Dems Can't Keep Losing Dixie

[Frodo]

...especially if they ever hope to regain the majority:

Ronald Brownstein:
Washington Outlook

Democrats Covet the West, but Can't Keep Losing the South

Since President Bush's narrow reelection in November, many Democrats have looked longingly to the Mountain West as the party's best opportunity to rebuild an electoral college majority. And in the years ahead, states such as Colorado, Arizona and Nevada may indeed become more competitive political battlefields.

But new long-term population projections from the Census Bureau show that anyone who believes Democrats can consistently win the White House without puncturing the Republican dominance across the South is just whistling Dixie. The census projections present Democrats with an ominous equation: the South is growing in electoral clout even as the Republican hold on the region solidifies.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-outlook16may16,1,1001783.column?coll=la-headlines-nation

[A18]

Oh yes they can, and let's pray they continue.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We don't need the South to win the Presidency. the southwest (NV, NM, CO) and great lakes (IA, MN, WI, MI, OH, PA) give more than enough to win.

[Frodo]

We don't need the South to win the Presidency. the southwest (NV, NM, CO) and great lakes (IA, MN, WI, MI, OH, PA) give more than enough to win.

did you even read the article? 

[Beet]

Frodo, this is a good article but I think most Dems don't know what to do about it. The Republican party has been built up over so many years when they were sort of under the radar and now they're so professional and stay at least a couple steps ahead of us.

[Democratic Hawk]

The GOP do seem to have an effective lock on the South in presidential elections. I dare say the Democrats could win some states with a homegrown, and accomplished, southern moderate (like Clinton) as the nominee - but as things stand Dixie in the main will continue to elude them

Even on a state level, the Democrats are in retreat - just having a slight edge over the GOP - in the last elections. On a congressional level, I can't recall a time, in living memory, when the Democrats were weaker (4 Senators from 22 ain't good!)

I can't see Democrats getting headway in the South unless their presidential candidates reject out-and-out social liberalism or at least embrace moderate cultural conservatism. The fact of the matter is - Dixie just ain't voting against Sherman anymore!

Dave

[AuH2O]

Unfortunately, the 2000 election (reinforced by 2004) has really blown the Electoral College out of proportion.

Much more often than not, the EC is not a factor. OK, 2000. Before that?

And Democrats need to face the fact the GOP hasn't peaked. Most, if not all, of the current leadership came of age prior to the real alignment of economic and social conservatives. More importantly, the elite in general are products of the '60s-- the most liberal time in Western history.

Now, older people are conservative socially, but that's kind of a wash because so many are moderate to center-left economically. So first the electorate loses the economic liberals, then the power elite loses the '60s generation.

But I'll tell you, what's happening in terms of non-denominational Christian churches is just a disaster for Democrats. This is still kind of under the radar, but it is not a Southern phenomenon-- it's a national phenomenon, with perhaps its locus in the Midwest (suburban Chicago being one its early breeding grounds). You've got rock bands and casually dressed people, including tons of young people, and the theology is traditional. It's conservative Baptist theology in a 21st century environment. Guess what? It's the theology that determines votes, not whether someone is in jeans or a suit.

Who do the Democrats try to win with? No one knows. The religious left is basically dead... liberal pastors fear for their own congregations if they speak out. Their hold on minorities is weakening. All they have left is really generic opposition party arguments (mismanagement, corruption, new programs needed, etc.) Meaningless but it works well enough to be competitive at the Presidential level with the right candidate.

The structure of a 2-party system limits the size majority the GOP can really build, so Democrats are not in horrible shape per se. Presidential races are, in a real sense, popularity contests, and Democrats can be popular (Bill). But for the first time since the '20s its an uphill battle for them.

[opebo]

You've got rock bands and casually dressed people, including tons of young people, and the theology is traditional. It's conservative Baptist theology in a 21st century environment. Guess what? It's the theology that determines votes, not whether someone is in jeans or a suit.

Yes, yes, we all know that it is the intolerant religious that support the GOP.  Who ever thought they were in a suit?  They're mostly rather shabbily poor to lower-middle-class. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quite simply the only portion of the electorate they have a lock on are the well educated, atheists, and those who are against theocracy (of course this is essentially just one group). 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Here's what the Democrats need to realize:

Religion has been the centerpiece of every major change in social attitudes in this country and there is no reason to believe that will change.  They need to stop phrasing their arguments in an anti-religious tone.  The core Democratic message can be expressed in religious terms, but it needs people who are actually religious in order to for it work.  For example, Kerry would have been a much more effective Presidential candidate if he had left the Catholic Church and joined a church more compatibile with his views.  His failure to do so helped to convince people that religion was not important to him, and he never has done anything that would contradict that conviction.  His cafeteria Catholicism might help him win in Massachusetts, but it hurt him nationally.

