Culture Gap Could Keep Democrats From Gaining Seats in 2006

[Giant Saguaro]

For what it's worth...

The Dems may well make gains in '06, I don't know. But I don't think the Democrats will easily endear themselves for any consistent period of time to the rural poor GOP voters until the Dems understand something. Not know it, but understand it. That's the 'poor and proud' mindset. See, many Dems will go down into the woods in some state in the mid atlantic or southeast and tell them that they're poor and they should vote Democrat, but that's not how to communicate with these people because they don't care. They were poor in the '40s, '60s, and '70s when the Dems ran everything and guess what? They're poor now too. That they're poor isn't something that's happened since 1994, but too many of these Corzine and Dean types don't understand it because they are so far and above these people.

Tell these people they are voting against their economic interests and they'll tell you there's more to life than money. You meet interesting people when you hit the campaign trail and there are more families of, say, five out there raking in 26K a year then a lot would imagine. And a middle class person would think, how can ONE person make it on 26K a year, let alone FIVE PEOPLE? Well, government programs, this, that - they can stand there and tell you everything they qualify for and get in various states, and they don't express a lot of interest in getting out of it (the poverty). And it's not junk stuff, fall-down-and-sue type stuff, which some also do.

As to whether or not the Dems should 'give in' to the 'moral majority' folks, I think cultural issues are the easiest of the Dem's concerns. No, I don't think they have to 'give in,' but backing off on guns, backing off on Ten Commandment assaults, for example (and I would say the ACLU is a real bane to Dems in these regions), and the usual stuff would help greatly. These people might be gullible or even a little naive, but they're not stupid. When Howard Dean says he isn't pro abortion, he's just pro choice, and being pro choice is more than being pro abortion, and he's not for increasing abortions, just access to them - people suspect they are being lied to and won't trust him or people who sound like him.

Just my take.

[WMS]

For Democrats, a Troubling Culture Gap

By Dan Balz
Wednesday, August 10, 2005; Page A08

Dissatisfaction over the war in Iraq, the economy and rising health care costs might spell trouble for Republicans, but a study by Democratic strategists warns that their party's failure to connect with voters on cultural issues could prevent Democratic candidates from reaping gains in upcoming national elections.

Democrats have expressed bewilderment over Republican gains among lower-income, less-educated voters, saying they are voting against their economic self-interest by supporting Republican candidates. But the new Democracy Corps study concludes that cultural issues trump economic issues by a wide margin for many of these voters -- giving the GOP a significant electoral advantage.

 The study is based on focus groups of rural voters in Wisconsin and Arkansas and disaffected supporters of President Bush in Colorado and Kentucky. The good news for Democrats: All the groups expressed dissatisfaction with the direction of the country and with the leadership of the president and the GOP-controlled Congress.

Then came the bad news: "As powerful as the concern over these issues is, the introduction of cultural themes -- specifically gay marriage, abortion, the importance of the traditional family unit and the role of religion in public life -- quickly renders them almost irrelevant in terms of electoral politics at the national level," the study said.

Many of these voters still favor Democrats on economic issues. But they see the Democrats as weak on national security, and on cultural and moral issues, they view Democrats as both inconsistent and hostile to traditional values. "Most referred to Democrats as 'liberal' on issues of morality, but some even go so far as to label them 'immoral,' 'morally bankrupt,' or even 'anti-religious,' " according to the Democracy Corps analysis.

Democrats Karl Agne and Stan Greenberg, who conducted the focus group, said Democrats need a reform-oriented, anti-Washington agenda to overcome the culture gap. At this point, Democrats are in no position to capitalize if there is a clear backlash against Republicans. "No matter how disaffected they are over Republican failures in Iraq and here at home," they said, "a large chunk of white, non-college voters, particularly in rural areas, will remain unreachable for Democrats at the national level."

source

And here's the study itself, in PDF format:

THE CULTURAL DIVIDE &
THE CHALLENGE OF WINNING BACK RURAL & RED STATE VOTERS

If you don't think Frodo's point is accurate, I invite y'all to re-read this thread.

