Anti-South Backlash

There's been a lot of anti-South backlash the last few days, with folks pointing out the similarities between the electoral map and the politics of the War of Northern Aggression.  But the fact is that the Late Unpleasantness has nothing whatsoever to do with voting for Bush, and blaming "racist and bigoted Southerners" for our loss is counter-productive and just hurts our chances for 2008.  Because the people who voted against us in Tennessee are many of the same people who voted against us in Iowa, Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania.

A wise man once said that Pennsylvania consists of Philadelphia in the east, Pittsburgh in the west, and Alabama in the middle.  True enough, and the only thing that kept Pennsylvania from going red was Philadelphia County's 400,000 Kerry margin.  Or put another way, only 20% of Pennsylvania's counties (compared to 19% in my home state of Tennessee) went Democratic.  You've got a red state there folks, with a big blob of blue tacked on at the river. (Santorum, anyone?)

The North voted for Kerry not because it's somehow more tolerant, more inclusive, more caring, less racist, or less evangelical.  No--the North voted for Kerry because it has larger cities.  And we've nearly squeezed the maximum amount of blue from those cities.  The only way to make Pennsylvania more blue is to try to appeal to the same voters we're rejecting out of hand in the South.  

So instead of writing off the South completely, out of some belief that its Bush supporters are qualitatively different from the Bush supporters north of the Mason-Dixon line, we need to find ways to appeal to rural voters as a whole. And please notice that I am not talking about the religion thing.  We are not a party of religious fundamentalists and we can never compete with that.  But if we start condemning rural voters in the South for their values, we will also alienate rural voters everywhere else. So let's quit with the regional stereotypes and start figuring out ways to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters who live in rural and urban areas alike.



Display:


southerness (none / 0)

I agree, it's not neccessarily a southern, regional issue, as much as it is a rural-urban issue. I mean, I looked at rural counties in Illinois that voted for Alan Keyes over Barak Obama by a 60-40 margin!
by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 10:33:30 AM EST

Re: southerness (2.66 / 3)

Whom do you think lives in these cities?  And whom do you think lives in rural communities?

We need to stop glossing over differences and trying to be polite. The fact is cities vote Democratic because cities are diverse and the white residents tend to see value in diversity.  

The rural areas are monolithic bastions fear based racists "christians" threaten by anybody who doesn't look and act like them.  They live in a failed and dying culture, a failed and dying economy propped up by blue states subsidies, and a failed and dying religious/values system.  Their marriages fail at higher rates.  They drink high than average amount of alcohol.  They kill themselves at early ages from smoking at higher than average rates. Their children abuse drugs and get pregnant at higher than average rates. They drop out of high school at higher rates.  They complete college at much lower rates.  They don't value their own children!  They fund their schools at lower rates.  Instead of addressing their own failings, they blame others.

I'm sick of being polite. The fact is rural Red State America is full of failed ignorant moral degenerates that only know how to hate and fear.  

by rusrivman on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:18:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: southerness (none / 0)

Somehow, I don't think such an analysis is going to do much to bridge the gap with the rural voter.
by Randi on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:21:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: southerness (3.00 / 1)

No?  I'm constantly being told what's wrong with me. (urban/blue state)  It's time we get on the offensive and start pointing out what's wrong with them instead of being apologists.
Funny thing happens when you tell the truth.  People recognize it.  We need to offer a clear choice.  We won't win Oklahoma, but we will lock up Iowa and Wisconsin.  We'll get creamed in Alabama, but we'll win Florida.  Screw Texas, I'll happily take NM, AZ and CO.
by rusrivman on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:46:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: southerness (none / 0)

Re: Texas...the dem national party will out of Texas whatever they put into it. They IGNORE us dems down here. We DID have a dem gov at one point, we elect dem judges. The TX sec of state webpage lists how prez candidates have done over the years...49% of Dallas County went for Kerry this year
1992
 Bill Clinton/ Al Gore DEM 2,281,815 37.07%
 George Bush/ Dan Quayle(I) REP 40.56%
 Ross Perot/ James Stockdale IND 20%  

1996
 Bob Dole /Jack Kemp REP  48.75%
 Bill Clinton /Al Gore(I) DEM 43.83

We ARE down here but the national party just see a shade of red and looks elsewhere!

by rainbow4321 on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 04:01:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: southerness (none / 0)

Compete in TX!  But compete on modern Democratic values instead of imitating Republicans!  I'd rather lose 60%-40% on the correct positions, than win 51-49% on backwards looking sellout positions.
Eventually we will win again in Texas, but not by embracing the bigoted old Democratic past now coopted by Republicans.
by rusrivman on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 04:58:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: southerness (none / 0)

Please stop

I'm a southerner who just moved into your neck of the woods (if rusriv is russian river).

Those dumbass rural southerners voted against Kerry because we keep calling them dumbass rural southerners.  

Note I said voted against Kerry, not for Bush. I think there were more ABK (as opposed to ABB) than we'd like to admit.

Such an attitude will only have them continuing to vote against us.

But I do agree with your point that we should let Red America stew in the mess they've created. A little tough love could be constructive.

by gina on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 05:04:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: southerness (none / 0)

Well, I trust that after you have lived in a tolerant, diverse and educated society for a year or so, you will realize the folly of your vote.  Of course, we also have our rich and simple minded "christian" folk who vote Republican as well, but we manage to keep them in the minority and don't allow them to force their medieval thinking on the rest of us.
by rusrivman on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 10:23:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: southerness (none / 0)

It's early in the morning.  I think I misread your post.  I thought it said you voted ABK.  I wrote a rather refrained response considering I'm still drinking my first cup of coffee.  I'm proud of myself.  lol
by rusrivman on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 10:26:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: southerness (3.00 / 1)

I agree -- it won't bridge the gap. But you know, voting against Bush was a pure gimme, and the rural voters went for him out of spite.

I have a strong suspicion of election fraud, and we'll know a lot more by the end of the month. But if this election is indeed legit? I'm leaving for Europe. Her leaders realize America's becoming unhinged and are getting ready to meet her challenge.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/11/06/news/eu.html

Here's an interesting Islamic look at the beast we're fighting. Unfortunately, this particular gentleman seems to think bigotry is a good thing.

http://www.islamonline.net/iol-english/qadaya/islamic-1/islamic1.asp

Please note he's in complete agreement that my fellow Texas voters -- most of whom went for Bush -- have more in common with the Saudis than the French.

by goldengreek on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:54:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The same is true for Oregon (none / 0)

Remove Portland Metro Area, and Bush wins Oregon by 80,000.

