Hey LB, does your Unfogged email work during bizniss hours?
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%.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
(is Florida South? I mentally classify it as a mid-Atlantic state that got lost)
It's half Alabama and half NJ.
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.
#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.
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.
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."
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.)
"Southerners tend to think guys like Kerry are assholes"
Yes, that.
#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.
"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.
Gah. Stupid double-posting Kitty of Doom.
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?
And that same attitude is appearing in this thread as well.
Maybe the Dems should set up a website called Southerners Love Us!.
Is this really true?
It's a gut feeling. Whether or not it's true, I couldn't say.
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.)
32 -- seems to me she was asking whether or not it was really true that you had such a gut feeling.
Cala, I done axed you a question in the ethical ask the mineshaft thread.
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.
That's okay, 'smasher, we know you love us.
Cala, I done axed you a question in the ethical ask the mineshaft thread.
w-lfs-n, I asked you a question in the "Out of Ideas" thread.
p.s. "axed": heh.
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?
Becks, you do realize that Edwards didn't actually get elected to the Vice Presidency, don't you?
What Can Democrats Do To Win The 'South'?
Invade?
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 have a feeling that Katrina victims were willing to be deceived by appearances if it meant actual aid.
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.
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?
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.
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.
He founded an antipoverty center and has been speaking across the country nonstop on poverty issues.
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.
I still am baffled at the notion that Edwards failed New Orleans somehow.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
68 - Hell, why didn't he just run for reelection in the seat that he had?
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.
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.
unverifiable fiction told to assuage familial guilt
Yeah, and our French relatives? were all in the Resistance.
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.
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?
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.
Also, I'm certainly not "plugging" Hillary. I think she's a disaster.
(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.
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?
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.
w-lfs-n, I be tryin' to answer your question you axed, but I don't have your e-mail.
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.
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.
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.
84 - His email is in the lefthand corner of this site --you can reach him at benw-lfs-n at thisdomain.
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.
79 - He was allowed to run on both tickets. He just chose not to.
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?
That's good; I'll use that.
90 -- ok, my bad. He sucks.
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?
Electability grounds? Yeah, that always works well.
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..."
It seems that it's more than just two states.
In 1999 the House Republicans squelched a resolution condemning the CCC bigotry (which was paired with a successful resolution condemning Khalid Mohammed.)
90: How confident was he (I don't know the answer) that N.C.'s governor would be a Democrat?
Yes, this.
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.
The draft has so many side-benefits.
Anyone know of a topical cream that cures creeping capital S?
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.
Thanks, Becks -- I wasn't sure if that had been updated for the newer bloggers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
Bob, should MY join the army now, or mid-to-late January 2009?
Everyone commenting on this thread is on the same side.
[Cue baa and IdeaList]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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."
135: You think there are zero U.S. senators, state governors, and state A.G.'s that meet that description? Really?
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.
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.
145 gets it exactly right.
"....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.
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.
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.
Maybe it's latent prejudice against southerners that makes me see Edwards's downhome mannerisms and shit-eating grin as insincere put-ons.
I've seen him speak in person. He seemed pretty real to me.
Clinton always seemed like a faker, though. And I loved him.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Sorry; third sentence in 162 should start, "It's NOT the Democrats..."
153--You may be right that it comes off differently in person, but, Joe, you're from Texas, aren't you?
It's that he is a boring trust-fund drip.
Those exist down here too, and they don't win elections either.
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.
Well, I'm a Californian transplanted to NY. Maybe Edwards's demeanor plays to different regionalisms?
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.
It really isn't about being Northern.
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.
#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.
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?"
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.
he's from Iowa, which isn't a stereotyped region
[head exploding] What?
What's the stereotype of Iowa?
Neutral middle America. Farmers. Nothing personality-wise that I can think of.
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.
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.
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.
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.
the 'bumpersticker' gaffe was unforgiveable
Not unforgiveable, just symptomatic. There's a reason he didn't win a single primary anywhere in the country.
190 - I didn't take it as rude, and can't quite figure out what would construed as rude in it.
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)
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.
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.
Not unforgiveable, just symptomatic.
I'm asking symptomatic of what. Kerry was too stiff and boring, what was Dean's problem?
(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.)
I'm asking symptomatic of what.