[Virginian87]

Good Post GiantSaguaro.  Sums up some of our problems very nicely.  Though most Democrats aren't elitist, just the ones who are exposed to the media the most are.

[TheresNoMoney]

With the right candidate, the Democrats can do very well in rural areas. Paul Hackett crushed Jean Schmidt in the small rural counties in the Ohio-2 special election.

Being pro-gun is very important in these areas.

[CARLHAYDEN]

For Democrats, a Troubling Culture Gap

By Dan Balz
Wednesday, August 10, 2005; Page A08

Dissatisfaction over the war in Iraq, the economy and rising health care costs might spell trouble for Republicans, but a study by Democratic strategists warns that their party's failure to connect with voters on cultural issues could prevent Democratic candidates from reaping gains in upcoming national elections.

Democrats have expressed bewilderment over Republican gains among lower-income, less-educated voters, saying they are voting against their economic self-interest by supporting Republican candidates. But the new Democracy Corps study concludes that cultural issues trump economic issues by a wide margin for many of these voters -- giving the GOP a significant electoral advantage.

 The study is based on focus groups of rural voters in Wisconsin and Arkansas and disaffected supporters of President Bush in Colorado and Kentucky. The good news for Democrats: All the groups expressed dissatisfaction with the direction of the country and with the leadership of the president and the GOP-controlled Congress.

Then came the bad news: "As powerful as the concern over these issues is, the introduction of cultural themes -- specifically gay marriage, abortion, the importance of the traditional family unit and the role of religion in public life -- quickly renders them almost irrelevant in terms of electoral politics at the national level," the study said.

Many of these voters still favor Democrats on economic issues. But they see the Democrats as weak on national security, and on cultural and moral issues, they view Democrats as both inconsistent and hostile to traditional values. "Most referred to Democrats as 'liberal' on issues of morality, but some even go so far as to label them 'immoral,' 'morally bankrupt,' or even 'anti-religious,' " according to the Democracy Corps analysis.

Democrats Karl Agne and Stan Greenberg, who conducted the focus group, said Democrats need a reform-oriented, anti-Washington agenda to overcome the culture gap. At this point, Democrats are in no position to capitalize if there is a clear backlash against Republicans. "No matter how disaffected they are over Republican failures in Iraq and here at home," they said, "a large chunk of white, non-college voters, particularly in rural areas, will remain unreachable for Democrats at the national level."

source

And here's the study itself, in PDF format:

THE CULTURAL DIVIDE &
THE CHALLENGE OF WINNING BACK RURAL & RED STATE VOTERS

There are several other related issues on which the Democrats have problems.

Immigration - The Republican base is abandoning Bush on this one, and the elected Republican officials are (slowly) following the voters.  The voters want illegal immigration sharply curtailed, whereas most Democrat officials are unlikely to listen to this demand.

Firearms - As the recent votes in the House and Senate demostrate, the majority of elected Democrats continue attack the right to keep and bear arms.  The electorate has been slowly trending to support the right to keep and bear arms.

Racial/ethnic preferences -  The voters oppose racial/ethnic preferences, but most elected Democrat officials at the national level favor such preferences.

[dazzleman]

Good article, Frodo.

It's funny how in reading this thread, those who argue most vehemently against the logic in this article unwittingly confirm it.

It is entirely fallacious to argue that there is no alternative between the morally bankrupt, anti-Christian, and anti-traditional family positions taken by the Democratic party's elite "base" and the agenda of Robertson and Falwell.

The Democrats could say that they regard abortion as a regrettable choice that should be available under limited circumstances, as opposed to a holy sacrament that should be experienced by as many women as many times as possible, as the feminists say.

The Democrats could acknowledge that children are generally raised better in traditional families, rather than claim that those who favor traditional families are just prudes who don't want anybody to have any fun.

