New DNC Chair?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oerdin


No, Republicans used an anti-civil rights agenda to flip the whole south red for the first time in 100 years.

Bigots to the core and there is no denying it.

The breaking of the solid Democrat south began in the Eisenhower administration. You know, the guy who called up the National Guard to enforce Brown vs. the Board of Education. Up to that point it was under Democrats that Jim Crow was created and practiced in the south.

Opposition to civil rights legislation was sadly not limited to either major party. Some Democrats unhappy with their party leadership's support for desegregation split from the party several times, most famously with the Dixiecrats starting in the late forties and continued up until George Wallace's independent run for president was cut short by an assassination attempt in 1972.

Fed up with the Dems for many reasons and no longer held in thrall by Dem tolerance for segregation many former southern Dems defected to the Republican party over time. Their presence revitalized the Republican party in many southern states for the first time since reconstruction, and others who weren't primarily segregationists were attracted to the Republicans for a host of reasons.

It should be noted however that the Republicans never had a policy for reinstating or tolerating segregation in the south. The newcomers were too few and too new to create this sort of momentum, and as their numbers swelled opposition to desegregation in the south fell even faster. Rather they were attracted by a better idealogical / cultural fit with the Republican party which the disintegration of one party rule in the south made viable.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oerdin

Kerry ran a very bad campaign where he let Bush decide what the major issues would be. I.E. we talked about terrorism and Iraq instead of job loses at home and the loss of civil rights. Kerry blew it, but, Bush ran a wonderful misinformation campaign lying about Kerry and appealing to the low IQ bigots of the country with anti-gay messages and constant claims that Kerry was a neo-communist.

He didn't run a bad campaign. He tried to run on those issues and got no traction. He was simply (barely) unelectable because lefty politics and anger at the Bush administration do not a majority make. In fact he did a damn good job at turning out his base to an extent equal to (or very nearly so) its potential.

It's a very simply fact. Kerry and anyone to his left hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning national election. Even with turnouts not seen since 1968 and money never seen before against an incompetent president who has managed to alienate a good portion of his own base by ruling from its right fringe. All those who think that the answer is to get angrier and further to the left are delusional. Kerry got almost all of the Nader / Green votes, and adding the miniscule number of voters who are further to the left will only alienate a much larger group of voters who are closer to the center.

The country desperately needs the democrats to field viable candidates for office. Doing so will at worst force the Republicans to rule from closer to the center themselves. Not doing so will continue these turd sandwich vs. douche bag elections.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Sik on post 1

Sik on post 2

[Drake Tungsten]

Sikander

Ogie

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Oerdin


No, Republicans used an anti-civil rights agenda to flip the whole south red for the first time in 100 years.

Bigots to the core and there is no denying it.

This is simply insulting to the people of the South.

Not to mention, incredibly uninformed. There is probably no region of the country that is more sensitive or responsive to racial issues.

If you want to talk about bigotry then look at some of the laws that have been voted on about Hispanics in your state. Not to mention that when you hear about racial tensions these days, it is usually in a northern city.

Let us also not forget that the segregation politics of Southern democrats in the late 50's and 60's is what drove many Southerners to the Republican party.

It is astounding that someone who is in psyops for a living could so completely fall for such stereotyping and propoganda as the Dems push about the South.



I have also seen some here say that the Dems should just write off the South. Have you looked at the number of electoral votes that Southern states have? It would be hard to win when you start the race 1/3 down already. The Democratic party is like the Republican party in that it has people on the left and right of the party's platform. The people who decide these elections are on the fringe of their party's ideals and the people in between the parties. The voter in between will gravitate to the position closest to their own...the middle. In this election, Bush positioned himself as being closer to the center than Kerry. If the Democrats will find leadership and a candidate that will appear closer to the center than the Republican candidate then they will win. If the Republicans have the candidate that appears closer to the center than the Democrat then they will win. It is very simple.

The Democrats need to realize that a progressive agenda cannot happen all at once. If they can get a candidate that is slightly left of center elected then they can start to frame the argument. If they continue to nominate candidates that appear far left, then the Republicans will be able to continue to frame the issues and will continue to win elections.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by PLATO
This is simply insulting to the people of the South.

Not to mention, incredibly uninformed. There is probably no region of the country that is more sensitive or responsive to racial issues.

You are right that since the 1960's and 1970's the south is a different place. The moved Republican because of racism but they've stayed Republican because they like the conservative enconomic and social messages the Republicans send. In short, racism convinced the south to give Republicans a chance but now that they've tried it they've decided they like Republicans for entirely different reasons.

It's clear that the south of 2004 is very different from the soutn of 1968 or 1972 when outright racists could win majorities in the deep south. I don't see any way a Wallace could get the majority in any southern state today but the fsct remains that when the south seitched this was the major issue. Ski is right that other issues were involved but in the 1960 & 1970's civil rights was the dividing line in the country and especially in the south.

