Why Gore will lose or The DNC and the south

It’s no big secret that most of the southern states have switched from mostly Democrat representation to mostly Republican representation. This change has occured in the last few years and mostly centers around anti abortion, anti gun control, and anti afirmative action feelings.

In fact, the liberal magazine “The Nation” attributed to republican take over of congress as directly attributal to congression pro-gun control action. They refered to it as “the straw that broke the camels back.”

Also, affirmative action and school integration in the US has largely resulted in poor white people having to share what little they have with poor black people who have even less. How are the children of the rich affected by these programs? Damn little, I say. So it’s no suprise that the south, which has many poor white people whould be anti-affirmative action.

The old dynamic in the US was Republicans in the west, liberal Democrats in the north, and conservative Democrats in the south. Now we have Republicans in the south and west, and liberal democrats in the north. Gore is in a situation where he has to win the midwest and California to win the the White House. This is very frustrating to me because I think a republican house, senate, and Bush for president could make the USA a very unpleasant place to live for the next 20 years.

So my question is…
What the hell is wrong with the Democrats?
Why have they abandoned the South?
Why don’t they come up with alternative progressive ideas for these problems?


ps If you are a southerner please say so in your response.

Basically (and I don’t have time to post more now, sadly)
Let me address the school thing briefly. When schools got intergrated, two things happened on the white side of the equation
A: Poorer whites learned to accept it.
B: Richer ones founded Private Schools.

Nowadays, there are 100% black Public schools, districts that are more than 80% black, and Private schools which accept anyone that can afford it. Private schools are better scholastically, and public are chronically underfunded, cause people won’t vote for tax increases to fund them.
Now, I would suppose it boils down to the old generation and Civil Rights. When Civil Rights stuff got passed, it infuriated a lot of conservative democrats. (Remember the Dixiecrats?) When that didn’t work, they started looking elsewhere.
Over the years, the attitude changed. A younger generation didn’t look at the Democrats as loyally, and didn’t have problems with Race. But there was this “what have you done for me lately” problem. This probably coincides with the great liberal shift percieved in the Democratic party. Now, you have a bunch of disaffected Convservative Dem’s who really don’t have anyone they can get along with. Except… the Republicans.
Mississippi started the switch back in the 70’s. For a few years here, we didn’t have a organized Democratic party. Mississippi was democrat free! We have one now, but it’s small, and badly divided by that old problem, race.

I’ll talk to my Dad, who is better acquainted with this problem and get back with ya.

I think part of the problem is in the minority congressional districts created in many areas. Some of the more egregious examples of racial gerrymandering have been struck down by the courts, but the effects can still be felt.

What happened in many areas is that for every majority black district created, two of three lilly white ones emerged. Then, neither party has the incentive to try to reach across the broad spectrum of voters. The Democrats take the black vote for granted, and the Republicans reap the windfall of all those conservative voters packed into, say, 7 out of 9 districts within the state.

And since 7 conservative white districts beats out 2 liberal black districts any day, one can say the Democrats have inadvertantly “abandoned” the South by district demographics.

Now, I realize this is a gross simplification, and that many areas have not been gerrymandered to this extent. But until a politician from either party has the incentive to cross over to appeal to voters not traditionally aligned with its base, the status quo is easier.

It seems, from the convention anyway, that Republicans are trying to “cross over.” Minorities, gays, even pro-choice Republicans are (grudgingly) accepted into the party tent. On the other hand, I don’t think we’ll ever see the Democratic Party attempt to cross over by trying to appeal to the pro-life faction of the party (which is considerable in the South), or the pro-gun Democrats. This is to their detriment, I believe, and works toward answering your OP.

Well, Gore has always “had” California, and now NY is sewn up. The South will vote along racial lines. But, see once you have CA & NY, the rest are not all that important. Gore might now win Fla, which WAS a “shew-in” for Bush, but not anymore. Sure Bush has Texas, but that is not enough. The rest of the South will split, the midwest will split, the “Yankee” staes are solid Gore, and the rest are so small it does not really matter.

So, since it is done state-by-state, Gore will win. Bush can’t overcome CA & NY.

