More important, though, is the fact that a stone-faced, prep-school Norhteasterner just doesn't resonate with any of the pickup truck-driving, brush-clearing set anywhere. If you peel of just a couple of percent of these people, especially if there are compelling economic issues in play, you might just be able to tip the balance in states like Nevada, Colorado, Missouri, Virginia, etc. A well-selected Good Old Boy candidate, be he from North Carolina or Idaho, might just be able to do that. And importantly, I don't see any drawbacks for that type of candidate in the Northeast, either. Up there, they will vote for ANY democrat, because to them, it is much more about policy than some kind of amorphous feeling of kinship. So to ask the classic Yenta question: Could it hurt?
John Kerry is a good man who would've made a good President. But he was a Yankee. And in the battleground, that hurts.
Like Christopher in the top thread, I think you're performing gymnastics to reserve a place for secular intellectuals on the ticket because you feel a strong affinity for them. And by the way, I'm a coastal secular intellectual.
TN, AR, and LA were traditional Democratic stongholds (Clinton carried them twice), but have been trending Republican at a rapid pace.
The Democrats cannot afford to neglect the South. The last four winning Democratic candidates (five if you count Al Gore's win in the popular vote) were Southerners. The last Democratic candidate to win the an actual majority in popular vote was a born-again Christian from Georgia who won every Southern state except VA.
As a Southerner, I do NOT want the South to become any more of a one party region than it already is.
Go ahead, keep calling us backwards, racist, homophobic, rednecks. Keep that superior urban attitude. Keep losing elections. As long as the national Democratic Party keeps saying "fuck you" to Southerners, the South will keep saying "fuck you" to the Democratic Party on election day.
Meanwhile, Massachusetts liberal William Weld is still considered a good Republican. Ahnold, Rudy, and Pataki all spoke at the RNC. If they can have a big tent, why can't we?
Weld and his ilk will soon be as rare a species as the Southern Democrat. It will simply take time.
My point is, the GA house is controlled by the GOP by around 5 seats, I think. We need a national message for the Democratic Party so that we don't slip further. I think its a lot more instructive to look at the county maps to gain a better picture. Better yet, BOP has an awesome map that shows how blue states are still divided. Regardless of the state, you still see a high concentration of Kerry supporters, like Atlanta, Charlotte, even certain swaths of blue in the deep south (SE GA, central SC, and S Ala). I think the problem is that on a national level the Democratic party has lost the ability to connect with "regular" guys. People who ARE cornbread and apple pie. It doesn't have to do with position so much as how we present the position, our message, and being afraid to be honest about who we are, what we believe - we lack the balls to really bring a passion to the debate. People respect passion, and respond. As Bush said, people liked his dad, but nobody loved him. As Democrats, we have the right positions on 'issues' - some people just don't trust us.
While on a national level, it might be easy to write off the South, but that leaves us Southerners a bit lost. We need a national message that people connect to in order to give our local campaigns some coherency and exposure. Without it, we won't ever get our states back.
The South again becomes an asset to the National Democratic Effort when Democratic Southerners get busy and win some elections. You need to raise the money, set up field operations, and rebuild the Southern Democratic Parties, and if you read McCain Feingold clearly, you'll understand that it does shift the responsibility for party building to the states.
I fully appreciate the problems Southern Democrats have -- the dependable base of the Southern Parties are now Black -- in the minority/majority districts. You have to figure out how to create a coalition that includes Black Voters, and then finds enough people willing to vote their own economic and social interests instead of their fears in order to win. But that's what you have to do. We've got enough problems here in Minnesota what with the Republicans importing both Texas Candidates and Southern Tactics -- and we've finally figured out some of the tactical approaches that work. We have a strong state party that can organize and rebound.
Some years back I worked on a Presidential Campaign at the Field Organizer level, and what I found was that most Southern Democratic Parties were essentially letterheads. They had no broad program -- no party building strategy. County Chairs had no idea what was required of them in organizing primary campaigns. And it is not "anti-Southern bigotry" to note the problem -- it is necessary frankness.
