We certainly try to make inroads there, though, without trying to twist ourselves into something different. Just because the GOP only gets less than 10% of the black vote doesn't mean they've given up trying to make that into 15% or 20%. We should do the same with the Southern white vote. Meaning, we should be out there organizing and stumping, even among groups we think of as hostile to our interests. Most voters aren't monoliths, even if they prefer one side to another. We're fools if we just let an entire group hear only one side of the argument.
Meaning, we should be out there organizing and stumping, even among groups we think of as hostile to our interests. Most voters aren't monoliths, even if they prefer one side to another. We're fools if we just let an entire group hear only one side of the argument.
Certainly. Walking away from any group of voters is stupid -- I'm just finding the notion that changes in the party to appeal to Southern whites may not be worth it appealing. Put the party we've got, with the paycheck issues that should work for them, out there. If it works, it works, if it doesn't, they aren't the only constituency out there.
Just because the GOP only gets less than 10% of the black vote doesn't mean they've given up trying to make that into 15% or 20%.
This overstates it, I think. Attempts to gain black voters are really efforts to convince white women that the Republican Party is not quite the moral desert it used to be. I don't think Republicans expect a very large percentage of black votes. And they shouldn't: at one point, support for Bush among African-Americans was down to 2%.
I think you're right about that intent, Tim, but that doesn't mean that Republicans aren't banking that, for example, Michael Steele will pull some black voters over to their side. I think they're targeting every constituency out there.
I'm just finding the notion that changes in the party to appeal to Southern whites may not be worth it appealing.
This is really the issue. How many retarded black criminals do we have to kill to win the South, and are we willing to do it? If we're not willing to do it, then we should look to build an enduring base elsewhere. We should still go after Southern voters; but it should be from a different base.
I think this is the big, not-much-discussed, issue in the air, and will be for several elections. OTOH, I thought the Mavs woujld win.
I think folks consistently overestimate the homogeneity of Southern whites. In NC, for example, the Democrats control both houses of the legislature, the governorship, and most of the elected excutive branch offices, as well as most of the mayorships and city councils.
The state party is active, strong, and not particularly conservative. The recent GOP dominance here in federal elections (Senate and president) has to do, I think, with specific candidates, not the party platform. My gut feeling is that John Edwards would make serious inroads in the South, not due to conservative positions, but just by being able to talk to southerners without sounding condescending - a skill that Kerry and Dean were sorely lacking.
Depending on the cycle and the office, southern whites vote between 60 and 80 percent Republican,
I'm reacting to stats like this. The impression I have is not precisely that Southern whites are monolithic, but that there's a core group of conservative Southern whites that are what people refer to as 'the South', and that they aren't likely to be moved by much we're going to say.
being able to talk to southerners without sounding condescending - a skill that Kerry and Dean were sorely lacking.
What did Kerry say that was a problem? I figure you're talking about Dean's 'Confederate bumper sticker' comment, which I can see could be annoyng, although I thought it was well meant. But I missed (I mean, really missed. It's not something I notice spontaneously) Kerry's condecension.
Seconding apo; the purple map that was running around after the elections indicated that the South isn't really a lost cause.
But there does seem to be an attitude problem; it's not like the South is from another planet and this 'look sweetie, here be wild Baptists' sense from the Democrats rubs me the wrong way and I voted for Kerry. Maybe it was just Kerry's handlers.
I'm not saying that we need to put up commandments in Courthouses or become pro-life -- makes you a shitty opposition party if you don't oppose anything -- but there's a lot more common ground. Even Kansas has Democratic governor (and a woman, I think.)
Maybe we need more young Southerners in the think tank.
Some of it is. The Deep South, with the exception of Florida and probably Louisiana, isn't going Democratic any time soon. But NC, VA, and WV are totally winnable, Florida is always in play, and if the GOP really wants to use immigration as a wedge issue, I don't think they can put Texas safely in the bank either. Non-Hispanic whites are now less than 50% of the population of Texas.
Disagree entirely. And really, really, really disagree with this: we need more young Southerners in the think tank. The DLC was explicitly founded as a pro-Southern Democrat organization. The DLC is vastly overrepresented in the upper management of the Democratic Party. They don't need our help to fuck us harder.
It isn't what they say, it's how they say it. I'm not sure I can explain it in words, really. Kinda like knowing obscenity when you see it. But when Kerry started steamrolling toward the nomination, I buried my head in my hands.
Take a look at guys like Brian Schweitzer, governor of Montana. If the Dems kicked gun contol to the curb and showed some spine in general, we'd take a lot of votes in the West and Midwest. Kerry was a total douche, and barely lost Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, New Mexico, etc.
It's not a factor of him actually being condescending, it's a factor of him looking like a condescending-type person, thus leading the media to pretend that he is condescending.
But there does seem to be an attitude problem; it's not like the South is from another planet and this 'look sweetie, here be wild Baptists' sense from the Democrats rubs me the wrong way and I voted for Kerry. Maybe it was just Kerry's handlers.
See, I think this feeling comes from awkward attempts to appeal to the class of Southern conservatives that we don't have a shot with, anyway (e.g., Dean's "Confederate bumperstickers" comment was an attempt to say that we can appeal to even the weirdest of the weird, out there in Deliverance territory, on paycheck issues. While that may be, in principle, true, identifying 'the South' with alien Confederate bumpersticker wielding beings isn't going to make anyone happy.) I think we're better off with less attention to the cultural issues -- let them slide and concentrate on the paycheck stuff.
But we don't need Alabama to win -- Florida (is Florida South? I mentally classify it as a mid-Atlantic state that got lost) would do it. West Virginia isn't that Southern. Redneckish, yes, but redneckish can vote Democrat.
13: You're far more in tune with the gun community than I am, but haven't national level Democrats kicked gun control to the curb? I suppose I haven't heard about many of them favoring the reversal of existing gun control measures, but besides that what have they done lately?
Comment 14 also serves as a response to claims that Kerry is a "total douche".
Basically, the media decides who wins these elections, based entirely on cliched stereotypes of the candidates' personalities. The Republicans are better at identifying aspects of their opponents that can be caricatured in a negative way.
It seems they largely have. But that's not really enough. A lot of the gun crowd are convinced if Dem's re-take Congress, we'll see new stuff on them from that front. It's not enough to just go quiet on it. It would work wonders to have a few high profile Dems actually be one of that crowd the way Schweitzer is. Hackett was great for this stuff. I wish we still had him as a candidate.
See, the Confederate bumper-sticker thing is why I said more Southern Democratic involvement. The last election really felt in places like a bunch of kids from the Northeast were asked to reach out to the South and they said, hmm, I used to watch Dukes of Hazzard and I heard something about Jeebus, so let's slap it on and hope no one notices. Like they've studied it like a foreign country in a classroom and are making nearly ethnocentric pronouncements: "The Southern Man, in his natural habit, was observed to watch NASCAR."
Immigration, the economy, family-friendly (i.e. 'real pro-life') policies. I'm not sure about the likelihood of sounding convincing on the War on Terror®, but Murtha's surviving and he's in a relatively conservative area.
I'm pretty much with Ned on Kerry. Saying he was personally unappealing? Eh, sure, we should work on finding personally appealing candidates. But I can't see any profit in substantively worrying about a candidate's bad attitude relating to something specific, unless they're actually saying or doing something identifiable in that regard.
(That is, apo, I'm wondering if you meant "Kerry was condescending toward the South" or something more like "Southerners tend to think guys like Kerry are assholes", if you see what I mean.)
Kerry is a good senator. But what we needed was a populist. The Swift Boat repsonse illustrated why Kerry lost. For way too long he was above the fray, like he was too good to hit back.
That's a really important distinction, because addressing one problem just makes the other worse. If it's about respect and attention, you pay attention and talk about Southern stuff respectfully, whatever. If it's about the fact that Southern voters are going to dislike someone who seems alien to them, they're just going to dislike him more the more respectful and attentive he is.
. My gut feeling is that John Edwards would make serious inroads in the South, not due to conservative positions, but just by being able to talk to southerners without sounding condescending
Is this really true? And if so, is there something he's doing that we can distill and give to some other politician who doesn't annoy the fuck out of me?
they're just going to dislike him more the more respectful and attentive he is
Here's the key: quit nominating candidates who seem like the kid the teacher would pick to take down names of misbehavers while she went to the bathroom (see: Clinton, Hillary).
Why do you hate John Edwards so much, j/m? I love him forever because of his devotion to fighting poverty. Which probably won't win him that many votes, but is a vital contribution to our political conversation.
It'd be interesting to work on pinning down the 'snooty Northeasterners just piss us off' factor. I get it about Kerry, even though I like people like Kerry. Outside of the bumperstickers line, though, I was surprised that Dean impresses people the same way - he comes off to me as open and uncalculated, which I would have thought was the issue.
The Democrats have a multitude of ways in which they could do better, and I think that their weakness in the South is not a fruitful one to focus on. There are reasons why Republicans can't win California and New York, and there are reasons why Democrats can't win Alabama and Mississippi, and these reasons reflect well on the Democrats and badly on the Republicans.
Southern voting poatterns look better than they really are, because the black vote is Democratic. You have two hostile groups, and almost all of each group (at least in AL and MS) votes against the other groups. It's not like the MS Democratic vote is something that can be built on.
That's my official statement. My personal statement is that I'm a Yankee the way a lot of Southerners are Rebs, and I have no interest in learning to respect the cultural heritage handed down by William Clarke Quantrill and Nathan Bedford Forrest.
Any effort to court the South can and will be spun by the GOP to our detriment through the suburbs. Howard Dean was exactly right when he said that good ol' boys should be voting Democratic, but that's not something you can tell to good ol' boys. The fact that the South votes the politics of personality makes it very hard for Democrats to win, Kerry or not—if the GOP will tar and feather Max Cleland, there's just no candidate we can send.
I think there's a lot of merit to Ryan Sager's Atlantic short on the interior West as an emerging Democratic bloc; the Party ought to focus its outreach there in order to pick up the majority, and then either win over the South by example or contain them as a politically unified but neutered voting bloc. It's a painful prescription because I think the nation really must deal with the issues affecting the South, but it's also irritating and even sickening to cater to a region that has an expressed disinterest in dealing with its problems. (Sorry, Texas.)
I think folks consistently overestimate the homogeneity of Southern whites.
I'm going to agree with the hero, here. I think there's not a lot of clear thought or careful analysis of what built and sustains the Southern Republican party. We tend to think it's race. This is not wrong, but it's not right enough: race was the big factor in getting Southern whites to vote for Republicans for President. But before they did that, they started voting for Republicans for Congress. And which ones of them did that? The richer ones. The Southern Congressional Republican party was born when the South stopped being economically backward.
Which suggests that the Southern white Republican monolith is vulnerable to fission on economic issues, at least at the Congressional level.
Here's the key: quit nominating candidates who seem like the kid the teacher would pick to take down names of misbehavers while she went to the bathroom (see: Clinton, Hillary).
YES. One of the best takes on this theme is by the mighty Kung Fu Monkey.
I don't buy that SCMT's apparently rather heart-felt position that we're a different species, but I will buy that we're not like anywhere else. (The obvious question: who is?)
Kerry could have walked out at the DNC flanked by Andy Griffith and Daisy Duke and still lost in the South because when he opens his mouth we can't hear him for all the snoring. He simply does not pass the test of 'Does he seem like a guy I'd tell a dirty joke?' Politicians down here either get elected for being so self-righteous they radiate an aura of holier-than-thou that their supporters can get inside or for being so much fun at parties that we can't help but like them.
I love him forever because of his devotion to fighting poverty.
Y'all might think this is unfair, but the people I know who were affected by Katrina and the NOLA expats have lost a lot of love for Edwards, including myself. If he's all about poverty, where the hell was he?
I didn't realize his absence was notable. He's just a private citizen now, after all. He probably just didn't want to appear to be using the disaster to further his own presidential ambitions.
I haven't seen enough of Warner to have any opinion about him one way or the other.
because the black vote is Democratic.
I've said this before, but a black vote counts the same as a white vote. That isn't a meaningful observation. Alabama and Mississippi aren't pick-up targets, and aren't very representative of the rest of the South, any more than Utah and Idaho are representative of the West. I wholeheartedly agree that any effort spent on them is wasted.
William Clarke Quantrill and Nathan Bedford Forrest
Nobody's suggesting appealing to that demographic, John, which is why Southern progressives groaned in unison when Dean made that incredibly tin-eared Confederate flag statement.
I agree that he's been effective at making poverty a topic of political debate, Joe. It's hard to say whether my visceral distrust of him is genuine or the result of bad press, but... that said, I do find him superficial on every other issue, and, well, smarmy. As VP candidate, he was packaged to present the sunny, optimistic vision, and I wasn't feeling so sunny those days (or these days), so maybe that's the misfit. A lot of people I think generally sensible seem to like him, though.
46 & 48 - Again, not saying it's fair or that most of the nation picked up on it but to the people I know down there, his absence seemed very notable since he's the only politician really focusing on poverty. And as far as furthering his own ambitions, I'm not talking about speaking out about it after it happened. I'm talking about in the days before the storm when people (and the weather service) were trying to warn about how poor people were going to be stranded and unable to get out of the city. If he'd called more attention to that, I don't think people would have held it against him. In fact, I think he could be the frontrunner right now.
And I know a bunch of you are going to say "who could have known?" and I really wish I could point you to the pre-Katrina posts that were written on my other-other blog by the people who were in NOLA. They all knew the poor people were screwed and were really upset about it. They just didn't predict they were going to be *that* screwed because FEMA was being run by a bunch of idiots.
And that same attitude is appearing in this thread as well.
Yeah, that's probably me. Truly and sincerely sorry about that, Apo. I don't know what that's worth, as I keep doing it. It should be noted that most of the important and good Dem heroes (or should be heroes) of the last 40 years are, to my mind, Southern. But also, I don't think that sort of a claim is entirely wrong. It often feels like there is an alternate history of America located in the South ("Civil War" vs. "War of Northern Aggression," etc.).
I'm struggling to think of W. Virginia as Southern. Is it generally considered so?
He founded an antipoverty center and has been speaking across the country nonstop on poverty issues.
Hey, I think centers are nice. And speaking is nice. But I would have been a lot more impressed if he had run for office again. I mean, you know what Sam Ervin (D, South) said about "the best and the brightest"---"I'd feel a whole lot better about them if just one of them had run for sheriff once."
As what, slol? It's been less than two years since he was nominated to be Vice President. Where should he run? Which office? Should he challenge another Dem in a primary?
My serious, non-bigoted objection to going for Southern votes is that all the substantive things we'd have to do in order to do that seem to be bad. Race aside, the South tends to be anti-union, anti-abortion, anti-gay, militaristic in a way I can't support, and Christianist in a way I can't support.
On top of that, the "The South will never vote for an Easterner" argument sounds like I'm being asked to suppress my own prejudices while allowing Southerners to wallow in theirs.
The cards are stacked against the Democrats for various reasons, and it's inevitable that they'll have to try to appeal more to the rural voters away from the coasts. And some of the things that you'd have to do to do that are the same as the things you'd have to do to appeal to "The South".
But very few of the Southern states seem like good targets. Florida is not very Southern, and Virginia's demographics are changing, and maybe some of the border states are good prospects. But putting "compete in the South" at the top of the Democratic to-do list seems very ill-advised.
is the other other blog off limits to Mineshaft denizens
Yes, it's just friends from college.
57 - You will probably continue to be baffled. I'm not saying I can make a coherant argument about it. It's an emotional/gut reaction that can't be justified by the facts. But it's still there. However, like apo said, it could probably be overcome if someone finally did something to help NOLA out.
I'm gonna disagree here, too. (What do I know, you ask? Nothing, but I'm not under oath or getting paid, here.) I think these free-floating celebrities are worthless. What the Democrats need is what they used to have, and maybe in some places still do---a machine. You gotta have Daleys, you gotta have Lyndon Johnsons---the guys who are organization men, who can, and have, delivered. You can't just parachute in and make everyone swoon.
I like Edwards a lot. I think it is good idea to nominate white southern candidates because they tend to come across well to voters. But, the sight of college-educated white southerners whining like babies because somebody doesn't like NASCAR drives me nuts.
I'd love that. We don't have it. Should we bow out of the presidential race until we build up a real machine again?
This discussion is completely unattached to reality, anyway, since the nominee is going to be Hillary Clinton. For the reasons Joe Trippi has described.
As what, slol? It's been less than two years since he was nominated to be Vice President. Where should he run? Which office? Should he challenge another Dem in a primary?
I admit, like I said before, I know nothing. But let's say, North Carolina must have some elections going between 2004 and 2008. And I'm gonna say, too, that if the Democratic Party were worth a tinker's damn, it would make sure that one of those offices, maybe a nice Congressional seat, were made available to Edwards to win. I mean, seriously. People have to be in business, don't they?
You have simply got to be kidding me. A party that would nominate her for President has to be living in a secure location, far from the people of this country. I live in a deep blue county in a deep blue state, and have heard more than one deep blue person say in a deep blue way that they'd vote for John McCain first.
Race aside, the South tends to be anti-union, anti-abortion, anti-gay, militaristic in a way I can't support, and Christianist in a way I can't support.
Republicans in the South tend to be those things.
very few of the Southern states seem like good targets. Florida is not very Southern, and Virginia's demographics are changing, and maybe some of the border states are good prospects
Florida is Southern. Virginia is Southern. Those two states alone account for 40 EC votes. I think you mistakenly equate southern with racist and reactionary. We have those people here, but they hardly define the region.
It's very complicated and unrelated to this topic (or maybe not), but a lot of that crap is basically made up by people who have never lived here and what of it is true is largely a reflexive self-defense action on the part of Southerners who cannot come to grips with the familial shame of having been so very wrong and having been beaten. There is no one in my very large, entirely Southern family, including real honest-to-gods members of Daughters of the Confederacy and an uncle who does in fact have Confederate flag stickers on his truck and a wife who is humiliated by them, I repeat, no one who calls it 'The War of Northern Aggression.' Well, no one currently alive, anyway.
And just as I have relatives with memberships to DotC and rebel flag stickers on their cars, I have relatives who raised me on stern talks about how what The South did was terrible but what We did was the best we could do at the time (I had ancestors involved in the Underground Railroad, if their children and grandchildren are to be believed - but that, too, might be a reflexive self-defense, an unverifiable fiction told to assuage familial guilt).
Also, it might help to dispose of any notions you might have that we walk to work barefoot on gravel roads while wearing stained overalls. My overalls are quite clean, thank you.