Of not being ready for prime time.
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.
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.
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.
"Scientia potentia est." - Francis Bacon
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.
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.
But we'll give you our shirt, and a back to go with it, if your crops should happen to die.
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.
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.
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.
Isn't there a stereotype of Southern politicians being corrupt?
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.
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 word "Southern" in 214 is superfluous and should be removed.
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.
215 -- Not to mention massive levels of fraud and voter suppression.
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.
no one held it against him
Because that's not how you give a blowjob.
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.
We think they're more likely to be intolerant bigots
[raises hand] I do not believe that, as stated.
In #226 "middle-of-the-road" should be "centrist". It wasn't meant to mean "boring".
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?)
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.
232...you're right. It's impossible to find someone who can't be smeared.
So what can be done?
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.
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.
231, 236: And then returned to it and made the point I was trying to make while I was typing something incoherent.
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.
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'.
Hooray, crossword puzzles!
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.
How would an atheist Dem fare in the south?
The same as everywhere else in the country.
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).
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.
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."
'religion is a refuge for weakminded people' -- jesse ventura, governor of minnesota
Yeah, text, those are totally creepy. I've even seen them here.
Update: John Edwards has been doing something.
Reading Ned's link practically gives me the flutters.
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.
Yeah, I really, really like Edwards.
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"
B) He will be smeared like crazy, but at least the people smearing him will seem mean-spirited because he is likeable
C) The way he has generally been smeared is as a "trial lawyer", which is not actually something people are prejudiced against, except incredibly rich people and moronic dittoheads who wouldn't vote for any Democrat ever. The Republicans might actually smear him unsuccessfully.
D) He is from the South
E) His wife is also from the South
On the other hand, the fact that his campaign is likely to focus on poor people might shove those wavering libertarians back into the Republican party. But how many people is that, really?
My last sentence should be
"On the other hand, the fact that his campaign is likely to focus on helping poor people might shove those wavering libertarians back into the Republican party. But how many people is that, really?"
Me too -- I'd be very happy with him as a nominee. I've been sort of hoping Obama is coiling himself to spring; while I've been unexcited by what he's said and done as a senator, it's his first term. He may flower a little more once he's got his feet under him.
Anyone, including Hillary, could win my support within weeks. I have the same problems with Edwards that JM has, but he could convince me.
This whole thread is about the presidency and nothing else. All regional and cultural issues play differently, and are usually neutralized, in Congressional elections. Right now I would rather have Congress than the presidency if forced to choose.
In order for him to have a shot, I think, here's what has to happen:
(a) Upset victories in both Iowa and New Hampshire;
(b) Press corps hatred of Hillary (this will likely be there regardless); and
(c) No Al Gore in the race.
Just to throw this out there . . . how do the words "Gore-Edwards 08" strike you all?
This whole thread is about the presidency and nothing else.
Well sure, you don't have to worry about "The South" in any other election.
Um, except for House and Senate races for seats in the South.
(a) Upset victories in both Iowa and New Hampshire
In Iowa, it wouldn't be an upset.
258: I like Gore, but I'm increasingly convinced that he's not being coy when he says he isn't running.
Wow, apo, I hadn't seen that. Damn. That's awesome.
And I tend to agree with you on Gore. Though he could jump in at any moment; he's a man with $50 million in Google money.
I would also like to point out that anyone who thinks nominating Feingold will be successful because he "fires people up" is an idiot. Feingold fires up about 10% of Democrats. Nobody else knows who he is, except in his incarnation as a campaign finance bill, and he may be the most easily caricatured Democrat in the entire Senate.
I'd say that his candidacy would end as soon as a poll like this came out:
Q: Would you vote for a twice-divorced Jewish guy for president?
A:
Yes 90%
No 10%
Q: Do you think the US public is ready for a twice-divorced Jewish guy as president?
A:
Yes 20%
No 80%
I don't think Gore will run for President again. If he does, there will be a couple of weeks of interesting news stories, and then the media will go back to the same stereotype of him they've always had (you may remember it, it's the most negative and unfair stereotype that has ever been given to any politician).
As soon as you have a public persona in this age of a constant media echo chamber, you're stuck with it whether you like it or not.
I forgot to mention another point in Edwards's favor. He seems to have already gotten through the minefield of creating a public persona without being caricatured negatively.
