with the economic populism then maybe they have a shot.

It worked for them for about 120 years...  Probably worth a shot again.

Without Woodrow Wilson, there never would have been an FDR. Without William Jennings Bryan, there never would have been a Woodrow Wilson. The (economic) Progressive wing of the Democratic Party was born of the South and West.

[Skill and Chance]

I still think guns and abortion are the biggest sticking points for Dems in the South. Religion is a huge factor in the region and gun rights (hunting, defense etc.) is essential down there. If Dems embrace guns and play up their faith along with the economic populism then maybe they have a shot.

It worked for them for about 120 years...  Probably worth a shot again.

Without Woodrow Wilson, there never would have been an FDR. Without William Jennings Bryan, there never would have been a Woodrow Wilson. The (economic) Progressive wing of the Democratic Party was born of the South and West.

But now it doesn't matter, any more that anyone presently votes for Republicans because of Teddy Roosevelt or Lincoln.  Jim and Sarah Smith of rural Texas went to a state college on partial scholarship, moved to the Dallas suburbs and are now debt-free and living the American dream on $75,000/year.  Their great-grandparents nearly starved to death during the Dust Bowl and were lifelong Democrats after FDR's relief arrived, but that was then and this is now.  These are the voters you need to win to take back the non VA/NC/FL South and what would an economic populist agenda offer them?  Wait until their kids go to grad school and/or their areas become dense/expensive enough that the need for government services is more obvious.  It worked in CO and VA.

It's also worth noting that economic conservatism may be driving a lot of the social conservatism.  Low state taxes, relaxed zoning laws, low housing prices and longer middle class commutes mean that a large single family home and a stay-at-home parent is a viable lifestyle in the $50-$100K income range.  Contrary to the media presentation, these are the people driving modern SoCon thought, not impoverished rural areas.  That constituency simply doesn't exist in the Northeast or West Coast.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You will never have a sufficiently progressive Democratic Party on economics when you are having to depend on pro-choice Republicans in Montco/LI/Lake Counties and Democratic leaning Wall Street money to enable Democratic victory. They will never go for a tax rate above the Clinton rates, nor the numerous other things a progressive Democratic Party would do on the economy. Healthcare halted the GOP's decades long decline in those areas, and Clinton's tax hike had an even bigger impact there. Clinton got them to vote for him in 1996 because they hated Newt Gingrich and at the same time he convinced enough Southerners that he was one of them to keep LA, AR, TN, KY, MO and WV in line in 1996 (more a vote of personality and perception and notice how it didn't translate down ballot as Republican gains continued there. They lost the AR Senate seat even as Clinton won the state). It will take more then Hillary putting on a fake Southern accent to repeat the latter so she will try to double down on the former, with the "help" of the Republicans in Congress.

My point from before is that in order for a Progressive economic coalition to succeed, you need get "enough" poor and working class whites to vote Democrat, even in the South. Otherwise, enjoy your DLC (Democrats Like Clinton ) party. Don't be surprised if she gets elected with a still rather secure Republican House and Senate majority also, though at least she is not Cuomo and won't plot to bring that about. Especially if Republicans in Congress were to grow a brain for once.

[Ebowed]

My point from before is that in order for a Progressive economic coalition to succeed, you need get "enough" poor and working class whites to vote Democrat, even in the South. Otherwise, enjoy your DLC (Democrats Like Clinton ) party. Don't be surprised if she gets elected with a still rather secure Republican House and Senate majority also, though at least she is not Cuomo and won't plot to bring that about.

Agreed.

[justfollowingtheelections]

The only way the Democrats win the South again is if Blacks become a majority or if Blacks become Republicans, in which case racists will vote for the party that Blacks won't vote for.  That is the sad truth.
In some states such as Mississippi there's a good chance Blacks will become a majority soon.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The only way the Democrats win the South again is if Blacks become a majority or if Blacks become Republicans, in which case racists will vote for the party that Blacks won't vote for.  That is the sad truth.
In some states such as Mississippi there's a good chance Blacks will become a majority soon.

Of course even if its not the case, presuming that it is will make it a self-fullfilling prophesy.

Clipping off a sliver of the poor white vote in MS would make it Democratic without having to wait.

[freepcrusher]

You will never have a sufficiently progressive Democratic Party on economics when you are having to depend on pro-choice Republicans in Montco/LI/Lake Counties and Democratic leaning Wall Street money to enable Democratic victory. They will never go for a tax rate above the Clinton rates, nor the numerous other things a progressive Democratic Party would do on the economy. Healthcare halted the GOP's decades long decline in those areas, and Clinton's tax hike had an even bigger impact there. Clinton got them to vote for him in 1996 because they hated Newt Gingrich and at the same time he convinced enough Southerners that he was one of them to keep LA, AR, TN, KY, MO and WV in line in 1996 (more a vote of personality and perception and notice how it didn't translate down ballot as Republican gains continued there. They lost the AR Senate seat even as Clinton won the state). It will take more then Hillary putting on a fake Southern accent to repeat the latter so she will try to double down on the former, with the "help" of the Republicans in Congress.