On top of that, the "The South will never vote for an Easterner" argument sounds like I'm being asked to suppress my own prejudices while allowing Southerners to wallow in theirs.
There's just no realistic way for what you describe to happen. Should he move to another district? He'd be tarred as a carpetbagger and probably lose.
People can take some time away from public office and run again. It happens all the time. And he may have the advantage of seeming fresh again when he enters the presidential race in earnest. He built a fantastic ground operation in Iowa, and his people are still loyal to him there. If he wins there or takes a close second, he's definitely in the game.
Before Hillary walks away with 80% of the black vote in the big primaries, I mean.
68: Senate seats don't come up until 2008 and 2010. Governor's seat doesn't open until 2008. If he ran for the House, it would have to be (because of where he lives) in my district, against a popular 9-term incumbent Democrat.
Ethnically, Florida is only about half white Southern. The reason it's hopeful is because of Northern immigrants, and to a degree, Hispanics (they say that the youngest Cuban generation is less Republican).
And the whole South is and always has been anti-union. The laws, public opinion, everything.
I shouldn't lump people, but as far as I can tell the South is dominated by the people I'm talking about, and the other 30-40% down there are out of luck and always in the minority.
I was bitching somewhere about the CCC (genteel version of the KKK) and the way Republican politicians suck up to them, and the person I was arguing with pointed out that the Democratic politicans down there suck up to them too. If it's possible to win in the South after telling the CCC to go fuck themselves, then I'll revise my opinion of the place.
71 -- I think he wasn't allowed to run on both tickets.
69 -- slol, Hillary is going to be the nominee. I'm sorry, but she is. Outrageous fundraising plus Bill Clinton stumping for her in African American communities plus all the top tier operatives make her nearly impossible to beat. We don't have a national primary. She'll win in state by state, just like John Kerry did.
I recognize this is a purely academic discussion here, because it posits the Democratic Party I want, not the one we have, but people have been known to move districts to win seats, and parties have been known to edge people aside to prefer the promising candidates.
I think you mistakenly equate southern with racist and reactionary. We have those people here, but they hardly define the region.
This is exactly it. What's going on is that there is a 'racist and reactionary' voting bloc in the south, which is big enough to swing the white southern vote hard Republican (say, 20% of southern whites vote as a Republican bloc for these sorts of cultural reasons, the rest split 50-50 like the rest of the country, and that shows up as a 60% R slant).
Democrats do have a problem with white southern voters, and it is because there are white southern voters who are racist and reactionary, but that doesn't mean either that all or most white southern voters are racist reactionaries, nor that appealing to the racist reactionary vote is either possible or a good idea. We just need to work harder on the other 80% -- forget all the cultural pandering and stick to the paycheck issues.
I'll almost certainly end up working on someone else's campaign.
Okay, now we're talking. Who? How will you outflank Hillary?
I think it can be done, you know. And I know you know more than I do, and I don't want to poke at a sore spot, but, uh, the presumptive frontrunner blew up last time.
The presumptive frontrunner at the beginning of 2003 was John Kerry. Howard Dean mounted a take-no-prisoners insurgent campaign, but didn't have the most experienced staff, and had virtually the entire "national" party against him. He shouldn't have been the nominee; he would have been far worse than John Kerry.
I'll try to work for Al Gore if he runs, because I think he's the only one who can beat Hillary. I'll work for Edwards otherwise, because he's the most focused on my issue, and because he's a terrific candidate (resume aside) and I think he's a true believer.
What'll I do to outflank Hillary? Uh, I don't know. Write some good stuff? I'm not going to be anyone's campaign manager.
I would think a lot will come down to "who will drop out when." Gore has a lot of voters dedicated to him, they've voted for him before and hopefully they will again. Besides New Yorkers, no one has ever voted for Hillary before. And I think we could be swayed. So if Warner and Hillary split the centrist Democrats, and Feingold isn't out there stealing Gore votes, that would be a good scenario.
90: How confident was he (I don't know the answer) that N.C.'s governor would be a Democrat?
I just feel compelled to say, I would vote for almost any non-criminal Democrat ahead of Hillary. "Almost" means not Joe Lieberman. Joe Biden, I'm on the fence.
[In addition to Bob Barr of Georgia], "other prominent mainstream political figures have attended meetings or addressed the group, including past Alabama Governor Guy Hunt, United States Representative Mel Hancock, Alabama Public Service Commissioner George C. Wallace, Jr., Tennessee G.O.P. National Committeewoman Alice Algood, South Carolina G.O.P. National Committeeman Buddy Witherspoon, former Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Jim Johnson..."
In 1999 the House Republicans squelched a resolution condemning the CCC bigotry (which was paired with a successful resolution condemning Khalid Mohammed.)
Here's my formula for Selecting a Democrat who can win enough Southern votes to tip a Southern state or two into our column.
1. Choose someone who is not a Senator.
2. Choose someone who is not dull as dishwater.
3. Choose someone who actually stands for something, regardless of whether anyone thinks it will play well in the South.
The candidate who seems to me to best fit this description would be Gore, depending on whether he runs afoul of #2 above.
But whoever the nominee is, don't waste any time trying to appeal to Southern voters. Any conscious attempts by any candidate to "win over" Southern votes will be seen by voters as the insincere gestures they actually are, so don't go there. Let them like you or hate you for who you are, dammit.
51:Well, my infamous imperialist war-mongering strategy is intended to appeal to that demographic, or at least the Romantic Chivalrous portion of it. Kinda "We send them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." You have to get them young, before they become chickenhawks or warbloggers, and I swear, they might volunteer for self ethnic-cleansing. Yes, I realize this is profoundly immoral, but that has never stopped me before.
74: Precisely my point. It's all so muddled now, and so long ago, that none of our stories about it are trustworthy after several generations have had the chance to spin it. As such, BS about people down here calling it TWoNA isn't exactly the best lens to use when viewing us from the outside, either, as it relies on precisely those fictions. That those stories are spun at all is itself an indicator of changing times and people trying to incorporate those changes into their own lives. My grandparents voted for Adlai Stevenson. Twice. I mean, Jesus. If people want to think we're all a certain way, or so overwhelmingly a certain way that we're a lost cause, go ahead. But that idea is not rooted in the reality of the place where I grew up.
I think LB's point to just toss trying to pander to the minority of freakjobs and working the common-ground paycheck issues is a good idea, for reasons that include that it ignores a bunch of the gunk that's built up around people's notions of the South.
72: It's very complicated and unrelated to this topic (or maybe not), but a lot of that crap is basically made up by people who have never lived here
This is pure crap. I've had close African-American friends from the South indicate that everything is not quite hunky-dory at home. Now, it may be that they're just less comfortable with your uncle who does in fact have Confederate flag stickers on his truck, and they should just get over it. I've close minority friends who've moved to the area report similar things. Again, maybe they just need to get over it. I personally have never heard the n-word used as freely as in Texas. It certainly wasn't everybody, or even the majority. It makes me nervous when I see Jason Zengerle at TNR defend the Confederate flag. Maybe I should just get over it. But this isn't coming from nowhere.
might help to dispose of any notions you might have that we walk to work barefoot on gravel roads while wearing stained overalls
I don't think I've said anything like that. And I used to be a huge fan of the Southern Dems. I thought that they were the saviors of the Democratic Party, and were indeed the people who kept me in the Democratic Party. I absolutely wanted a Southern presidential candidate as often as possible. This was back when I was a huge fan of the DLC, which is, after all, the primary voice of the South in the national Dem Party. I'm not a very big fan of the DLC at the moment--they've been crap on the three issues that bother me most, civil rights, civil liberties, and the war in Iraq--and by proxy, I'm not very big fan of the South at the moment.
I've let my anger overrun my good sense on this issue, both now and before; for that I apologize. I absolutely think we should be able to pick up TN and AK, and it hurts me physically that we don't have NC. But the South isn't a made up, fictitious category. There does appear to be at least the something of a regional culture there (as there is in the East and the West), and it's not the least bit unreasonable to wonder what we have to do to win in that culture, and how it compares to what we have to do elsewhere. Pretending it's just "framing the issue" better is laughable. What I want to know is what we have to trade to win in the South. Maybe it's worth it. But we sure as hell don't seem to know what to offer right now.
My grandparents voted for Adlai Stevenson. Twice. I mean, Jesus.
In fairness to the Southern critics here, that's exactly predictable. Stevenson ran away from the Truman administration's baby steps toward Civil Rights about as fast as he could. I mean, it only made electoral sense; he saw how close the last election was and knew he had to woo the white South if, as a moderate and rather boring Democrat, he could beat the popular war candidate/President. Oh wait, is this where I came in?
How confident was he (I don't know the answer) that N.C.'s governor would be a Democrat?
Very.
However, running for VP and Senate at the same time isn't a very classy way to act. Hedging your bets in public like that? I was glad he didn't do it. The guy who ran in his place lost the election with more votes than Edwards got when he won it, anyway.
How confident was he (I don't know the answer) that N.C.'s governor would be a Democrat?
Completely. Easley was running for his second term, was never seriously challenged, and coasted to an easy win. We've only had 2 GOP governors since Reconstruction.
That's the bottom line. All the specific things we need to do to win white Southern votes are apparently things I disagree with. I'm willing to bend on gun control and maybe a few small issues, but basically it's pretty zero-sum, me against them.
It's not ike saying nice things about Southern gothic fiction, magnolias, hushpuppies, juleps, verandahs, cotillions, and the rest of Southern culture would really help very much. Or NASCAR and Krispie Kreem either.
107- So we push the stuff we do agree with, aim at those Southerners we have a shot at, like the people apo and Pants know, and maybe lose in the South anyway because of the conservative bloc voters. I think you're right that we can't, and shouldn't try to, appeal to that conservative bloc, but I think apo and Pants are right that it's not the whole white South.
However, running for VP and Senate at the same time isn't a very classy way to act. Hedging your bets in public like that? I was glad he didn't do it. The guy who ran in his place lost the election with more votes than Edwards got when he won it, anyway.
Unless campaigning for N.C. senator would have predictably hurt their shot at the presidency or Edwards had no better chance of winning then the Dem who lost, I value a seat in the Senate more than I disvalue being declasse.
102: And I don't recall having stated that there's no racism, or that things are "hunky-dory." I was referring to your "The War of Northern Aggression" jab. My comment that I have such an uncle was not intended to be an endorsement, or a statement that you or your friends or anyone should get over it. I'm merely stating that we're more of a mixed bag than you seem to think. But hey, WTF do I know? I just live here.
How about I just shut up about this? Despite my frequent comments, I'm having a pretty busy day at work. I should focus my attention there and let my blood pressure go back down.
1973-1977 and 1985-1993, specifically. As I said upthread, the Dems have remained solidly in charge on the state level here in NC, and certainly not by virtue of appealing to racism, Confederate heritage, or being right-wing. You don't have to appease the Dukes of Hazzard set to win down here, which is what many of you seem to be suggesting.
And Tim, blacks will tell you things aren't hunky-dory all over the country. If you'd like to discuss race relations in LA or NYC, we can certainly do that.
102:"What I want to know is what we have to trade to win in the South. Maybe it's worth it. But we sure as hell don't seem to know what to offer right now."
Umm. Since I oppose the Walmartization of America and the re-enslavement of women I have done my own personal triage. Here is a TAPPED thread: Should MY join the Army
If Democrats move toward a compulsary volunteerism many Nawkers will choose the Peace Corps and Vista and the Southern good ole boys will choose to swing their dicks. Democrats, if in power, could make sure the dicks hit nothing fragile.
I'm still worried about the visceral argument because I don't think people vote on issues as much as they vote for whether they like the guy. Most of my family are conservatives, to the extent that I've heard it said that John McCain is too liberal, but some of them did vote for Jimmy Carter twice. But I don't think they'd vote for a Democratic candidate now, because they don't feel like 'The Democrats' like or respect them.
It's not just the south--it's the west, too. Except for the coastal states, the west has been voting pretty Republican, and the only reason the coastal states aren't swinging that way is because of the cities. And I do think it's basically what Apo is saying: the Dems need to just nominate someone whose *affect* doesn't scream "privileged few." (I personally don't agree that Hillary comes across that way, but I'm not getting into that argument again.)
And we need to trap the R. candidates in more of those "ooh, look, they can scan prices nowadays! Well, who knew?" moments.
But I don't think they'd vote for a Democratic candidate now, because they don't feel like 'The Democrats' like or respect them.
Here, I think we make a profit on stopping the tin-eared cultural appeals. I don't know what to do about Southern prejudice against Northerners other than running Southern candidates, but when we don't have a Southern candidate, I think the cultural appeals are counterproductive because they look like Orientalism: "Yes, my exotic Southern flower, I will woo you by visibly eating ham hocks and greens!"
I don't think people vote on issues as much as they vote for whether they like the guy.
This is a more succinct version of what I'm trying to say. Winning in the South doesn't require changing the Democratic platform. It requires putting up decent candidates. Here's the lineup for the past 20 years:
Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry.
Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry were just hapless candidates. Gore actually won Florida (and the election), had it been counted properly, but his failure to pick up any other southern states remains a bit baffling to me. Clinton, on the other hand, won several southern states, not because he was a southerner, but because he came off as a fairly regular guy in spite of pretty much always being the smartest guy in the room.
I wonder why likeability, then, is such a regional issue? I'm serious when I say that I thought Kerry was personally appealing -- oh, he's a big stiff dork, but so are lots of people I like a great deal.
This is a good set of instructions, with a problem:
1. Choose someone who is not a Senator.
I agree.
2. Choose someone who is not dull as dishwater.
Whether someone appears to be dull as dishwater depends 100% on media coverage. Kerry has led an incredibly interesting life, but that doesn't matter.
3. Choose someone who actually stands for something, regardless of whether anyone thinks it will play well in the South.
This is more like 50% dependent on media coverage and 50% dependent on a candidate's choice of what to emphasize. Obviously every candidate stands for lots of things, good or bad, but the only way to get credit for it is to stand for only one thing, all the time, downplay all your other positions to ensure that your preferred message gets to literally everyone in the same way (to prevent people from being confused), and hope that the media doesn't pretend that you stand for nothing.
The most disturbing thing I've read on this thread is Joe D's conviction that Hillary has a big edge. I know we here are not typical of anything but ourselves, but we do represent quite a bit of geographical and age diversity, are reasonably mixed in gender, and are not all that far left as a rule. There ought to be more enthusiasm for Hillary among us than there is if her candidacy were a promising one.
I will vote for her if she is the nominee, as I've said before, but it would be stretching it to say her support here is even lukewarm. And this feeling exactly mirrors the opinion of my RL friends and acquaintances; it isn't limited to this space or this habit.
Clinton, on the other hand, won several southern states, not because he was a southerner, but because he came off as a fairly regular guy in spite of pretty much always being the smartest guy in the room.
This is predominantly because the Republicans made the mistake of mocking his Bubba-like attributes instead of mocking his Rhodes-Scholar-like attributes. That won't happen again.
As you can tell, I think that the subtle implications underlying media coverage pretty much determines almost everybody's opinions about everything. Most people don't have any opinions about a given issue at any time when it's not the #1 story in the news, and most people know virtually nothing about any issue ever. That means that in order for them to have an opinion about it when an opinion (or vote) seems to be necessary, they have to pick up on what the conventional wisdom is among sources they trust.
In other words, framing is much more important than anything else.
121: It's not that likeability is a regional issue: it's that what counts as likeable changes regionally. In the northeast, Kerry's big stiff dork thing is *fine*--as you say, "so are a lot of people I like." In the south and the west, that doesn't wash. What's wanted is someone who doesn't sound snooty, i.e., someone who can cross class lines. It's okay to be smart as shit, you just have to not use twenty dollar words all the time.
The "stiffness" issue is a problem because to a lot of folks, being stiff reads as "I'm uncomfortable around you." You need someone who looks like they're not above eating barbeque and licking their fingers, who seems like they can deal with a li'l bit of friendly shit-giving. Someone who looks good in jeans and a t-shirt.
It's like the way that Clinton was about the only white public figure who has *ever* not looked like a fish out of water in a black church--that kind of thing matters a lot. If we can get someone who is comfortable in their own skin, it'll make a ton of difference.
God, y'all. It's hard enough being a liberal in the South. You aren't making it any easier by defaming my region and painting me with the same brush as Nathan Bedford Forrest. You have got to be kidding me. Nathan Godamned Bedford Forrest!?! Jesus fucking Christ. That man is dead. That legacy is dead. No one here speaks of Forrest with reverence. No one calls it the "War of Northern Aggression." Seriously. Do you think the entire region is stuck in a time warp? Most kids here can't even tell you where the Mason-Dixon line is (or was).
(We still drink lemonade out of mason jars, but that's just practical recycling, though I'm sure we'll never get any progressive credit for it.)
Anyhow, in case it's not yet clear, I am one pro-choice, anti-war, pro-religious-tolerance, pro-gay-marriage Southerner. I may be a minority, but I am not alone. There are Southern pagans, Southern lesbians, and Southern peaceniks too.
The way to reach Southerners is not by calling them all stupid racists. It's by appealing to people like me and the people we already know at the places we congregate. There are progressive institutions in the South. I work for one of them--a science museum. Environmental issues, for example, rule here. The South is a region of great natural beauty, and no one wants to lose that.
And for the record, I, for one, have never heard anyone say "The South will never vote for an Easterner" until I read it here. I did, however, learn the phrase "Yellow Dog Democrat" here.
P.S. It's "Krispy Kreme," not Kreem, and they're delicious. Can we all at least agree on that?
P.P.S. LB said "I think the cultural appeals are counterproductive because they look like Orientalism: "Yes, my exotic Southern flower, I will woo you by visibly eating ham hocks and greens!"
Agreed, and please chew with your mouth closed.
P.P.P.S. I've calmed down now and reconsidered posting this about 800 times. I know, I know, "we're all on the same side here." But when you grow up hearing those jokes--you know the ones, where the stupid rednecks are marrying their cousins in Teh South--it might make you a little sensitive to stereotypes.
I will agree that the Democrats should nominate better campaigners. I just don't think that the problems with the South can be solved that way. Or the kind of things BPhd was talking about.
I remember the Cleland defeat in Georgia. He lost, either because Georgians believe that he was weak on defense, or because he voted in favor of unionizing Homeland Security employees. He was "too liberal" for Georgia.