Keeping in mind that it is the Electoral College that decides our Pres., I don’t think DITWD’s numbers add up.

Going off of his predictions:
CA 54
NY 33

FL  25 (a maybe)

total= 112

Now “the rest of the south” I don’t know Daniels definition, but I call 12 states ‘the south’, with a median E.C. representation of 10. so a ‘split’ gives Gore 6
‘the south’ 60
new total= 172

a split midwest is unlikely but I think it’s safe, based on past results, that WI and MN will vote Gore, so:
WI 10
MN 11
total 193

Again, I don’t know the ‘yankee states’, but I’m assuming the Eastern seaboard?
NH 4
MA 12
RI 4
CT 8
NJ 15
DE 3

Grand Total? 239 Sorry, Al, you’re 31 short.And that’s giving you Florida.

So what is your count for Bush?

By the rest of the south, I meant NOT TX or FL, which I had earlier discussed. And, yes, that is what I meant by “yankee”, but I would include maine.

oregon & wash will likely go Gore. AZ, Nv, NM, OK etc will go Bush. So will Idaho. FLA is a toss-up.

So with Maine, OR, WA, and a few others the #s are enuf. Bush can’t win without CA & NT, IMHO.

Well, I don’t think this is a debate about who’ll win the election ('cuz everyone knows it’ll be ME… Vote Diddly in '00!), so much as it’s “Why did once-Democrats go Republican?”

My answer is simple (probably overly simple): The “tide” of political spectrum shifts periodically. After a period of time with liberalism commanding a strong following, people begin to develop disappointments in that particular governmental philosophy (after all, no system can satisfy EVERYone). And, holding the idea of “the grass is greener on the other side” true, they figure, “Hey, maybe those Republicans can set things right”, and begin voting for more guns and more military.

I guess you can look at it as a natural flux in populations…

I do not agree that Gore ‘HAS’ California. CA is fairly conservative, electing many republican governors. Our current democratic governor calls himself a bit of a’Centrist’.

Bush has made school vouchers a part of his schtick. I think it’s a bad idea, but it’s gonna win him big points here. (here in LA, we have an horrible public school system with a 7 billion dollar budget)

I predict California will go with Bush. Hell, I’m a democrat and I am considering any altenative to Gore.

Divemaster pointed out something else that is a good point. Redistricting.

What with the push to make up for past wrongs and all, there was/is the big push for “majority Black” districts. These are normally democratic. What’s left over is by no means assured to be republican, but most times they do go republican.

Some of the WORST injustices have come from gerrymandering. I recall one district in Tenn (I believe) that followed a highway for 10-15 miles, but was only 2 miles wide at the most, to garner enough black population for a majority black district. One got shot down in Louisanna over the same thing. They even proposed one here in Mississippi, but that guy got laughed out.

We need to be fair to all, not mandate things to apologise for past injustices. This accomplishes nothing in the long run.

This is exactly what I’m talking about, and there is more at stake than the presidential election. What is the Dems plan to regain the House and Senate? Why aren’t they moderating their stance on these controversial southern issues? Even if Gore wins, the best he can do is block the actions of a republican house and senate. This does nothing to futher progressive issues. Wouldn’t it be better to promote taxing the rich, protecting the environment, and regulating corporations instead of makes these other issues the core of your party?

You don’t have to tell me about this. Here in Louisiana we had a barbell shaped district, until it was struck down by the courts. It was a large block in the northwest and a large block in the northeast connected by a long skinny strip across the middle.

I agree, and I’m trying to figure out why the hell not? Do they like to lose?

Florida elected the other Bush governor, and Regan came from California so those could go either way.

My bet’s on Gore for California and the election. They’ve elected as governor Ronald Reagan and Jerry Brown, so it proves they can go anywhere, but right now they have two Democrat Senators, a Democrat (albeit a centrist) as Governor, and there are more California Democrats in the state Senate, state legislature, and in Congress. They’ve gone Democrat the past two Presidential elections, as well. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/fedpage/congress/106/ca/ )

There’s a nice chart in the latest Newsweek on electoral votes and such, as well.

