Better Numbers in the Red States

What do we have to do to get better numbers in the red states? That's the real question here, and we need practical answers, not fancy theories. Looking at the Republican margin of victory in the 2000 election, we see that Bush won the South so handily that there was virtually no contest. Gore did better in his home state Tennessee than anywhere else in the South, but he still lost by 4 percentage points. By comparison, Bush did extraordinarily well in Texas, winning by a whopping 21 percentage points.

Can Louisiana be brought into play, seeing that Gore lost by only 8 percent? Virginia is also a possibility, because he lost only by 9 percent there. However, the margins in the other Southern states weren't close at all, ranging from 12 percent in Georgia to 17 percent in Mississippi.

Writing off a whole region of the country means losing elections we ought to win. What motivated Tennessee voters to reject their native son? It's a high honor for a state when one of their own assumes the highest office in the land, but Tennessee voters didn't want it. Why not?

We have to raise questions about the reasons people vote the way they do, especially when there doesn't seem to be a rhyme or reason for it. If Gore took Maryland, why did he lose Arkansas? And why was he trounced so badly in Kentucky, Oklahoma and Nebraska?

i would say that is the best bet. only about half of eligible voters actually do vote and i would think the majority of those who don't would vote dem.

will motivate people to vote.

The Smirking Chimp wins all those red states because those are the states where televangelists and evangelical "Christians" have a stranglehold on public opinion. Unless we can get through to these folks that Christ said something completely opposite to what Falwell, Robertson and the right wing says, we've got no chance to win them over.

I traveled through the South over the past week. It was truly amazing what a dearth of information and real news there is out there. The only radio channels that would hone in for a 200-mile radius were all Clear Channel, FOX etc. You could hear Rush on at least three stations at a time. This is the only info these people get and it's no wonder they are so uninformed. It is really scary what the media has done and is doing in this country over the past 12 years. There are very few honorable men and women in that profession these days.

Ignorance is the cause of most of the world's evil...and America seems to have more than its share of ignorance.

and I guess I've always taken my myriad of choices as far as radio, TV, newspapers for granted-because I've always lived in the Northeast. I think many people are happy to settle for the Fox/Clearchannel nonsense though. Wecome to DU Kbowe! :hi:

of murder or something, they accused Clinton of a lot things, but none of the current Dem noms have cheated on their husbands or wives

I think NV and AZ would be smarter and an attempt at MO plus what we got last time. there is a big problem with southerners regionalism. I had no problem voting for Clinton or Gore , but I keep hearing that only Graham or Edwards can do anything in th CSA. Maybe Californians should insist on a Californian on any ballot.

Nominating a Southerner doesn't always work, it appears. Gore, who started sounding more and more Southern as the campaign progressed, lost the entire South by whopping margins. He even lost his own state. The question is: what does it take?

Guns and jobs. Democrats won't take away your guns and will help you find more (and better) jobs. Then park a southern VP nominee for the duration in the South, at least to keep Shrub on the defensive. And have lots of independent ads touting Shrub's Connecticut Yankee heritage. :-)

of time in the south, worked for *

In Newton and Boone Counties, AR, there is a sizable population of people from the North and from CA-retirees who have been attracted by the decent weather and low taxes, and younger people who want to live in an area relatively unspoiled. Most folks around here, both native and transplants, are wanting to hear what the candidates say, and will base their selection on that rather than on where the candidate is from.

votes of the transplants? I ask because I knew somone who voted for a friend of his and his local precinct showed no votes cast for his friend.

because people didn't see a difference between him and Bush. 3/4 of the state is Dem, with only the NW going Rep. But many liberals voted green to express their disapproval with things (including the fact that the Dems didn't even run a Congressional candidate in NW AR). This time it is different. NW AR has got a lot of angry people-they are still wondering when their loved ones will be back from Iraq, and they realize how the military, esp. the Guard and Reserve, have been shafted. It didn't help the GOP when Rep. Boozman (R) said it was more important to give the rich tax cuts than to restore cuts to aid to disabled vets. I know of at least on Dem. who is thinking of opposing Boozman, and I know of Reps. that don't plan to vote Bush. I think many of the people who voted Green will get behind a Dem candidate if he doesn't sound like GOP lite.