I don't see that there's going to be a way to campaign in Georgia if Cleland was too liberal fior them. I've had Georgia Democrats tell me that Cleland was too liberal. But as far as I know, he wasn't very liberal, if he was liberal at all.
I'll tone it down, but it does seem that realistically there's a big chunk of territory down there that's just hopeless. And whatever nice OK people there are living down there should not be blamed for what the others are doing, but that Cleland election really looked bad.
And it's the talk about Southerners' hurt feelings about condescension etc. that piss me off. Southerners now run the country, and I have strong feelings about that. If they hadn't elected Jesse Helms and Strong Thurmond all those tiumes, my feelings would be different.
117:Trying to think, I know his French is good, does he speak Spanish? We need a million border guards. And I said a while ago, I would so much rather have Ezra and MY in Haditha than the battle-hardened professional cliqueish exhausted Marines that were actually there.
This is a huge, well-considered, and probably hopeless idea of mine. I will give one last extended point and go away.
I was trying to do the calculations last night on the cost of an Army division and ten fighter-bombers. I think, amortizing the initial expense of the planes, very close. Which is the more versatile weapon, which has possible peaceful or less violent applications? What kind of war does the choice of fighter-planes force you into? What kind and amount of jobs, military and otherwise, does the choice create? What kind of voters, like those who do not hate gov't, does the choice create?
We have a Republican military, designed for domestic political advantage and for easy use in brutal Republican-style wars"example Iraq. A military of large manpower liberalizes a society, as for instance, Israel and Saddam discovered. An elite professional Praetorian is a certain path to tyranny.
But the South is simply too big, they will not allow disarmament, internationalism, and peace. They will destroy Presidents like Clinton with those attitudes. There really is no effective choice.
Obviously every candidate stands for lots of things, good or bad, but the only way to get credit for it is to stand for only one thing, all the time, downplay all your other positions to ensure that your preferred message gets to literally everyone in the same way (to prevent people from being confused), and hope that the media doesn't pretend that you stand for nothing.
Edwards actually did a very good job at this. His issue was poverty and economic inequalities. He kept hammering his "two Americas" thing every time he was in front of a microphone or a camera, and it worked. Regardless of whether or not you agreed with him, you knew what his issue was and what he stood for.
What was Kerry's issue, again? I think it was something along the lines of "I won't screw things up as badly as Bush," but I don't remember exactly.
mocking his Bubba-like attributes instead of mocking his Rhodes-Scholar-like attributes
Wouldn't work, non-issue (just like with Bush, unfortunately). It's just fine to be really educated, as long as you haven't gotten above your raisin'. It's not that people are anti-education; it's that they're offended by the idea that being educated means having nothing to do with the folks you left behind. If you've been away to Oxford but still come home and enjoy the family picnic and roll up your sleeves and help with the dishes, then your education will make people proud of you without making them think you're ashamed of them.
Anyhow, in case it's not yet clear, I am one pro-choice, anti-war, pro-religious-tolerance, pro-gay-marriage Southerner. I may be a minority, but I am not alone. There are Southern pagans, Southern lesbians, and Southern peaceniks too.
It's good to hear from you (and apo, and Pants), just for some firsthand confirmation that this is true. Political junkies outside the South, like me, just get stuck on that visible block of Republican states down there, and the stereotyping is a huge temptation.
Anyhow, in case it's not yet clear, I am one pro-choice, anti-war, pro-religious-tolerance, pro-gay-marriage Southerner. I may be a minority, but I am not alone. There are Southern pagans, Southern lesbians, and Southern peaceniks too.
However, nobody even vaguely similar to you has a chance at winning a state- or nation-wide election in the South (except Florida); do you agree?
I'm not sure there's a state where a "pro-choice, anti-war, pro-religious-tolerance, pro-gay-marriage" candidate would win a state-wide election. Maybe Vermont.
Hang on a minute. Influential national political leaders from the South, speaking to the national media, routinely and repeatedly make little nudge-nudge wink-wink remarks about New York and Boston and California. God knows what they say at home (it occasionally leaks out, and it's not pretty).
But one registered Democrat on a blog thread (that's all I am -- believe me, the Democratic Party is not with me on this) makes some nasty remarks, and people get upset?
I've been hearing what the South feels for decades. Well, now people know how some of us Yankees feel.
Southerners now run the country, and I have strong feelings about that
There's a distinction between material capital and cultural capital. Basically, yes: the south has a lot of real power. But in terms of cultural stereotypes, the south is still pegged as a big national joke. And no one (not just southerners) is going to vote for someone who they suspect thinks they're a stupid jerk.
It doesn't mean you don't also need appealling political positions. But since we're constantly writing our hands wondering *why* people insist on voting for those whose political actions are directly opposed to the voter's interests, this is the thing. Voting is an emotional as well as a rational decision. We've got the second one covered, but we need to pay some attention to the importance of the first.
I'm not sure there's a state where a "pro-choice, anti-war, pro-religious-tolerance, pro-gay-marriage" candidate would win a state-wide election. Maybe Vermont.
Oregon, California, New York, Massachusets, maybe Minnesota. In most of those states "antiwar" is the tough one, in Minnesota it's "gay marriage".
To be fair, at least two -- SCMT has been saying similar stuff. But yes, I do get cranky when 'Massachusetts liberal' or 'New Yorker' is used as an epithet in a political context, and we're not supposed to get mad about it, while insensitive comments about the South turn into 'What's wrong with the Democrats?'
136: I hate to say this, but I've been hearing what the South feels for decades. Well, now people know how some of us Yankees feel sounds a LOT like when people say, "we've been practicing affirmative action for black people for decades. White men are the only group it's legal to discriminate against."
nudge-nudge wink-wink remarks about New York and Boston and California
Republicans down here do that. They are playing to their bigoted base and, believe me, Southern Democrats have as much contempt for them and their base as you do. Probably more, since we actually run into them.
Again, you're conflating the ugly end of Southern politics with the entire population and that's just not based in reality. In a state like NC, where 1/4 of the population is black, that means you only have to get a little over a third of the white population to win the state. That is achievable, and achievable without compromising on the issues.
Google search suggests Clinton played rugby at Oxford. Whether that was what got him there, or whether that was an actual requirement, I haven't found.
I just don't believe that this is a cultural sensitivity thing. The Democratic party doesn't look down on Southerners -- on the contrary, they neutralize the Democratic base in order to court Southerners. If Southerners are so culturally defensive and skittish that they'll vote against someone just because they have Northern body language, is there anything that can change that? It seems pretty deep-rooted.
I really think that it's the issues -- unions, the military, Christianity, etc. And cultural issues too.
Rather than try to figure out how to make the south feel good about itself, there are various things that can be done to campaign better, put together a better organization, state issues more vigorously, and especially get the message out between elections. And at some point some of that may pay off in the South as well as everywhere else. But I don't think that agonizing about the white southern vote is the place to start.
140: You know, I think that's unfair. What Kerry, for example, got hurt by is regional prejudice. To the extent he's not 'likeable' down South, it's because Southerners think big stiff Northeastern dorks are assholes. That's not Kerry being uncomfortable in his skin, or a snob, or ashamed of his family -- that's a biased reaction to a regional trait, no different than a Northerner thinking that someone from the South is a stupid bubba because he drawls.
Northern liberals seem to be perfectly willing to get over their regional prejudice against Southern candidates, to the extent it exists. Clinton owns NYC these days. Southerners seem to have more trouble walking away from regional bias. I don't know what to do about this, but I don't think it's out of line to note it.
"....sounds a LOT like when people say, 'we've been practicing affirmative action for black people for decades. White men are the only group it's legal to discriminate against.'"
One of the things I hear from Southerners is how they don't Yankees. And so I reciprocate. I don't recognize the analogy.
If the South hadn't been electing all those godawful people all this time I wouldn't be saying these things. Jesse Helms was far worse than just a Senator who voted wrong most of the time. He really was a nasty guy.
I agree with 145; I thought Kerry was admirably authentic, although I would think that, coming from a similar regional background. What I consider his virtues as a man told against him. I guess we're back to framing.
I meant, that's how that kind of body language reads
That's how it reads to Southerners, not how it reads to people generally. Kerry actually comes off rather like my father, who, trust me, around here is likeable.
So we're in agreement. Southerners are prejudiced against Northern candidates even when the Northern candidates are likeable, whereas the same prejudice does not exist in reverse.
By "Southerners" I do not mean 100% of Southerners, I mean the ones that swing elections.
Therefore, any candidate who is not A) a Southerner and B) someone who acts like a Southerner has no hope of winning any Southern states.
151: Yes. Which is why my first comment pointed out that the question of regional framing relies on region. In some parts of the country that body language reads in ways that are comforting. In others, not. It's not that the southerners are some kind of weird freaks who expect to be pandered to; it's that northeasterners are unaware of the ways that *their* weird freakish regional preferences are already being pandered to.
It's not that the southerners are some kind of weird freaks who expect to be pandered to; it's that northeasterners are unaware of the ways that *their* weird freakish regional preferences are already being pandered to.
I'll absolutely agree with you on Jesse Helms. I'm glad he's still alive, because he's in terrible health and has to be in pretty constant physical pain. Given that, I hope he lives to be 150. But, y'know, he never won by much, he was a deeply divisive and polarizing figure here, and for at least part of his unfortunate tenure, the other NC Senate seat was held by Terry Sanford, one of the most progressive senators ever to come out of the south.
So it defies easy categorization. Kerry's problem isn't that he is a northerner with regionally-based body language. It's that he is a boring trust-fund drip.
Voting is an emotional as well as a rational decision. We've got the second one covered, but we need to pay some attention to the importance of the first.
I knew there was a reason I loved your blog, and also you, Dr. B.
~
Sorry for my earlier outburst. I haven't had enough Krispy Kremes with my coffee, apparently.
I agree that there are racists in the South, and I'm not happy about that. Last I checked, though, there were racists everywhere. Using things like the CCC against the South is like using arrest records against black men. Sure there are more of them in prison, but that doesn't mean that they're all criminals by nature.
~
I don't think Kerry lost here altogether because of his "stiff Northerner" look. When I spoke to people about it, it was a mixed bag of reasons, almost all Bush propaganda. People, for some reason, believed a lot of Bush's bullshit. People said stuff about Kerry ranging from his lack of voting record (i.e. he doesn't work hard/go to work) to his war record (he's a traitor) to his lack of clear platform (he's wishy-washy). None of those things bear close scrutiny, because they're based on lies and misrepresentations, but people believed them and here we are.
It's kind of lose-lose, though, with the media we have. Any campaigning done by a non-Southern Democrat in the South is going to be portrayed as pandering. It's the Democrats who treat Southerners as aliens, so much as it's the Washington press corps. Their fetishizing of George W's cowboy minstrel show is the flipside of this.
110, 111: My basic position is, I think, the same as LB's 108. Or as I wrote over at Tapped last night:
"It's silly to write off the South, and it's silly to pretend it's one unbreakable block. (Moreover, there are a fair number of actual Dems down there. Even white ones.) But I take the professor to be saying merely that we're much more likely to win elsewhere. I've never understood why this isn't received wisdom."
And, unless I've missed something, I've made every pro-South argument I've seen here in the past myself. I didn't grow up on the coasts, and I understand feeling that coastal elites are somehow denigrating your region. I look at what I've written here, now and before, and I'm the guy I used to hate--I'm absolutely part of the problem. (Apologize for the "Northern Aggression" thing, Pants--for some reason I'm angry and Justice Roberts, and anyway, he's not Southern and he used "War Between the States.") That's part of the problem writ small. Southerners quite reasonably believe that coastal folk are condescending dicks and refuse to vote for them. Coastal folk get scared and angry at the result, and pick up the closest, easiest cudgel--condescension. Repeat and rinse.
I just…I don't know. It bothers me that I don't understand half of my country. Not that I don't agree with them, but that I don't have any idea what they could possibly be thinking. It worries me that the half I don't understand is the half in charge. It worries me more that major figures in the Democratic Party are arguing that to win we need to behave more like the people I don't understand.
I just want to know what we have to do to win the South. And I only really get two answers, usually. The major voice says that we should just follow the DLC, and they really are terrible on the issues that I care about. If we have to follow the DLC (or HRC--same thing) to win the South, then I'm not sure I want to win the South. The minor voice says it's primarily a marketing problem. Gawd, I hope that's true, but I'm suspicious of it. Southerners aren't morons. There's something about national Dems that they're not crazy about, and they're not going to be fooled by marketing campaigns. So I just want to know what we really need to do to win.
And, again, I apologize for the offense I've given, Apo and Pants.
Kerry's problem isn't that he is a northerner with regionally-based body language. It's that he is a boring trust-fund drip.
Given that
A = northerner with regionally-based body language
and
B = boring trust-fund drip
There is a 99% chance that if you are A, you will be portrayed in the media as B. It happened to the first president Bush too; he was lucky that it happened to his opponent as well.
In other words, nominating Kerry was a mistake in that it played to people's prejudices. It should have been an avoidable mistake, given that the prejudices have been known for a long time.
Kerry's problem isn't that he is a northerner with regionally-based body language. It's that he is a boring trust-fund drip.
You know, this just isn't true. He was a combat hero, then a leader of the anti-war movement, then a prosecutor, started up a cookie bakery to make extra money while working as a prosecutor, had a very interesting love-life after his first marriage broke up culminating in marrying an attractive billionairess, and in his late 50's and 60's is still an enthusiastic athlete (in the 'doing difficult stuff for fun' sense, rather than Bush's grim little exercise program). You really can't say that he hasn't had an interesting life or done interesting stuff; the problem is that you look at how he holds himself and the rhythms of his speech and dislike him on that basis.
(Note: I'm not saying he's the second coming of Christ -- I disagreed with him about lots of stuff. But the 'boring rich guy' thing was bullshit.)
I really fear that 50 years from now, American politics and culture will have been defined by the bad Southerners, and that Jesse Helms will be remembered as a great statesman. We're already a lot further down that road than I wish. So yes, I'm really touchy.
When the bad Southerners play the self-pity card, they're just setting up their next power grab. It's been working for them so far. It seems that Bush's goodluck has come to an end, but I sure wouldn't bank on it.
Thanks #171, that's what I mean in #121 by saying "Kerry has led an incredibly interesting life, but that doesn't matter." It didn't matter. His actual life story was not a factor in the campaign.
'Massachusetts liberal' or 'New Yorker' is used as an epithet in a political context, and we're not supposed to get mad about it
And it continues because people don't hit back. Everytime we hear this kind of shit liberals should say something to the effect of "the Northeast is the birthplace of the greatest country in the world, and if you don't like it you can go fuck yourself". Liberal is a dirty word in this country because we don't fight.
Let me offer some examples. Regardless of what you think of Chuck Schumer, he would do fine in the South because he comes off as a regular guy despite being New York as all get out. Tom Harkin would do fine, despite being pretty much a paleoliberal. Jack Reed (RI) could do fine.
he's not Southern and he used "War Between the States"
I think this is an accepted variant, and doesn't equal "War of Northern Aggression". I mean, I'm reading Shame of the Nation right now (which is excellent!) and Jonathan Kozol uses that term. He's a New Yorker.
Wait...Tom Harkin isn't a Northerner, he's from Iowa, which isn't a stereotyped region. I think he might be taken seriously for a little while, as long as he made sure to concentrate on one issue that he would be identified with.
That didn't work with Dick Gephardt though. His public image became "Boring guy who talks boring and doesn't seem to realize how boring he is and never says anything interesting".
171: Yes, he has had an interesting life. But every speech he made during the campaign made my eyes glass over, and I was supporting the guy. His demeanor is not exciting; he does not inspire passion. That is not a regional trait - Howard Dean didn't have that effect on me and he's as new England as they come.
Okay, but I've heard you say that Dean was impossible down South too. Was that just that the 'bumpersticker' gaffe was unforgiveable, or what was wrong with him?
175 - You know who would tooootally suck in the South? Pataki. That would be almost fun to watch. How that guy even thinks he could become president...
It would be GREAT if Pataki ran for President. Maybe the idiotic "stuffy condescending northeastern prep school guy" stereotype would become associated with Republicans again.
Ages ago, David Letterman's Top Ten List was "Words that sound sexy when Barry White says them". The only ones I remember were "Big fat greasy ham", "Gonorrhea" and "Pataki".
And to this day, I can't hear 'Pataki" without hearing it in Barry White's voice.
No, but he's well to the left of what most people think is electable in the south. My point being that a presidential election is less about issues or regional identification than it is a popularity contest between two individuals. And the Dems haven't done a good job of nominating the sorts of candidates that can win those. Dems will never sweep the south, but it only takes one or two states to sew up the victory.
Upthread, John said that Republicans couldn't take CA or NY, but Reagan did. Twice. In 1988, Bush Sr. took California and only lost NY 52-48. So while we argue about regional identifications and prejudices, I'm proposing that those play a much smaller role than y'all believe.
Really, Republicans from California and Connecticut did well in blue states? That seems to suggest that regional identifications and prejudices play a much larger role than many people believe.
But in that it is a popularity contest between two individuals, it often happens that those two individuals come to be the embodiment of certain regions, in addition to being the embodiment of certain types of people.
Hm, well now that you ask I can't put my finger on it. But I'm pretty sure there is one. Yeah, rural and small-town America, taciturn, driving a hard bargain, Protestant... Midwestern drawl... (the drawl with which I spoke in California until I was ten years old, having lived in Iowa during a critical year of my speech development)
Edwards didn't get nominated, but he did play pretty well in the south, if I remember correctly. What I meant by pandering to northeastern prejudices is that, to LB, Kerry seems like her dad: that's comfortable, and it means that she (and people like her) won't have a problem reconciling their emotional reaction to him with their approval of what the Democratic party issues are.
Look, on this very thread people have reacted to Wrenae by saying, in effect, "yes, but you're one of the good ones." Which is the same thing people say to women or blacks or any other group when they're trying to demonstrate that they're not prejudiced. And the reaction, "yeah, but they don't like *us* either!" sounds a lot like reverse racism/anti-feminist backlash.
It's not that there's mutual antagonism (there is, but not as much as some think). It's that by buying into the *idea* of mutual antagonism, we perpetuate it. And it really isn't that hard to just recognize that some regional stereotypes play really badly in other parts of the country. The reasons why aren't that complicated. Clinton overcame the Bubba problem by being a Rhodes scholar. A Rhodes scholar type can overcome the snooty easterner problem by being a man o' the people. I'm a westerner, and I get it all the time: "you're not like the other feminists/professors/whatever: you swear, and you know about livestock, and you like regular food." Or whatever. It's not a question of whether one really *is* bigoted against X region of the country; it's whether one has the social signals that make one seem comfortable around people from X.
