A couple of questions about the "dump the south" threads.

1. Why is the question "should we dump the south?" instead of "what can we do to persuade enough voters in the south to vote democratic in the next election in order to carry their state?"

2. Does it ever occur to you that these threads could be a freeper set-up? The divide and conquer theory?

1. Because no one is asking how we can persuade voters in Utah how to vote Democratic in the next election. They see the south as a lost cause.

2. Possibly, I've never thought of that though.

myopia.

The states that went most heavily gop in the last cycle (or hell, the last 5 cycles) are not from the South.

should we try there?

Or Alabama. Lost by 15 points.

Texas. His home state and lost by 21 points.

South Carolina lost by 16 points.

Maybe in Arkansas and Louisiana, but many of the states are lost causes.

they are more winnable.

but no one's suggesting we try to win Utah instead of Alabama.

Whether it's lost by 20 or 40 points, a state is unwinnable, and this applies to many southern states.

stolen? My county was Dem until we got touchscreen. Too much sh@t is happening down here that could make a lot of people vote ABBB. Jobs lost, broke states--higher taxes, family members killed in Iraq---it can all add up to quite a change in people's attitudes and votes. I wouldn't write off the south, or any state for that matter.

were during the depression, but I am not sure we are there yet.

It seems very few on this board remembers how the South voted for Roosevelt.

Major point: FDR didn't insult the South.

?

Gore is from Tennessee.

There is a large element on this board that wants a Northern candidate in 2004. This is the element that is presenting a problem for the Democratic Party's unity.

John F. Kennedy was the last Northern Democrat to win a Presidential election. He won that election in 1960.

FDR was northern.

He did not have a high-minded patronizing attitude toward the South.

He created the TVA and lifted millions of Southerners out of the Great Depression.

Be specific! How are they not as good as Roosevelt?

no one from DU is running.

It was basically Vermont and Maine versus the rest of the country. Also that was in the 1930's and 40's. A lot has changed since then.

the only reason we've lost South Carolina, Bob Jones Land, is vote fraud.

Not all southern states are winnable. It's just a fact. And the fact that Utah and Wyoming are even more unwinnable is irrevelant until someone suggests we go after those states, which I've never seen happen here.

Furthermore, the fact that some liberals on DU might live in those states doesn't make them any more winnable than the fact that I used to live in North Dakota makes North Dakota winnable.

and the "States" will follow. To just dogmatically say that certain states aren't winnable is defeatist.

Until that is gone, we have to go to states that are more easy to win. Take it up with the founders.

Somehow I just can't bring myself to do that.

Bake

for Democrats to go socially conservative. And I mean extremely. I live in Utah, most rational people I've known here have no qualms about the democratic economic policies. But the democrats lose them on the social issues.

And by no means, would I want the democrats to go conservative. It's better to lose this state.

We can't just ignore the south. Some of those states may eventually swing back to the democratic party. Most people may have said that those states were unwinnable for republicans in the past but now the republicans control the south. I do think though that we should focus more on places like Arizona, Nevada, Ohio, West Virginia, New Hampshire and Missouri where we have much better chances for picking up electoral votes. We can't just pull out of the south. Without it we can't control the senate or the House and it makes winning the white house really hard.

.

What's that old saw? Winners never quit; quitters never win.

Just what makes that silly old ant
Think he'll move a rubber tree plant?
Anyone knows an ant can't
Move a rubber tree plant.

But he's got high hopes
He's got high hopes
He's got high apple pie in the sky hopes.

And so on and so forth there were rubber tree plants moved...

The wheel that squeaks the loudest gets the most grease. Human nature doesn't change, just because it lives below the Mason-Dixon line. Work harder for the weakest. That's the way nature does. If we infect all the Republicans we know with this consistent pessimism, sheesh, we deserve to lose

resources on Wyoming instead of Mississippi.

