Today again, I read an article by an electoral pundit, the gist of which was that the Democrats will not have a ghost of a chance at the Presidency in '04 unless they adopt a strategy to “take back the South.”
What sense does that make, exactly?
Here’s “the south”: A handful of dinky states that are reliably GOP-conservative; Florida, a prize state that (as we know from last time) is split about 50/50; and one mega-prize, Texas, that is locked up for the GOP.
Here’s “the non-South”: Everything else. Not one but TWO mega-prizes pretty well locked up for the Democrats (California and New York); plus various large-ish states that tend to lean left (Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Washington); Massachusetts, not huge but reliable; most of New England, no longer a slam-dunk for conservatives; Illinois, Ohio, the southern desert states, the lower Rocky Mountain states–which seem to be very much in play. What’s left for a conservative to count on–the Dakotas, Wyoming, Nebraska?
See the point? Instead of fighting the GOP for the South, isn’t it obviously much smarter to treat Southern-style conservatism like the plague and run a center-left candidate with some appeal everywhere else? (We’re not talking some alarming countercultural bogeyman, just someone who isn’t afraid to be pro-choice, is opposed to anti-gay discrimination, sees universal affordable health care as a priority, etc. If those are now considered radical positions in most of America–I guess I have my answer, don’t I?)
Now? Where ya been, son? Those positions have been radical in most of America for decades. Two of the three refer to acts that are or were crimes, and the third was once enough to get you fired for being a communist.
The South has a very large and growing population of, ahem, potentially non-Republican voters. In the case of South Carolina (linked above), almost one out of three of the total population is non-white in a state in which a Democratic governor only just managed to remove the Confederate flag from the state’s capitol dome two years ago–and paid for it dearly.
One problem is low voter turnout in those areas, probably due in part to a cynical disinterest. But one out of three voters with a historical predisposition to support the Democrats counts for a hell of a lot in an almost evenly split election. Attracting, engaging, and encouraging those voters to show up on election day could seal the deal for the Democrats in the last national election.
Despite the total Republican control of government, it’s worth remembering that the ball got rolling with only a single vote from a black man–Clarence Thomas’, to be cynically precise.
(Did I say that? Oh, hell, I’d better put on the flame-proof suit for that. Some of you probably won’t appreciate my sense of humor, but humor is my intention.)
The Democrats have the industrial northeast and tend to do well in California, Hawaii, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and a handful of other north-middle states, and as you mentioned are competitive in Florida. That plus preventing a rout by the Republicans in the South keeps them competitive even when the Republicans take nearly everything west of the Missisippi.
If they can’t do well in the South, they’ve got to do better in the West instead. And Gore did pick off some states in the West, in fact, which made up for not doing so well in the South against Bush.
I’ve been wondering for some time now what’s up with America the past few years. It seems like they’ve been pushing the idea that only the South is good. You’ve got to be Southern or you’re nobody. Why has it become such a big deal lately to be Southern? Exactly why is the rest of the country supposed to be so impressed by the South? I was going to start a GD thread about this, but you just reminded me of it.
Not to disparage the South or anything, but just wondering why it’s being pushed on everybody as the greatest part of America or something.
The reason is that the Southern Strategy works. In the last 40 years every winning Democratic candidate has been from the South while every losing candidate except Gore has been from the north. If Gore would have won his home state he would have been president. If one party has a candidate that can appeal to the other’s base then the other party has to spend money and time defending their base instead of reaching out to swing voters. Both parties do this. One of the reason the GOP was so excited about Bush was his success in Texas with minority voters during the gubernatorial race.
One thing that is frequently overlooked in some of these Southern State/Strategy discussions is what exactly defines a Democrat in the south. I think a lot of southern democrats consider themselves social conservatives. And most seem to run on a pro-gun platform. IMO, a democrat from Mississippi may have more in common with a northern republican than with a Ted Kennedy. IIRC, Virginia has voted Republican for prez the last four or five elections, but we just elected a Democrat for governor again (two out of the last four elections), and he ran on a fiscally conservative, pro-gun platform.
Well if you look at the states that Bill Clinton won and Al Gore lost I would guess the majority of them are in the South. If the Dems want to win next time it would help to get a few of them back. That’s why a “Southern Strategy” is important. Presumably that fact would help John Edwards the most.
As has been pointed out, white Southern Democrats tend to be so in name only - they are social conservatives that would pass for Republicans in nearly any other part of the country. Nearly all elections here tend to pit blacks and more liberal urban voters against the folks out in the country-side. Without a heavy black and urban voter turnout it is nearly impossible for the Democrats to carry the states.
I guess I’m still not quite getting it (as one side always says of the other).
It would obviously be advantageous for either party to capture states that they have been losing–no doubt of that.