(And we're buying into stereotype when we talk about the ways that southerners are prejudiced against northerners, but northerners aren't prejudiced against southerners.)
What I meant by pandering to northeastern prejudices is that, to LB, Kerry seems like her dad: that's comfortable, and it means that she (and people like her) won't have a problem reconciling their emotional reaction to him with their approval of what the Democratic party issues are.
But of course I'm not prejudiced against Kerry, he's my people (Northeastern Catholic whatever). But I (as a representative of the elitist Northeasterner) am not prejudiced against Clinton. Or against Edwards. I don't have my prejudices against Southerners catered to by having it explained that they're unelectable -- I don't have my prejudices against Southerners catered to at all.
193: Let me delve into my shallow and narrow knowledge of musicals and say:
Oh, there's nothing halfway
About the Iowa way to treat you,
When we treat you
Which we may not do at all.
There's an Iowa kind of special
Chip-on-the-shoulder attitude.
We've never been without.
That we recall.
We can be cold
As our falling thermometers in December
If you ask about our weather in July.
And we're so by God stubborn
We could stand touchin' noses
For a week at a time
And never see eye-to-eye.
But what the heck, you're welcome,
Join us at the picnic.
You can eat your fill
Of all the food you bring yourself.
You really ought to give Iowa a try.
171: The lies were believable because they were congruent with Kerry's affect. He *looked* like the kind of privileged guy who doesn't do military service, whose never had to do physical labor in his life, who maybe skis, sure, but that's a sport for rich people. If his affect had been different, the lies wouldn't have worked. Clinton's not having served wasn't a huge issue because he looks and sounds like the kind of guys who *do* serve.
Think of it as a casting problem. Christopher Walken is a really good comic actor, but he looks like a criminal, so he isn't gonna get cast in an Adam Sandler role.
If Southerners play the regional-identity card, and they do, I'm highly inclined to see them and raise them a few.
This is all just venting on my part. When the DNC invites me in to give them my wise advice, I'll speak much more temperately.
But I've been hearing this stuff for at least 30 years now. And the Democrats have tried pretty hard to appeal to the South, but the bad Republican Southerners have taken over the government anyway, and I don't see any up side to it. I think that demographicly the Democrats have little choice, especially because much of the West resembles the South.
A lot of the tone of the debate is along the lines of "You don't want to make the South mad, because if you do you'll really regret it." And that's the reality we live with. I just don't see The South as an entity as a victim at all. They've control the US government for most of my adult life.
As I've said, I think that Democrats should restrategize, reorganize, take some vitamins, make some changes, and get to work. I do not think that the focus of these efforts should be the white Southern vote.
199: Fair enough. But Clinton's southernness is what got him nicknamed "Bubba," and I do remember a lot of jokes about his fondness for McD's and his weight. They were affectionate jokes, to be sure, because he is a hell of a likeable guy, but they do show, I think, that there are stereotypes against his southernisms. You personally might not have thought of him as a bubba, but a lot of people did. And do.
They were affectionate jokes, to be sure, because he is a hell of a likeable guy, but they do show, I think, that there are stereotypes against his southernisms. You personally might not have thought of him as a bubba, but a lot of people did. And do.
Sure, he got stereotyped as a bubba, but it didn't hurt him -- no one held it against him.
They were affectionate jokes, to be sure, because he is a hell of a likeable guy, but they do show, I think, that there are stereotypes against his southernisms.
I agree except for the word "against". In other words, they were not negative stereotypes.
Just about every stereotype of the South I've seen in pop culture in the last 8-10 years has been positive. Everyone wants to seem like a southerner in order to seem honest and authentic. I really, really think they have a built-in advantage in both public perception and press coverage.
Argh. This is precisely the kind of northern language that reads to people as condescending. Yeah, he's a bubba but we're big enough not to mind? The implication is that there *is* something wrong with being a bubba, and it's to the great credit of the north that we don't hold it against people. That right there is the problem.
The implication is that there *is* something wrong with being a bubba, and it's to the great credit of the north that we don't hold it against people. That right there is the problem.
That's a misreading. There is a stereotype that religion people are more likely to be decent people. Are they really right in going around claiming that's condescending? That's insane.
The absolute first thing I knew about William Clinton was that Will Shortz was impressed by Clinton's crossword puzzle-solving skillz. I think it was during the runup to the primary that Shortz introduced one of his puzzles as "the one that Clinton solved in 15 minutes." After that kind of endorsement, I didn't care where Clinton was from...
Ogged, bacon is very popular in the South, as are all pork products. Use barbeque as your platform, and we will all vote for you.
A lot of the tone of the debate is along the lines of "You don't want to make the South mad, because if you do you'll really regret it."
Really? Cause I haven't gotten that tone at all. It's been more like "give up on the South cuz they're unwinnable/prejudiced against Northerners/not open to correct thinking etc." I missed the threats of retribution somehow.
I do not think that the focus of these efforts should be the white Southern vote.
FWIW, I agree. The entire middle of the country voted Republican in the last election (well, the rigged and entirely unbelievable election), so the South is hardly the place to point the finger of blame, nor the place to "win" in order to gain a Dem president.
However, I do think the next candidate will have to be charismatic to win. And I've seen few charismatics in the Dem party lately (Edwards was closest to my mind, but lacking some of the oommph somehow.)
Jeez, bitch, I can almost guess your discipline from that.
An issue not mentioned here far more important here is media control. Whether or not it's biased Republican (I think it is), the media filter is powerful. The "Dean Scream", for example, was 100% fake. Film editors and sound editors could have made MLK Dream speech sound bad, if they'd wanted to.
In other words, the "people" Gore and Kerry didn't please weren't the voters. It was the lightweight, shallow, cynical, malicious airheads in TV and print news. And part of the reason that body language is so important is that a lot of media people are twenty-something not far enough removed from high school.
216: Whose stereotype? We on this thread don't think religious people are more likely to be decent and moral. We think they're more likely to be intolerant bigots. And we--or people like us--have a lot of cultural capital (even though we like to complain that that's not the case), and for better or worse we are the stereotype of the Democratic party.
213: I'm not getting this. There's a stereotype out there of the "Bubba": friendly red-faced beer-drinking overweight southern guy. Clinton fit that pretty well. What was condescending? Knowing that the stereotype exists? Recognizing Clinton's resemblance to it?
And we--or people like us--have a lot of cultural capital (even though we like to complain that that's not the case),
What's "cultural capital"?
We certainly don't have any actual power.
and for better or worse we are the stereotype of the Democratic party.
Whose fault is that? We're not running for president. Extremely middle-of-the-road, competent people are running for president, and are caricatured as being us.
I still agree with post#222 that media-based stereotypes are far more important than anything else. Somehow we weren't thinking clearly when we nominated Kerry; he was far too easy to stereotype.
It was really a joke. Visiting my sister in SE Kansas I met a few Bubbas and good ole boys, and Clinton's nothing like them. He knows how to talk to them, but there's not much other resemblance.
221 is right. "The South" is shorthand for a lot of places--the south, the midwest, the west. Basically pretty much anyplace that isn't heavily urban. Again, I think looking to the west is pretty illustrative: on the west coast, Seattle, Portland, Olympia, San Francisco, and LA tend to vote Democratic. But the agricultural areas don't (and keep in mind, the agricultural areas include some pretty darn big cities now). And this is true in the south too: in Tennessee, for instance, Nashville voted blue--but the rest of the state voted red.
"The South" is just shorthand for "people who feel ambivalent or uncomfortable with urbanisms." Think about high school: the smart kids (us) couldn't wait to get out of our podunk towns and go to college. That stereotype means that the people who live in those podunk towns think that we think of them as, well, as podunk.
"Somehow we weren't thinking clearly when we nominated Kerry; he was far too easy to stereotype."
I just think this is wrong. What's different between Kerry and Clinton is that the republicans got even better at smearing during the Clinton years, and built up a well of spite to draw from. And we were very weak during that election.
Use barbeque as your platform, and we will all vote for you.
Anyone who's not a pandering condescending egghead knows that it's spelled "BBQ". Probably never ate slaw in your life.
And is that green tea you're drinking? It is! I don't think the average person can buy green tea in the grocery store. Nice try, bring us someone else in four years.
As far as I can tell Clinton stereotyped himself as a Bubba, and this was very effective politically.
For all of the Democrats who stereotype religious people as intolerant bigots, an awfully large number of elected politicians are religious. As in basically ALL of them, at least in public. Basically every candidate is religious. How would an atheist Dem fare in the south?
Why am I supposed to see some sort of symmetry here? Emerson is right.
It's not just the south--it's the west, too. Except for the coastal states, the west has been voting pretty Republican, and the only reason the coastal states aren't swinging that way is because of the cities.
Yes, and Ds who can pick up votes in the west are, in my completely ignorant opinion, also likely to do better in the south because they have some shred of rural credibility. My roots are in rural southwest Washington and I've spent almost no time in the South, but the "condescending urban liberal" thing that southerners complain about sounds very, very familiar, and I find myself nodding a bit at some of the southerners' reactions on this thread (although I'm also nodding at some of SCMT's and John Emerson's comments, so maybe I'm just feeling agreeable this morning).
So I end up with the people who say focus on doing better in the inland west and don't worry so much about the south, but largely because I think that candidates who can win in the inland west will also pick up votes in the south.
An interesting Clinton anecdote, picked up on the intarwebs and probably paraphrased a few times. As president, he was in the habit of completing the NYT crossword over breakfast while making diplomatic calls. That man is smart.
235: I think we should stop engaging in debate with people who have proven themselves disingenuous, and instead mock them repeatedly and harshly, until the great mass of americans who want only entertainment from politics are more entertained by us. Which means baa will have less fun around here.
Much as I hate to say it, I don't think an athiest will win anywhere in the US, Barbar. Stupid as that is.
Anyone who's not a pandering condescending egghead knows that it's spelled "BBQ". Probably never ate slaw in your life.
And is that green tea you're drinking? It is! I don't think the average person can buy green tea in the grocery store. Nice try, bring us someone else in four years.
That is sweet iced tea, honey, and the only thing green in it is a sprig of mint. The barbeque is in sandwich form, Eastern North Carolina vinegar-and-pepper based, and if you put anything other than cabbage and real mayonaise in the slaw, I ain't eatin it. I will have a side of ribs, though.
Bitch, if you keep talking sexy like that, I'm going to have to put up a poster of you on my bedroom wall and practice kissing on it. Plus, I'll get moony-eyed whenever you comment. Hush up before I embarrass myself (again).
Where I live, there is a bumper crop of square decals with only a large W, and underneath "the president." The decals are all black, with white lettering. I can't help but think, each one says, "I'm a fascist."
And reading it reminds me of what I wanted to say to JM about Edwards's "sincerity" or "authenticity" or whatever -- I'm drawn to him because he seems to be, first and foremost, a moralist. His passion for ending poverty isn't a pose; this issue obviously comes from a very deep place for him. Contrast him with Obama, who seems to have no clear moral stance on anything of value.
Hey LB, does your Unfogged email work during bizniss hours?
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 9:30 AM
We certainly try to make inroads there, though, without trying to twist ourselves into something different. Just because the GOP only gets less than 10% of the black vote doesn't mean they've given up trying to make that into 15% or 20%. We should do the same with the Southern white vote. Meaning, we should be out there organizing and stumping, even among groups we think of as hostile to our interests. Most voters aren't monoliths, even if they prefer one side to another. We're fools if we just let an entire group hear only one side of the argument.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 9:31 AM
Meaning, we should be out there organizing and stumping, even among groups we think of as hostile to our interests. Most voters aren't monoliths, even if they prefer one side to another. We're fools if we just let an entire group hear only one side of the argument.
Certainly. Walking away from any group of voters is stupid -- I'm just finding the notion that changes in the party to appeal to Southern whites may not be worth it appealing. Put the party we've got, with the paycheck issues that should work for them, out there. If it works, it works, if it doesn't, they aren't the only constituency out there.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 9:35 AM
Just because the GOP only gets less than 10% of the black vote doesn't mean they've given up trying to make that into 15% or 20%.
This overstates it, I think. Attempts to gain black voters are really efforts to convince white women that the Republican Party is not quite the moral desert it used to be. I don't think Republicans expect a very large percentage of black votes. And they shouldn't: at one point, support for Bush among African-Americans was down to 2%.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 9:36 AM
3 is what I meant.
I think you're right about that intent, Tim, but that doesn't mean that Republicans aren't banking that, for example, Michael Steele will pull some black voters over to their side. I think they're targeting every constituency out there.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 9:40 AM
I'm just finding the notion that changes in the party to appeal to Southern whites may not be worth it appealing.
This is really the issue. How many retarded black criminals do we have to kill to win the South, and are we willing to do it? If we're not willing to do it, then we should look to build an enduring base elsewhere. We should still go after Southern voters; but it should be from a different base.
I think this is the big, not-much-discussed, issue in the air, and will be for several elections. OTOH, I thought the Mavs woujld win.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 9:44 AM
I think folks consistently overestimate the homogeneity of Southern whites. In NC, for example, the Democrats control both houses of the legislature, the governorship, and most of the elected excutive branch offices, as well as most of the mayorships and city councils.
The state party is active, strong, and not particularly conservative. The recent GOP dominance here in federal elections (Senate and president) has to do, I think, with specific candidates, not the party platform. My gut feeling is that John Edwards would make serious inroads in the South, not due to conservative positions, but just by being able to talk to southerners without sounding condescending - a skill that Kerry and Dean were sorely lacking.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 9:46 AM
Depending on the cycle and the office, southern whites vote between 60 and 80 percent Republican,
I'm reacting to stats like this. The impression I have is not precisely that Southern whites are monolithic, but that there's a core group of conservative Southern whites that are what people refer to as 'the South', and that they aren't likely to be moved by much we're going to say.
being able to talk to southerners without sounding condescending - a skill that Kerry and Dean were sorely lacking.
What did Kerry say that was a problem? I figure you're talking about Dean's 'Confederate bumper sticker' comment, which I can see could be annoyng, although I thought it was well meant. But I missed (I mean, really missed. It's not something I notice spontaneously) Kerry's condecension.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:01 AM
Seconding apo; the purple map that was running around after the elections indicated that the South isn't really a lost cause.
But there does seem to be an attitude problem; it's not like the South is from another planet and this 'look sweetie, here be wild Baptists' sense from the Democrats rubs me the wrong way and I voted for Kerry. Maybe it was just Kerry's handlers.
I'm not saying that we need to put up commandments in Courthouses or become pro-life -- makes you a shitty opposition party if you don't oppose anything -- but there's a lot more common ground. Even Kansas has Democratic governor (and a woman, I think.)
Maybe we need more young Southerners in the think tank.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:06 AM
the South isn't really a lost cause
Some of it is. The Deep South, with the exception of Florida and probably Louisiana, isn't going Democratic any time soon. But NC, VA, and WV are totally winnable, Florida is always in play, and if the GOP really wants to use immigration as a wedge issue, I don't think they can put Texas safely in the bank either. Non-Hispanic whites are now less than 50% of the population of Texas.
That's a crapload of potential EC votes.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:16 AM
it's not like the South is from another planet
Disagree entirely. And really, really, really disagree with this: we need more young Southerners in the think tank. The DLC was explicitly founded as a pro-Southern Democrat organization. The DLC is vastly overrepresented in the upper management of the Democratic Party. They don't need our help to fuck us harder.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:16 AM
I missed [...] Kerry's condecension
It isn't what they say, it's how they say it. I'm not sure I can explain it in words, really. Kinda like knowing obscenity when you see it. But when Kerry started steamrolling toward the nomination, I buried my head in my hands.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:21 AM
Take a look at guys like Brian Schweitzer, governor of Montana. If the Dems kicked gun contol to the curb and showed some spine in general, we'd take a lot of votes in the West and Midwest. Kerry was a total douche, and barely lost Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, New Mexico, etc.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:22 AM
I missed [...] Kerry's condecension
It's not a factor of him actually being condescending, it's a factor of him looking like a condescending-type person, thus leading the media to pretend that he is condescending.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:22 AM
But there does seem to be an attitude problem; it's not like the South is from another planet and this 'look sweetie, here be wild Baptists' sense from the Democrats rubs me the wrong way and I voted for Kerry. Maybe it was just Kerry's handlers.
See, I think this feeling comes from awkward attempts to appeal to the class of Southern conservatives that we don't have a shot with, anyway (e.g., Dean's "Confederate bumperstickers" comment was an attempt to say that we can appeal to even the weirdest of the weird, out there in Deliverance territory, on paycheck issues. While that may be, in principle, true, identifying 'the South' with alien Confederate bumpersticker wielding beings isn't going to make anyone happy.) I think we're better off with less attention to the cultural issues -- let them slide and concentrate on the paycheck stuff.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:23 AM
But we don't need Alabama to win -- Florida (is Florida South? I mentally classify it as a mid-Atlantic state that got lost) would do it. West Virginia isn't that Southern. Redneckish, yes, but redneckish can vote Democrat.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:25 AM
13: You're far more in tune with the gun community than I am, but haven't national level Democrats kicked gun control to the curb? I suppose I haven't heard about many of them favoring the reversal of existing gun control measures, but besides that what have they done lately?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:26 AM
(is Florida South? I mentally classify it as a mid-Atlantic state that got lost)
It's half Alabama and half NJ.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:27 AM
Comment 14 also serves as a response to claims that Kerry is a "total douche".
Basically, the media decides who wins these elections, based entirely on cliched stereotypes of the candidates' personalities. The Republicans are better at identifying aspects of their opponents that can be caricatured in a negative way.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:28 AM
#17
It seems they largely have. But that's not really enough. A lot of the gun crowd are convinced if Dem's re-take Congress, we'll see new stuff on them from that front. It's not enough to just go quiet on it. It would work wonders to have a few high profile Dems actually be one of that crowd the way Schweitzer is. Hackett was great for this stuff. I wish we still had him as a candidate.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:30 AM
See, the Confederate bumper-sticker thing is why I said more Southern Democratic involvement. The last election really felt in places like a bunch of kids from the Northeast were asked to reach out to the South and they said, hmm, I used to watch Dukes of Hazzard and I heard something about Jeebus, so let's slap it on and hope no one notices. Like they've studied it like a foreign country in a classroom and are making nearly ethnocentric pronouncements: "The Southern Man, in his natural habit, was observed to watch NASCAR."