Nader snagged 1% of the vote in Arkansas, but that was less than the Bush margin of victory, 51%-46%.

Ohio went narrowly to Bush, 50-49, and in Wisconsin Gore edged out Bush by a very slim 47.8 to 47.6. In that race, Nader got 3.6% of the vote.

Pennsylvania will be fiercely contested in 2004. Gore won 51-46, but the popular Tom Ridge has been anointed a member of the Bush cabinet.

I don't think he's real popular outside of SW Missouri, he lost to a dead guy

Current Governor Ed Rendell just won in a landslide, in what was supposedly a Republican year. I don't think Pennsylvania will be a battleground, as much as the republicans want it to be.

because a lot of folks, like me, who did a little bit of work in 2000 are going to work their butts off in 2004.

I have to credit my attitude to Dr. Dean -- who has inspired me to really work for a democratic victory in 2004 -- and to work for it everywhere.

In 2000 I donated money and in 2002 I donated more and made some phone calls through moveon.org. But this time around I'm going to do everything in my power to see that Virginia goes to the Dems. And if enough people do that in Virginia, and Tenn, and FL, and NC, and West Virginia....

then we win.

and if bush has to play defense everywhere, he'll lose everywhere.

After all, it's not as though there was a professional Dr./patient medical releationship.

I liked him at first, but am turned off by his pretentiousness. Is he trying to impress the voters by appearing as an elitist?

Sure hope not.

?

I heard Dean asked that question, he said call me anything but late for dinner, a joke, for gods sake. He wants to win the whitehouse and could care less what he is called untill then. After that Mr. President sounds about right. Man, seems like we are picking lint big time.

Your question assumes a fact not in evidence: nowhere has he insisted in being called "Dr."

I'm guessing people like to call him this since it's instant credibility with some voters; doctors are a well-respected profession.

…
KING: Why don't you -- why aren't you called doctor?

DEAN: Oh, some people do call me doctor. I am a doctor. I'm an internist. I practiced up until the day I became governor, almost 12 years ago.

KING: But the title you most often use is governor, right? I mean, you're not referred to as Dr. Dean?

DEAN: Some people do. I don't really care. You know, the old saying, I don't care what you call me as long as you call me on time for dinner. You know, truthfully most people call me Howard around here.
…
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/04/lkl.00.html

With New Hampshire and Florida we would have won. Missouri and Ohio would have put us over the top easily.

There are two lynch pins that could undo republican power in the South, Unions and Religion. But that requires a long-term strategy.

We just need to win the next election. Once we do, we can make unions more powerful by making joining one a civil right, and reverse the FCC ruling that said paid programming from religious broadcasters could be substituted for free time for local religious leaders.

The Union men of the South didn't vote on the issue of guns like the non-union men. They broke heavily for Al Gore. Unfortunately many union organizers are fired, because in many states you can fire someone without specifying a reason. That probably won't change, but if joining a union becomes a civil right then firing union organizers becomes more difficult, because they can file civil rights lawsuits against employers who offend. This could also be done with out overturning right to work provisions, which unfortunately are winner with the public.

Before the 1960 the Sunday morning religious programming was manditorially donated to local religious leaders. The Televangelists had little power. Then in the early 60s the FCC allowed the local broadcasters to take bids on this free airtime. That is when the hysterical Televangelists with their constant appeals for money to fight the latest satanic evil to befall America became dominate on Sunday morning. These hucksters could simply outbid the local more moderate preachers. The religious right is fueled by Sunday morning hucksters who take social security checks from little old ladies, using scare tactics about the disintegration of Christian morality, just so they can put in the high bid on our local TV station and shut out more moderate local Christians. Since 9/11 their new crusade is against the barbarian “Mohomeddians” We can change this easily with laws that overrule FCC decision. Even without a congress to do that a President can immediately appoint people to temporarily change this decision, until we get a better congress.

The DLC, while sometimes practical when looking at elections, has made a critical error in judging the South- erego Gore "losing" the 2000 election. When Clinton won in 1992, he did so on the mistaken philospophy that the South would vote for a more conservative candidate, and therefore began advocating smaller government, NAFTA, etc. NAFTA lost a lot of votes to Perot, on the part of Clinton and Bush.