I don't think anybody's advocating a strategy geared toward winning MS,SC, Alabama and Texas but you have to look at the 2000 election a bit more closely. Recently, I went back and looked at the states that Gore lost most narrowly in '00, and these are the 11 closest (under 10 percent) Gore losses, and the margin he lost by:

Florida - 0.01
New Hampshire - 1.27
Missouri - 3.34
Ohio - 3.51
Nevada - 3.54
Tennessee - 3.87
Arkansas - 5.45
Arizona - 6.29
West Virginia - 6.33
Louisiana - 7.67
Virginia - 8.03
Colorado - 8.36

Five of the closest were in the South, and two others (Missouri and WV) are border states with a very heavy Southern flavor. Another is Ohio which culturally has a lot more in common with the South than New England. The only pure Northeastern-New England state in there is New Hampshire, and since the census changed the EC allocation, that wouldn't be enough to put a Democrat over the top this time.

By the way, isn't the fact that Florida was a difference of .01% kind of prima facie evidence of vote fraud? Are there any other examples of major states in a presidential election that came down to a margin that small? New Mexico was actually closer in real numbers but it's much smaller than FL, so the percentage difference was greater. I know Texas and Illinois in 1960 weren't anywhere near as close.

In Texas I am fortunate because we have a huge network of people who go around passing out information and meeting at rallies. I haven't been able to go lately, but as soon as school is back in I plan on hitting the masses with information again. The problem right now is that it's difficult to discuss who the next Dem Presidential candidate will be. Once that decision is made, my life will be a whole lot easier.

1. Why is the question "should we dump the south?" instead of "what can we do to persuade enough voters in the south to vote democratic in the next election in order to carry their state?"

The question arises and is answered in the manner in which it is framed. There is no monlithic south although there is a "southern culture"
The conversations to bring the south into the fold are framed as either a) a result of gun laws which is probably true, b) a rejestion of civil rights laws which I don't really believe 3) the NASCAR vote which again is only a euphamism 4)The RELIGIOUS vote thanks to the web of money and Ralph Reed's lobbying.

I think many southern states CAN be counted on to vote Democratic. They did for Clinton. Give them a candidate that appeals to them.

2. Does it ever occur to you that these threads could be a freeper set-up? The divide and conquer theory?

Some of that is possible. More often than not it is carelessness and deliberate disregard for others and a tendency to think in simplistic generalizations.

Those are the two reasons I get when I ask my neighbors why they won't consider voting for a Democrat. The Christian Coalition has had us in their thrall since the days of Jim Baker and PTL. Personally, I think gun control is the bigger issue to most of the people.

As for Freeper infestation, maybe sometimes. I don't think Gringo is a freeper, though. Generalizations are easy to make, and we all learn a little something from these types of threads.

I do wish people would spend a little more time in the Energy and Environment forum. The issues that should be discussed there are vitally important to the future of the world. Pretty soon, we'll all just be in this together, and who will care if you're a Yankee, a Hillbilly (like me), a cowboy, or a distinguished southern gentleman?

..about the religious reich and their shobiz-format "churches." This is about the only entertainment in most rural states, and that includes much of the mountain west. One of my friends out here grew up in a small town. I asked her what it was like and she said, "Oh, you know, like any small town, nothing but alcohol and religion."

The one hopeful sign I've seen lately is a very small switch back to the mainstream churches. People have told me it felt like coming home. If this turns into any kind of a trend at all, Robertson et al. will lose their stranglehold on the rural psyche.

is the plutocracy out to keep us all divided.

I don't think one can make in roads with the religious vote without sacrificing the wall between church and state.

The gun vote is an entirely different story and I am not terribly positional although I personally don't like guns. I don't think we need to repeal sensible gun laws but wouldn't make it a national issue. The issue is best dealt with according to the needs of various communities but for sales and distribution.

Here's a thread along the lines of what you're talking about. It went a long ways.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=186332

I had to check and make sure this was still the DU site and not freeperville. So you may be right.

It might be that a lot of Southern States were defrauded.
http://www.democracysouth.org/improving/rights-disenfranchisement.html

I don't want to waste resources on Idaho either. Though there might have been discrimination against black voters in Tennessee, Gore didn't lose by a little there. He lost by a wide margin. Additionally it is the person who gets the most electoral votes that ulimately wins the whole country. Let's get them where it is easiest, not hardest. If I lived in Idaho, I wouldn't want democrats to waste resources there. There is a difference between acknowledging states that are easier to win, and saying OR IMPLYING "Southerners are ALL racist rednecks! which is what happened with the initial pissing contest.