I like Edwards, and I like him more and more when I see things like the links in 249 and 261, but I still have this feeling that he lacks the gravitas to be at the top of the ticket. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong, especially as there's no one else (absent Gore) I really favor at the top of the ticket. Maybe Edwards could offset his youth and relative inexperience with a good choice of VP candidate.
259:But the Presidency really doesn't matter at all as much as y'all think it does. Clinton really gave us so very little. I want domination of Congress.
I'm sitting here in Dallas, thinking about this really big beautiful prize of Texas, which is the only state keeping the Dems from dominance...you get Texas, Pres and House, and you control America. Without Texas, either Party has a tough row to hoe.
And then I look at Bush and Cheney and Gov Perry and Sens Hutchinson and Cornyn (jeez) and Delay and Armey and old Phil Graham....heck, and Marcotte and twisty and Molly Ivins. Not me, of course. We ain't Mississppi, got one of the biggest and most active gay communities in Houston and Dallas. Women in power everywhere. Shouldn't be impossible.
Mean as a junkyard dog, tough as beef jerky, stubborn as a blind mule. Describes all the above, not Bill Clinton I guess, but also LBJ. And HRC. Maybe, maybe Clark. Edwards ain't goin nowhere.
Winning the South depends on the personality of the candidate you field. He's got to be:
1. Folksy.
2. Butch.
3. Not a fat cat.
4. Very partial to skanky chicks.
E.g. Bill Clinton.
The Bill Clinton-type is perfect. He's folksy, he eats junk food, he likes to fuck skanky chicks, and he grew up poor. Clinton was so perfect, he never had to demonize fat cats, which is one way to get to Southerners. If you come on like a country singer, you'll take the South.
Forget about Edwards. He just isn't butch enough, and he doesn't look like he's partial to skanky chicks either.
Hillary isn't folksy warm enough.
The Dems don't have a candidate that measure up to the important four criteria yet.
Then again, neither do the Republicans. McCain isn't folksy enough either.
If Kinky Friedman gets to be governor of Texas, he'll be perfect.
Does anyone (in this thread) know anything about Edwards views on civil liberties?
I like Edwards, ... but I still have this feeling that he lacks the gravitas to be at the top of the ticket.
Yeah, I can totally see the Republicans painting him with the "little boy" brush, bringing in the fear factor "But we're at WAR! against TERROR!" etc etc, and convincing people that Edwards won't be "man enough" for the job. Or whatever.
I also wonder if poverty is a big issue for most folks in mainstream America. I'm not saying it isn't, necessarily, on their radar, but I imagine there are plenty of other things that matter more to most people than "the poor."
I personally have always cared about the poor, having been one of them and still precariously close to the line. (Yes, I am self-absorbed.) But I don't think I'm representative, really. And I'm afraid Edwards will seem out-of-touch if he runs on a pure poverty platform.
I liked his framing back in 2004 about rewarding work rather than wealth -- I think that has appeal for anyone who feels economically insecure, regardless of whether they're anywhere near the poverty line.
Adam Ash...Gore and Kerry obviously fail all four of your qualifications, but we only need someone who does slightly better than they did. There were plenty of very close states in the last election.
Also...
Clinton was so perfect, he never had to demonize fat cats, which is one way to get to Southerners.
Are you saying Southerners want candidates to demonize fat cats, or that they don't?
As far as I can tell, Bush's entire economic policy has been justified publicy by demonizing everyone but fat cats. ("fat cats" renamed "successful people")
I think Wraene gets it right in #270; bye and large, we really don't give a fuck about the poor. Or not very much of one. Just yesterday we were debating about why it's so hard to keep Republicans from getting rid of the estate tax. John Edwards may have a good heart, he may even have good ideas, but if he gets the nomination, all you will hear is "tax and spend, tax and spend."
270 and 272...it's not like he's going to convince the majority to vote for him because he has the better poverty policy, but he IS going to convince them that he "stands for something".
As I read recently, it's not what you say about the issues, it's what the issues say about you.
268:Hightower was folksy warm, but not butch enough. I like the list but I look at that list of Texans, and "folksy warm" doesn't quite fit.