Urbanites are living in a liberal bubble. And what is written above totally echoes and articulates my gut feeling in a way I never could.

Liberals are also church goers too.

Instead of just twinning with congregations in Liberia, etc, liberal church congregations must also twin (and meet with) with rural congregations too, to break the rural/urban divide.

Secular urban activists must also literally "drive" (using gasoline) their efforts into the suburban and rural counties now.

Perhaps together we can make a more inclusive environment for a president that unites the US people.

by redpeter on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 10:50:27 AM EST

Re: The same is true for Oregon (none / 0)

No, urbanites are urbanites.  They aren't in any more of a "bubble" than the rural voters are.  At least they are more likely to interact with people different from them.  
by wilder on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:45:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Rural - Urban (1.00 / 1)

Good job!

We need to drop gun control - now!  There aren't any deputies on duty at night in my rural community.

Another huge issue in our area is racial preferences.  People hate them with passion.  Not racists, normal people.  Hell, I do, and I went to Berkeley.  Why should someone eles's kid get into college ahead of my kid when my kid worked harder?

This isn't a racist town.  We have a huge influx of Hispanics and its no big deal.  Everyone is dating everyone else.

But I hear huge support from everyone for no one starving, and everyone going to college.

I think that losing these two anchors, focusing on personal freedom including guns, choice, etc. Really plays well in the west and most of rural America.

I'm a huge fan of the endangered species act, but we need to make it a happy occasion for a landowner to find an endanged species.  We need to show (and mean it) to rural people how a clean environment is good for jobs.

We also need to fix the media lock by the Repubs.

by beeste on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:03:30 AM EST

Re: Rural - Urban (3.00 / 1)

If we drop affirmative action, we should also demand a ban on legacies.
by wilder on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:47:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rural - Urban (none / 0)

Wilder makes a valid point about there being a rural bubble just as much as an urban bubble, and yes, the two must mix more.

pls clarify for me, what is a legacy? as posted above (and repeated below):

If we drop affirmative action, we should also demand a ban on legacies.

by redpeter on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 12:26:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rural - Urban (none / 0)

I think a legacy means the following: if your dad or mom or grandparent or rich uncle went to University X, then the entrance requirements for you are reduced or dropped.  Example: GWB went to Yale, so did GHWB (and I believe Prescott too).  There's no way GWB could have gotten into Yale on his record alone.
by An American in Berlin on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 12:50:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

legacies (none / 0)

And so a legacy is a form of affirmative action, ....

so what's the problem with affirmative action for qualified candidates from the minorities, then? seems fair to me ...

have both or ban both

I'm just speaking rhetorically....

by redpeter on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 03:39:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rural - Urban (none / 0)

Shrub was rejected by Univ of Texas law school back then..so with no "legacy", no admittance!
by rainbow4321 on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 04:04:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rural - Urban (3.00 / 2)

This is a joke right?

So the path to beat Republicans is to be just like them. I wonder what makes you guys support Democrats. Is it just the brand name? So if Democrats drop a few progressive polices and adopt a few right wing polices they would be acceptable in the south? I dont think so.

And lets say that Democrats do drop their support for Affirmative action, would they get 90% African American vote? Or the minorities vote for that mater? I don't think so. The way to deal with religious right is to take them on, both in policy and in ideology. Don't forget any Bush failure is their failure too and they are open to a lot of criticism. They have to back this guy to hell  and back or they have to distance themselves. In any case they have lost the argument.

by Nick on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:10:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rural - Urban (none / 0)

A joke - nope.

I'm not advocating that we become like them.  I'm being honest about what kills us in rural America.  Bias by skin color is still bias by skin color.  We lost in 2000 in Tennessee due to gun control.

Eliminating poverty, building opportunity for all, and a great educational system will be more effective (and much more likely to be adopted) than givng racial preferences to the promotion of the descendants of the past victim of poverty.

I strongly believe in protecting the environment and stopping the worst of global warming.  But you have to get rural land-owners to work to their enlightened self interest.  

We've got the Clinton legacy of low deficits.  That's good.  I've won quite a few arguments that things didn't suck in the 90's and now we've got Bush.  It makes their heads hurt.

Focusing on personal freedom will help progressives and democrats.  We need to think like FDR and build coalitions.

And we need to understand what drives rural voters.  I live there and talk with my co-workers all the time.  We are probably 60 to 40 for Bush at my office (I'm the boss) but half the pro-Bush people have strong reservations about Bush and Repubs, while having strong reservations about gun control and too much regulation.

And we are not a monolith in Rural America.  That's sure not true in the west!  People really think they are voting "Freedom First" (NRA line).  It's bullshit, so let's enlighten them.

by beeste on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 02:02:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rural - Urban (3.00 / 1)

If every time Democrats loose an election they decide to move a little bit more to the right then what you would have are two right wing parties.

If you drop the Affirmative action then there is no reason for African Americans to vote for Democrats in huge numbers.

And do you  think that the left would accept that? I don't think so.

I also don't believe that what kills us in rural America is Affirmative action. This may be your experience but you have not offered any other proof to back this up.

by Nick on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 02:31:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rural - Urban is no joke (none / 0)

We don't need to abandon social justice principles, but we do need to tweak them and we need to tweak our message. Do you suggest that we abandon the rural/southern demographic and cede thirty states to the Republican party? Politics is about the art of the possible. We need to make some modest pragmatic adjustments in our approach and our message.

This boils down to one simple question. Do you want to be politically correct or do you want to win elections?

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 03:21:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rural - Urban is no joke (none / 0)

What social justice? I don't support Affirmative Action because it is politically correct and because it is trendy. I support it because it addresses some imbalance in US society today.

And I agree. Let us be pragmatic. Can Democrats risk alienating African American vote?

Retuning the message is one thing and dropping the message is another.

And why do we want to win election if we are going to do the same things as Republicans?

Yes the politics is the art of possibilities and it is possible to take on religious right and win. We don't have to rollover and play dead every time they are on the march.

by Nick on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 04:35:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stereotyping (3.00 / 1)

The worst stereotyping, in my opinion, is being generated by the right, and that is the stereotype of the Liberal.