BTW, this site is not just for Democrats. All leftist are welcome. The poster that started the original flame fest is an anarchist, that quit plainly doesn't care whether a democrats or any other candidate wins anything.

Isn't one of the common stereotypes about the South that folks use bad spelling and grammar?

Seems that certain others aren't immune, either.

LOL

. My T and S keys stick.

I think Woodrow Wilson lost his home state too but won the election.

He only lost TN 49-47 I believe.


And even though TN has elected a Democratic governor it has certainly moved right since Gore represented it in the House and Senate.

That being said I still don't see how he lost it

it was Gore moving left. He was far more liberal in 2000 than he was as a senator.

I really can't answer no. 1. That answer will have to come from a debate amongst forces in the North and northern Midwest Dem party about their attitudes toward the South.

Here is my attempt at an answer to no. 2 regarding the presence or absence of freeper disruption.

First of all, the offending posters have high post counts and are often quite liberal in orientation. Generally, most freepers show up with post counts less than 100, or thereabout.

I wish I could say that it's a freeper set up, but I'm virtually certain that it isn't.

It is a manifestation of a very unpleasant tendency of liberals to 'eat their own.'

Case in point: Yours truly once sojourned to New England for a job opportunity at a university. The supervisor was a Ph.D. 'liberal activist.'

Yours truly was required to supervise a small number of entry level employees.

Yours truly was asked by the Rhode Island born New England 'liberal' to violate 1930s era wage and hours laws. Yours truly was fired from this job for refusing to allow entry level employees to work more than 40 hours per week without paying overtime.

The only person who truly stood up for yours truly's cause was an approximately 53-years-of-age old line moderate New England Republican. By the way, this moderate wing of the Republican Party, represented by Olympia Snowe, is practically non-existent nowadays.

Bottom line: A New England liberal fired me for refusing to break 70-year old fair wage and hours laws.

Of course, I was subjected to numerous anti-Southern stereotypes when I was foolish enough to take a job in New England.

If this doesn't tell you something about the liberals eating their own, I don't know what will.

?

visibly involved in liberal causes.

All the gun registration bullshit is just code for race. Who do Southern whites need to protect themselves from? Blacks, thats who. Thomas Jefferson said he feared for the day that blacks would get payback and I think this is in the back of most southerners minds. LBJ said that civil rights legislation would turn the south over to the Republicans for a generation and he sure was right.

and have known many hunters who owned guns. Whatever they thought about blacks and guns they didn't believe they owned their guns as a bulwark against black irredentism.

How many in the greater Atlanta area are from the south. My guess is not that many.

The demographics in Atlanta has changed dramatically in the last 18 years I have been here. I would guess that most that have moved to Atlanta are from the north. You know; unions, no right to work law, believe the government is supposed help those in need. Them kind of people. Are they Democrats? Do you suppose a person from say Chicago is a Democrat? What about someone from Jersey, Detroit, New York?

These transplanted people, you think they are cheap-labor cons. I think not by a large margin.

What about 'old' south. I know of a textile mill that shut its doors and moved to Costa Rica. Many of the small towns in the south are one factory towns. You close the plant and the town dies. My sons father-in-law used to work at that plant. Out of a job at 57 years old. Think about that.

As for the military, Bush can kiss them votes goodbye. Especially in the south. Those wifes waiting at home have had money taken from them while their husbands are off fighting for Bush. Same with veterans. Teachers, same thing.

Shouldn't decide how people will vote until you give them a chance. I know many I work with are not for Bush.

And make sure the votes are counted. This means losing those touch screens.

Actually, I think Bush is toast. At least in the south.

he's well on his way to losing forty or more states.

Unless the economy really goes in the crapper unfortunately I don't see that being the case.

If there's a sweep of the south recent history suggests it ain't going to be by our guy.

in Atlanta. I would like to see him speak. I think many others would too.

:toast:

his supporters should be of more help

He be good choice too.

Maybe s/he should answer?

has been answered below.

This hypocrite cost me money and job advancement opportunities, in addition to violating the 1930s-era 40-hour work week law.

That is all you need to know.

Goodbye, little mind.

What causes was she an activist in?

You are correct. Posters on the door, conversation, etc.

?