I swear to God people, I think Marcotte could get more votes for President in Texas than Edwards. Get her on the stump, and us bubbas will hear the dirty words, ignore the rest, lift our beers, and say "That's Our Gal!"
Adding to #253, things in Edwards' favor:
F) Wife with breast cancer (brings out all the pink-ribbon-toting folks)
G) Cute (except for the mole)
C) The way he has generally been smeared is as a "trial lawyer", which is not actually something people are prejudiced against, except incredibly rich people and moronic dittoheads who wouldn't vote for any Democrat ever.
Maybe, but I'm not convinced. I'm not a big fan of the plaintiffs' bar myself, and the fact that Edwards is a trial lawyer is, to me, about the least attractive thing about him (that, and the kind-of-reminds-me-of-Opie thing). Maybe that's my non-plaintiffs' lawyer prejudices rather than my rural-roots prejudices, I don't know.
John Edwards may have a good heart, he may even have good ideas, but if he gets the nomination, all you will hear is "tax and spend, tax and spend."
You know what I want to see in the next campaign? Bar charts, with two columns: Controversial programs which Democrats want to fund because they're the right thing to do: Health care, Pell grants, foreign aid, whatever, and a realistic total cost. Second column: Cotroversial programs which Republicans want to fund because they're the right thing to do: The fucking Iraq war.
If they manage to successfully pull off the 'tax and spend' thing ever again, I don't even know how to finish this sentence.
Phew. There are some other people out there who don't swoon at Edwards. I'd like to disagree with Cryptic Ned about the ONE ISSUE thing: it's great to have a signature issue or two, but a single issue isn't quite so appealing. We're going to be facing a stack of problems in 2008, since the Republicans have destroyed everything they've touched and ignored everything they can't destroy; we're going to need somebody very strong and very pragmatic, and I don't believe Edwards is it. I don't know who is up to it. Maybe Gore.
276: It did work for Ann Richards, bob, sort of, until they got a man slightly less ostentatiously retarded than Clayton Williams to run against her.
And please don't tell me I should find Edwards cute. Not only because I don't, but also because that's exactly the wrong image for the President I want to fix what gone's hideously awry with this country in the last six years.
Okay, I've got to run now.
281: Damn, we ought to carve that on Bush's tombstone.
(But, yes, of course I'd vote for him if he were nominated.)
Edwards poverty program doesn't have the chance of a snowball in hell without 300 Dems in the house.
Sometimes I think this is all, and always, and only, about THE WAR. BAD WAR BAD. Presidents don't have that much power, except war power.
Unless you get massive change in Congress, you will get an anti-choice SCOTUS judge from Clinton. Repubs will filibuster anything else, and she won't wait four years. How many Democrats will it take to double taxes and get us some social money. A bunch. Clinton will likely cut entitlements, faced with economic catastrophe.
But all the other candidates will be even less effective. Count on it, the next term will be worse than the Bush years. But yeah, less war.
I'm not a big fan of the plaintiffs' bar
It's true I would vastly prefer a working social safety and effective labor, safety, and consumer protection laws to the system we have now. But until we fix those things, the plaintiff's bar is pretty much the only thing left in the tool box that gives those who get screwed by people and entities with more money and power a chance at any sort of justice.
286, agreed. As things are now, they're mostly a force for good, at least if you exclude the most egregious class-action shakedown artists. OTOH, I don't quite buy the idea that you get moral credibility for fighting for the little guy when you're stuffing 30-40% of the little guy's money in your own pockets and getting rich as hell in the process. Not that that's necessarily evil--I have mixed feelings about contingent fees--but the moralistic smarminess that seems to afflict so many plaintiffs' lawyers leaves me absolutely cold. (E.g. the local practitioner who I once saw driving around in a Mercedes convertible with "JEDI" on the license plate.)
Crikey. I have lived my whole near the Big River, and I fear coastals have been mis-edacated.
A) Civil rights & liberties, Medicare, Medicaid, high taxes on the rich, liberal Supremes(Roe), OSHA, EPA, nuclear drawdown, feminism, a little openness to gays, etc
B) Vietnam or some other war.
I vote A & B. Sue me. Kennedy & Carter & Clinton did squat for me. Truman & Eisenhower & LBJ and Nixon did a ton. If you think you can get A without B, try Canada. I don't see it in America. And that is what Beinart & HRC and the DLC are saying, sotto voce, I guess because neither side likes the message.