My point from before is that in order for a Progressive economic coalition to succeed, you need get "enough" poor and working class whites to vote Democrat, even in the South. Otherwise, enjoy your DLC (Democrats Like Clinton ) party. Don't be surprised if she gets elected with a still rather secure Republican House and Senate majority also, though at least she is not Cuomo and won't plot to bring that about. Especially if Republicans in Congress were to grow a brain for once.

1) Montgomery County: which one - PA or MD? The latter has been dem at the presidential level for eons despite the fact that they elected liberal republicans (Gude, Steers, Morella)

2) My vision for the democratic party is a Clinton/Cuomo approach and to say that we aren't a bunch of proles (think Joni Ernst) and the demagoguery associated with it.

[Rockefeller GOP]

You will never have a sufficiently progressive Democratic Party on economics when you are having to depend on pro-choice Republicans in Montco/LI/Lake Counties and Democratic leaning Wall Street money to enable Democratic victory. They will never go for a tax rate above the Clinton rates, nor the numerous other things a progressive Democratic Party would do on the economy. Healthcare halted the GOP's decades long decline in those areas, and Clinton's tax hike had an even bigger impact there. Clinton got them to vote for him in 1996 because they hated Newt Gingrich and at the same time he convinced enough Southerners that he was one of them to keep LA, AR, TN, KY, MO and WV in line in 1996 (more a vote of personality and perception and notice how it didn't translate down ballot as Republican gains continued there. They lost the AR Senate seat even as Clinton won the state). It will take more then Hillary putting on a fake Southern accent to repeat the latter so she will try to double down on the former, with the "help" of the Republicans in Congress.

My point from before is that in order for a Progressive economic coalition to succeed, you need get "enough" poor and working class whites to vote Democrat, even in the South. Otherwise, enjoy your DLC (Democrats Like Clinton ) party. Don't be surprised if she gets elected with a still rather secure Republican House and Senate majority also, though at least she is not Cuomo and won't plot to bring that about. Especially if Republicans in Congress were to grow a brain for once.

1) Montgomery County: which one - PA or MD? The latter has been dem at the presidential level for eons despite the fact that they elected liberal republicans (Gude, Steers, Morella)

2) My vision for the democratic party is a Clinton/Cuomo approach and to say that we aren't a bunch of proles (think Joni Ernst) and the demagoguery associated with it.

Good luck with #2.  You're going to anger the people who have gotten you elected.

[Rockefeller GOP]

The only way the Democrats win the South again is if Blacks become a majority or if Blacks become Republicans, in which case racists will vote for the party that Blacks won't vote for.  That is the sad truth.
In some states such as Mississippi there's a good chance Blacks will become a majority soon.

I don't know if that's necessarily true, especially locally.  Carter and Clinton combined Black support and poor Southern White support to override suburban support for the GOP.  It delivered Carter almost all of the South and gave Clinton KY, TN, GA, AR, LA and WV.  Locally, Southern Democrats retained power from the '60s through the '90s by combining those same two groups.

[Devils30]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/03/politics/southern-democrats/index.html?hpt=po_c

This article expands on earlier ones. The democrats are honestly dead in the rural interior south. The way back is to win legislatures in Virginia, Florida and later on North Carolina (might take the courts to rule their redistricting schemes illegal). If Democrats can win the Florida governorship in 2018 then it sets up the party well to win control during a presidential year. The courts will likely draw a neutral map that eliminates a good amount of the packed Democratic districts. Forget winning Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi anytime soon.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Woodrow Wilson didn't actively campaign on anti-Christian principles. Democrats have wedded themselves to the anti-Christian agenda and are surprised when the South rejects them?

People seem to think that the answer is unions and more economic poverty. Democrats owned the south for 100 years. Why then was the South economically poorer and weaker? Democrats had their chance. They failed. Nobody can turn back and say that the economic program for the South from the democrats gave the south a competitive advantage.

Now - you look at Texas after 20 years of republican governance, and they are the first southern state to advance over the median in income. Why? Quite simple, their economic programme works.
 
 

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

2) My vision for the democratic party is a Clinton/Cuomo approach and to say that we aren't a bunch of proles (think Joni Ernst) and the demagoguery associated with it.

Do you just want to annoy Sawx?

[free my dawg]

2) My vision for the democratic party is a Clinton/Cuomo approach and to say that we aren't a bunch of proles (think Joni Ernst) and the demagoguery associated with it.

Do you just want to annoy Sawx?

