Hilary to vote no on Roberts.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

Clark's an interesting possibility. He seems to have picked up much of the the netroot Deaniac support (look at who the guys at Daily Kos are supporting). A lot of his support overlaps with Feingold (who I'm backing). The netroots are both of their bases, but given that Clark doesn't have to do any voting (like Gore), the netroots can more easily mold him in the shape of their own views than they can with Feingold.

just enough to kill him in a general election.

Biden campaign is Joementum redux.

Except Protestant, from a border state, better looking, and with a more visible record of criticizing Bush foreign policy implementation. A foreign policy expert, who was whispered as a possible Kerry Sec of State.

From the Dem activists, he's seen as a shill for credit card companies (as the Bankruptcy vote indicated).

Which means basically anyone from Delaware is excluded.

Bayh is well to the right of the Democratic Party as a whole (and has the votes to prove it), and won't get any traction.

Every Dem who's won in the last 40 years was to the right of the Dems as a whole. If soneone to the right of the Dems as a whole cant get traction, our party is a permanent minority.

Hillary, in terms of votes, is clearly in the center-left of the Dem Senate caucus (like Kerry), but she has been making a lot of bipartisan overtures.

She represents New York, and has vote more left - jut as Biden has to help out credit card companies. Im yet to be convinced theres much ideological daylight between them. I dont think your firend Kos sees much, either.

The basic problem is that the ~40% of the electorate that watches Fox News and are still supporting Dear Leader even after Katrina aren't ever going to change their mind at her.

Theres a 40% or higher core GOP vote. You dont need to win that, if you get the other 55%. Elections are won in teh middle.

At the same time, she leaves herself open for a strong assault from the left in the primaries.

That she does. But she has appeal to overcome it more than any other DLC type.

[Dinner]

For all the talk about great strides in the south at the end of the day in New Orleans the white suburbs still had armed guards on the bridges to prevent blacks from entering their town. Didn't they?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Religious whackos = the politics of Jacksonville was controlled by a single church, the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville (Rev. Jerry Vines, of the Mohammmed was a pediphile comment).

I still dont get this. When i lived there (1983-19860 Jax was controlled by the business elite, if by anyone, and was in the process of electiing a Lebanese as Mayor. Black votes were already high, and were growing. First Baptist was influential, but not at all controlling. I doubt that white baptists were a majority in Duval county at the time. (of course the non-baptists included many pentecostals and simiilar, as well as large numbers of Methodists, Presbys, Episcopals, Catholics.

But uber Xian S. Carolina will be solidly evil for some time.

South Carolina is not more christian than say, tennesee. Its has a distinctive history, quite apart from religion.


Sorry bunnygirl was uncomfortable in Jax. Im sure there is subtle racism that would have been invisible to me. But thats true in the North as well.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ramo

Clark's an interesting possibility. He seems to have picked up much of the the netroot Deaniac support (look at who the guys at Daily Kos are supporting). A lot of his support overlaps with Feingold (who I'm backing). The netroots are both of their bases, but given that Clark doesn't have to do any voting (like Gore), the netroots can more easily mold him in the shape of their own views than they can with Feingold (Feingold - like the other Senators - have to deal with "ZOMGFM TRAITOR" every time something like the Roberts vote comes). It doesn't help that he's a twice divorced Jew, so percieved as "unelectable" in some quarters.

Feingold is a nice guy and a good man but he's also a senator with a long voting history. Senators are terrible nominees because the other side can comb throw 20 years of voting records and paint the guy as a flip flipper just because the wheeling and dealing inherent to being in the Senate necessitates such things.

That really only leaves governors, former VPs (or executive appointees), or outsiders who've never held office like Clark.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin
For all the talk about great strides in the south at the end of the day in New Orleans the white suburbs still had armed guards on the bridges to prevent blacks from entering their town. Didn't they?

do you think they would have welcomed poor whites? I would suggest that was about fears about property.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Theres a 40% or higher core GOP vote. You dont need to win that, if you get the other 55%. Elections are won in teh middle.

And that's the Dem's big problem in the south, isn't it? Theoretically it is possible to win if you literally get EVERY SINGLE free vote out there but that just isn't very realistic. When the other guy starts off 8/10ths of the way to the finish line then you aren't likely to catch him.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin
For all the talk about great strides in the south at the end of the day in New Orleans the white suburbs still had armed guards on the bridges to prevent blacks from entering their town. Didn't they?