Immigration, the economy, family-friendly (i.e. 'real pro-life') policies. I'm not sure about the likelihood of sounding convincing on the War on Terror®, but Murtha's surviving and he's in a relatively conservative area.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:32 AM
but Murtha's surviving and he's in a relatively conservative area.
There's a huge difference between "Southern conservative" and "conservative," just as there is between "Republican" and "Southern Republican."
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:34 AM
I'm pretty much with Ned on Kerry. Saying he was personally unappealing? Eh, sure, we should work on finding personally appealing candidates. But I can't see any profit in substantively worrying about a candidate's bad attitude relating to something specific, unless they're actually saying or doing something identifiable in that regard.
(That is, apo, I'm wondering if you meant "Kerry was condescending toward the South" or something more like "Southerners tend to think guys like Kerry are assholes", if you see what I mean.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:34 AM
"Southerners tend to think guys like Kerry are assholes"
Yes, that.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:36 AM
#19
Kerry is a good senator. But what we needed was a populist. The Swift Boat repsonse illustrated why Kerry lost. For way too long he was above the fray, like he was too good to hit back.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:37 AM
Johnstown is not unlike West Virginia.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:37 AM
"Southerners tend to think guys like Kerry are assholes"
Yes, that.
Like they've studied it like a foreign country in a classroom and are making nearly ethnocentric pronouncements
And this, very much so. And that same attitude is appearing in this thread as well.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:38 AM
Gah. Stupid double-posting Kitty of Doom.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:39 AM
That's a really important distinction, because addressing one problem just makes the other worse. If it's about respect and attention, you pay attention and talk about Southern stuff respectfully, whatever. If it's about the fact that Southern voters are going to dislike someone who seems alien to them, they're just going to dislike him more the more respectful and attentive he is.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:40 AM
. My gut feeling is that John Edwards would make serious inroads in the South, not due to conservative positions, but just by being able to talk to southerners without sounding condescending
Is this really true? And if so, is there something he's doing that we can distill and give to some other politician who doesn't annoy the fuck out of me?
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:40 AM
And that same attitude is appearing in this thread as well.
Maybe the Dems should set up a website called Southerners Love Us!.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:41 AM
Is this really true?
It's a gut feeling. Whether or not it's true, I couldn't say.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:42 AM
they're just going to dislike him more the more respectful and attentive he is
Here's the key: quit nominating candidates who seem like the kid the teacher would pick to take down names of misbehavers while she went to the bathroom (see: Clinton, Hillary).
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:44 AM
Why do you hate John Edwards so much, j/m? I love him forever because of his devotion to fighting poverty. Which probably won't win him that many votes, but is a vital contribution to our political conversation.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:45 AM
It'd be interesting to work on pinning down the 'snooty Northeasterners just piss us off' factor. I get it about Kerry, even though I like people like Kerry. Outside of the bumperstickers line, though, I was surprised that Dean impresses people the same way - he comes off to me as open and uncalculated, which I would have thought was the issue.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:45 AM
The Democrats have a multitude of ways in which they could do better, and I think that their weakness in the South is not a fruitful one to focus on. There are reasons why Republicans can't win California and New York, and there are reasons why Democrats can't win Alabama and Mississippi, and these reasons reflect well on the Democrats and badly on the Republicans.
Southern voting poatterns look better than they really are, because the black vote is Democratic. You have two hostile groups, and almost all of each group (at least in AL and MS) votes against the other groups. It's not like the MS Democratic vote is something that can be built on.
That's my official statement. My personal statement is that I'm a Yankee the way a lot of Southerners are Rebs, and I have no interest in learning to respect the cultural heritage handed down by William Clarke Quantrill and Nathan Bedford Forrest.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:46 AM
Any effort to court the South can and will be spun by the GOP to our detriment through the suburbs. Howard Dean was exactly right when he said that good ol' boys should be voting Democratic, but that's not something you can tell to good ol' boys. The fact that the South votes the politics of personality makes it very hard for Democrats to win, Kerry or not—if the GOP will tar and feather Max Cleland, there's just no candidate we can send.
I think there's a lot of merit to Ryan Sager's Atlantic short on the interior West as an emerging Democratic bloc; the Party ought to focus its outreach there in order to pick up the majority, and then either win over the South by example or contain them as a politically unified but neutered voting bloc. It's a painful prescription because I think the nation really must deal with the issues affecting the South, but it's also irritating and even sickening to cater to a region that has an expressed disinterest in dealing with its problems. (Sorry, Texas.)
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:46 AM
32 -- seems to me she was asking whether or not it was really true that you had such a gut feeling.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:47 AM
Cala, I done axed you a question in the ethical ask the mineshaft thread.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:47 AM
I think folks consistently overestimate the homogeneity of Southern whites.
I'm going to agree with the hero, here. I think there's not a lot of clear thought or careful analysis of what built and sustains the Southern Republican party. We tend to think it's race. This is not wrong, but it's not right enough: race was the big factor in getting Southern whites to vote for Republicans for President. But before they did that, they started voting for Republicans for Congress. And which ones of them did that? The richer ones. The Southern Congressional Republican party was born when the South stopped being economically backward.
Which suggests that the Southern white Republican monolith is vulnerable to fission on economic issues, at least at the Congressional level.
(I'm reading this book.)
The other thing is, they really like to vote for a local boy down there. Even accounting for other factors, local boys do better.
So maybe you need to win the white middle class down there, just like you have to do everywhere, and maybe you have to run a local boy, too.
Mark Warner, baby.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:49 AM
That's okay, 'smasher, we know you love us.
Posted by Texas | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:51 AM
Cala, I done axed you a question in the ethical ask the mineshaft thread.
Wolfson, I asked you a question in the "Out of Ideas" thread.
p.s. "axed": heh.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:53 AM
Here's the key: quit nominating candidates who seem like the kid the teacher would pick to take down names of misbehavers while she went to the bathroom (see: Clinton, Hillary).
YES. One of the best takes on this theme is by the mighty Kung Fu Monkey.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:53 AM
I don't buy that SCMT's apparently rather heart-felt position that we're a different species, but I will buy that we're not like anywhere else. (The obvious question: who is?)
Kerry could have walked out at the DNC flanked by Andy Griffith and Daisy Duke and still lost in the South because when he opens his mouth we can't hear him for all the snoring. He simply does not pass the test of 'Does he seem like a guy I'd tell a dirty joke?' Politicians down here either get elected for being so self-righteous they radiate an aura of holier-than-thou that their supporters can get inside or for being so much fun at parties that we can't help but like them.
Posted by Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:54 AM
I love him forever because of his devotion to fighting poverty.
Y'all might think this is unfair, but the people I know who were affected by Katrina and the NOLA expats have lost a lot of love for Edwards, including myself. If he's all about poverty, where the hell was he?
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:55 AM
Becks, you do realize that Edwards didn't actually get elected to the Vice Presidency, don't you?
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:57 AM
What Can Democrats Do To Win The 'South'?
Invade?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:57 AM
I didn't realize his absence was notable. He's just a private citizen now, after all. He probably just didn't want to appear to be using the disaster to further his own presidential ambitions.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 10:57 AM
I have a feeling that Katrina victims were willing to be deceived by appearances if it meant actual aid.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:00 AM
I haven't seen enough of Warner to have any opinion about him one way or the other.
because the black vote is Democratic.
I've said this before, but a black vote counts the same as a white vote. That isn't a meaningful observation. Alabama and Mississippi aren't pick-up targets, and aren't very representative of the rest of the South, any more than Utah and Idaho are representative of the West. I wholeheartedly agree that any effort spent on them is wasted.
William Clarke Quantrill and Nathan Bedford Forrest
Nobody's suggesting appealing to that demographic, John, which is why Southern progressives groaned in unison when Dean made that incredibly tin-eared Confederate flag statement.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:00 AM
He's just a private citizen now, after all.
With no executive experience. Which makes him pretty nearly useless. I voted for him in the primary over JK, but now he's ... where, exactly?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:01 AM
Why do you hate John Edwards so much, j/m?
I agree that he's been effective at making poverty a topic of political debate, Joe. It's hard to say whether my visceral distrust of him is genuine or the result of bad press, but... that said, I do find him superficial on every other issue, and, well, smarmy. As VP candidate, he was packaged to present the sunny, optimistic vision, and I wasn't feeling so sunny those days (or these days), so maybe that's the misfit. A lot of people I think generally sensible seem to like him, though.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:03 AM
46 & 48 - Again, not saying it's fair or that most of the nation picked up on it but to the people I know down there, his absence seemed very notable since he's the only politician really focusing on poverty. And as far as furthering his own ambitions, I'm not talking about speaking out about it after it happened. I'm talking about in the days before the storm when people (and the weather service) were trying to warn about how poor people were going to be stranded and unable to get out of the city. If he'd called more attention to that, I don't think people would have held it against him. In fact, I think he could be the frontrunner right now.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:04 AM
He founded an antipoverty center and has been speaking across the country nonstop on poverty issues.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:05 AM
54 to 51.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:06 AM
And I know a bunch of you are going to say "who could have known?" and I really wish I could point you to the pre-Katrina posts that were written on my other-other blog by the people who were in NOLA. They all knew the poor people were screwed and were really upset about it. They just didn't predict they were going to be *that* screwed because FEMA was being run by a bunch of idiots.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:07 AM
I still am baffled at the notion that Edwards failed New Orleans somehow.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:08 AM
Wes Clark would be good also.
Al Gore is my first choice, but I don't think he's going to get any more love from white Southerners than Kerry did.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:10 AM
And that same attitude is appearing in this thread as well.
Yeah, that's probably me. Truly and sincerely sorry about that, Apo. I don't know what that's worth, as I keep doing it. It should be noted that most of the important and good Dem heroes (or should be heroes) of the last 40 years are, to my mind, Southern. But also, I don't think that sort of a claim is entirely wrong. It often feels like there is an alternate history of America located in the South ("Civil War" vs. "War of Northern Aggression," etc.).
I'm struggling to think of W. Virginia as Southern. Is it generally considered so?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:11 AM
I really wish I could point you
What -- is the other other blog off limits to Mineshaft denizens? Or somehow part of your anonymity hijincks?
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:11 AM
He founded an antipoverty center and has been speaking across the country nonstop on poverty issues.
Hey, I think centers are nice. And speaking is nice. But I would have been a lot more impressed if he had run for office again. I mean, you know what Sam Ervin (D, South) said about "the best and the brightest"---"I'd feel a whole lot better about them if just one of them had run for sheriff once."
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:11 AM
As what, slol? It's been less than two years since he was nominated to be Vice President. Where should he run? Which office? Should he challenge another Dem in a primary?
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:14 AM
My serious, non-bigoted objection to going for Southern votes is that all the substantive things we'd have to do in order to do that seem to be bad. Race aside, the South tends to be anti-union, anti-abortion, anti-gay, militaristic in a way I can't support, and Christianist in a way I can't support.
On top of that, the "The South will never vote for an Easterner" argument sounds like I'm being asked to suppress my own prejudices while allowing Southerners to wallow in theirs.
The cards are stacked against the Democrats for various reasons, and it's inevitable that they'll have to try to appeal more to the rural voters away from the coasts. And some of the things that you'd have to do to do that are the same as the things you'd have to do to appeal to "The South".
But very few of the Southern states seem like good targets. Florida is not very Southern, and Virginia's demographics are changing, and maybe some of the border states are good prospects. But putting "compete in the South" at the top of the Democratic to-do list seems very ill-advised.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:15 AM
is the other other blog off limits to Mineshaft denizens
Yes, it's just friends from college.
57 - You will probably continue to be baffled. I'm not saying I can make a coherant argument about it. It's an emotional/gut reaction that can't be justified by the facts. But it's still there. However, like apo said, it could probably be overcome if someone finally did something to help NOLA out.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:16 AM
Wes Clark would be good also.
I'm gonna disagree here, too. (What do I know, you ask? Nothing, but I'm not under oath or getting paid, here.) I think these free-floating celebrities are worthless. What the Democrats need is what they used to have, and maybe in some places still do---a machine. You gotta have Daleys, you gotta have Lyndon Johnsons---the guys who are organization men, who can, and have, delivered. You can't just parachute in and make everyone swoon.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:16 AM
I like Edwards a lot. I think it is good idea to nominate white southern candidates because they tend to come across well to voters. But, the sight of college-educated white southerners whining like babies because somebody doesn't like NASCAR drives me nuts.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:17 AM
I'd love that. We don't have it. Should we bow out of the presidential race until we build up a real machine again?
This discussion is completely unattached to reality, anyway, since the nominee is going to be Hillary Clinton. For the reasons Joe Trippi has described.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:20 AM
As what, slol? It's been less than two years since he was nominated to be Vice President. Where should he run? Which office? Should he challenge another Dem in a primary?
I admit, like I said before, I know nothing. But let's say, North Carolina must have some elections going between 2004 and 2008. And I'm gonna say, too, that if the Democratic Party were worth a tinker's damn, it would make sure that one of those offices, maybe a nice Congressional seat, were made available to Edwards to win. I mean, seriously. People have to be in business, don't they?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:22 AM
the nominee is going to be Hillary Clinton
You have simply got to be kidding me. A party that would nominate her for President has to be living in a secure location, far from the people of this country. I live in a deep blue county in a deep blue state, and have heard more than one deep blue person say in a deep blue way that they'd vote for John McCain first.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:24 AM
Race aside, the South tends to be anti-union, anti-abortion, anti-gay, militaristic in a way I can't support, and Christianist in a way I can't support.
Republicans in the South tend to be those things.
very few of the Southern states seem like good targets. Florida is not very Southern, and Virginia's demographics are changing, and maybe some of the border states are good prospects
Florida is Southern. Virginia is Southern. Those two states alone account for 40 EC votes. I think you mistakenly equate southern with racist and reactionary. We have those people here, but they hardly define the region.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:24 AM
68 - Hell, why didn't he just run for reelection in the seat that he had?
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:25 AM
Yeah, that's probably me.
It's very complicated and unrelated to this topic (or maybe not), but a lot of that crap is basically made up by people who have never lived here and what of it is true is largely a reflexive self-defense action on the part of Southerners who cannot come to grips with the familial shame of having been so very wrong and having been beaten. There is no one in my very large, entirely Southern family, including real honest-to-gods members of Daughters of the Confederacy and an uncle who does in fact have Confederate flag stickers on his truck and a wife who is humiliated by them, I repeat, no one who calls it 'The War of Northern Aggression.' Well, no one currently alive, anyway.
And just as I have relatives with memberships to DotC and rebel flag stickers on their cars, I have relatives who raised me on stern talks about how what The South did was terrible but what We did was the best we could do at the time (I had ancestors involved in the Underground Railroad, if their children and grandchildren are to be believed - but that, too, might be a reflexive self-defense, an unverifiable fiction told to assuage familial guilt).
Also, it might help to dispose of any notions you might have that we walk to work barefoot on gravel roads while wearing stained overalls. My overalls are quite clean, thank you.
Posted by Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:25 AM
On top of that, the "The South will never vote for an Easterner" argument sounds like I'm being asked to suppress my own prejudices while allowing Southerners to wallow in theirs.
This is my sentiment, exactly.
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:28 AM
unverifiable fiction told to assuage familial guilt
Yeah, and our French relatives? were all in the Resistance.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:29 AM
There's just no realistic way for what you describe to happen. Should he move to another district? He'd be tarred as a carpetbagger and probably lose.
People can take some time away from public office and run again. It happens all the time. And he may have the advantage of seeming fresh again when he enters the presidential race in earnest. He built a fantastic ground operation in Iowa, and his people are still loyal to him there. If he wins there or takes a close second, he's definitely in the game.
Before Hillary walks away with 80% of the black vote in the big primaries, I mean.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:29 AM
68: Senate seats don't come up until 2008 and 2010. Governor's seat doesn't open until 2008. If he ran for the House, it would have to be (because of where he lives) in my district, against a popular 9-term incumbent Democrat.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:31 AM
There's just no realistic way for what you describe to happen.
Dude, how can you talk "realistic" and "carpetbagger" and plug Hillary in the same breath?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:31 AM
Ethnically, Florida is only about half white Southern. The reason it's hopeful is because of Northern immigrants, and to a degree, Hispanics (they say that the youngest Cuban generation is less Republican).
And the whole South is and always has been anti-union. The laws, public opinion, everything.
I shouldn't lump people, but as far as I can tell the South is dominated by the people I'm talking about, and the other 30-40% down there are out of luck and always in the minority.
I was bitching somewhere about the CCC (genteel version of the KKK) and the way Republican politicians suck up to them, and the person I was arguing with pointed out that the Democratic politicans down there suck up to them too. If it's possible to win in the South after telling the CCC to go fuck themselves, then I'll revise my opinion of the place.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:32 AM
71 -- I think he wasn't allowed to run on both tickets.
69 -- slol, Hillary is going to be the nominee. I'm sorry, but she is. Outrageous fundraising plus Bill Clinton stumping for her in African American communities plus all the top tier operatives make her nearly impossible to beat. We don't have a national primary. She'll win in state by state, just like John Kerry did.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:32 AM
Also, I'm certainly not "plugging" Hillary. I think she's a disaster.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:33 AM
(because of where he lives) in my district
I recognize this is a purely academic discussion here, because it posits the Democratic Party I want, not the one we have, but people have been known to move districts to win seats, and parties have been known to edge people aside to prefer the promising candidates.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:33 AM
Also, I'm certainly not "plugging" Hillary. I think she's a disaster.
Well, in between talking up her inevitability, let's think maybe about how to make her evitable, can we?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:34 AM
I think you mistakenly equate southern with racist and reactionary. We have those people here, but they hardly define the region.
This is exactly it. What's going on is that there is a 'racist and reactionary' voting bloc in the south, which is big enough to swing the white southern vote hard Republican (say, 20% of southern whites vote as a Republican bloc for these sorts of cultural reasons, the rest split 50-50 like the rest of the country, and that shows up as a 60% R slant).
Democrats do have a problem with white southern voters, and it is because there are white southern voters who are racist and reactionary, but that doesn't mean either that all or most white southern voters are racist reactionaries, nor that appealing to the racist reactionary vote is either possible or a good idea. We just need to work harder on the other 80% -- forget all the cultural pandering and stick to the paycheck issues.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:35 AM
Wolfson, I be tryin' to answer your question you axed, but I don't have your e-mail.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:36 AM
Well, in between talking up her inevitability, let's think maybe about how to make her evitable, can we?