The Democrats could offer an alternate foreign policy and defense posture that is not more hostile to the US than it is to our adversaries and enemies.  This is how it was in the first half of the Cold War, until Vietnam.

The Democrats could offer economic policies that seek to expand opportunities for the poor and middle class without invoking class warfare and expanding government programs that end up creating dependency and social dysfunction.

The country is best off when there are two parties that both offer some plausible ideas, and the voters can pick the best of both.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Maybe not from your perspective, but then you *are* very liberal. Think about some of the stuff she's said from the point of view of ordinary working class voters.

Like what? The only really dumb thing from her I can think of is that earthquake gaffe, which is non-political and I can't think of anything that's the left wing equivalent of that nonsense Santorum says. And I can tell when a comment would not play well with working class voters, because I make them all the time.

[opebo]

Interesting article

I think at some point the Democratic leadership needs to tell the loony left to shut up. Publically.

The 'loonies' are these self destructive intolerant poors who can't bear to vote in their own economic interests if it might benefit someone they hate.

[Sam Spade]

This thread continues to remind me how correct Al is in his understanding of the present-day Democratic party (though he and I come from different angles on this viewpoint).

[Akno21]

When Howard Dean says he isn't pro abortion, he's just pro choice, and being pro choice is more than being pro abortion, and he's not for increasing abortions, just access to them - people suspect they are being lied to and won't trust him or people who sound like him.

Just my take.

But how do we work around that? That is my position, and that is the position of most sane pro-choicers take. I am not pro-abortion. I strongly disagree with anyone who is. I support making the abortion process smoother and easier on everyone. I feel the GOP's policies don't make that happen. How is that A) such a radical position and B) So complex and hard to understand?

[TheresNoMoney]

The Democratic Party needs to big-up economic issues and moderate its social liberalism - 

I generally agree with you. I just wish those Democrats who criticize other Democrats would offer specific suggestions as opposed to the same, tired "loony left" insults.

It makes things a lot more constructive if specific examples are given.

[Democratic Hawk]

Lets just say, I'm with Al and Virginia87 on this one. Democrats, like myself, who are actually interested in seeing the party win again. A bit of common sense and pragmatism can go a long way towards attaining our goals and values - or, at least, keeping those of our opponents well and truly in check

I've talked at length about the Democratic Party and its future, and its past mistakes, many times - till I'm, literally, blue in the face and, frankly, when it comes to our left-liberal colleagues I feel like I'm p*ssing in the wind. In fact, sometimes, I think it might be easier were I attempting to move the GOP from the clutches of the Religious Right and that's saying something!

It makes my blood boil when moderate Democrats apply their common sense, and face facts, only to be derided as Republican-lites or DINOs. When are liberals going to get it into their thick heads that they are a very much a cultural minority across swathes of America and are, thus, always going to struggle against Republicans in small town and rural America

As long as the Democratic Party continues to lose ground by selecting inappropriate candidates to challenge the GOP in congressional elections, for example, you don't select a liberal Democrat to run against a conservative Republican in a marginal conservative district), I don't see the party heading in an ascendant direction, any time soon

The Democratic Party needs to big-up economic issues and moderate its social liberalism - because the latter simply doesn't wash in 'mainstream' America, where they need are going to have to compete with the GOP before they can even start making electoral progress. Furthermore, demographic (especially, geographical) trends are not exactly moving in the party's favour

Liberal Democrats need to realise that common sense, pragmatic, moderate/centrist Democrats are surely preferable to conservative Republicans, in hock to the Religious Right

Democratic leaders ought to be of the 'heartland' ilk rather than the peripheral (i.e. people who have a proven record of reaching out across party lines and the ideological spectrum). Is that so difficult to understand?

Hell, the national party is so out of touch with the South, I’m beginning to think that even Robert E Lee would struggle, while Sherman would coast home

Dave

[Virginian87]

Good post, Dave.  Then you get Democrats who say that we should get rid of the South, that it's totally worthless and we don't need it, like certain members of this forum.  We just keep trying to help, and nobody wants to listen.