Also, I think the regional thing has been a problem as well that the Radical Right has exploited effectively. Remember the "Vermont, Massachusettes, New York, Hollywood" Liberal stereotypes from the election? Dean was supposed to go back to Vermont, take his Hollywood friends with him, Kerry was a Massachusettes Liberal?

The regional stereotyping angers me to no end. I live on the I-75 corridor in Michigan, where from Saginaw, Flint, to Detroit we trend Democrat. The west and much (not all) of the north trend Republican. But Michigan is a "blue" state.

How ridiculous! The truth is, appealing to geography will just never work. We have to appeal using a better message.

I'll say it again, I want Liberal to be a positive word in every region of the U.S., and the only way we can do that is to spend some money on marketing. Refine the message, whip up the media and marketing outlets, get out on the streets, into the churches, into homes and businesses, and bring to light what the REAL Republican agenda is today, compared to our defense of Liberty, Freedom, and Justice.

by Green Irishboy on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:03:42 AM EST

Re: Stereotyping (none / 0)

I want to add that the Republican party is working overtime in my home town newspaper and on the streets to change Flint Republican. At least, to appeal to enough voters to weaken the Democratic strength of Genessee county, particularly in the the suburbs. They don't talk about unions vs. free markets (the old division); only religion and "values".
by Green Irishboy on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:06:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stereotyping (none / 0)

We need some pro-liberal slogans which we can slap on a bumper and use on the airways for starters.  I suggest

LIBERTY, LIBERATE, LIBERAL!

and

GEORGE BAILEY WAS A LIBERAL
OLD MAN POTTER WAS A CONSERVATIVE

that's from "It's a Wonderful Life" in case you were wondering.

and of course

JESUS WAS A LIBERAL!

and

LIBERALS WON WWII!

Any additions?

by Ryan on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:45:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stereotyping (none / 0)

If the GOP is pushing regional stereotyping as part of an overall strategy of cultural warfare, then one logical Democratic response is to push economic stereotyping as part of an overall strategy of...class warfare.

Yes, class warfare.  Have you ever wondered why the Repubs are so quick to howl Class Warfare at any Democratic proposal that sounds a wee bit populistic?  It's because they're shit scared of the possibility that the Dems might seriously engage in class warfare.  That's something the Democrats have not done for the simple reason that they back off every time the opposition protests about Class Warfare.  This is no way to win.

by LaughingHistorian on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 04:15:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's silly (none / 0)

to consider what would happen if the cities were taken out of blue states, but not to also consider what would happen if the the rural areas were taken out of the red states. Take the rural areas out of Florida, and you've got a blue state. Take the rural areas out of Nevada, and you've got a blue state. Take the rural areas out of Colorado, and you've got a blue state.
by demomatt on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:09:06 AM EST

Re: It's silly (none / 0)

What I was trying to say is that the notion of "blue state" or "red state" tends to ignore the fact that rural/urban demographics appears to have more influence on voting patterns than does region.  (Although perhaps New England is different).
by Christopher on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 03:23:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Anti-south backlash (none / 0)

What you say has some truth in it, but I also think the Democratic party has a special problem in the south. Even when it puts up strong candidates who know how to talk to rural voters (Inez Tenebaum, Brad Carson), they lose. Al Gore lost his own state. I think even Bill Clinton would have a tough time winning any southern states today. But there are heavily rural states elsewhere (Montana, North Dakota, Iowa) that still elect Democrats. The animosity between north and south is as old as this country, and it's an undeniable part of the Democrats' problem today.
by bryan302 on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:15:42 AM EST

Western strategy (3.00 / 3)

We need to turn Colorado, New Mexico, and into solid blue states (Arizona?). We need to make Montana a swing state. We need to close the gap in Wyoming and Idaho, and evetually turn them into swing states. We need to work on the Dakotas. This would help not only with electoral votes, but with the Senators (and representatives) in those small states.

Sound crazy? I bet Nixon's southern strategy did too. I'm not certain as to how to do this, but a good place to start would be dropping the guns (at least federally) and probably talking about conservation.

by demomatt on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:30:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Western strategy (none / 0)

Nixon's southern strategy played to the lowest among us, racists.  He offered them a party when the Democratic Party rejected its racist past.  I would rather win or lose on principles than be like the Repugs
by rusrivman on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:33:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Western strategy (3.00 / 1)

Exactly!  As I said in an earlier post, it is simply not tenable for democrats to abandon the core of a progressive agenda if they want to maintain a meaningful difference between themselves and the Republicans.  Now Colorado, New Mexico and other purple states need special care, but those in the hard core red -- well -- we are not going to win those anyway.  We need to craft winning coalitions for presidential elections that take on board the fact that we are unlikely to break the solid south.

While this may be difficult, it will prevent us from searching for the "perfect southern politician" to be our party nominee.

by wintermute1 on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:37:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Western strategy (none / 0)

Montana is in play. They've already had their taste of the radical right, and spit it out.
by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 04:47:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

x (3.00 / 1)

Very nice post.

I live in Pennsylbama.  Have the Dems move away from the fat cats and become the party of the working man again, move toward state-by-state or urban/rural positions on gun control, and Pennsylbama becomes a lot more blue.

And quit talking so ugly about rural/religious/Bush voters.  It's exactly what Rush Limbaugh et al pound into their heads every day.

by Mary Mary on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:20:08 AM EST

Re: x (3.00 / 1)

very good, Mary.

I would add "union, union, union".  In most the battleground states that stayed blue, (MN, WI, MI, PA), the union vote was a critical part of the coalition.  Without it these states are red.  

Continued Democratic unclarity on this (aligning with corporations for campaign funds at the expense of unions (NAFTA, etc.)) hurts.  Especially in red states, unions are one of your chief sources of Democrats.  Nourish them, don't screw them.

Kerry started well with "Benedict Arnold corporations" but all that was left in the end was tinkering with the tax code to try to affect offshoring (a minor part of the problem).  He admitted that that was the only thing he could do about the problem.

George Bush tore up the budget surplus with his silly tax cuts, so why do Democrats think it's so vital to stay on the good side of beltway economists?

by sTiVo on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:31:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: x (none / 0)

About unions: here in WI, it wasn't just the union vote that helped carry us for Kerry, it was the union activism.  They ran their own phonebanks and GOTV operations, and made sure they got their people out.  They supplied KE04 people with space and lines for their final push, too...I can't overstate how much they did for us.  Just tremendous work, and they did it all on the strength of...say it with me...