I'm going to do more than that. I'll almost certainly end up working on someone else's campaign.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:36 AM
I'll almost certainly end up working on someone else's campaign.
Okay, now we're talking. Who? How will you outflank Hillary?
I think it can be done, you know. And I know you know more than I do, and I don't want to poke at a sore spot, but, uh, the presumptive frontrunner blew up last time.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:37 AM
Does the CCC even exist outside of AL and MS? I've certainly never heard of it up here, much less seen anybody of either party suck up to it.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:37 AM
84 - His email is in the lefthand corner of this site --you can reach him at benwolfson at thisdomain.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:42 AM
The presumptive frontrunner at the beginning of 2003 was John Kerry. Howard Dean mounted a take-no-prisoners insurgent campaign, but didn't have the most experienced staff, and had virtually the entire "national" party against him. He shouldn't have been the nominee; he would have been far worse than John Kerry.
I'll try to work for Al Gore if he runs, because I think he's the only one who can beat Hillary. I'll work for Edwards otherwise, because he's the most focused on my issue, and because he's a terrific candidate (resume aside) and I think he's a true believer.
What'll I do to outflank Hillary? Uh, I don't know. Write some good stuff? I'm not going to be anyone's campaign manager.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:42 AM
79 - He was allowed to run on both tickets. He just chose not to.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:45 AM
Write some good stuff?
OK. But presumably, the good stuff has to say, ever so gently, the nominee must not be Hillary, because, well, are you high?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:45 AM
That's good; I'll use that.
90 -- ok, my bad. He sucks.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:46 AM
I would think a lot will come down to "who will drop out when." Gore has a lot of voters dedicated to him, they've voted for him before and hopefully they will again. Besides New Yorkers, no one has ever voted for Hillary before. And I think we could be swayed. So if Warner and Hillary split the centrist Democrats, and Feingold isn't out there stealing Gore votes, that would be a good scenario.
90: How confident was he (I don't know the answer) that N.C.'s governor would be a Democrat?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:49 AM
Electability grounds? Yeah, that always works well.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:51 AM
I just feel compelled to say, I would vote for almost any non-criminal Democrat ahead of Hillary. "Almost" means not Joe Lieberman. Joe Biden, I'm on the fence.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:51 AM
[In addition to Bob Barr of Georgia], "other prominent mainstream political figures have attended meetings or addressed the group, including past Alabama Governor Guy Hunt, United States Representative Mel Hancock, Alabama Public Service Commissioner George C. Wallace, Jr., Tennessee G.O.P. National Committeewoman Alice Algood, South Carolina G.O.P. National Committeeman Buddy Witherspoon, former Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Jim Johnson..."
It seems that it's more than just two states.
CCC
In 1999 the House Republicans squelched a resolution condemning the CCC bigotry (which was paired with a successful resolution condemning Khalid Mohammed.)
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:52 AM
90: How confident was he (I don't know the answer) that N.C.'s governor would be a Democrat?
Yes, this.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:53 AM
Here's my formula for Selecting a Democrat who can win enough Southern votes to tip a Southern state or two into our column.
1. Choose someone who is not a Senator.
2. Choose someone who is not dull as dishwater.
3. Choose someone who actually stands for something, regardless of whether anyone thinks it will play well in the South.
The candidate who seems to me to best fit this description would be Gore, depending on whether he runs afoul of #2 above.
But whoever the nominee is, don't waste any time trying to appeal to Southern voters. Any conscious attempts by any candidate to "win over" Southern votes will be seen by voters as the insincere gestures they actually are, so don't go there. Let them like you or hate you for who you are, dammit.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:54 AM
51:Well, my infamous imperialist war-mongering strategy is intended to appeal to that demographic, or at least the Romantic Chivalrous portion of it. Kinda "We send them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." You have to get them young, before they become chickenhawks or warbloggers, and I swear, they might volunteer for self ethnic-cleansing. Yes, I realize this is profoundly immoral, but that has never stopped me before.
The draft has so many side-benefits.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:55 AM
Anyone know of a topical cream that cures creeping capital S?
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:56 AM
74: Precisely my point. It's all so muddled now, and so long ago, that none of our stories about it are trustworthy after several generations have had the chance to spin it. As such, BS about people down here calling it TWoNA isn't exactly the best lens to use when viewing us from the outside, either, as it relies on precisely those fictions. That those stories are spun at all is itself an indicator of changing times and people trying to incorporate those changes into their own lives. My grandparents voted for Adlai Stevenson. Twice. I mean, Jesus. If people want to think we're all a certain way, or so overwhelmingly a certain way that we're a lost cause, go ahead. But that idea is not rooted in the reality of the place where I grew up.
I think LB's point to just toss trying to pander to the minority of freakjobs and working the common-ground paycheck issues is a good idea, for reasons that include that it ignores a bunch of the gunk that's built up around people's notions of the South.
Posted by Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 11:56 AM
72: It's very complicated and unrelated to this topic (or maybe not), but a lot of that crap is basically made up by people who have never lived here
This is pure crap. I've had close African-American friends from the South indicate that everything is not quite hunky-dory at home. Now, it may be that they're just less comfortable with your uncle who does in fact have Confederate flag stickers on his truck, and they should just get over it. I've close minority friends who've moved to the area report similar things. Again, maybe they just need to get over it. I personally have never heard the n-word used as freely as in Texas. It certainly wasn't everybody, or even the majority. It makes me nervous when I see Jason Zengerle at TNR defend the Confederate flag. Maybe I should just get over it. But this isn't coming from nowhere.
might help to dispose of any notions you might have that we walk to work barefoot on gravel roads while wearing stained overalls
I don't think I've said anything like that. And I used to be a huge fan of the Southern Dems. I thought that they were the saviors of the Democratic Party, and were indeed the people who kept me in the Democratic Party. I absolutely wanted a Southern presidential candidate as often as possible. This was back when I was a huge fan of the DLC, which is, after all, the primary voice of the South in the national Dem Party. I'm not a very big fan of the DLC at the moment--they've been crap on the three issues that bother me most, civil rights, civil liberties, and the war in Iraq--and by proxy, I'm not very big fan of the South at the moment.
I've let my anger overrun my good sense on this issue, both now and before; for that I apologize. I absolutely think we should be able to pick up TN and AK, and it hurts me physically that we don't have NC. But the South isn't a made up, fictitious category. There does appear to be at least the something of a regional culture there (as there is in the East and the West), and it's not the least bit unreasonable to wonder what we have to do to win in that culture, and how it compares to what we have to do elsewhere. Pretending it's just "framing the issue" better is laughable. What I want to know is what we have to trade to win in the South. Maybe it's worth it. But we sure as hell don't seem to know what to offer right now.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:00 PM
Thanks, Becks -- I wasn't sure if that had been updated for the newer bloggers.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:00 PM
My grandparents voted for Adlai Stevenson. Twice. I mean, Jesus.
In fairness to the Southern critics here, that's exactly predictable. Stevenson ran away from the Truman administration's baby steps toward Civil Rights about as fast as he could. I mean, it only made electoral sense; he saw how close the last election was and knew he had to woo the white South if, as a moderate and rather boring Democrat, he could beat the popular war candidate/President. Oh wait, is this where I came in?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:01 PM
How confident was he (I don't know the answer) that N.C.'s governor would be a Democrat?
Very.
However, running for VP and Senate at the same time isn't a very classy way to act. Hedging your bets in public like that? I was glad he didn't do it. The guy who ran in his place lost the election with more votes than Edwards got when he won it, anyway.
Posted by Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:02 PM
How confident was he (I don't know the answer) that N.C.'s governor would be a Democrat?
Completely. Easley was running for his second term, was never seriously challenged, and coasted to an easy win. We've only had 2 GOP governors since Reconstruction.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:03 PM
That's the bottom line. All the specific things we need to do to win white Southern votes are apparently things I disagree with. I'm willing to bend on gun control and maybe a few small issues, but basically it's pretty zero-sum, me against them.
It's not ike saying nice things about Southern gothic fiction, magnolias, hushpuppies, juleps, verandahs, cotillions, and the rest of Southern culture would really help very much. Or NASCAR and Krispie Kreem either.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:03 PM
107- So we push the stuff we do agree with, aim at those Southerners we have a shot at, like the people apo and Pants know, and maybe lose in the South anyway because of the conservative bloc voters. I think you're right that we can't, and shouldn't try to, appeal to that conservative bloc, but I think apo and Pants are right that it's not the whole white South.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:06 PM
However, running for VP and Senate at the same time isn't a very classy way to act. Hedging your bets in public like that? I was glad he didn't do it. The guy who ran in his place lost the election with more votes than Edwards got when he won it, anyway.
Unless campaigning for N.C. senator would have predictably hurt their shot at the presidency or Edwards had no better chance of winning then the Dem who lost, I value a seat in the Senate more than I disvalue being declasse.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:07 PM
102: And I don't recall having stated that there's no racism, or that things are "hunky-dory." I was referring to your "The War of Northern Aggression" jab. My comment that I have such an uncle was not intended to be an endorsement, or a statement that you or your friends or anyone should get over it. I'm merely stating that we're more of a mixed bag than you seem to think. But hey, WTF do I know? I just live here.
How about I just shut up about this? Despite my frequent comments, I'm having a pretty busy day at work. I should focus my attention there and let my blood pressure go back down.
Posted by Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:11 PM
only had 2 GOP governors
1973-1977 and 1985-1993, specifically. As I said upthread, the Dems have remained solidly in charge on the state level here in NC, and certainly not by virtue of appealing to racism, Confederate heritage, or being right-wing. You don't have to appease the Dukes of Hazzard set to win down here, which is what many of you seem to be suggesting.
And Tim, blacks will tell you things aren't hunky-dory all over the country. If you'd like to discuss race relations in LA or NYC, we can certainly do that.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:12 PM
102:"What I want to know is what we have to trade to win in the South. Maybe it's worth it. But we sure as hell don't seem to know what to offer right now."
Umm. Since I oppose the Walmartization of America and the re-enslavement of women I have done my own personal triage. Here is a TAPPED thread: Should MY join the Army
If Democrats move toward a compulsary volunteerism many Nawkers will choose the Peace Corps and Vista and the Southern good ole boys will choose to swing their dicks. Democrats, if in power, could make sure the dicks hit nothing fragile.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:13 PM
but I think apo and Pants are right that it's not the whole white South.
should be 'obviously apo and Pants are right'.
And if everyone could dial it down a notch to avoid bad feeling? Everyone commenting on this thread is on the same side.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:14 PM
I'm still worried about the visceral argument because I don't think people vote on issues as much as they vote for whether they like the guy. Most of my family are conservatives, to the extent that I've heard it said that John McCain is too liberal, but some of them did vote for Jimmy Carter twice. But I don't think they'd vote for a Democratic candidate now, because they don't feel like 'The Democrats' like or respect them.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:18 PM
It's not just the south--it's the west, too. Except for the coastal states, the west has been voting pretty Republican, and the only reason the coastal states aren't swinging that way is because of the cities. And I do think it's basically what Apo is saying: the Dems need to just nominate someone whose *affect* doesn't scream "privileged few." (I personally don't agree that Hillary comes across that way, but I'm not getting into that argument again.)
And we need to trap the R. candidates in more of those "ooh, look, they can scan prices nowadays! Well, who knew?" moments.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:20 PM
But I don't think they'd vote for a Democratic candidate now, because they don't feel like 'The Democrats' like or respect them.
Here, I think we make a profit on stopping the tin-eared cultural appeals. I don't know what to do about Southern prejudice against Northerners other than running Southern candidates, but when we don't have a Southern candidate, I think the cultural appeals are counterproductive because they look like Orientalism: "Yes, my exotic Southern flower, I will woo you by visibly eating ham hocks and greens!"
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:22 PM
Bob, should MY join the army now, or mid-to-late January 2009?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:22 PM
Everyone commenting on this thread is on the same side.
[Cue baa and IdeaList]
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:23 PM
I don't think people vote on issues as much as they vote for whether they like the guy.
This is a more succinct version of what I'm trying to say. Winning in the South doesn't require changing the Democratic platform. It requires putting up decent candidates. Here's the lineup for the past 20 years:
Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry.
Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry were just hapless candidates. Gore actually won Florida (and the election), had it been counted properly, but his failure to pick up any other southern states remains a bit baffling to me. Clinton, on the other hand, won several southern states, not because he was a southerner, but because he came off as a fairly regular guy in spite of pretty much always being the smartest guy in the room.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:26 PM
Al Gore is my first choice, but I don't think he's going to get any more love from white Southerners than Kerry did.
Yeah, this is what worries me about Gore. Not "white Southerners" specifically, but the man's affect just screams Boo Radley.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:27 PM
I wonder why likeability, then, is such a regional issue? I'm serious when I say that I thought Kerry was personally appealing -- oh, he's a big stiff dork, but so are lots of people I like a great deal.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:29 PM
This is a good set of instructions, with a problem:
1. Choose someone who is not a Senator.
I agree.
2. Choose someone who is not dull as dishwater.
Whether someone appears to be dull as dishwater depends 100% on media coverage. Kerry has led an incredibly interesting life, but that doesn't matter.
3. Choose someone who actually stands for something, regardless of whether anyone thinks it will play well in the South.
This is more like 50% dependent on media coverage and 50% dependent on a candidate's choice of what to emphasize. Obviously every candidate stands for lots of things, good or bad, but the only way to get credit for it is to stand for only one thing, all the time, downplay all your other positions to ensure that your preferred message gets to literally everyone in the same way (to prevent people from being confused), and hope that the media doesn't pretend that you stand for nothing.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:30 PM
The most disturbing thing I've read on this thread is Joe D's conviction that Hillary has a big edge. I know we here are not typical of anything but ourselves, but we do represent quite a bit of geographical and age diversity, are reasonably mixed in gender, and are not all that far left as a rule. There ought to be more enthusiasm for Hillary among us than there is if her candidacy were a promising one.
I will vote for her if she is the nominee, as I've said before, but it would be stretching it to say her support here is even lukewarm. And this feeling exactly mirrors the opinion of my RL friends and acquaintances; it isn't limited to this space or this habit.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:32 PM
Clinton, on the other hand, won several southern states, not because he was a southerner, but because he came off as a fairly regular guy in spite of pretty much always being the smartest guy in the room.
This is predominantly because the Republicans made the mistake of mocking his Bubba-like attributes instead of mocking his Rhodes-Scholar-like attributes. That won't happen again.
As you can tell, I think that the subtle implications underlying media coverage pretty much determines almost everybody's opinions about everything. Most people don't have any opinions about a given issue at any time when it's not the #1 story in the news, and most people know virtually nothing about any issue ever. That means that in order for them to have an opinion about it when an opinion (or vote) seems to be necessary, they have to pick up on what the conventional wisdom is among sources they trust.
In other words, framing is much more important than anything else.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:34 PM
121: It's not that likeability is a regional issue: it's that what counts as likeable changes regionally. In the northeast, Kerry's big stiff dork thing is *fine*--as you say, "so are a lot of people I like." In the south and the west, that doesn't wash. What's wanted is someone who doesn't sound snooty, i.e., someone who can cross class lines. It's okay to be smart as shit, you just have to not use twenty dollar words all the time.
The "stiffness" issue is a problem because to a lot of folks, being stiff reads as "I'm uncomfortable around you." You need someone who looks like they're not above eating barbeque and licking their fingers, who seems like they can deal with a li'l bit of friendly shit-giving. Someone who looks good in jeans and a t-shirt.
It's like the way that Clinton was about the only white public figure who has *ever* not looked like a fish out of water in a black church--that kind of thing matters a lot. If we can get someone who is comfortable in their own skin, it'll make a ton of difference.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:37 PM
You know what I've always wondered about Clinton? Rhodes Scholars are supposed to be scholar-athletes -- what was his sport? Golf?
And yes on 123. I really don't hear much enthusiasm for her as a Presidential candidate.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:38 PM
God, y'all. It's hard enough being a liberal in the South. You aren't making it any easier by defaming my region and painting me with the same brush as Nathan Bedford Forrest. You have got to be kidding me. Nathan Godamned Bedford Forrest!?! Jesus fucking Christ. That man is dead. That legacy is dead. No one here speaks of Forrest with reverence. No one calls it the "War of Northern Aggression." Seriously. Do you think the entire region is stuck in a time warp? Most kids here can't even tell you where the Mason-Dixon line is (or was).
(We still drink lemonade out of mason jars, but that's just practical recycling, though I'm sure we'll never get any progressive credit for it.)
Anyhow, in case it's not yet clear, I am one pro-choice, anti-war, pro-religious-tolerance, pro-gay-marriage Southerner. I may be a minority, but I am not alone. There are Southern pagans, Southern lesbians, and Southern peaceniks too.
The way to reach Southerners is not by calling them all stupid racists. It's by appealing to people like me and the people we already know at the places we congregate. There are progressive institutions in the South. I work for one of them--a science museum. Environmental issues, for example, rule here. The South is a region of great natural beauty, and no one wants to lose that.
And for the record, I, for one, have never heard anyone say "The South will never vote for an Easterner" until I read it here. I did, however, learn the phrase "Yellow Dog Democrat" here.
P.S. It's "Krispy Kreme," not Kreem, and they're delicious. Can we all at least agree on that?
P.P.S. LB said "I think the cultural appeals are counterproductive because they look like Orientalism: "Yes, my exotic Southern flower, I will woo you by visibly eating ham hocks and greens!"
Agreed, and please chew with your mouth closed.
P.P.P.S. I've calmed down now and reconsidered posting this about 800 times. I know, I know, "we're all on the same side here." But when you grow up hearing those jokes--you know the ones, where the stupid rednecks are marrying their cousins in Teh South--it might make you a little sensitive to stereotypes.
Posted by Wrenae | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:39 PM
I will agree that the Democrats should nominate better campaigners. I just don't think that the problems with the South can be solved that way. Or the kind of things BPhd was talking about.
I remember the Cleland defeat in Georgia. He lost, either because Georgians believe that he was weak on defense, or because he voted in favor of unionizing Homeland Security employees. He was "too liberal" for Georgia.
I don't see that there's going to be a way to campaign in Georgia if Cleland was too liberal fior them. I've had Georgia Democrats tell me that Cleland was too liberal. But as far as I know, he wasn't very liberal, if he was liberal at all.
I'll tone it down, but it does seem that realistically there's a big chunk of territory down there that's just hopeless. And whatever nice OK people there are living down there should not be blamed for what the others are doing, but that Cleland election really looked bad.