[PBrunsel]

Democrats have been forgotten way down in the land of cotton.

[AuH2O]

You've got rock bands and casually dressed people, including tons of young people, and the theology is traditional. It's conservative Baptist theology in a 21st century environment. Guess what? It's the theology that determines votes, not whether someone is in jeans or a suit.

Yes, yes, we all know that it is the intolerant religious that support the GOP.  Who ever thought they were in a suit?  They're mostly rather shabbily poor to lower-middle-class. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quite simply the only portion of the electorate they have a lock on are the well educated, atheists, and those who are against theocracy (of course this is essentially just one group). 

Right, but that's a minority.

[J. J.]

We don't need the South to win the Presidency. the southwest (NV, NM, CO) and great lakes (IA, MN, WI, MI, OH, PA) give more than enough to win.

The problem is that if you lose any three of those, you've lost.

[Beet]

Most, if not all, of the current leadership came of age prior to the real alignment of economic and social conservatives. More importantly, the elite in general are products of the '60s-- the most liberal time in Western history.

Don't forget that the elite of the 1960s came of age in the 1920s.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was going to write something about the religious left, but I'd written a long post and realized it was all puke because I didn't know enough about what I was talking about. But now AuH20 comes along and says it well.

When something is going wrong people tend to shake their heads and wonder "what am I doing wrong?" On the social level this is a fallacy. Bangalore, the unlike "silicon valley" of India, an oasis of 21st-century society in a 19th century country, had its origins in 1911. Generally then, the correct question to ask is "what did we do wrong in the past?" Let us now turn to the 1990s. The 1960s through 1980s has been analyzed to death, mostly due to efforts to explain the dramatic Reagan-Bush landslides. But the 1990s has not been analyzed so much, mostly because the interesting stuff was going on under the surface (lets face it, House Speaker is not as prestigious a position as President). But by looking at that decade I believe many of the problems of the Democrats in this decade can be found.

The issue is deeper than just religion per se. During the 90s, increasingly it happened that nobody on the left was willing to couch an argument not only in religious terms but in any moral terms, generally speaking. The standard leftist argument in the 90's was philosophical rather than moral. It was a philosophical position that "objective" morality was a myth in postmodernity and the best we could do was have a little humility. Regardless of the philosophical merits of that position, which is not quite on as strong a ground as popular belief may think it to be, it was a poor method of structuring any sort of political entity, because it inherently denied the usefulness of power (hence politics) and emphasized retreat into the self rather than aggressive action valuing the structure of society. The conservative psychological construct was just the opposite. They lamented what they perceived as their loss of society, but more importantly they were concerned with society to begin with.

[12th Doctor]

We don't need the South to win the Presidency. the southwest (NV, NM, CO) and great lakes (IA, MN, WI, MI, OH, PA) give more than enough to win.

did you even read the article? 

Doubtful.  I don't even think he reads the articles that he posts.  Anyway, it is becoming clear that the traditional Democrat strong holds (and they aren't even very stong anymore) like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Michigan are going to be solid lossers in the game of electoral math.  Even Ohio, which is the best target for the Democrats in 2008, stands to lose as many as 3 electoral votes, meaning that the Republicans willl acctually be able to carry the day without carrying it.

But this means very little in the long term analysis.  The electoral map is very lucid.  And, we can see the factors that will lead to the dimise of Republican control of the south springing forward in the genesis of the movement.  One need only look at Virginia to see what I mean.  The spread of the southern suburbs has lead to stronger Republican cooalitions, but the fact is that prosperity makes people more socailly liberal, and that is were the country is headed.  Just as the spread of suburbs in VA is slowly turning that state, the spread of that way of life into North Carolina and Georgia will have the same result.  Might take 30 years, but if the Republicans don't find a more solid cooalition than the one they have now, or they don't learn how to change with the times, this will come back to haunt them, in a big way.

[Gabu]

But this means very little in the long term analysis.  The electoral map is very lucid.  And, we can see the factors that will lead to the dimise of Republican control of the south springing forward in the genesis of the movement.  One need only look at Virginia to see what I mean.  The spread of the southern suburbs has lead to stronger Republican cooalitions, but the fact is that prosperity makes people more socailly liberal, and that is were the country is headed.  Just as the spread of suburbs in VA is slowly turning that state, the spread of that way of life into North Carolina and Georgia will have the same result.  Might take 30 years, but if the Republicans don't find a more solid cooalition than the one they have now, or they don't learn how to change with the times, this will come back to haunt them, in a big way.

I would mostly agree.  While things do look pretty bleak at the moment for Democrats, we should remember that if this is where we are now:



...this could be where we end up in only eight years:



...of course, we could also end up here:



...so it's not as if the idea that "things might change" should be taken as complete solace for the Democratic Party.