FTR I don't understand the last part of the post. All I got from this was that he wants to keep kissing the GOP's ass, and between his rhetoric on race and this it seems like he makes WalterMitty look like IceSpear.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You will never have a sufficiently progressive Democratic Party on economics when you are having to depend on pro-choice Republicans in Montco/LI/Lake Counties and Democratic leaning Wall Street money to enable Democratic victory. They will never go for a tax rate above the Clinton rates, nor the numerous other things a progressive Democratic Party would do on the economy. Healthcare halted the GOP's decades long decline in those areas, and Clinton's tax hike had an even bigger impact there. Clinton got them to vote for him in 1996 because they hated Newt Gingrich and at the same time he convinced enough Southerners that he was one of them to keep LA, AR, TN, KY, MO and WV in line in 1996 (more a vote of personality and perception and notice how it didn't translate down ballot as Republican gains continued there. They lost the AR Senate seat even as Clinton won the state). It will take more then Hillary putting on a fake Southern accent to repeat the latter so she will try to double down on the former, with the "help" of the Republicans in Congress.

My point from before is that in order for a Progressive economic coalition to succeed, you need get "enough" poor and working class whites to vote Democrat, even in the South. Otherwise, enjoy your DLC (Democrats Like Clinton ) party. Don't be surprised if she gets elected with a still rather secure Republican House and Senate majority also, though at least she is not Cuomo and won't plot to bring that about. Especially if Republicans in Congress were to grow a brain for once.

1) Montgomery County: which one - PA or MD? The latter has been dem at the presidential level for eons despite the fact that they elected liberal republicans (Gude, Steers, Morella)

The one that matters in elections like being in a semi-swing state for instance.

[GaussLaw]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Woodrow Wilson didn't actively campaign on anti-Christian principles. Democrats have wedded themselves to the anti-Christian agenda and are surprised when the South rejects them?

People seem to think that the answer is unions and more economic poverty. Democrats owned the south for 100 years. Why then was the South economically poorer and weaker? Democrats had their chance. They failed. Nobody can turn back and say that the economic program for the South from the democrats gave the south a competitive advantage.

Now - you look at Texas after 20 years of republican governance, and they are the first southern state to advance over the median in income. Why? Quite simple, their economic programme works.
 
 

At first I thought you were IndyTX, and I was concerned about your health.

I obviously have some sympathy with GOP economic policy (though the only real reason I favor Republicans overall are social issues), but keep in mind that many Southern legislatures like Alabama/Mississippi were considered "conservative" when Dems controlled them.  Arkansas, Louisiana were a little different.

Also, if your logic of Republicans = prosperity works, then Leslie County, KY would be an economic superpower, as it's voted GOP since Reconstruction.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Texas has a never ending supply of every resource (save maybe water), low taxes and high population growth. It is not hard to make Texas number one in job creation, you would have to be pretty terrible to not have it be number one.

[SNJ1985]

I obviously have some sympathy with GOP economic policy (though the only real reason I favor Republicans overall are social issues)

Have you considered the Constitution Party, GaussLaw? What do you think of their platform?

[Boston Bread]

Is the economic populism that democrats used to win on in the south that different from the current democratic economic platform? Southern democratic governments were okay with right-to-work no? And while there was more of an emphasis on economic issues then southern democrats still focus on economics today and lose on it.
Democrats have to convince southern whites of the benefits of their economic policy, not just campaign on it, which is a more difficult and lengthy process. Most white southern voters think Obama's policies have hurt them and associate democratic policies with bad things. It also helps if you don't appear elitist.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Is the economic populism that democrats used to win on in the south that different from the current democratic economic platform? Southern democratic governments were okay with right-to-work no? And while there was more of an emphasis on economic issues then southern democrats still focus on economics today and lose on it.
Democrats have to convince southern whites of the benefits of their economic policy, not just campaign on it, which is a more difficult and lengthy process. Most white southern voters think Obama's policies have hurt them and associate democratic policies with bad things. It also helps if you don't appear elitist.

You have to account for the knowledge factor. People know more then they did years ago because the media is everywhere now. Whereas in the old days, tradition and culture could drive perception and thus in turn produce a result beneficial amongst groups that didn't associate together. Today that has the reverse effect because many look and see a Democratic Party that pushes NAFTA (though Dems have always been for free trade throughout its history), and thus  the percpetion is they have been sold out to big business and their former champions not only betrayed them but led the charge. Richard Burr defeated Bowles in 2004 largley because of Burr's late ads connecting Bowles-Clinton-NAFTA.

[Skill and Chance]

NAFTA is definitely underrated as an issue that damaged the traditional Dem coalition.  The more I look, the more I am convinced that to the extent we have realignments, the real ones of the 20th century were 1952 and 1992.  FDR was really just the Bryan 1896 coalition in a blowout.  Essentially, once a party finally gets its agenda fully enacted, its base shifts abruptly.

This is relevant to the modern state of the South because if the R breakthrough was really Ike (as, for example Sean Trende favors), the reason why most of the South is now solid R is because it no longer feels poor.  And a Southern income can stretch far beyond its national percentile due to the low cost of living.