At least we both agree that the democrats need to move center and not left. I can only hope the Democratic party faithful see this as true and the old leadership gets tossed out on their keysters.

[GhengisFarb™]

I still don't understand your logic considering the racists are still registered as Democrats.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by PLATO

I have also seen some here say that the Dems should just write off the South. Have you looked at the number of electoral votes that Southern states have? It would be hard to win when you start the race 1/3 down already. The Democratic party is like the Republican party in that it has people on the left and right of the party's platform. The people who decide these elections are on the fringe of their party's ideals and the people in between the parties. The voter in between will gravitate to the position closest to their own...the middle.

This is true. I'd like to point out that even Kerry could carry (pardon the pun) 40% in such deep southern states as Mississippi. In fact across the south he pulled 1/3-2/5 of the vote and Clinton did even better in 1996. The Democratic Party is alive and well in the south if they get non-extremist candidates.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
I still don't understand your logic considering the racists are still registered as Democrats.

Like who?

I can think of several big name prosegrogation politicians from the south in the 1960's and 1970's who switched parties based upon the various civil rights acts. They came right out and said I won't be a member of any party which supports civil rights for blacks. One of the most notable died (while still in office) just a short time ago.

[Dinner]

The man I'm thinking about was Strom Thurmond, a Republican senator from South Carolina who started his career as a Democrat. He was famous for firery speeches about how negros were inferior to whites, for leading the longest filibuster in Congressional history when he oppossed the civil rights act of 1957. The guy only died two years ago at the age of 100 and he was still the senator from South Carolina.

Strom lead the charge of switching to the Republican party and he didn't try to hide the reasons why. Strom got several other prominent southern Democrats to switch sides for the same reason.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Oerdin


This is true. I'd like to point out that even Kerry could carry (pardon the pun) 40% in such deep southern states as Mississippi. In fact across the south he pulled 1/3-2/5 of the vote and Clinton did even better in 1996. The Democratic Party is alive and well in the south if they get non-extremist candidates.

I agree with this. I come from a family that is historically democratic. I wouldn't mind taking a look at a Democrat if he/she were closer to my views. The chances of that person coming from the northeast are slim.

I believe that Zell Miller has it right. Many in the South feel betrayed by the Democratic party. If the Dems will find a fiscal economic conservative that is pro-worker and strong on defense, then I believe they could put up Reagan like numbers in the South and still carry the large Urban areas. Finding this candidate starts with finding the right chair for the DNC. The Democrats have gotten off message by letting the extremist ends of their party control the process. It is time for them to return to their core values.

Another point I should mention. The Republicans are about 5 votes away in the Senate from making this a one party country. Regardless of how you feel about eithier parties positions, this is a situation that the American voter cannot allow. The Democrats must recognize that they must provide a list of viable candidates or risk becoming irrelevant on the national scene.

Like who?

Senator Byrd from West Virginia, a former KKK member, comes to mind right away.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The man I'm thinking about was Strom Thurmond

Good example of a late '60s, early '70s party switcher, but this trend was over even before Watergate. The new Southern Republican is very concious of civil rights. In today's South no one gets elected without being pro civil rights.

The conflict of the civil rights movement in the South and the scruitiny that followed have forever changed Southern values for the better. It may be one of the most progressive areas of the country as far as understanding between races now. Obviously a Southerner is much more sensitive to this issue than many northerners are.

[Arrian]

Another point I should mention. The Republicans are about 5 votes away in the Senate from making this a one party country. Regardless of how you feel about eithier parties positions, this is a situation that the American voter cannot allow. The Democrats must recognize that they must provide a list of viable candidates or risk becoming irrelevant on the national scene.

I couldn't agree more.

Many in the South feel betrayed by the Democratic party. If the Dems will find a fiscal economic conservative that is pro-worker and strong on defense...

This is what I don't understand. The South wants fiscal conservatism? Then why in the SAM HELL did the South vote overwhelmingly for Dubya? The only conclusion I can reach is that the people voting for Bush don't have a clue about his actual policies. Oh, wait...

-Arrian

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Arrian
This is what I don't understand. The South wants fiscal conservatism? Then why in the SAM HELL did the South vote overwhelmingly for Dubya? The only conclusion I can reach is that the people voting for Bush don't have a clue about his actual policies. Oh, wait...

-Arrian

Most simply feel that Kerry would spend as much as W and would also increase taxes. Lesser of two evils on fiscal conservatism.

[Arrian]

I figured. Bush gets a pass, because *of course* the New England Liberal would be worse.

And of course there was the social conservatism message (which is what I think actually won the election for Bush). God, guns & gays.

****. My fiance and I actually had a half-serious discussion last night about leaving the country.

-Arrian