ECONOMIC POPULISM.

Goddess bless the papermakers.

by aspen on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 04:14:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The GOP... (3.00 / 1)

...has been on the wrong side of just about evey issue in the past 70 years. The reason they've managed o survive this long is because they've changed their tune to pretend they are FOR all those things they used to be fervently AGAINST.

"Of COURSE we believe in civil liberties for blacks. Of COURSE we believe in women's suffrage. Of COURSE we believe in Medicare. Of COURSE we believe in the Clean Air Act".

The list goes on and on. The gay rights issue is just the latest, and 20 years from now, once the issue has settled in our favor, they'll pretend - again - that they favored equal rights for gays all along.

The key to winning is to expose the GOP platform for all to see. Get out of their way - let them hang themselves.

Once Americans realize that the GOP zealots really DO want to outlaw abortion, really DO want to roll back the New Deal, then those rural voters, women voters - whoever - will see the GOP for what it is.

by Toadvine on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:24:11 AM EST

Re: The GOP... (none / 0)

I agree. I also think there are fissures within the Republican party that are very exploitable for the Democrats. Social conservatives hate Hollywood, for the trashy movies and TV programs it puts out. So why do Republicans sit back and let the Bush Administration deregulate the media, basically allowing them to garner more power and influence over American cultural life? Likewise there is an obvious conflict within the Republican party over issues like abortion and fiscal policy. The Bush administration has succeeded in papering over these, but for how long? Watching the Republicans cheer Giuliani at the convention this summer, I kept wondering what they would think if they saw the pictures of him marching in the gay pride parade in New York all those years.
by bryan302 on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:43:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly (none / 0)

In spite of the pundits - the same clowns who were predicting a Kerry win - telling us the Dems have to woo the rural voter, the religious voter, the moderate female voter, I think it's clear the Dems have to stick to their guns. We are correct on the issues.

If we can stop watering down the GOP, then the differences beetween the parties will become far more clear.

by Toadvine on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:52:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The GOP... (none / 0)

Exactly right!  

And they switch every decade.  Sixties they targeted crime (blacks), seventies was women's lib/affirmative action, eighties was unions (especially teachers), nineties was guns, and here in the oughts it's homosexuals, with those trial lawyers awaiting their turn in the barrel.

Don't people see that the Rs manufacture issues to win votes?  Give in on all these and they'll just come up with another one.  

Think about it.  Have the right-to-lifers promulgated the fact that abortions in the U.S. went down under Clinton and have gone up under Bush?  What would Rs do if Roe v. Wade were overturned?  Just say, OK, now that we've vanquished evil ya'll go ahead and vote for Dems?  

by Mary Mary on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 02:55:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think... (3.00 / 1)

...that abortion access is favored by about 70% of women voters, and probably a similar % of men.

More than 1 person who just voted for Bush told me, "If Bush threatens abortion access, I'll be right there with you"

I responded, "What the hell are you smoking? You think Bush is kidding?"

Anyway, I say let them overturn Roe v Wade. America voted for these clowns. It's long past time for the Democrats to let America see what the GOP has in store for the USA.

by Toadvine on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 07:46:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The GOP... (none / 0)

I'd just like to add that the abortion issue is almost a moot point in rural America anyway.

You can't get an abortion there; there are no providers.

by Mary Mary on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 03:04:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Also keep in mind that north Florida (none / 0)

and the panhandle are very southern.  

Jacksonville is sometimes referred to as "the capitol of South Georgia."

We are getting hurt in those places.  It's not about abortion, it's not about gays, it's about culture.  Lawton Chiles was pro-choice and liberal but they loved him because he was a true southerner.

by Lebowsky on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:36:23 AM EST

One small and maybe insignificant thing (none / 0)

that shows the problem is the habit Kerry has of sticking his finger at people.

Compare that to the gestures Edwards used.

I had a real culture shock when I moved up north at how rude people are up there.  They don't think they are being rude but, by our standards, they are.

by Lebowsky on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:39:47 AM EST

Re: One small and maybe insignificant thing (none / 0)

By their standards, you are probably rude, too.  Please don't act like they have to change for your sake.
by wilder on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:55:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One small and maybe insignificant thing (none / 0)


when in rome...

when I travel abroad, I try to be respectful of their manners and norms. I also try to speak the language.

What's wrong with doing the same region wise in the US?

I read a book a couple of years ago, I think it was Why Do They Hate Us and it examined religious fundamentalism (simplified by me) as a reaction of less developed/less modern (less western) nations who feel their cultures threatened by modernization.

I would imagine rural people who tend to come from more autoritarian families (at least in the south) have been raised in a culture less equipped to handle change, including changes in their ideals. (I speak as someone who lived in the south until 3 months ago)

If we want them to come to our side, we have to meet them on their terms and them pull them our way. If this is wrong, well, it really doesn't matter because we need them more than they (believe) they need us.

by gina on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 12:55:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agree, up to a point (3.00 / 1)

Here's where I agree:  if we really want to build a coalition, we have to redefine the playing field away from social wedge issues to economic ones.  Otherwise, even when we win, we will find ourselves providing over the same divided electorate as Bush is now -- neither good for the nation nor good for the party.

We should consider, for example, moving affirmative action to a class-based program rather than race-based.  I don't think we should AT ALL change tack on gay marriage or abortion:  we are right, they are wrong, we just need to engage voters on this issue in a non-apologetic way.

I do think, however, that talking about religion and values is important -- not only electorally, but because it is the right thing to do.  Look -- a great deal of voters are religious and they have the incorrect assumption that a vote for the GOP is somehow more religious, which is just categorically false.

We have a message on that score -- a damn effective one -- and we need to articulate it better.

by ChrisR on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:44:46 AM EST

Re: Agree, up to a point (none / 0)

I disagree about talking about religion.  

The people who are swayed by JesusTalk already believe that Dems, by definition, are immoral.

These same people believe that their religious beliefs should determine this nation's laws, and this attitude must be discouraged at all costs.

In the second debate, John Kerry tried to explain why his personal religious beliefs could not be allowed to sway his positions on the law.  I thought he did really well, didn't you?  But the only answer that would have satisfied that questioner and the millions just like her would have been his vow to overturn Roe v. Wade.  

I wouldn't ever have a Dem candidate talk about religion; I would always have them say that it's a private matter.  