276:
Folksy warm or folksy mean, as long as he's folksy.
Folksy is important: how did a fat cat like Bush make it? He's almost painfully folksy, all those Bushisms, the belt, the cowboy boots. You just gots to be down-home, which is why being partial to skanky chicks is also important, i.e. not snobbish, like Kerry, Gore, Hillary, great candidates, but they've all got that snobbish, cold tinge to them.
If Edwards was butch, he'd be perfect, but he isn't, he's just a smart puppy. You need a dawg, not a puppy.
The issues don't matter at all. Character doesn't matter either. It's all about personality, folks.
Bob, if I'm not the world's smallest demographic, you probably are.
We'll give thoughtful attention to your views, though, just like any other constituent's views
whatsoever
regardless of our personal feelings about what you're saying
or about you.
Yours Truly
Reporesentative Democracy
RD:The world is a very evil place, and I am not a happy man. I call it like I see it, not how I would like it to be. I do feel politically lonely most of the time...
and sad to see all I love wash away.
Bob is unfortunately right about war. There is nothing more butch than war. Hillary is not coming out against this war because she doesn't want to be out-butched.
Come to think of it, she's the butchest Dem we have -- way more butch than Edwards. More butch than McCain, too. She can do the folksy thing, too, but she never does it. Watch her go real folksy when she runs.
My comment about Edwards's emphasis on poverty being likely to turn off libertarians seems to be accurate.
Maybe he should accompany it by pointing out that the current Republican administration has wasted far more taxpayer money than any other government in the history of the world, and almost all of it has been in the service of corporate welfare or illegitimate interventionist foreign policy.
I think that the idea that Americans don't care about "the poor" depends very much on how one talks about it. Edwards worked pretty well, because he didn't talk about "the poor"--he talked about working families. Most people in America belong to working families, and most working families--even the ones with two SUVs--worry a bit about bills and income. Talking about putting things in place to allow working families to survive is what we need to do, not talk about "helping the poor," which just lets people tap into whatever stereotypes they've got going.
Like, for instance, pointing out that congress has voted itself $34,000 (I think--thirty something) in pay raises since the last time the minimum wage went up would matter. For a lot of people, $34,000 is an annual income, and that's gonna sound just obscene (which it is). Doesn't have to be focused on handouts, but it's a damn good case for raising the minimum wage.
I agree with 295, he should spend all his time talking about poverty without actually using the words "poverty" or "poor".
Re: 282
Yeah. Is it too much to ask for someone who looks like when some arsewipe like Cheney says 'Go fuck yourself' would reply, 'No, you fuck *yourself*'?
... and then set about a massive program of war crimes trials.
I agree with 295. In the words of George Bernard Shaw, "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." Edwards must convince the maximum possible number of voters that, under his scheme, they are Paul rather than Peter, just as the Republicans are trying to get people to believe that the Estate Tax puts them in the Peter category.
In 298, I meant to say I agree with 296. But I agree with 295 as well.
Massachusetts liberal' or 'New Yorker' is used as an epithet in a political context, and we're not supposed to get mad about it
Thing is, it's an epithet generally from outside the party against the Dems, at least as I've seen it used. 'East-coast liberals don't have the balls like Jack Bauer to be tough on crime.' I haven't seen it as much from Southern Dems against east-coast New York types, and when it is, it's similar to 'Kerry's athleticism reads as a wimpy prep boy type of sport. Real men don't windsurf.'
The Southerner stereotypes don't read the same way. It seems to be more within the party for one, and it seems to come across as 'Man, those Southerners, in their stained overalls living in the past with their barefoot kids and the doughnuts and the teased hair and their obsession with religion. Oh, not you, Potential Swing Voter. You're one of the acceptable ones.'
It just doesn't seem to be the same type of insult.
I read something somewhere during the 2004 elections about what people prefer out of four general 'types': rich with elite tastes, rich with lower class tastes, poor with elite tastes, poor with lower class tastes.
Rich people with lower class tastes are the most likeable. They're perceived as successful, but in touch with their roots & not everyone else. (Disturbing are the poor with elite tastes, which is just a long way of saying 'academic'. Bottom of the list.)
how do the words "Gore-Edwards 08" strike you all?