And yet nothing was implied regarding California as a whole's racism when marshal law was implemeted during the LA riots.

You can of course look for every opportunity to apply broad brush strokes against a given population segment but it still strike me as demonization at the end.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
do you think they would have welcomed poor whites? I would suggest that was about fears about property.

I think they would have been much more understanding about letting poor whites evacuate through their town then they were with poor blacks.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Also consider, that until a generation ago, the South was solidly Democratic, so the Democrats are not ignorant of the South. I think certain Southern states might be able to be split, where they have large numbers of Yankee ex-pats. But uber Xian S. Carolina will be solidly evil for some time.

It would be an interesting poll to see what the transplants such as myself think. My guess is they lean more towards conservative economic policies, but I may simply be transfereing my own beleifs where they may not exist.

However I would guess those transfering are predominantly white collar and anti-union.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin


And that's the Dem's big problem in the south, isn't it? Theoretically it is possible to win if you literally get EVERY SINGLE free vote out there but that just isn't very realistic. When the other guy starts off 8/10ths of the way to the finish line then you aren't likely to catch him.

The Dem vote hasnt gone below 40% ub tge last 50 years, including 1972 and 1984. Its oretty clear that they have a 40% core. It used to be you could say the same about the GOP, but they have done better from 1972 oh. Id say a 45% GOP core - that the narrowing middle one hears about. 15% up for grabs. And yest, the dems start behind - they need to get two thirds of it.

The question is, where and how. I think a particular kind of centrist who can appeal to the center in ALL regions is called for - if its a southerner, all the better, but not a southerner whos only appeal is regional origin. and ogie is right, the anti-southern attitude doesnt help.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I think they would have been much more understanding about letting poor whites evacuate through their town then they were with poor blacks.

They weren't even more sympathetic to rich whites. Tourists trying to escape the French quarter into the suburbs were turned back at gun point.

The racism comes in in having segrated communities in the first place. At the poor white and Black communities being invisibile until the fubar.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
It would be an interesting poll to see what the transplants such as myself think. My guess is they lean more towards conservative economic policies, but I may simply be transfereing my own beleifs where they may not exist.

However I would guess those transfering are predominantly white collar and anti-union.

I wouldn't guess that. I'd look at the voting patterns where the majority of ex-pats live, South Florida, Atlanta, parts of N. Carolina, etc. These areas are all far more liberal than the rest of the South. People don't move for ideological reasons, generally. They move for economic ones or for quality of life, which means that generally you're going to get a broad cross section of the place from where people are moving. The North is more liberal in general, so Yankee ex-pats are going to tend to be more liberal.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
It used to be you could say the same about the GOP, but they have done better from 1972 oh.

Except in 1992, when the GOP got 38% of the vote. Since then, the Democrats garnered more votes until 2004.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
It would be an interesting poll to see what the transplants such as myself think. My guess is they lean more towards conservative economic policies, but I may simply be transfereing my own beleifs where they may not exist.

However I would guess those transfering are predominantly white collar and anti-union.

I wouldn't guess that. I'd look at the voting patterns where the majority of ex-pats live, South Florida, Atlanta, parts of N. Carolina, etc. These areas are all far more liberal than the rest of the South. People don't move for ideological reasons, generally. They move for economic ones or for quality of life, which means that generally you're going to get a broad cross section of the place from where people are moving. The North is more liberal in general, so Yankee ex-pats are going to tend to be more liberal.

maybe working at big ocmpany biased my sample, byt impression in Jax was that on ECOOMICS the Yankee transplants were at least as conservative as the souitherners. And of ocurse the yankee transplants had a very different pattern from south Fla - they were largely midwestern and middle states, hardly any new yorkers or new new englanders - and they were mainly white collar, with very whtie collar attitudes. While the southerners were sometimes union members, and often had blue collar roots.

south florida is exceptional among yankee transplant areas. Atlanta draws relatively liberal SOUTHERN migrants, as does New Orleans. And Piedmont North Carolona has long standing populist traditions, and even some history of unionization and class conflict - OTOH if you look at say, retired military types in South Carolina, you get a different picture.

[chequita guevara]

Which all goes to show that the South isn't uniform.