Then I would cut TV commercials featuring members of his/her congregation talking about what a good person the candidate is.  

by Mary Mary on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 02:45:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Agree, up to a point (none / 0)

     If we fail to frame economic issues in ways that resonate with religious voters we'll be passing up a sizable chunk of the electorate which should be ours for the taking.  The notion that anyone who buys into Jesus-talk is a knee-jerk Republican is grossly oversimplified.
by LaughingHistorian on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 04:06:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Agree, up to a point (3.00 / 1)

Hi Mary

As part of the 1/4 of the white Protestants who voted for Kerry and oppose the theocratic wing of american politics, I don't agree that JesusTalk only sways people who think Dems are immoral anyway. There are socially conservative working class folks who would support an economic populist agenda, but who perceive the Democratic party as looking down on them. The religious among the southern working class often see the Democratic party as the party of the elite, the self-proclaimed intellectuals who sneer at the allegedly simple-minded folk who believe in Christ. These people voted Clinton in 92, even while Clinton supported a woman's right to choose and supported gay rights, because they didn't get the idea that Clinton thought they were fools.

Now I don't think a Democratuc candidate ought to talk about his religion if he feels his religion is a private matter, and I love your idea of having bis parishioners saying things about him. But I personally liked it quite a bit when Barach Obama thanked his pastor and his church by name after winning in Illinois. I think that a Dem who openly expressed his faith could strip away enough of the social conservatives to put us over the top on economic issues.

keith

by keith johnson on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 05:55:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Agree, up to a point (none / 0)

I concur Keith ... being another proud member of the 1/4 white Protestants who backed Kerry.
by safeashouses on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 06:15:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Agree, up to a point (none / 0)

Perhaps JesusTalk needs to be defined: do you believe that Jesus is your personal Savior and that anyone who has not accepted Christ will burn in hell?  That life is a literal struggle between good and evil and that Satan lives?  

That's JesusTalk to me; you have to forgive my ignorance but I was raised Catholic, who as you all know are not Christian. <g>

by Mary Mary on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 09:32:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Agree, up to a point (none / 0)

HI Mary

I'm not sure that I ought to get sidetracked into a religious discussion, but since you asked me my opinion, I will tell you: I believe that Christ is the only way to salvation. I do believe that other religions offer profound spiritual insights (I particularly find Buddhist ideas quite appealing) and that we Christians ought to learn from our religious friends. But on the basic Christian claim that Christ is THE way, THE truth and THE life, that's what I believe. This is my religious belief and I while I recognize that lots of people disagree, I would hope they would be as respectful of my beliefs as I try to be of theirs.

But does that mean that a person who honestly doesn't believe the whole Christian thing will end up damned forever? My opinion is that in the end no one will honestly not believe the whole Christian thing. I am hopeful that everyone will come to whatever reconciliation is needed for salvation, and I think that Christ is the way to that reconciliation.

And this is the point (it seems to me): in a pluralistic society we all have to respect each other even when we disagree. I am bothered when my Christian brothers and sisters seemingly ignore Christ's teachings about our bringing justice to the powerless, and ignore his teachings about judging others and I am equally bothered when my Christian brothers and sisters want to impose religious law onto the civil society. Even if a conservative Christian believes that gay relationships are sinful (I don't share their view BTW) why must he think that we should impose his religious law onto the civil society?

But all of the above is my religious belief, and I know that a lot of people don't agree with me. Still, I think there is a lot of common political ground between those of us who disagree religiously, and I think the coalition building we have to do to regain our political voice requires us to find that common ground.

Keith

by keith johnson on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 05:00:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Agree, up to a point (none / 0)

OK, then we were talking about the same thing.  Thanks for your response.

Would you believe you're the first person I've ever 'met' who holds these 2 beliefs: Christ as the only avenue to salvation, and not imposing religious laws on civil society.  It makes me feel lots better knowing you and others like you are out there.

by Mary Mary on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 06:54:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So Dean wasn't crazy when he said that we need (none / 0)

to appeal to the rural vote.  I knew what he meant when he said it (awkwardly).  Make him DNC chair.  He's actually got a clue.  
by LionelEHutz on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:46:19 AM EST

But Dean was rude by Southern standards (1.00 / 1)

In his campaign, he certainly didn't have a clue how to talk to people in the South.   He said "I'm gonna talk to them" and he talked about God in such a way that it was a political bargaining chip, not the foundation of people's lives.

I dearly hope that he is good enough to learn lessons and not repeat mistakes, because he can be useful.    But he's got some learnin' to do.

by Andmoreagain on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:36:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

not just the rural vote (none / 0)

Bush didn't do much better among rural folks this time than he did in 2000; he got the rural folks out to vote, though (so a consistent % advantage meant more Bush voters at the polls) and he improved his standing nationally (though not in MN) among suburbanites and city dwellers. We have a number of problems here at the national level: one is failure to communicate with rural people, in and out of the South, and we're going to need candidates who know how to do that. (Keep that in mind when you vote in the primaries.) The other is people who vote on terrorism and trust Bush to keep us safe. I still can't believe they do trust him, but apparently they do. Kerry won almost every "safe" Gore state by a lower margin than Gore, and the exceptions are states (OR, MN) where Nader did well in 2000; that change has less to do with rural values voters than with terrorism and the power of wartime incumbency, and frankly I don't know what to do about that.
by accommodatingly on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:49:00 AM EST

Re: not just the rural vote (none / 0)

Something else to consider, which I am at a loss on how we overcome this.

Throughout the election I worked feverishly talking to everyone I know and thousands that I didn't know, and probably made many enemies trying to persuade people to vote for Kerry.  The following is the strongest pattern of responses I encountered.

Has Bush handled the War on Terror?  NO
Has Bush handled the war in Iraq? NO
Should we have gone into Iraq?  NO
Bush and the Economy?  Horrible
Bush helping the poor?  Horrible
Bush and the environment?  Horrible
Will you vote for Kerry?  NO
Will you vote for Bush?  YES

The primary response for voting for Bush was I just can't vote for a Democrat, I was raised Republican and since that is how my parents and friends vote, then that is how I will vote.

I know there are other factors at play here, but this is a prevailing mindset in the South and rural areas in the North, and Midwest.  How we overcome it continues to escape me.

by liberalintexas on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 12:18:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not just the rural vote (none / 0)

Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant may have some insight on this. In the strict father frame, you do what daddy says without question.

He says that we have to find a way to communicate with the "nurturing parent" to get them on our side.