The truth: Southerners, for the most part, do not care about ideology. They don't vote on the basis of guns. They don't care who's more "conservative" any more than they care who's more populist or libertarian. They don't even know what those terms mean.

Southerners, more than anything else, are an ethnic group, and they will vote for someone who they feel will is kind toward their culture, not just because they're a "native son." (Ahem, Gore)


What's the culture? Hard-working, evangelical, family man/woman.

That's it. That's how Democrats win, even in the most black neighborhoods.

Jimmy Carter won the Solid South because he was a big-time evangelical. Reagan won it in 1984 by appealing to them. Clinton won because he was a Southern Baptist. Gore lost because of anger at Clinton, who cheated on his wife and was therefore no longer respectable. Also, even though Gore was a Southern baptist, he didn't mention it, while Bush gave exclusive interviews to evangelical publications and boosted his "compassionate" image.

Every ethnic group seems to have its own variation of religion. The Southern Baptist Church and the A.M.E. Church are to southerners what the Greek Orthodox Church is to Greeks. You must appeal to these voters to win any election.

Hard-working, self-sufficient, family man/woman Religion isn't as big a part in that vote, but it doesn't hurt anything either.

And that's John Edwards. Wish I liked his policies a little better.

The mountain states is where the Dems should be concentrating ... and they should do it with a responsible land use policy. Not "environmental" but land use. And throw in some libertarianism. Dems don't come in your bedroom. Dems don't want to take guns from law-abiding citizens. Dems want to build the infrastructure that supports your life in a harsh environment. If you pick up most of the intermountain west, you don't need as many southern states.

But the Dems don't even seem to have noticed that, as they were going down in flames in much of the country in 2002, they were making substantial gains in the intermountain west. Including, of course, my new governor, Dave Freudenthal. Despite many doubting DUers, I remained steadfast last fall in my belief that WY could and would elect a Dem governor.

Hard work, pride and family. The mountains states would be so much easier, I agree, the south sticks together, it is so clannish. But still, we have to try. What I hate the most is that there's this growing antagonism (to put it mildly). It really scares me. I want to see Democrats reach out because we really HAVE TO.

I agree we can take liberal ideas and put a more libertarian spin on them. And we have to come to terms with land use, absolutely. We might disagree on this one, I've become a strong old growth advocate since leaving Montana. I see what's happened here in Oregon and it's not about a stupid owl. I'd really like to see us lock up the old growth because there's only 4% left, then focus on real management for the rest of it. Get this stuff resolved.

And promote work and infrastructure, like you say. There is so much technology that can help rural communities. Democrats could really make some headway with simple ideas, like how access to top-flight specialists would improve health care in a rural hospital or education at the high school. That's something I know Rocky Mtn people care alot about.

And it is cool Wyoming has a Democratic Governor! I have a suspicion Montana is going to too! They are some unhappy people! As long as whoever it is comes up with a good land use solution that doesn't cause Democrats to go Green at the same time.

I don't know if this kind of agenda would turn the south in one election, but sometimes using different words to express an idea is all it takes to get people to start listening.

And not just because Martz was a bonehead! If Martz were to have run, shje would have lost in a landslide because a) people like Schweitzer and b) she's an idiot.

Schweitzer will win though because of his message a) JOBS and b) GUNS. Schweitzer seems to be a pretty smart guy and knows how to get moderates to vote for a democrat. Warner and Freudenthal won "unwinnable" red states, and they are providing the blueprint on how to do it.

We should focus on the fact that most people in the mountain states are Dems even if they don't know it :-) People are more libertarian here than in the south (and not so religious), and can be won over by an eppeal to civil rights and civil liberties (gun ownership, gov staying out of your bedroom), and a positive economic plan that will lift the economy of the mountain west which is among the worst in the nation.

Air time is cheap here too, and that fact coupled with an actual campaign stop in every single mountain west state will put most of them in play. If the nominee spends a small amount of money on a lot of TV ads in Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico etc he can win here.

I don't think that we can win every mountain state, I think perhaps Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming are out of our reach, but of the 44 votes here, I think we can snag 32.

Freudenthal's win in Wyoming provided us with a blueprint of how to win in the mountain west. You should also all check out Brian Schweitzer's website for a look at how we can (and probably will) win in Montana next year.

Long story short: JOBS AND GUNS.