This supervisor of mine was very open that she was a liberal Democrat in conversations with any and everyone!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, of course!

She also made numerous snide and rude comments about the South, even if the listener was a Southern liberal.

What was wrong was that she violated 1930s era wage and hours laws with regard to entry-level employees.

What was wrong was that she was a f&**&g hypocrite.

She cost me money and job advancement opportunities.

Now, if you or any of your d*&nYankee friends think I'm going to 'let this go,' you're barking up the wrong tree!!!!

and don't you think it is hypocritical to go after "South Bashers" and call me and my friends "damn yankees!" Furthermore she sounds like she was lying about being a "liberal" democrat if she violated wage laws.

A hypocrite is someone who is basically dishonest. A hypocrite is someone who says one thing but does another. Example: Person says they are a liberal but then they violate very basic wage and hour laws.

Someone who is honest about their feelings is not being a hypocrite. Angry, perhaps yes. Torqued? Yes. Hypocritical? No.

Looks like the edu-ma-cation system up North has a few weaknesses LOL.

Your request for 'equal time' for this wage-and-hour violator should have been posted in freeperland.

Next.....????

edit: correct error

when you bash Northerners. You sound just as silly as the people who bash the South.

I wasn't even on this forum Friday afternoon when all this junk started. I did not start my replies until Friday night.

My posts are by way of a reply to a habitual, perpetual problem on this forum.

If you see someone say something you don't like then discuss it with them. But going around bashing the North makes you no better than South bashers.

I think you need to get a thicker skin.

Bullshit!!!!!!!!!!

or stop bashing also. It really does sound stupid.

All right.

I will stop the bashing.

As mentioned yesterday, I will leave this forum.

It is clear that Southerners are not welcome here.

Prediction: The Democrats will become a New England regional party within the next ten years. A major third party will develop in the South and Midwest, and a Progressive Party will become a major electoral force in California.

The reason for the future breakup of the Democratic Party and its transformation into a New England regional party is that it has become achingly clear that Southerners are not welcomed by northern Democrats, who consistently bash them, and then demand that they 'thicken their skin.' Also, the current Democratic Party has been too weak on protecting American jobs.

You act as if everybody on DU is bashing Southerners. There are plenty of Southerners here, myself included. Stop being so damn dramatic.

Paste quote "definitition of a hypocrite"

I never demanded "equal time" for this person you said violated the wage an hour laws. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Mea culpa on the typo.

Re: your second remark:

You basically demanded equal time for this hypocrite labor-law violator supervisor of mine when you asked whether they would be 'allowed to speak.'

rather than Dembones answering for you.

The poster whom you named isn't even in this thread, and, to my knowledge, hasn't been involved in any of the discussion at hand regarding the South!!!

post #31

maybe you have him in the killfile.

No one is in my killfile, although this entire forum is about to go in it.

I am so sick and tired of the South bashing around here and the demands to 'thicken my skin.'

I have said it over and over again!

Even WillPitt, whom I respect has pleaded for an end to the South bashing.

When will those who bash Southern liberals get a clue, and stop the madness?

Will Pitt is a good writer, but he also posts flame bait every once in awhile, and I suspect you do to. I have come to understand you are not really talking to me, but imagined South Bashers, and defenders of your former employer. Ah Well!?

..and I agree with those that say the South is a lost cause. I enjoy living here, but there's a dynamic about the South now ever since 9/11 that I find very distrubing. There is an antipathy towards liberal causes and an increase in biogtry towards religious and ethnic minorities. Dixie is dead to us. Every campaign dollar Democrats spend here is merely a bone tossed to the few progressives here, as most "undecideds" are conservative and wait patiently for the right person to tell them who to fear. I think the South will only vote for liberal candidates in one of two cases:

1. In thirty years, most of the "me first" conservative baby boomers will be dead. They will be replaced by more liberal people, minorities in particular.

2. The gap between the rich and poor, something that's magnified in the South, will become so great that social unrest will occur. The resulting repression of the unrest by the government will make people realize that conservatives care not one iota for their well-being.

Until one of these events happens, however, I'm afraid the South is out of play.

keep forgetting that the last Democratic President was from the south, as have been many others?

There are many of us who not only live in the south, but fight to keep the truth out about this administration.