[TheresNoMoney]

We shouldn't ignore the South at all, we just shouldn't pander to them if it means going against our core values. I would love to win a few southern states.

But if you want us to become a bunch of Zell Millers, it's not going to happen.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

We shouldn't ignore the South at all, we just shouldn't pander to them if it means going against our core values.

Well if the national Democrats had been bothered to campaign on the Democratic party's core values (as opposed to affluent liberal leftists core values...) it wouldn't be in the trouble it's in down in Dixie.

[AuH2O]

One problem is that Democrats think they can fool people more easily than they really can. Calculating your platform in a more precise fashion won't bring back the South. It's gone, and Southerners won't trust the Democratic Party on a national level for... well, an extremely long time, to say the least.

Honestly Democrats have a lot of trouble identifying their problem, because it's small enough to not be particularly apparent nor fixable, but large enough that they lose elections.

Pandering to minorities is probably the Democrats' biggest weakness, though on paper their anti-religious disposition is the issue.

[Virginian87]

We shouldn't ignore the South at all, we just shouldn't pander to them if it means going against our core values.

Well if the national Democrats had been bothered to campaign on the Democratic party's core values (as opposed to affluent liberal leftists core values...) it wouldn't be in the trouble it's in down in Dixie.

You hit the nail on the head.  Oh, and Zell Miller was an excellent governor of Georgia and gave a great keynote speech at the 1992 Democratic convention.  I think he's a perfect represntation of what the Democratic Party once was in the South.  I didn't like his speech at the RNC about Democrats arming the military with "spitballs."  But he's right that we have lost touch with the South because we decided to start catering to elite liberals and have become weaker in general on national security. 

On the contrary, AuH20, I think that Democrats will be able to win some Southern states without "fooling" anybody.  You probably mean we'd disguise a very liberal aganda inside a moderate package.  If anybody learned anything after the last election, it's that we need to become tougher on social issues and national security and fight the right wing portrayal of us as whiny liberal wimps without a spine.  We're not anti-religious either, that's another misconception.  I'm sick of right-wing bullies like Sean Hannity characterizing and stereotyping us as a party of atheists.  Somehow we need to convince people that that is simply not true.

[TheresNoMoney]

I would like to see more economic populism from the Democrats.

We should do more to appeal to the South, but the midwest and southwest are where the more immediate opportunies are.

[AuH2O]

The problem in two-party politics is that the parties a) tend to regress to the mean and b) must build constituencies representing roughly half the voting population.

You cannot add without subtracting. Adding Southernerns means losing someone.

[ATFFL]

There is something about this thread that makes me want to rub my hands together and say "Good, good" repeatedly in a menacing tone of voice.

[Virginian87]

I would like to see more economic populism from the Democrats.

We should do more to appeal to the South, but the midwest and southwest are where the more immediate opportunies are.

Byrd is a populist.  Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan, and Tim Johnson are other populists in the Senate.  Even Zell Miller was a populist.  Most rural Southerners were Democratic populists.

[TheresNoMoney]

Byrd is a populist.  Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan, and Tim Johnson are other populists in the Senate.  Even Zell Miller was a populist.  Most rural Southerners were Democratic populists.

Zell Miller is no economic populist. He voted in lockstep with the Republican corporate agenda when he was in the Senate.

I like the other Senators you mentioned. Basically, Democrats need to appeal more to the working class (we should dominate in this demographic) and be more pro-gun.

[MODU]

The problem in two-party politics is that the parties a) tend to regress to the mean and b) must build constituencies representing roughly half the voting population.

You cannot add without subtracting. Adding Southernerns means losing someone.

Now you know why I advocate a third-party so heavily.    Need to force the old two-dominat parties to look outside of their party and to the public as a whole to meet their needs. 

[TheresNoMoney]

I wouldn't mind seeing a Labor party step up whose primary aim is to support the working class/middle class.

[A18]

They wouldn't need a party if they actually intended to support them. My guess is they would instead have other people 'support' them.