The dems have relatively popular governors in mountain states (Richardson, Napolitano, and Freudenthal), where the Republicans have some real stinkers (Martz is a shining example, but Guinn and Leavitt are not too well loved either). This can also be used to our advantage.

In New Mexico: Look at how fantastic Bill Richardson (Democrat) is!

In Montana: Look at what a mess our state is in thanks to Judy Martz (Republican)!

Air time is cheap and the reward could be plentiful, the mountain west, some of the closer southern states, and some midwestern gains are where we need to focus next year. We should never right states off (like Arizona) or stop campaigning in places (like Ohio). That killed us in 2000, and we should never let it happen again.

EDIT: fixed link formatting

Sound weird??? Butte has voted Democratic in every Presidential election I think ever since there's been a Montana vote. Like one of the few counties in the US that can say that. The Presidential candidates always go to Billings. Well I guess Al Gore did that river thing which wasn't such a hit. But if they went to Butte to honor the proud Democrat tradition, it'd also be closer to alot of western cities and might get a larger turnout. It'd also remind Montanans of their proud Democratic tradition.

Brian Schweitzer looks like a good candidate, just a normal old Montana guy. I think he's going to win too and if the national party gets it together in those states, it could sure start washing out all that red. I never liked red much anyway, I've always been more of a blue color person.

Democrats are the party that cares about the poor (as Jesus does). Improve on Alabama Gov. Bob Riley's (R) approach (for one thing, keep things simple. Riley's tax proposal is ~1000 pages and therefore provides a big target).

Alabama Tied in Knots by Tax Vote
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4130-2003Aug16.html

I wish I could find a video for this. Al Gore speaks at an African American chruch and sounds like an authentic preacher:
Gore gets big reception at AME
http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/070600/gen_0706004443.shtml

Let Southerners know that Democrats are the Party that will help bring jobs back to their states. Let Southerners know that the Democratic Party still supports the economic policies of the Democratic Party that used to dominate the South. (Note: My dad always told me that the Civil War was fought over economics, not slavery. IMHO, the Civil War *was* more about economics than slavery.) Let Southerners know that the Democratic Party is the political party for all Americans and not just the North East and West coast.

http://liberalslikechrist.org/

It's to the point of an inbred thing. Only it's worse in these southern bastions because it is literally preached from the pulpit (of churches where people go to hate and discriminate since the advent of civil rights). It is religion. Unless we can disgrace and expose people like Falwell or Robertson, there really isn't much of a chance. It's like telling them to kill their children---they aren't going to do it, period. Our best hope is to get workers going door to door to get out the black and other minority votes. Forget about the rednecks and all the other lilly whites. To them Dems are Satan, the Northeners of the Civil War era, and the commies all rolled into one. You can knock on doors and present "positions" until your tongue falls off, but these places are locked up tighter than a chastity belt on a virgin. The minorities are the only hope in these states and they go to great, great lengths to see that they are kept from the polls. It's a totally different world and the sooner we realize it, the better. We need our money concentrated on those states that are marginal.

Whites and minorities in the south generally have the same culture, with the exception of the really bigoted ones. It will take an appeal to the culture to win.

Do you think that might help matters?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I didn't make a big deal about it. I sent you an e-mail and directed your attention back to the subject at hand. You are still welcome to contribute substantively. I am not a "troll" for bringing up subjects like what we need to do to win over Southern voters.

you have a real problem with qualifiers, like "some," "most," and "many," which causes you to see the world in very stark either/or terms. Despite a hundred or so posts from all kinds of DUers advising you of that, you continued to make broad-brush statements that added nothing to the discussion but did give every appearance of being calculated to piss people off. Pretty pointless, and well, a bit trollish, don't you think?

I never said that Bush will win unanimously, but he is so popular in the South that we might as well consider the whole region a lost cause. In 2004 he'll win the South so easily that he won't even have to campaign there. I find that troublesome, don't you?

Southern voters appear to be so immune to normal political give-and-take that Democrats can't even reach them. What's up with that? Why are Southerners so obstinate?

Generalizing about a place that accounts for about a third of the nation is tricky and won't get you very far. When you talk about Southerners who adore Bush, you are talking mostly about white rural, suburban, and blue-collar voters (there's a lot of overlap in those categories, of course), along with the yuppies/country clubbers that are a scourge on this place just like the rest of the country.

