New DNC Chair?

[Ted Striker]

Wasn't there a time when the Democrats were unbeatable in the South? I mean it was like 40 years of solid wins right?

And that was Bush's strongest backers.

[Dinner]

Re: Re: Re: New DNC Chair?

Originally posted by GePap
Right- you do know that McAuffile was "the center" - he was one of those Democratic Leadership Council clinton dems, and he has precided over an endless string of loses.

McAuffile has never been nor will he ever be a Clinton centrist. McAuffile was allowed by Clinton to remain in the leadership council to appease liberals but that doesn't make him a centrist. Most of the other liberals were chased off by Clinton in his drive to the center and McAuffile was put in to appease the tradional left wing once Clinton was gone.

McAuffile and his ilk are why democrats can't win today and by moving center they will once again begin to win.

[Ted Striker]

I agree with Oerdin

Plus he is warrior psyops so knows what people react to and what appeals to them.

Axi's argument is technically sound for that strategy, but it won't work in America, people have become SO conservative here that the idea of massive social change (taking a viewpoint to counter your opponent) just won't work.

Only by going center can the Democrats reclaim anything. That means talking Republican language, without becoming them. Kerry tried this with the "we're going to kill Bin Laden," but he couldn't push it home.

The thing is that these Republicans are so far right they are on the verge of Reactionary. Warmongers, passing amendments that discriminate against a particular group of people (gays). Yeah, I'd call that borderline Reactionary.

I also think that the Democratic party needs to return to its roots and be the party for blacks. They have turned their backs on them the past 8 years. Clinton was a genius at mobilizing the black vote.

[AnnC]

Originally posted by Ted Striker: Wasn't there a time when the Democrats were unbeatable in the South? I mean it was like 40 years of solid wins right?

And that was Bush's strongest backers.

Democrats dominated politics in the South for nearly 100 years, from the late 1870s after Reconstruction ended until the mid-1970s when Nixon's "southern strategy" came to fruition.

When I was a kid (in South Carolina), the winner of the Democratic primary for any given office was the winner of the election. That's because there was only token Republican opposition (if any at all). So all the big political battles, like civil rights, were fought in the Democratic primaries.

After seeing how many southern states George Wallace won in the 1968 presidential election, Nixon decided to go after the Wallace crowd. So the Republican party began to actively court "states rights" (code for anti-civil-rights) voters.

By the mid-1970s, just about every racist in my town had become an enthusiastic Republican. That's when Republicans started to dominate Southern politics.

[Ted Striker]

Very interesting!

Thanks for the info.

[Thrumble]

Why couldn't Bill Clinton take over as the DNC Chair? He's pretty much doing that kind of stuff for free already.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's a step down for him. And Clinton tends to be egotistical. Giving others the credit for a national policy he creates seems to not be his style.

Maybe Carville should get the job .

[Thrumble]

I wouldn't mind having Carville as chair, that would just irritate the Republicans wouldn't it?

[Ted Striker]

Yeah, where is Carville anyway??

We need to get his punk ass out of retirement.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He's probably making more money as a freelance campaign advisor and Crossfire host .

[AnnC]

Joe Trippi

He's got superb organizational skills, and he knows how to communicate with the public.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Yet, presumably, a northern Republican can still win. And a decidedly non-centrist one can still win.

What you suggest puts the Democrats in the rather unpalatable position that they must always nominate someone from a red state to win. The wiser action is do what the Republicans have done: reframe the issues to give them more viable electoral coalitions that don't rely so much on the given home state of the candidate, nor the nuances of his ideology (I defy you to find that much difference in policy between Clinton and Kerry).

Virginia is ripe for Democrat picking, thanks to the influx of progressives into the DC suburbs. North Carolina, Nevada and Ohio are also places where the Democrats can start working on building a winning combination of electoral votes.

Boris, you've put alot of thought into this I can tell. The democrats need people like you. We've tried the northern stretegy in 1984, 1988, 200, and 2004 and it's failed each time. Why should we try the same thing and expect different results?

The big difference is that Republicans have taken the reactionary road towards modern social values. They court the guys who hate or are scared of gays, who think blacks aren't as smart as whites, or who think hispanics really shouldn't be allowed in th country. The low IQ crowd will vote for the reactionary candidate every time so that means the Democratic candidate is at a disadvantage. To make up for that you need to choose a candidate who is centrist and from a red state or else you won't win. Atleast you won't win by fighting the traditional Democratic fight against ignorance and stupidity.

As far as the culture wars are concerned the majority of the American population is moderate but leaning right so we need a moderate candidate or we will lose the votes of the majority of Americans. It's simple math really.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by OzzyKP

Ozzy, let's stop and look at things from a modern perspective. FDR was against nationalizing banks or other businesses, he was for allowing workers to be paid sub minimum wage if they worked on government projects, he believed investor's savings in banks should be protected, he supported things like the Tennessee Valley Water authority because they promoted flood control, rural electrification, and promoted commerce on river ways. What about this is so left wing from a modern perspective? FDR's first four years were his most liberal but the next 9 (1936-1945) were pretty centrist if looked at in total especially when you consider he's trying to fight the depression and WW2.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Wasn't there a time when the Democrats were unbeatable in the South? I mean it was like 40 years of solid wins right?

And that was Bush's strongest backers.

It was more like a 100 year period where no Republican could carry a southern state. Southerners thought of Republicans as "radical Republicans" who were of the party of Linclon. Republicans were hated for being pro-black and that wasn't very popular in the south. In the 1960's Republicans and Democrats flip flopped with Democrats voting for intigration of the races and Republicans being dedicated obstructionists to integration. The south loved bigoted Republicans who promised to continue segregation while the traditional Democratic candidates found they couldn't win the south and still support equal rights for blacks.

I can name a half dozen proment Republicans who stayed in elected office of 30+ years by declaring Blacks were genetically inferior to whites. Some of them only died and left office in the last 5 years.

[Ted Striker]

Was George Wallace one of them?

Though he later changed his mind I thought.