On the South: In my great (:rolleyes: ) state of Georgia, redistricting caused the Republicans to take 8 of 11 Congtressional districts, while we haven’t elected a Republican governor since Reconstruction and the legislature is Democrat-controlled.

Jello: Ditto for NC. We have Governor Jim Hunt, Democrat, who is quite possibly the most popular Governor we’ve ever had. And a Democrat controlled State legislature (well, sorta)… yet we consistently elect Jesse Helms to the Senate, and vote Republican in presidential elections.


Now this I’d personally love. We can’t roll back Civil Rights (not that we’d seriously consider it), but there are things like reining in corporate greed. I’m seriously thinking about my vote this year, simply because I don’t want to see Bush let Microsoft off the hook.

Regionally, I don’t if there is anything you can do. The dems blew it ages ago. They haven’t cared enough to do anything about it, that I’ve seen. They’ve been content to use their power as a minority to keep things from happening.
This is their idea of governing, being the spoilsport in Congress.


Right next door to me, howdy neighbor! The one here would have roughly followed I-55 south, except for detours to pick up large concentrations of blacks. Riiight. Problem being, that ruins the 4th district (SE corner of state) and the third (Gulf Coast) and part of the second (middle eastern part). Real smart. And this was proposed after ya’lls district got shot down. Proposed by a Democrat,too. :rolleyes:



All that pro-choice support they have! You can’t appear to be flexable on such touchstone issues. (/sarcasm)

Don’t put Florida in Gore’s column quite yet.

Governor (Jeb) Bush has implemented several (albeit controversial) programs that were quite popular with the masses. GW may weel ride his bother’s popularity to win the state.

Another significant factor in the swing toward the Republican party is age. People have a tendency to become more conservative as they grow older. The group growing older today is the so-called baby boomer generation. They were largely liberal in the 60’s and 70’s, and now are nearing retirement age and are adopting more conservative views.

> So, since it is done state-by-state, Gore will win.

Keep dreaming. I see Bush winning at least 40 states. Gore is this year’s Mondale or Dukakis. Remember them?

Georgia checking in.

I don’t know what y’all are talking about. The Democrats have made a major shift to the center in Presidential politics for the very purpose of trying to keep the South in the fold. Clinton was a centrist Southerner, who had previously headed the centrist DNC, and who steered the Democrats back to the center.

Gore is a centrist Southerner. He has chosen Lieberman as his running mate, who is also a centrist (and head of the centrist DNC). Granted, Southerners generally don’t react well to Democratic candidates from the Notheast (such as your Kennedys and your Dukakises), but Lieberman seems to be cut from a different cloth.

If anything, the Democratic Presidential ticket has moved so far into the center that it is in danger of losing its more liberal constituents to the Green Party. Seems to me that Gore is doing everything to play to centrist Southern Democrats except to pick a Southern running mate.

spoke, quick correction: You’re saying DNC (Democratic National Committee) when I think you mean DLC {Democratic Leadership Council), a pro-business organization co-founded by, among others, Clinton and Gore of which Joe Lieberman is indeed the chair.

And labdude, I agree with you–if the Democrats as a whole would focus on progressive issues, and stand a more progressive candidate for the presidency, rather than trying to emulate the Republicans a la Dick Morris’ “triangulation” scheme, I think they’d stand a much better chance both in the White House and, regionally, in Congress.

Yep. Thanks for the save, Gadarene. I did mean the DLC.

There is one issue which the Democrats absolutely own, which has major appeal across the political spectrum, and which should be a major focus of the campaign: It’s the Environment, stupid!

If Bush is elected, I think we can count on pro-business, anti-environmental appointments to the EPA, the Department of the Interior, and to the Courts. Does anyone remember the rape of our national forests under the Republican administrations of Reagan and Bush? Do we want to return to that? Does anyone think there will be serious enforcement of environmental regulations under a Bush administration? I cringe at the thought of what oil men Bush and Cheney will do in office.

The reason i put Fla as 'contested" is that the cities will vote for Gore, and the rural areas for Bush. From what I can see, Bush only has Texas locked in, and Gore has several locked. But Bush is leading in several of the uncommited states.

My guess is: Gore will win the electoral college, but without a majority of the popular votes, he might even not get as many as Bush. It will be close.