I think we need to find labels for our policies that speak to the "strict fathers" so that they come to our conclusions. We have to make their changes in perspect follow logically from their perspective.

by gina on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:13:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ku klux klan (3.00 / 2)

The klan, Whish has discarded its white hoods for christian fundamentalists choir outfits, did not and does not only exist the south. These people are everywhere and they all agree with Pat Roberson and company that the attack on new york city - a city which rejected the leadership that followed )by 85% Manhattan, 75% Bronx and Queens) - was God's punishment for homosexuality and femenism. Oh, they backtracked puplcly but don't kid yourself that they changed their minds privately. George Bush is a fundamentalist christia. They are as dangerous as the Fundalmentalist moslim and please don't lie to us and tell us differently.
by forjoeb on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:53:08 AM EST

Rural, ex-urban areas: Missouri, too (none / 0)

The Missouri maps looks just like the PA map
with two big blue dots at each end (Kansas City
in the west, and Saint Louis in the east) and
Republican heartland all in between, save maybe
two college towns.

http://omor.com/SF/archives/2004/11/land_mass_for_b.html

by dc2000 on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 12:38:26 PM EST

city size the critical factor? No! (none / 0)

RE:

No--the North voted for Kerry because it has larger cities
I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. If you look at the county-by county map of the electoral results (posted at many places, but  was looking at the one at www.electoral-vote.com) you will see that in the blue states, almost every major urban area is blue, with the sole exceptions, as far as I can tell, of Spokane and San Diego. Now look at the red states. Dallas-Ft.Worth, San Antonio, and Houston are all red. The only big blue towns in Texas are Austin and El Paso. There is not one blue county in Oklahoma. In Alabama, Mobile and Birmingham are both red.Tennessee is split, with Knoxville and Chattanooga red, and Memphis and Nashville blue. Tampa-St.Pete in Florida is Red, as is every other major town on the west coast, and so is Jacksonville. Orlando is split. Salt Lake City and Reno are both red. Anyway, I think you get my point. In the red states, especially in the South, the cities are less Democratic than they are in the blue states. Even the blue cities in the south, with notable exceptions like Miami, are less blue than they are in the North and West. This is really not just about the rural-urban divide. And I don't think it's really about gun control, either. Why would country people want to carry around concealed handguns or assault weapons? Shotguns and ordinary rifles have never, ever been on the table anyway. It may be that these people vote the way they do on gun control, but if sdo, that is a marketing issue and not a substantive issue. Anyway, I think you can see that there is a more substantive cultural divide between the red and blue states than what you are talking about.

by blerb on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 12:53:16 PM EST

Re: city size the critical factor? No! (none / 0)

I have a comment about Dallas, though....it may be red but it is a very pale red! With a little TLC it could be blue :> Kerry took 49% of the votes in Dallas County...hell, Dallas County elected a Hispanic lesbian last week for county sheriff!!! It said in the papers that she worked with the local gay and lesbian groups in order to figure out the best way to talk about it if the subject came up during the election. The Hispanic and AA population is a large part of the census/populaton. The county is huge and has both urban AND redneck towns so something is working for the dem officials in the county!
by rainbow4321 on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 04:16:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

funding for labor and religious organization (none / 0)

The rules for funding for religious organizations also need to be evaluated.
Bush administration did relax the rules
for these organization. The same probably
should be done for the labor organization.

by jr00 on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:17:36 PM EST

Very good post (none / 0)

The red/blue, racist/un-racist, christian/atheist, rural/urban dichotmy being spewed forth is mostly mythology (designed by Rove among others) and we are falling for it hook, line and sinker.
by flavorflav12 on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:22:46 PM EST

Re: Very good post (none / 0)

Good Comment.

Karl Rove wants us fighting like this.  He especially wants to avoid a FDR coaltion, where we clean up our weak points and start solving the problem.  

We need to understand rural people.  We can connect. but we will need better media to do so.

by beeste on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 02:10:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Very good post (none / 0)

this is no longer the 1800s!  The old regional coalitions with a different message for different groups doesn't work with a national media market!  Republicans know this.  Democrats are still trying to find the right compromise.

And if you check your history book, you will learn that coalition regional politics didn't work in the 1800s either!  Democrats only took control of this country in the 20th century when they presented a unified message, the welfare state.

by rusrivman on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 10:33:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

GOTV lacking in southern cities (3.00 / 1)

I did a small analysis of Jacksonville, FL. It showed there was nothing special about GOTV in J'ville. See below...

Jacksonville GOTV

I'm sure there are similar stories elsewhere, for some reason I started digging here and found enough to keep digging. This isn't a story about fraud, its a story about missed opportunities.

Jacksonville, FL is predominantly Democratic by Party ID, but has voted for George Bush by wide margins in the last two elections, with Bushs' winning margins being +44,000 in 2000 and +61,000 in 2004.

I started looking at the precinct breakdowns for registered voters and results. In Jacksonville there are some obviously R precincts like the Mandarin Moose Lodge (Precinct 06K with 2,049 R's and 1,288 D's and 492 NA), there are some pretty mixed precincts like the Argyle/Westside Lions Club (10S with 719R - 830D - 216NA) or The Country School (11D 910R - 745D - 218NA) and there are some very Democratic precincts like First Timothy Baptist Church (07P 168 R - 2,961 D - 267NA).

First thing I noticed is that turnout seemed pretty low across the board in Duval. Not many precincts at or above 60% and quite a few below 45%. Sad to say most of the below 40's were in areas like First Timothy (07P). At First Timothy, 44.73% turned out and cast 1,309 votes for Kerry and 223 votes for Bush. Here's where the sad part comes in, Kerry at 1,309 means that nearly 1,700 LIKELY Kerry votes stayed home. Looking at 11D I see 59.4% turnout, resulting in a 921-217 Bush win. 10R turned out 50.14% resulting in a 642-260 Bush win.