If you can't win your sheriff races, your town council races, your legislative races and all -- then why should we assume you've got your game together vis a vis national politics?
and are you the same Sara who frequently posted on donkey rising? I've always found you to be one of the very best posters in the entire blogosphere.
I have retired from Party work. Over the years I accumulated a long list of party jobs -- 10 years on the State Central Committee, I've managed about 20 campaigns, I co-chaired Alan Cranston's 1984 effort. Raised Money, and (though all my friends thought I had gone off my rocker) in 1989-90 I worked on Paul Wellstone's first Senate Campaign, beginning when it was a rented broom closet, with one phone line hooked to an answering machine. I've organized and chaired committees and commissions at the state level -- and for a couple of years I taught advocacy and lobbying at the University, and some of my former students are still in the legislature.
Yea -- I post at Donkey Rising, at Kos, and at Digby and sometimes at Orcinus. I really want to see the blog-world become a meaningful factor in politics, and I see lots of possibilities that need to be tried and tested. I think the best thing those of us who have been around Party Politics for years, and wear our "Hack" badge with honor can do, is try to tell the new recruits what we know from our own successful efforts and lost good causes.
Excuse me? Did I do this?
Allow me to become a little self-righteous msyelf here. I disntinctly said that we should not give up on the South. All I am doing is pointing out how severe the situation is for the Demcorats int he south, and that it will take a lot more than a southern governor and some talk about values to turn it around.
Last year I wrote a pretty ardent diary at Dailykos calling people out for their anti-southern bigotry during the Dean flag flap. Now that I am simply pointing out how dire the electoral situation is for Democrats in the south, I do not think that means I am calling people in the south backwards.
I do not take kindly to accusations that I am bigoted, and that I am being predujiced against others.
Asshole.
But we can't just ignore his/her badly-communicated point - there are someDems who think this way about the South, and rural voters in general. Hell, even I've done it in my darkest moments, and I was born and raised in a rural county. Even worse, there's a widely-held perception that ALL Dems think this way.
This sort of contempt for "hicks," real or not, is hurting us, and our new message and communication need to focus on it. These people aren't going to vote for us if they think we hate them.
The Republicans want us weak and divided, gnawing over silly things like "do we defend gays or cast them aside", "do we nominate southerners so we have a better chance at winning", "do we move more to the left or the center".
They aren't as divided as we are. The moderates are shunted aside. The far right holds all the keys and they appeal to peoples fears and hatreds.
We can not be persuaded to play to their level. I believe Chris was saying, simply, that nominating from the south won't solve our problems. Some folks here have noted that there is a high-handed approach from the north (I'm from Michigan, for example), that generally speaking our region has a condescending view of that region.
We are a party of all regions. We need to change the focus, as has been said, on getting the message out; We are proud to be Liberal. Liberal is not a dirty word in the north, south, east or west. The kind of bigotry embraced by the far right is dirty.
Okay, I've said my peace. I personally respect my fellow Liberals in the south and agree with something Chris said earlier; in those Red held districts we "can't" win, we need to spread a little money to generate a candidate, build inroads, and siphon off their resources. And maybe, just maybe, take a few seats from the Radicals!
What we need is a role up your sleeves regular guy democrat. We need a Richie Daley, an Ed Rendell or a Dick Durbin. We need a guy who can appeal to urban voters and working class whites. I don't think Edwards can really do this (he appeals to rural voters, not urban voters).
I also think this line of thinking (I agree with Chris) pushes us towards shaping a message designer for southern rural voters rather than northern urban, suburban and exurban voters.
Outside of a "working class" white democrate, the only other type of candidate I think we should consider is a Hispanic candidate (like Alex Penelas). No more white southern democrats.
I agree that going Southern candidate-wise is no lock - but it's nothing to be afraid of (as NE is). I also agree that a "dull" midwestern type is probably not nearly as dull to the people we'd like to appeal to. I will never again roll my eyes at a Gephardt-type (though not Dick himself)
We need to expand our existing base and pull from the moderate Republicans in the Red States that we won by a razor thin margin.
We need to establish our core Mission, Vision and Values and then stick with them - or run the risk of people staying home on election day. We have to strengthen and expand our base from those who just weren't motivated to vote for Kerry because they didn't see much of a difference from Bush.