And it's the talk about Southerners' hurt feelings about condescension etc. that piss me off. Southerners now run the country, and I have strong feelings about that. If they hadn't elected Jesse Helms and Strong Thurmond all those tiumes, my feelings would be different.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:39 PM
117:Trying to think, I know his French is good, does he speak Spanish? We need a million border guards. And I said a while ago, I would so much rather have Ezra and MY in Haditha than the battle-hardened professional cliqueish exhausted Marines that were actually there.
This is a huge, well-considered, and probably hopeless idea of mine. I will give one last extended point and go away.
I was trying to do the calculations last night on the cost of an Army division and ten fighter-bombers. I think, amortizing the initial expense of the planes, very close. Which is the more versatile weapon, which has possible peaceful or less violent applications? What kind of war does the choice of fighter-planes force you into? What kind and amount of jobs, military and otherwise, does the choice create? What kind of voters, like those who do not hate gov't, does the choice create?
We have a Republican military, designed for domestic political advantage and for easy use in brutal Republican-style wars"example Iraq. A military of large manpower liberalizes a society, as for instance, Israel and Saddam discovered. An elite professional Praetorian is a certain path to tyranny.
But the South is simply too big, they will not allow disarmament, internationalism, and peace. They will destroy Presidents like Clinton with those attitudes. There really is no effective choice.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:40 PM
Obviously every candidate stands for lots of things, good or bad, but the only way to get credit for it is to stand for only one thing, all the time, downplay all your other positions to ensure that your preferred message gets to literally everyone in the same way (to prevent people from being confused), and hope that the media doesn't pretend that you stand for nothing.
Edwards actually did a very good job at this. His issue was poverty and economic inequalities. He kept hammering his "two Americas" thing every time he was in front of a microphone or a camera, and it worked. Regardless of whether or not you agreed with him, you knew what his issue was and what he stood for.
What was Kerry's issue, again? I think it was something along the lines of "I won't screw things up as badly as Bush," but I don't remember exactly.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:40 PM
In other words, framing is much more important than anything else.
It's not like we can't control framing at all. The Clintons were very good at managing the news cycle.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:41 PM
mocking his Bubba-like attributes instead of mocking his Rhodes-Scholar-like attributes
Wouldn't work, non-issue (just like with Bush, unfortunately). It's just fine to be really educated, as long as you haven't gotten above your raisin'. It's not that people are anti-education; it's that they're offended by the idea that being educated means having nothing to do with the folks you left behind. If you've been away to Oxford but still come home and enjoy the family picnic and roll up your sleeves and help with the dishes, then your education will make people proud of you without making them think you're ashamed of them.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:43 PM
Anyhow, in case it's not yet clear, I am one pro-choice, anti-war, pro-religious-tolerance, pro-gay-marriage Southerner. I may be a minority, but I am not alone. There are Southern pagans, Southern lesbians, and Southern peaceniks too.
It's good to hear from you (and apo, and Pants), just for some firsthand confirmation that this is true. Political junkies outside the South, like me, just get stuck on that visible block of Republican states down there, and the stereotyping is a huge temptation.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:44 PM
Anyhow, in case it's not yet clear, I am one pro-choice, anti-war, pro-religious-tolerance, pro-gay-marriage Southerner. I may be a minority, but I am not alone. There are Southern pagans, Southern lesbians, and Southern peaceniks too.
However, nobody even vaguely similar to you has a chance at winning a state- or nation-wide election in the South (except Florida); do you agree?
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:46 PM
I'm not sure there's a state where a "pro-choice, anti-war, pro-religious-tolerance, pro-gay-marriage" candidate would win a state-wide election. Maybe Vermont.
Posted by Duvall | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:48 PM
Hang on a minute. Influential national political leaders from the South, speaking to the national media, routinely and repeatedly make little nudge-nudge wink-wink remarks about New York and Boston and California. God knows what they say at home (it occasionally leaks out, and it's not pretty).
But one registered Democrat on a blog thread (that's all I am -- believe me, the Democratic Party is not with me on this) makes some nasty remarks, and people get upset?
I've been hearing what the South feels for decades. Well, now people know how some of us Yankees feel.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:49 PM
Southerners now run the country, and I have strong feelings about that
There's a distinction between material capital and cultural capital. Basically, yes: the south has a lot of real power. But in terms of cultural stereotypes, the south is still pegged as a big national joke. And no one (not just southerners) is going to vote for someone who they suspect thinks they're a stupid jerk.
It doesn't mean you don't also need appealling political positions. But since we're constantly writing our hands wondering *why* people insist on voting for those whose political actions are directly opposed to the voter's interests, this is the thing. Voting is an emotional as well as a rational decision. We've got the second one covered, but we need to pay some attention to the importance of the first.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:50 PM
I'm not sure there's a state where a "pro-choice, anti-war, pro-religious-tolerance, pro-gay-marriage" candidate would win a state-wide election. Maybe Vermont.
Oregon, California, New York, Massachusets, maybe Minnesota. In most of those states "antiwar" is the tough one, in Minnesota it's "gay marriage".
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:52 PM
But one registered Democrat on a blog thread
To be fair, at least two -- SCMT has been saying similar stuff. But yes, I do get cranky when 'Massachusetts liberal' or 'New Yorker' is used as an epithet in a political context, and we're not supposed to get mad about it, while insensitive comments about the South turn into 'What's wrong with the Democrats?'
But there's nothing to be done about it.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:53 PM
136: I hate to say this, but I've been hearing what the South feels for decades. Well, now people know how some of us Yankees feel sounds a LOT like when people say, "we've been practicing affirmative action for black people for decades. White men are the only group it's legal to discriminate against."
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:54 PM
135: You think there are zero U.S. senators, state governors, and state A.G.'s that meet that description? Really?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:54 PM
nudge-nudge wink-wink remarks about New York and Boston and California
Republicans down here do that. They are playing to their bigoted base and, believe me, Southern Democrats have as much contempt for them and their base as you do. Probably more, since we actually run into them.
Again, you're conflating the ugly end of Southern politics with the entire population and that's just not based in reality. In a state like NC, where 1/4 of the population is black, that means you only have to get a little over a third of the white population to win the state. That is achievable, and achievable without compromising on the issues.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:58 PM
Google search suggests Clinton played rugby at Oxford. Whether that was what got him there, or whether that was an actual requirement, I haven't found.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:59 PM
I just don't believe that this is a cultural sensitivity thing. The Democratic party doesn't look down on Southerners -- on the contrary, they neutralize the Democratic base in order to court Southerners. If Southerners are so culturally defensive and skittish that they'll vote against someone just because they have Northern body language, is there anything that can change that? It seems pretty deep-rooted.
I really think that it's the issues -- unions, the military, Christianity, etc. And cultural issues too.
Rather than try to figure out how to make the south feel good about itself, there are various things that can be done to campaign better, put together a better organization, state issues more vigorously, and especially get the message out between elections. And at some point some of that may pay off in the South as well as everywhere else. But I don't think that agonizing about the white southern vote is the place to start.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 12:59 PM
140: You know, I think that's unfair. What Kerry, for example, got hurt by is regional prejudice. To the extent he's not 'likeable' down South, it's because Southerners think big stiff Northeastern dorks are assholes. That's not Kerry being uncomfortable in his skin, or a snob, or ashamed of his family -- that's a biased reaction to a regional trait, no different than a Northerner thinking that someone from the South is a stupid bubba because he drawls.
Northern liberals seem to be perfectly willing to get over their regional prejudice against Southern candidates, to the extent it exists. Clinton owns NYC these days. Southerners seem to have more trouble walking away from regional bias. I don't know what to do about this, but I don't think it's out of line to note it.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:00 PM
I agree with both 144 and 145.
As far as I can tell, Southern voters are prejudiced against Northern candidates, and Northern voters are not prejudiced against Southern candidates.
The fact that stereotypes exist of the South isn't relevant. Stereotypes exist of the North too, and the Pacific Northwest, and especially California.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:03 PM
145 gets it exactly right.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:03 PM
"....sounds a LOT like when people say, 'we've been practicing affirmative action for black people for decades. White men are the only group it's legal to discriminate against.'"
One of the things I hear from Southerners is how they don't Yankees. And so I reciprocate. I don't recognize the analogy.
If the South hadn't been electing all those godawful people all this time I wouldn't be saying these things. Jesse Helms was far worse than just a Senator who voted wrong most of the time. He really was a nasty guy.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:04 PM
That's not Kerry being uncomfortable in his skin, or a snob, or ashamed of his family
I didn't mean those things were true. I meant, that's how that kind of body language reads.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:04 PM
I agree with 145; I thought Kerry was admirably authentic, although I would think that, coming from a similar regional background. What I consider his virtues as a man told against him. I guess we're back to framing.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:06 PM
I meant, that's how that kind of body language reads
That's how it reads to Southerners, not how it reads to people generally. Kerry actually comes off rather like my father, who, trust me, around here is likeable.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:09 PM
Maybe it's latent prejudice against southerners that makes me see Edwards's downhome mannerisms and shit-eating grin as insincere put-ons.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:09 PM
I've seen him speak in person. He seemed pretty real to me.
Clinton always seemed like a faker, though. And I loved him.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:11 PM
So we're in agreement. Southerners are prejudiced against Northern candidates even when the Northern candidates are likeable, whereas the same prejudice does not exist in reverse.
By "Southerners" I do not mean 100% of Southerners, I mean the ones that swing elections.
Therefore, any candidate who is not A) a Southerner and B) someone who acts like a Southerner has no hope of winning any Southern states.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:11 PM
151: Yes. Which is why my first comment pointed out that the question of regional framing relies on region. In some parts of the country that body language reads in ways that are comforting. In others, not. It's not that the southerners are some kind of weird freaks who expect to be pandered to; it's that northeasterners are unaware of the ways that *their* weird freakish regional preferences are already being pandered to.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:11 PM
But I'm squabbling now, and shouldn't be.
Southerners: Try and get over the overreaction to Northern politicians as inauthentic snobs, or whatever they look like to you.
Northerners: Stop lumping all the Southerners in together as hopeless conservatives, ans quit bothering trying to appeal to the ones who are.
Republicans: Lose.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:11 PM
It's not that the southerners are some kind of weird freaks who expect to be pandered to; it's that northeasterners are unaware of the ways that *their* weird freakish regional preferences are already being pandered to.
Pandered to by who? TV newscasters?
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:12 PM
Yes to 156.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:12 PM
I'll absolutely agree with you on Jesse Helms. I'm glad he's still alive, because he's in terrible health and has to be in pretty constant physical pain. Given that, I hope he lives to be 150. But, y'know, he never won by much, he was a deeply divisive and polarizing figure here, and for at least part of his unfortunate tenure, the other NC Senate seat was held by Terry Sanford, one of the most progressive senators ever to come out of the south.
So it defies easy categorization. Kerry's problem isn't that he is a northerner with regionally-based body language. It's that he is a boring trust-fund drip.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:12 PM
it's that northeasterners are unaware of the ways that *their* weird freakish regional preferences are already being pandered to.
Okay, still squabbling here, but how was Clinton, or Edwards, catering to weird freakish regional northern preferences?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:13 PM
Voting is an emotional as well as a rational decision. We've got the second one covered, but we need to pay some attention to the importance of the first.
I knew there was a reason I loved your blog, and also you, Dr. B.
~
Sorry for my earlier outburst. I haven't had enough Krispy Kremes with my coffee, apparently.
I agree that there are racists in the South, and I'm not happy about that. Last I checked, though, there were racists everywhere. Using things like the CCC against the South is like using arrest records against black men. Sure there are more of them in prison, but that doesn't mean that they're all criminals by nature.
~
I don't think Kerry lost here altogether because of his "stiff Northerner" look. When I spoke to people about it, it was a mixed bag of reasons, almost all Bush propaganda. People, for some reason, believed a lot of Bush's bullshit. People said stuff about Kerry ranging from his lack of voting record (i.e. he doesn't work hard/go to work) to his war record (he's a traitor) to his lack of clear platform (he's wishy-washy). None of those things bear close scrutiny, because they're based on lies and misrepresentations, but people believed them and here we are.
Posted by Wrenae | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:13 PM
It's kind of lose-lose, though, with the media we have. Any campaigning done by a non-Southern Democrat in the South is going to be portrayed as pandering. It's the Democrats who treat Southerners as aliens, so much as it's the Washington press corps. Their fetishizing of George W's cowboy minstrel show is the flipside of this.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:14 PM
110, 111: My basic position is, I think, the same as LB's 108. Or as I wrote over at Tapped last night:
And, unless I've missed something, I've made every pro-South argument I've seen here in the past myself. I didn't grow up on the coasts, and I understand feeling that coastal elites are somehow denigrating your region. I look at what I've written here, now and before, and I'm the guy I used to hate--I'm absolutely part of the problem. (Apologize for the "Northern Aggression" thing, Pants--for some reason I'm angry and Justice Roberts, and anyway, he's not Southern and he used "War Between the States.") That's part of the problem writ small. Southerners quite reasonably believe that coastal folk are condescending dicks and refuse to vote for them. Coastal folk get scared and angry at the result, and pick up the closest, easiest cudgel--condescension. Repeat and rinse.
I just…I don't know. It bothers me that I don't understand half of my country. Not that I don't agree with them, but that I don't have any idea what they could possibly be thinking. It worries me that the half I don't understand is the half in charge. It worries me more that major figures in the Democratic Party are arguing that to win we need to behave more like the people I don't understand.
I just want to know what we have to do to win the South. And I only really get two answers, usually. The major voice says that we should just follow the DLC, and they really are terrible on the issues that I care about. If we have to follow the DLC (or HRC--same thing) to win the South, then I'm not sure I want to win the South. The minor voice says it's primarily a marketing problem. Gawd, I hope that's true, but I'm suspicious of it. Southerners aren't morons. There's something about national Dems that they're not crazy about, and they're not going to be fooled by marketing campaigns. So I just want to know what we really need to do to win.
And, again, I apologize for the offense I've given, Apo and Pants.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:16 PM
Sorry; third sentence in 162 should start, "It's NOT the Democrats..."
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:16 PM
153--You may be right that it comes off differently in person, but, Joe, you're from Texas, aren't you?
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:16 PM
It's that he is a boring trust-fund drip.
Those exist down here too, and they don't win elections either.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:16 PM
Kerry's problem isn't that he is a northerner with regionally-based body language. It's that he is a boring trust-fund drip.
Given that
A = northerner with regionally-based body language
and
B = boring trust-fund drip
There is a 99% chance that if you are A, you will be portrayed in the media as B. It happened to the first president Bush too; he was lucky that it happened to his opponent as well.
In other words, nominating Kerry was a mistake in that it played to people's prejudices. It should have been an avoidable mistake, given that the prejudices have been known for a long time.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:16 PM
Jeebus, I missed a lot.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:16 PM
165 -- yeah, so?
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:17 PM
Well, I'm a Californian transplanted to NY. Maybe Edwards's demeanor plays to different regionalisms?
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:20 PM
Kerry's problem isn't that he is a northerner with regionally-based body language. It's that he is a boring trust-fund drip.
You know, this just isn't true. He was a combat hero, then a leader of the anti-war movement, then a prosecutor, started up a cookie bakery to make extra money while working as a prosecutor, had a very interesting love-life after his first marriage broke up culminating in marrying an attractive billionairess, and in his late 50's and 60's is still an enthusiastic athlete (in the 'doing difficult stuff for fun' sense, rather than Bush's grim little exercise program). You really can't say that he hasn't had an interesting life or done interesting stuff; the problem is that you look at how he holds himself and the rhythms of his speech and dislike him on that basis.
(Note: I'm not saying he's the second coming of Christ -- I disagreed with him about lots of stuff. But the 'boring rich guy' thing was bullshit.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:20 PM
I really fear that 50 years from now, American politics and culture will have been defined by the bad Southerners, and that Jesse Helms will be remembered as a great statesman. We're already a lot further down that road than I wish. So yes, I'm really touchy.
When the bad Southerners play the self-pity card, they're just setting up their next power grab. It's been working for them so far. It seems that Bush's goodluck has come to an end, but I sure wouldn't bank on it.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:23 PM
Thanks #171, that's what I mean in #121 by saying "Kerry has led an incredibly interesting life, but that doesn't matter." It didn't matter. His actual life story was not a factor in the campaign.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:23 PM
'Massachusetts liberal' or 'New Yorker' is used as an epithet in a political context, and we're not supposed to get mad about it
And it continues because people don't hit back. Everytime we hear this kind of shit liberals should say something to the effect of "the Northeast is the birthplace of the greatest country in the world, and if you don't like it you can go fuck yourself". Liberal is a dirty word in this country because we don't fight.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:24 PM
Let me offer some examples. Regardless of what you think of Chuck Schumer, he would do fine in the South because he comes off as a regular guy despite being New York as all get out. Tom Harkin would do fine, despite being pretty much a paleoliberal. Jack Reed (RI) could do fine.
It really isn't about being Northern.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:26 PM
he's not Southern and he used "War Between the States"
I think this is an accepted variant, and doesn't equal "War of Northern Aggression". I mean, I'm reading Shame of the Nation right now (which is excellent!) and Jonathan Kozol uses that term. He's a New Yorker.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:27 PM
#175: I think that within 1 month, the average person's mental image of any of those guys would be exactly the same as their image of Kerry or Dean.
It's just impossible to speak clearly to people on the campaign trail. Everything gets filtered through media stereotypes.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:27 PM
Liberal is a dirty word in this country because we don't fight.
I would very, very much like to see a politician willing to stand up and say, "You're goddam right I'm a liberal. You got a problem with that?"
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:28 PM
Barney Frank for president!
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:30 PM
Wait...Tom Harkin isn't a Northerner, he's from Iowa, which isn't a stereotyped region. I think he might be taken seriously for a little while, as long as he made sure to concentrate on one issue that he would be identified with.
That didn't work with Dick Gephardt though. His public image became "Boring guy who talks boring and doesn't seem to realize how boring he is and never says anything interesting".
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:31 PM
171: Yes, he has had an interesting life. But every speech he made during the campaign made my eyes glass over, and I was supporting the guy. His demeanor is not exciting; he does not inspire passion. That is not a regional trait - Howard Dean didn't have that effect on me and he's as new England as they come.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:32 PM
Okay, but I've heard you say that Dean was impossible down South too. Was that just that the 'bumpersticker' gaffe was unforgiveable, or what was wrong with him?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:34 PM
175 - You know who would tooootally suck in the South? Pataki. That would be almost fun to watch. How that guy even thinks he could become president...