Here are some examples of missed Dem opportunities:



                               Turnout%        Registered(R-D)    B/C    K/E    Missed

07P First Timothy Baptist          44.73        168 - 2,961   223     1,309    1,652
09H Grand Park Community             43.25        43 - 1,479    42    643      836
09J Ephesian Missionary Church         44.85        50 - 1,434    33    668      766
10A Charles Clarke Community       41.48        39 - 1,740    38    743      997
10G William Raines Senior High School    35.09        49 - 1,986    35    725    1,261
08D Ribault Senior High                38.63        35 - 1,147    37    444      703

I would wager a similar analysis in other metropolitan areas of the south would discover many missed Dem voters.

by nholshouser on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:26:59 PM EST

R-E-S-P-E-C-T (2.00 / 2)

In order to win over these voters we must first communicate with them.  To communicate with them we have to first embrace them.  To embrace them we must first love and respect them.  I'M SERIOUS!!!  There is a sense in the South that Northerners (Yankees) look down on them.  They resent that, and are happy to oppose whatever we propose.

These people care about American, they've just been hoodwinked by a slick propaganda machine.  Nobody listens to you when you're yelling at them.

We must establish that the Democratic party is the party with true Christian principles ("Blessed are the peacemakers" sound familiar to anyone?).

If we don't respect them, if we don't like them, if we don't care about them, they will never listen to a word we say.

by Ryan on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:35:44 PM EST

Re: R-E-S-P-E-C-T (none / 0)

Stereotyping is so stupid. I live in the multicultural part of Broward County.  We may not be like peas in a pod, but we have learned to get along pretty well. "Y'all" better get used to getting along because this isn't going away.  

But your post hasn't changed my mind about boycotting the red counties in Florida. We bring in all this revenue in South  Florida, But the roads in central and northern Florida. the voting machines, everything is better there than it is here.

Dare to be free.
by misscee on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 03:45:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But Religion IS a value (1.00 / 1)

How can you possibly imply that  we need to respect their values.....but we can't become religious, because we're not fundamentalists?

This seems to be the gist of what you're saying.    There are degrees, man, degrees.     We don't have to wave bibles.     We just have to cool it on the secular intellectual national candidates (probably leave out NE candidates for a few cycles), and the guns, and a few other things.....

But don't do mental gymnastics to avoid any commitment to a greater place for religion in Democratic politics or candidates.    

by Andmoreagain on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:44:22 PM EST

Re: But Religion IS a value (none / 0)

There are values that we all share that have little to do with the Bible.  A strange notion, but true.
by Christopher on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 03:26:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But Religion IS a value (none / 0)

probably leave out NE candidates for a few cycles

Sure, because a person from the Northeast is sinful by nature, right?  </sarcasm>

What are those "few other things"?

by Mary Mary on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 04:35:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But Religion IS a value (none / 0)

I'm talking strictly pragmatically.       We could maybe run a secular NE'er again.....but it's clear that that has big handicaps.    So why not look at the cultural alienation from the northeast and west coast and go where there's possibilities to give Americans somebody to identify with?      

what are those few other things?  and your sarcasm?  FYI,   I'm from NY.   Not religious, never was.   Live in CA now.    Always a Democrat.    Have no problem with sin whatsover.   The concept doesn't exist for me.    

Those 'other things', in varying combinations, would be pretty obvious.....having foreign policy, military, or national security credentials;  having an ability to identify at least symbolically with 'regular people';  being roughly centrist or moderate fiscally; having sellable positions during (and prior to)  a national election.    Are you going to ask me what sellable is?    Nobody who comes out and says I'm going to raise taxes, nobody who lectures citizens in any way, nobody who can't  say why he or she believes something, nobody who is not comfortable with religion etc.      

I don't like kowtowing to those less openminded or liberal than me.....but that's politics.  

by Andmoreagain on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 05:01:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But Religion IS a value (none / 0)

Thank goodness; I thought you were going to suggest dropping civil rights and abortion rights, as I have seen waaaay too often on Dem boards this past week.

I was sarcastic because John Kerry seems to be a quite religious man.  I know he was raised to be religious.  But somehow he becomes secular because he's from the Northeast.  

I think to gain certain votes, you not only have to be religious, you have to be the right kind of religious, and Catholic (or Jewish --- HELLo Joe Lieberman!) ain't it.

by Mary Mary on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 08:46:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting pattern (none / 0)

The states Louisiana, arkansas, mississippi, alabama, and georgia were the only states that voted for strom thermond and goldwater.
by lightarrow on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:49:31 PM EST

Re: Interesting pattern (none / 0)

I am pleased to tell you that Georgia went for Harry Truman instead of Strom Thurmond in 1948.  In fact, Truman won Georgia in '48 with 61% of the vote.

Georgia was one of only six states that for Goldwater in 1964, though.  Goldwater only carried the five Deep South states --- SC, GA, AL, MS, LA --- and his home state of Arizona.

Perhaps even more regrettable, Georgia was one of the five southern states that George Wallace carried in 1968. The other four were AL, MS, LA, & AR.

by MBSullivan on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 09:34:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

100% wrong (2.50 / 2)

Rural southerners are not the same as rural northerners.  Ohioans out in the sticks are midwesterners (just a more conservative variety).  They generally don't have a Jim Crow History or many other issues unique to the South.

I also think the Penn. analogy is very light.  Dems have been carrying Philly forever but what is changing is that they're also able to carry more and more of the vote in some non-urban areas.  Philly's urban core is actually shrinking but the exurban counties (Bucks, etc) are growing and tend to be full of young professionals.  

I think this kind of thinking is actually dangerous.  The southern approach has been tried again and again and does not work for us any longer.  We can appeal to exurban and urban voters (and some rural voters) in Upper Midwest and Southwest.  And, aslo, remember white rural America is a dying demographic in our society.  This is not a group to tie our future to.

by lojo on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 02:00:36 PM EST

That analysis is absolutely wrong! (3.00 / 1)

It is a Southern Red State issue, and history shows as much.  The south did not go from being heavily democratic to heavily Republican because of "tax-cuts".  This is the culmination of a hate filled, intolerant Southern strategy set forth by the GOP.  Using code words like "states rights" and "elitists" to hide their biggoted agenda.  I am also a son of the South, and still live in South Carolina, and I can tell you that intolerance is alive and well.  Further, the metro Atlanta area makes up about 45% of Georgia's population, why then is it so red?  Because they can not stand a Northern elitist (abolitionist) taking away their state's rights (ability to be intolerant).  You guys better wake up!  There is a culture war going on, the problem is that Republicans actually recognize this.  Yet we talk about how we can compete for those voters who vote exclusively, or primarily on those issues.  We can not--and should not!  All we can do is reframe the values debate, and make the playing field one that adresses issues that carry a more populist message.  If you try to value the merging of church and state, and taking away a wooman's right to choose, and denying gay couples the same rights you do heterosexual couples, then you just lost the vote of one, black male, heterosexual, god-fearing, pro choice southerner.  Yes I am religious, but like so many others, I know that it takes more than being intolerant to others views to lay claim to the moral highground.  From Bill O'reily, to Rush Limbaugh, to Bill Bennet, I know these people are hypocrites, and I will fight that battle till the day I die, and I only wish all Democrats, including you, shared this same resolve.
by partyguy708 on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 02:07:40 PM EST

Re: That analysis is absolutely wrong! (none / 0)

It's not a question of disagreement or resolve. It's a question of tactics. Do we adopt their tactics? Do we demonize the rural/southern demographic?
by Gary Boatwright on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 03:27:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Electoral college history (none / 0)

http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/
by lightarrow on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 03:00:52 PM EST

Uh, Bush ain't a Southerner (none / 0)

...he just acts like one on TV.  From what I understand.