Also, there are lots of African-Americans in the South. People commonly fall into the mistake of assuming that Southern=white. Not so.

Black Southerners vote heavily Democratic, as do white urbanites and some professionals, like teachers. (The teacher's union is the biggest one in Alabama, for example, so this is not an insignificant group of voters.)

Even in Mississippi and Alabama, then, you have enough black voters that you only need to pick up 30-40% of whites to get a majority. Consider the white Democrats and the number is even lower. It's not easy to shift that many votes, but neither is it impossible.

I don't know much about suburbanites and yuppies, so I'll let others speak to that issue, but my own background is blue-collar, and I think there are some ways to recover some of those votes.

The big one is to bring back old-fashioned Democratic class politics. Blue-collar workers here are hurting like everywhere else, and have seen untold numbers of their jobs exported. Unfortunately, the Democrats unilaterally disarmed on this issue years ago. With both parties sounding more or less the same on class (Clinton got NAFTA, remember), there is a vacuum that has been filled with "culture war" issues like race, sexuality, religion, guns, abortion, etc.

Rural/blue-collar people all over the world are more socially conservative than their urban counterparts, so when we allow the GOP to set up the contest as "God, guns, and gays" we're done for.

So let's talk about that oldest conflict--the haves and have-nots. I'm not saying to surrender on other issues, only to stop letting them be the entire subject of campaigns. The Republicans are scared shitless of "class warfare," and for good reason.

Two, a little respect would be nice. Look around DU and see how casually blue-collar types are dismissed as rednecks and white trash, and you'll see one reason why those people generally do not consider liberals their friends. People tend not to vote for those who hold them in contempt.

There's other stuff we can do, of course, but these are a good start.

Gore's numbers rose when he talked about income inequality, but for some reason he soft-pedaled it later on in the campaign. It may be that wealthy contributors balked at being singled out, but Gore did not follow through.

The last real populist was Fred Harris, the Oklahoma senator who ran in the 1960's. He's alive and well and teaching at some college in Texas, I believe.

It may be that Democrats don't make enough of an impression on the population segments you mentioned. No populism = no appeal. Gore made a run at it, then backed off. I still don't know why.

"You can't have a mass movement without the masses."

Gore apparently got scared when all 1,000 or so Republican talking heads (at least it seems like there's that many) began denouncing him as a Bolshevik for making some pretty tame remarks about class. I lost a lot of respect for him then.

Thats what he ran on. Seems like that what they want. I heard someone on here from the South say "Guns & God" is the message that carries the Rpigss.

and Democrats lost by slim margins in some...What issue do you think these voters might be interested in??

send Dean in. ;-)

Seriously, I think he's got some terrific, rural and south-and west-friendly policies and positions.

Eloriel

nt

Gore was thought the country was little bit more to the left than it really was.

He moved to the left just a tad to much. He should have sacrificed a wide margin in win in California for more votes in Arkansas and Missouri. He should not have been paying attention to Florida. That was off the map to most resonable Democratic thinkers.

He should have left that state alone and spend more time in his home state and Arkansas and New Hampshire. He would have won. But he thought he could get the state, moved to the left to far and lost Tennessee and Arkansas.

He was too concentrated on that state. He did much better then expected. But he should have not paid much attention and dumped the resources in Tennesse and Arkansas.

:kick:
J4Clark

Start spending time and money in the west where Bush's margins were smaller and where the populations are more liberal.

He's, like, No. 1 in SC, NC, and TX and a couple other states in fundraising. In TX he has something like double all the other candidates combined. I think it's obvious that he's the one who has the most appeal in the south -- and it's mainly because of class.

is to work my ass off to make a difference in my COUNTY. The margin of difference in my county was less than 2% for Bush, or about 3,700 votes.

I'll work to affect this because it's doable. I've looked a precints where voter turnout was low. There, I'm going door-to-door with Dean literature and voter-registration forms. Our last Dean meetup had over 50 people. If we each are responsible for signing up ten new voters, we can make a difference.

What happens at the state or national level is beyond my control. But if fifty other like minded people in each county in my state where to take some personal initiative to get the word out and get new voters registered, maybe, just maybe, we can turn the whole state blue.