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:37 PM
It would be GREAT if Pataki ran for President. Maybe the idiotic "stuffy condescending northeastern prep school guy" stereotype would become associated with Republicans again.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:39 PM
he's from Iowa, which isn't a stereotyped region
[head exploding] What?
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:40 PM
What's the stereotype of Iowa?
Neutral middle America. Farmers. Nothing personality-wise that I can think of.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:41 PM
Ages ago, David Letterman's Top Ten List was "Words that sound sexy when Barry White says them". The only ones I remember were "Big fat greasy ham", "Gonorrhea" and "Pataki".
And to this day, I can't hear 'Pataki" without hearing it in Barry White's voice.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:41 PM
Tom Harkin isn't a Northerner
No, but he's well to the left of what most people think is electable in the south. My point being that a presidential election is less about issues or regional identification than it is a popularity contest between two individuals. And the Dems haven't done a good job of nominating the sorts of candidates that can win those. Dems will never sweep the south, but it only takes one or two states to sew up the victory.
Upthread, John said that Republicans couldn't take CA or NY, but Reagan did. Twice. In 1988, Bush Sr. took California and only lost NY 52-48. So while we argue about regional identifications and prejudices, I'm proposing that those play a much smaller role than y'all believe.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:42 PM
188:
Really, Republicans from California and Connecticut did well in blue states? That seems to suggest that regional identifications and prejudices play a much larger role than many people believe.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:44 PM
Sorry, that last comment was rude.
But in that it is a popularity contest between two individuals, it often happens that those two individuals come to be the embodiment of certain regions, in addition to being the embodiment of certain types of people.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:46 PM
the 'bumpersticker' gaffe was unforgiveable
Not unforgiveable, just symptomatic. There's a reason he didn't win a single primary anywhere in the country.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:47 PM
190 - I didn't take it as rude, and can't quite figure out what would construed as rude in it.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:49 PM
What's the stereotype of Iowa?
Hm, well now that you ask I can't put my finger on it. But I'm pretty sure there is one. Yeah, rural and small-town America, taciturn, driving a hard bargain, Protestant... Midwestern drawl... (the drawl with which I spoke in California until I was ten years old, having lived in Iowa during a critical year of my speech development)
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:49 PM
Not unforgiveable, just symptomatic.
Symptomatic of what?
There's a reason he didn't win a single primary anywhere in the country.
What is that reason?
Sorry, I just feel like you're drastically underestimating the role of prejudices in this whole process.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:49 PM
Edwards didn't get nominated, but he did play pretty well in the south, if I remember correctly. What I meant by pandering to northeastern prejudices is that, to LB, Kerry seems like her dad: that's comfortable, and it means that she (and people like her) won't have a problem reconciling their emotional reaction to him with their approval of what the Democratic party issues are.
Look, on this very thread people have reacted to Wrenae by saying, in effect, "yes, but you're one of the good ones." Which is the same thing people say to women or blacks or any other group when they're trying to demonstrate that they're not prejudiced. And the reaction, "yeah, but they don't like *us* either!" sounds a lot like reverse racism/anti-feminist backlash.
It's not that there's mutual antagonism (there is, but not as much as some think). It's that by buying into the *idea* of mutual antagonism, we perpetuate it. And it really isn't that hard to just recognize that some regional stereotypes play really badly in other parts of the country. The reasons why aren't that complicated. Clinton overcame the Bubba problem by being a Rhodes scholar. A Rhodes scholar type can overcome the snooty easterner problem by being a man o' the people. I'm a westerner, and I get it all the time: "you're not like the other feminists/professors/whatever: you swear, and you know about livestock, and you like regular food." Or whatever. It's not a question of whether one really *is* bigoted against X region of the country; it's whether one has the social signals that make one seem comfortable around people from X.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:50 PM
Not unforgiveable, just symptomatic.
I'm asking symptomatic of what. Kerry was too stiff and boring, what was Dean's problem?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:50 PM
(And we're buying into stereotype when we talk about the ways that southerners are prejudiced against northerners, but northerners aren't prejudiced against southerners.)
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:51 PM
I'm asking symptomatic of what.
Of not being ready for prime time.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:55 PM
What I meant by pandering to northeastern prejudices is that, to LB, Kerry seems like her dad: that's comfortable, and it means that she (and people like her) won't have a problem reconciling their emotional reaction to him with their approval of what the Democratic party issues are.
But of course I'm not prejudiced against Kerry, he's my people (Northeastern Catholic whatever). But I (as a representative of the elitist Northeasterner) am not prejudiced against Clinton. Or against Edwards. I don't have my prejudices against Southerners catered to by having it explained that they're unelectable -- I don't have my prejudices against Southerners catered to at all.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:56 PM
200!
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:58 PM
I haven't read the thread, but I did search it for "bacon" and found not a mention. Time to bring your "A" game, political analysts.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 1:59 PM
193: Let me delve into my shallow and narrow knowledge of musicals and say:
Oh, there's nothing halfway
About the Iowa way to treat you,
When we treat you
Which we may not do at all.
There's an Iowa kind of special
Chip-on-the-shoulder attitude.
We've never been without.
That we recall.
We can be cold
As our falling thermometers in December
If you ask about our weather in July.
And we're so by God stubborn
We could stand touchin' noses
For a week at a time
And never see eye-to-eye.
But what the heck, you're welcome,
Join us at the picnic.
You can eat your fill
Of all the food you bring yourself.
You really ought to give Iowa a try.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:03 PM
171: The lies were believable because they were congruent with Kerry's affect. He *looked* like the kind of privileged guy who doesn't do military service, whose never had to do physical labor in his life, who maybe skis, sure, but that's a sport for rich people. If his affect had been different, the lies wouldn't have worked. Clinton's not having served wasn't a huge issue because he looks and sounds like the kind of guys who *do* serve.
Think of it as a casting problem. Christopher Walken is a really good comic actor, but he looks like a criminal, so he isn't gonna get cast in an Adam Sandler role.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:04 PM
If Southerners play the regional-identity card, and they do, I'm highly inclined to see them and raise them a few.
This is all just venting on my part. When the DNC invites me in to give them my wise advice, I'll speak much more temperately.
But I've been hearing this stuff for at least 30 years now. And the Democrats have tried pretty hard to appeal to the South, but the bad Republican Southerners have taken over the government anyway, and I don't see any up side to it. I think that demographicly the Democrats have little choice, especially because much of the West resembles the South.
A lot of the tone of the debate is along the lines of "You don't want to make the South mad, because if you do you'll really regret it." And that's the reality we live with. I just don't see The South as an entity as a victim at all. They've control the US government for most of my adult life.
As I've said, I think that Democrats should restrategize, reorganize, take some vitamins, make some changes, and get to work. I do not think that the focus of these efforts should be the white Southern vote.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:04 PM
"Scientia potentia est." - Francis Bacon
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:04 PM
203: John McCain always struck me as a pretty good guy, and he got reamed in the South during the primaries. It's not just packaging.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:06 PM
199: Fair enough. But Clinton's southernness is what got him nicknamed "Bubba," and I do remember a lot of jokes about his fondness for McD's and his weight. They were affectionate jokes, to be sure, because he is a hell of a likeable guy, but they do show, I think, that there are stereotypes against his southernisms. You personally might not have thought of him as a bubba, but a lot of people did. And do.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:07 PM
202 -- yay!
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:07 PM
But we'll give you our shirt, and a back to go with it, if your crops should happen to die.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:08 PM
They were affectionate jokes, to be sure, because he is a hell of a likeable guy, but they do show, I think, that there are stereotypes against his southernisms. You personally might not have thought of him as a bubba, but a lot of people did. And do.
Sure, he got stereotyped as a bubba, but it didn't hurt him -- no one held it against him.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:09 PM
They were affectionate jokes, to be sure, because he is a hell of a likeable guy, but they do show, I think, that there are stereotypes against his southernisms.
I agree except for the word "against". In other words, they were not negative stereotypes.
Just about every stereotype of the South I've seen in pop culture in the last 8-10 years has been positive. Everyone wants to seem like a southerner in order to seem honest and authentic. I really, really think they have a built-in advantage in both public perception and press coverage.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:09 PM
I haven't read the thread, but I did search it for "bacon" and found not a mention. Time to bring your "A" game, political analysts.
No bacon till you mentioned it, but there was something resembling a cock joke in 112.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:11 PM
no one held it against him
Argh. This is precisely the kind of northern language that reads to people as condescending. Yeah, he's a bubba but we're big enough not to mind? The implication is that there *is* something wrong with being a bubba, and it's to the great credit of the north that we don't hold it against people. That right there is the problem.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:12 PM
Isn't there a stereotype of Southern politicians being corrupt?
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:13 PM
I don't think Kerry could have done much better to win the election. The electorate had an easy job to do, and it failed.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:13 PM
The implication is that there *is* something wrong with being a bubba, and it's to the great credit of the north that we don't hold it against people. That right there is the problem.
That's a misreading. There is a stereotype that religion people are more likely to be decent people. Are they really right in going around claiming that's condescending? That's insane.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:14 PM
The word "Southern" in 214 is superfluous and should be removed.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:14 PM
Isn't there a stereotype of Southern politicians being corrupt?
There's also a stereotype of Northern politicans being corrupt. Generally you hear this about Chicago.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:14 PM
215 -- Not to mention massive levels of fraud and voter suppression.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:14 PM
The absolute first thing I knew about William Clinton was that Will Shortz was impressed by Clinton's crossword puzzle-solving skillz. I think it was during the runup to the primary that Shortz introduced one of his puzzles as "the one that Clinton solved in 15 minutes." After that kind of endorsement, I didn't care where Clinton was from...
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:14 PM
Ogged, bacon is very popular in the South, as are all pork products. Use barbeque as your platform, and we will all vote for you.
A lot of the tone of the debate is along the lines of "You don't want to make the South mad, because if you do you'll really regret it."
Really? Cause I haven't gotten that tone at all. It's been more like "give up on the South cuz they're unwinnable/prejudiced against Northerners/not open to correct thinking etc." I missed the threats of retribution somehow.
I do not think that the focus of these efforts should be the white Southern vote.
FWIW, I agree. The entire middle of the country voted Republican in the last election (well, the rigged and entirely unbelievable election), so the South is hardly the place to point the finger of blame, nor the place to "win" in order to gain a Dem president.
However, I do think the next candidate will have to be charismatic to win. And I've seen few charismatics in the Dem party lately (Edwards was closest to my mind, but lacking some of the oommph somehow.)
Posted by Wrenae | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:16 PM
Jeez, bitch, I can almost guess your discipline from that.
An issue not mentioned here far more important here is media control. Whether or not it's biased Republican (I think it is), the media filter is powerful. The "Dean Scream", for example, was 100% fake. Film editors and sound editors could have made MLK Dream speech sound bad, if they'd wanted to.
In other words, the "people" Gore and Kerry didn't please weren't the voters. It was the lightweight, shallow, cynical, malicious airheads in TV and print news. And part of the reason that body language is so important is that a lot of media people are twenty-something not far enough removed from high school.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:16 PM
216: Whose stereotype? We on this thread don't think religious people are more likely to be decent and moral. We think they're more likely to be intolerant bigots. And we--or people like us--have a lot of cultural capital (even though we like to complain that that's not the case), and for better or worse we are the stereotype of the Democratic party.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:16 PM
no one held it against him
Because that's not how you give a blowjob.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:17 PM
213: I'm not getting this. There's a stereotype out there of the "Bubba": friendly red-faced beer-drinking overweight southern guy. Clinton fit that pretty well. What was condescending? Knowing that the stereotype exists? Recognizing Clinton's resemblance to it?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:18 PM
And we--or people like us--have a lot of cultural capital (even though we like to complain that that's not the case),
What's "cultural capital"?
We certainly don't have any actual power.
and for better or worse we are the stereotype of the Democratic party.
Whose fault is that? We're not running for president. Extremely middle-of-the-road, competent people are running for president, and are caricatured as being us.
I still agree with post#222 that media-based stereotypes are far more important than anything else. Somehow we weren't thinking clearly when we nominated Kerry; he was far too easy to stereotype.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:21 PM
We think they're more likely to be intolerant bigots
[raises hand] I do not believe that, as stated.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:22 PM
In #226 "middle-of-the-road" should be "centrist". It wasn't meant to mean "boring".
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:22 PM
Ogged, bacon is very popular in the South, as are all pork products. Use barbeque as your platform, and we will all vote for you.
Ogged/Labs 08! (Or would Ogged/Apostropher be a more balanced ticket?)
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:23 PM
It was really a joke. Visiting my sister in SE Kansas I met a few Bubbas and good ole boys, and Clinton's nothing like them. He knows how to talk to them, but there's not much other resemblance.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:24 PM
221 is right. "The South" is shorthand for a lot of places--the south, the midwest, the west. Basically pretty much anyplace that isn't heavily urban. Again, I think looking to the west is pretty illustrative: on the west coast, Seattle, Portland, Olympia, San Francisco, and LA tend to vote Democratic. But the agricultural areas don't (and keep in mind, the agricultural areas include some pretty darn big cities now). And this is true in the south too: in Tennessee, for instance, Nashville voted blue--but the rest of the state voted red.
"The South" is just shorthand for "people who feel ambivalent or uncomfortable with urbanisms." Think about high school: the smart kids (us) couldn't wait to get out of our podunk towns and go to college. That stereotype means that the people who live in those podunk towns think that we think of them as, well, as podunk.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:24 PM
"Somehow we weren't thinking clearly when we nominated Kerry; he was far too easy to stereotype."
I just think this is wrong. What's different between Kerry and Clinton is that the republicans got even better at smearing during the Clinton years, and built up a well of spite to draw from. And we were very weak during that election.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:24 PM
Use barbeque as your platform, and we will all vote for you.
Anyone who's not a pandering condescending egghead knows that it's spelled "BBQ". Probably never ate slaw in your life.
And is that green tea you're drinking? It is! I don't think the average person can buy green tea in the grocery store. Nice try, bring us someone else in four years.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:25 PM
As far as I can tell Clinton stereotyped himself as a Bubba, and this was very effective politically.
For all of the Democrats who stereotype religious people as intolerant bigots, an awfully large number of elected politicians are religious. As in basically ALL of them, at least in public. Basically every candidate is religious. How would an atheist Dem fare in the south?
Why am I supposed to see some sort of symmetry here? Emerson is right.
Posted by Barbar | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:26 PM
232...you're right. It's impossible to find someone who can't be smeared.
So what can be done?
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:27 PM
Way back upthread (damn timezones!), B said:
It's not just the south--it's the west, too. Except for the coastal states, the west has been voting pretty Republican, and the only reason the coastal states aren't swinging that way is because of the cities.
Yes, and Ds who can pick up votes in the west are, in my completely ignorant opinion, also likely to do better in the south because they have some shred of rural credibility. My roots are in rural southwest Washington and I've spent almost no time in the South, but the "condescending urban liberal" thing that southerners complain about sounds very, very familiar, and I find myself nodding a bit at some of the southerners' reactions on this thread (although I'm also nodding at some of SCMT's and John Emerson's comments, so maybe I'm just feeling agreeable this morning).
So I end up with the people who say focus on doing better in the inland west and don't worry so much about the south, but largely because I think that candidates who can win in the inland west will also pick up votes in the south.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:28 PM
An interesting Clinton anecdote, picked up on the intarwebs and probably paraphrased a few times. As president, he was in the habit of completing the NYT crossword over breakfast while making diplomatic calls. That man is smart.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:29 PM
231, 236: And then returned to it and made the point I was trying to make while I was typing something incoherent.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:33 PM
235: I think we should stop engaging in debate with people who have proven themselves disingenuous, and instead mock them repeatedly and harshly, until the great mass of americans who want only entertainment from politics are more entertained by us. Which means baa will have less fun around here.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:35 PM
Aide: Sir, we have Tony Blair on line 2.
Bill: Thank you.
Tony! How's it going? Good.
So the reason I'm calling is, do you know a seven letter word that means 'contrary'? I think it starts with an 's'.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:36 PM
Hooray, crossword puzzles!
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:39 PM
What's different between Kerry and Clinton is that the republicans got even better at smearing during the Clinton years
That, and Clinton was probably the most skilled American politician of his generation while Kerry, uh, wasn't.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:40 PM
How would an atheist Dem fare in the south?
The same as everywhere else in the country.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:43 PM
Much as I hate to say it, I don't think an athiest will win anywhere in the US, Barbar. Stupid as that is.
Anyone who's not a pandering condescending egghead knows that it's spelled "BBQ". Probably never ate slaw in your life.
And is that green tea you're drinking? It is! I don't think the average person can buy green tea in the grocery store. Nice try, bring us someone else in four years.
That is sweet iced tea, honey, and the only thing green in it is a sprig of mint. The barbeque is in sandwich form, Eastern North Carolina vinegar-and-pepper based, and if you put anything other than cabbage and real mayonaise in the slaw, I ain't eatin it. I will have a side of ribs, though.
Bitch, if you keep talking sexy like that, I'm going to have to put up a poster of you on my bedroom wall and practice kissing on it. Plus, I'll get moony-eyed whenever you comment. Hush up before I embarrass myself (again).
Posted by Wrenae | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:44 PM
way to go. When it's all Kerry's fault (or whoever the next candidate is) we can all rest easy about the abysmal state of our democracy.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:45 PM
Where I live, there is a bumper crop of square decals with only a large W, and underneath "the president." The decals are all black, with white lettering. I can't help but think, each one says, "I'm a fascist."
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:52 PM
'religion is a refuge for weakminded people' -- jesse ventura, governor of minnesota
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:53 PM
Yeah, text, those are totally creepy. I've even seen them here.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:53 PM
Update: John Edwards has been doing something.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:55 PM
Reading Ned's link practically gives me the flutters.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 2:56 PM
And reading it reminds me of what I wanted to say to JM about Edwards's "sincerity" or "authenticity" or whatever -- I'm drawn to him because he seems to be, first and foremost, a moralist. His passion for ending poverty isn't a pose; this issue obviously comes from a very deep place for him. Contrast him with Obama, who seems to have no clear moral stance on anything of value.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 3:04 PM
Yeah, I really, really like Edwards.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-22-06 3:05 PM
As far as I can tell, Edwards would be at least a billion times better than any other candidate. All the factors are there:
A) He is associated with ONE ISSUE (poverty) and therefore might be able to succeed in being portrayed as "standing for something"