[A18]

All this means is that in close presidential elections, Republicans will likely win most of the time. It also means the House may not be switching hands for another generation.

[Gabu]

All this means is that in close presidential elections, Republicans will likely win most of the time. It also means the House may not be switching hands for another generation.

That's assuming nothing changes.  In the last 100 or so years, the Democrats and Republicans have practically switched places.  Of course, I'm not suggesting that something like that will happen, but as it stands right now, it wouldn't really take that much to tip the balance of power, as, while the Republicans are dominant in every section of federal elected government, it's not exactly of landslide proportions as it was in the '40s with Democrats.

[A18]

Talking about the near future. As I said, this only matters for close presidential elections (which most aren't) and the next House census.

The Republicans took control of Congress in the '40s, BTW.

[Gabu]

Talking about the near future. As I said, this only matters for close presidential elections (which most aren't) and the next House census.

The Republicans took control of Congress in the '40s, BTW.

After some research, I should have said the '60s, but my point still stands.

And I wasn't talking about the very near future, so I guess we're talking about different things anyway.

[minionofmidas]

You think Dems can't keep losing Dixie? Watch them.

Just my pessimistic assessment...not sure if it's true...

[Democratic Hawk]

We don't need the South to win the Presidency. the southwest (NV, NM, CO) and great lakes (IA, MN, WI, MI, OH, PA) give more than enough to win.

Granted. Should those states move perpetually into the Democratic column, then the party would be home and dry. So in this respect, they don't need the South

I'd like to see Democrats win in the South but while the national Democratic Party remains out of sync with the region on social issues, it's not going to happen

I agree with Ernest in that the Democrats can express their core message in religious terms. For a start, the Democrats could, and should emphatically, embrace the social gospel, which many evangelicals cherish (despite fundamentalism having emerged in reaction to it). Moral issues aren't merely confined to issues such as abortion, gay marriage, etc - they can equally be applied to the principles of social and economic justice

The Democratic Party needs to be a place where evangelical Christians can feel at home - but, as things stand, many moderate evangelicals feel ill at ease among uncompromising secularists.  That said, the GOP are welcome to the intolerant, sanctimonious and, often, hypocritical 'Talibangelicals'

The Democratic Party could become the acceptable face of Christian values, which they can embody in their politics - then they may get that electoral breakthrough throughout the Bible Belt, but it needs to be a finely tuned message, which will bring people on side instead of driving them away

Dave

[MissCatholic]

The target in 2008 is the southwest (NM,CO,NV)

However money must be invested heavily into WI,MN, IA and MI. we cant keep defending these areas and hope we just keep coming through. Whoever the nominee is, they must be electable in these states. This is why laot of people like Feingold. he can win all four. While Hillary with help of Richardson can win 2/3 southest states that i suggested. Ohio should be regarded as a bonus pickup. its so tough to win.

[jokerman]

I think it's laughable that the some of my fellow Democrats think they can win by keeping a libertarian-leaning ideology and take the Southwest or Midwest.  The Midwest goes with the south and a populist-leaning centrist could take both the south and the midwest.  And, within a few years, the Latino demographic will make the Southwest as populist as the South and Midwest.

As well, some have talked about Montana.  That's laughable as well.  You think because a small town, populist, small business owner can win as a Democrat in Montana that a out of touch national democrat could win there?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

But this means very little in the long term analysis.  The electoral map is very lucid.  And, we can see the factors that will lead to the dimise of Republican control of the south springing forward in the genesis of the movement.  One need only look at Virginia to see what I mean.  The spread of the southern suburbs has lead to stronger Republican cooalitions, but the fact is that prosperity makes people more socailly liberal, and that is were the country is headed.  Just as the spread of suburbs in VA is slowly turning that state, the spread of that way of life into North Carolina and Georgia will have the same result.  Might take 30 years, but if the Republicans don't find a more solid cooalition than the one they have now, or they don't learn how to change with the times, this will come back to haunt them, in a big way.

I would mostly agree.  While things do look pretty bleak at the moment for Democrats, we should remember that if this is where we are now:

Vermont looks pretty hopeless.

[Democratic Hawk]

I think it's laughable that the some of my fellow Democrats think they can win by keeping a libertarian-leaning ideology and take the Southwest or Midwest.  The Midwest goes with the south and a populist-leaning centrist could take both the south and the midwest.  And, within a few years, the Latino demographic will make the Southwest as populist as the South and Midwest.

As well, some have talked about Montana.  That's laughable as well.  You think because a small town, populist, small business owner can win as a Democrat in Montana that a out of touch national democrat could win there?

I'm with you on the merits of a populist Democratic centrist

Dave