So why aren’t we hearing that Republicans need to be more pro-choice (for California) or pro-environment (Oregon) or pro-healthcare-assistance (New York et al)?
Why instead are the Dems urged to, in effect, run to the right of the GOP–which seems the only way they could defeat a GOP candidate in the South (and maybe not even then)?
Doesn’t the symmetry of the situation suggest that they ought to work to solidify and turn-out their base?
What am I not considering?
(Moderator: Yep, I can see that political questions are never just about “the facts”.)
Well IMO a Southern strategy doesn’t necessarily mean moving to the right. It could mean things like motivating your base to turn out in the South. It could mean nominating a Southerner like Edwards. Allocating more advertising dollars to the South. Etc. Moving to the right is only one option.
“So why aren’t we hearing that Republicans need to be more pro-choice (for California) or pro-environment (Oregon) or pro-healthcare-assistance (New York et al)?”
I don’t know about Oregon but the GOP hasn’t won in California or New York for the last three elections at least. By contrast the Dems lost several Southern states which they won in 1996. So there is a difference. Plus in 2004 Bush will likely have an advantage as the incumbent so it is the Dems who have their work cut out for them.
I think the popularity of Pataki and Guiliani show the complete idiocy of the NY Democratic party, personally. Pataki is all but a democrat, himself. On the other side, you have Sharpton, Dinkins, and McCall, who, while not an idiot, is clearly not even vaugely giving the state what it wants.
Most of the Southern Democrats I know (and I happen to be one) are either centrists (the majority) or on the left (smaller percentage). The problem may be that Northern and Western Democrats are so far to the left they don’t know what the center looks like.
The Southern strategy works in part for the very reason that Southern Democrats are centrists, which means they can draw centrist support away from Republicans not only in the South, but nationwide.
Like I said, I don’t know what you mean by “social conservative,” but most Southerners do tend to be fiscally conservative. That’s not the same thing.
Southern Democrats do tend to be protective of gun ownership rights, if that’s what you mean. (Many come from a background where hunting is a big part of the culture.)
Southern Democrats do tend to be supportive of the military. (Many, many Southerners have military backgrounds, or family members in the military.) I don’t think support of the military is (or should be) a partisan issue. Unfortunately, many Northern and Western Democrats seem to have a knee-jerk aversion to or distrust of the military. Guess which approach plays better with the Vast Center?
Other than those two issues, I’d say Southern Democrats fall in line with most other Democrats in favoring things like environmental protections, constraints on corporate greed and dishonesty, concern for the state of health care (Clinton tried to get universal health care, remember), pro-choice beliefs, concern for social justice, etc.
I think the reason that it is more imperative for the Democrats to win the South than for the GOP to win the Northeast is that the GOP has had a better record with their southern strategy than the Dems have had with their northeast strategy. If the Dems had won more elections recently than their would be talk of how the GOP needs to change to attract Northeast and California voters.
The problem with nominating candidates that attract voters in the other party’s base is that the primary voters who choose the nominees are much more idealogical than the voters who choose the President. This insures that candidates who differ from their party on major issues never get nominated. The ideal candidate is one that is ideologically acceptable by your base but geographically or personality-wise appealing to your opponents base. Example of this are Reagan and Clinton.
The last time a man of either party won the presidency without winning one of the 11 Confederate states was 1924.
Democrats have not been very competitive in the South. The decline started after 1944 and has gotten even worse after the Civil Rights Act. Carter did win primarily from the Southern and Border States. Clinton carried only four Southern States in each of his elections.
Florida is perhaps their best chance. In a decade or two, Texas may be good for the Democrats once again, the recent growth in Hispanic population there has been quite high, a favorable sign for the Democrats, with some demographic projections saying Hispanics may someday reach an absolute majority in the state.
Scott, one major problem you may be having is your apparent misconception of the South as a monolithic entity comprised of Jesse Helms clones.
Actually, there is an old and strong tradition of “Southern progressivism” in which a strong pro-military stance and fiscal conservatism is combined with a pro-human-rights view (for many years muted by the need to win votes from the unreconstructed rednecks that admittedly are around in some numbers) and a tendency for social justice within the framework of existing institutions. Looking at capsule biographies of Claude Pepper, John Sparkman, Millard Tydings, LBJ, Sam Rayburn, and above all Hugo Black might clue you in to a more reasoned view of the South’s political past.
Even today, Southern Democrats are largely liberal, with the GOP appealing to the conservatives, whether enlightened or benighted.
Clinton ran on a strong human rights/social justice stance combined with a call for fiscal conservatism (a point his detractors and supporters alike seem to miss).
Looking carefully at regional results not only in Congressional races but also state and local ones gives a quite different picture from the “region slightly to the right of Attila the Hun” that I know is common in parts of the Northeast.