And I just cannot accept any of these types of reports until ALL the votes in Florida, Ohio, and even in New Hampshire have been counter.  I even smell a rat with the Pennsylvania results.

Over at dKos, there is a very interesting map up regarding the Blue/Red State demographics.  It clearly shows that the US is mostly blue/purple states.  Go here:

Daily Kos - Maps Part II, More Non-Mandate Data

(this is my first time posting here, I hope my link post is correct)

by smugbug on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 03:00:58 PM EST

Here's a purple map (none / 0)

courtesy of Robert J Vanderbei and Princeton University: linked text
by Gary Boatwright on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 03:29:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's a link to map at dkos (none / 0)

the link is broken at dkos linked text
by Gary Boatwright on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 03:33:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Our Greatest Strength (3.00 / 1)

I think that one of our greatest strengths in the next elections will be the bush agenda itself.  What will the country and the world look like in 2 or 4 years?

Iraq: expensive anarchy
Tax cuts: record debt requiring more revenue to pay the interest (to foriegn banks)
Tax "reform": increasing tax burden on the working class
Entitlements (Social Securtiy, et al): bankrupt
Environment: ravaged
Military influence: bogged down in Iraq
Diplomatic influence: marginalized

There will always be a block of voters in every state who will vote for republicans or democrats.  But if we are united as a party, and are firm in our believe that the bush agenda is weakening our country we can appeal to the moderates in every state.  To do that, we need candidates who can effectively present that message, and our alternative plans, and we need to counter rove's spin machine.

John McCain loves war.
by Winston Smith on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 03:39:04 PM EST

Massachusetts Liberal (none / 0)

When the president uses the term Massachusetts Liberal as a negative, the nation is out of wack!  For the president to use the name of one of the members of this nation in that way is just another one of the reasons he is unfit to run this land.  He is very fit to ruin this land!
by seanwilliam1776 on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 04:11:10 PM EST

Re: Massachusetts Liberal (none / 0)

Finally, someone who gets it.  I am from South Carolina, but it would not be right if Clinton had said Dole was a far right winger from Kansas.  Bush is suppose to be President of The United States, not of every place but Mass.  I can not imagine another President since the 1900's even saying something like that.  You know what's more frightening, is that the media never even made this an issue.  Have I mentioned how much I hate these people?  Listen up lefties, we better recognize that this is a war period.  If not this country is headed to hell.
by partyguy708 on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 10:18:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

NEED NEED A VALUES PACKAGE ON STEROIDS (none / 0)

Feel confident we can bring back the catholic

vote...fundys sooner or later love to bash

catholics (the so called pope is anti-christ

crowd and people raised on chick tracts).
Feel confident we can bring back moderate

evangelicals but it boils down to a values

package that resets the table on abortion,gays and guns. (God knows liberals need guns now)

need major push in rural areas and cable

actual commercials promoting our values

package.

by Aslanspal on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 04:18:14 PM EST

Concessionists (2.00 / 3)

This is pathetic.  Fuck the South.  Fuck the hicks.  A bit more turnout in DECENT areas of Ohio and we win.  But instead we have FIFTH COLUMNISTS telling us to surrender to the enemy.
by rfr on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 05:12:33 PM EST

Re: Concessionists (none / 0)

Way to engage the debate jackass.

Can you eat without your momma's help>

by safeashouses on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 06:16:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Concessionists (3.00 / 1)

I agree.  Just how many of our progressive principals do we have to abandon for a region that has been taking revenge on the democratic party for 2 generations because they felt "betrayed" when dems finally supported blacks getting equal rights?

Concentrate on Ohio and the southwest.  Then, let the south decide what it is they want -- prosperity and progress or backwardness and republicanism.

by wintermute1 on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 09:25:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Concessionists (none / 0)

Karl Rove couldn't be happier with your attitude.  

Hicks?  Hell yeah, insult them all.  March left, hard.  Write off the red states, and the red counties.  Don't learn from Ken Salazar's victory in Colorado.  

Be condescending.  Don't reach out.  Don't try to solve the problem.  Make finding an endangered species a complete disaster for a land owner.  

Keep promoting bias based on race.  Announce your are going to take away their guns.

And for god's sake don't build a sensible coalition of progressives and moderates, with a bit of give and take.  Stay pure.

And get used to losing, and a Supreme Court from 100 year ago.

by beeste on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 10:14:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Concessionists (none / 0)

I don't want to write off Colorado, New Mexico, or any other state with significant progressive potential.  I don't, however, want to begin the post-Kerry search for solutions by going back to the democratic habit of pandering to some fictional element of Dixie that is just "waiting to be convinced" to vote for liberals that they despise.  That is not only a waste of time but also a profound show of disrespect to core democratic constituencies that continue to support us.

Pragmatism yes, but not completely shorn of principle.

by wintermute1 on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 12:11:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A Yankee Who Live in the South (2.00 / 1)

I'll be honest, I do look down my nose at Southerners.  I lived in Louisiana for 3 short months and I absolutely hated it.  The people there are missing out on a lot and very obviously repressed.  The opportunities down South pale in comparison to the North and our educational system can't be beat.  I was in northern florida a few years ago and teachers there are lucky to make 25g's a year.  They send letters home to parents begging for donations of school supplies.  That's no way to run a school, and it just shows me that the south doesn't value a real education.  The majority of people I've met in the south lack critical thinking skills.  I will not compromise with these people.  And tell me why I see so many license plates from southern states up here in the north?
by KeenVictoria on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 05:19:32 PM EST

<