I like Gore better now that he's not running and is free to stump for issues he cares about. (Is it just me, or did Edwards mostly disappear after the nomination?) Passionate environmental Gore is probably likely to do more good than coached candidate Gore. And, like apo, I think he's serious about not running.
And the other thing... look, it was a close and possibly fraudulent election, but Gore lost. That might be a hard thing for the electorate to get over, plus I think it can be easily spun as 'Gee, the Dems have no new ideas at all so they're reaching to pull out... someone who already lost once! In eight years, they've made no progress at all.'
Wow, a break from the thread, a good sandwich and a productive afternoon do wonders for the spirit.
SCMT, I understand that you are venting, and that is OK. I'm still so pissed I can't see straight, but that's OK, too, and I say both of those utterly without sarcasm. I'm a big boy, I can take my licks, even when while taking my licks I am also apparently oppressing Emerson with the booted heel of my regionalisms. I apologize for the Supreme Court, and will do better the next time I nominate someone to it. Promise. I'll also be sure to let my grandparents know, on slol's behalf, that they voted for Stevenson because they were racists. It'll be a fun surprise.
OK, that wasn't very mature of me, but it felt good.
Wrenae, you are too awesome for words. I also spell it barbecue, and though I hail from Appalachia I prefer eastern-style, myself. Truly, we need it, for the dual tasks of ceaseless tyranny and unflappable ignorance do indeed work up an appetite.
301: I'm not sure effette liberal is always inter-party; to the extent it is, it's equally true about Southern hick. That's probably because the two parties have regional bases. No one here is attacking Southerners who voted for Kerry; where there are attacks (unintentional, to be sure), they're against people who voted for the other guy.
There's probably some truth to B's claim about cultural capital, but it's hard to be sympathetic to that claim when Southerners are so powerful in both parties. Not that it's wrong to be sympathetic to it, just that it's hard to feel sorry for the guy in the catbird's seat.
The southerners who have political power are not the people we're talking about being offended by being called hicks and rubes.
305: Equally true for effette liberal.
305: And even some of the ones who voted for the guys in power don't necessarily feel that they are in power. Maybe more like they voted for a guy they don't necessarily like a whole lot in order to avoid voting for a guy they think dislikes them.
No one here is attacking Southerners who voted for Kerry; where there are attacks (unintentional, to be sure), they're against people who voted for the other guy.
Well, yes, but I don't think that distinction registers.
The closest I can come to explaining it is how I feel as a liberal, mostly lapsed Catholic when I hear people insult the Church for say, the weird orgasm rules. Teehee, how backward, the people that would ever think that! Even if they say, well, not you, Cala, you only go to Mass when you visit so your mother doesn't cry, it still gets my irish up. Or how when one of my parents friends goes off on liberal academics and how they're corrupting the youth of America but says, 'oh no, not you, I'm sure you don't pressure any students into being gay in your classroom.'
My first response isn't to be glad that I'm part of the acceptable in-group, but to search for the calabat, y'know?
I still don't think that Southern hurt feelings are a political factor that anything can, or should be done about. I don't think that they're really a major political factor, in the first place. The poltical factors seem to be social conservativism, anti-union feeling, militarism, and (dare I say it) race.
In the second place, the Democratic party does not reek anti-Southern feeling. I do, but I'm not the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party kisses as much southern ass as it can find, and gets kicked in the teeth for its pains.
I'm just a Yankee who doesn't like the way crackers despise my cultural heritage, and my policy is to see them and raise them two. You can only hear that sneering stuff about Massachusetts-NY-California liberals for so long, and it comes from very influential Southerners beloved in their home states.
And finally, Southern self pity really is there to set up whichever power grab they're working on. They've been tremendously successful over the past 38 years, and if they're still nursing hurt feelings, screw 'em.
And last, politics isn't therapy. If they feel bad, they should take a pill.
And I may say, I'm talking about the whole last 38 years. My anti-Southern feelings aren't based on anything anyone said specifically on this thread. They've been there for quite some time. And they are generalizations based on the role the South has played in American life, but they're based on real data. And they don't need to apply to any individual, if they weren't involved in, say, voting for Jesse Helms.
But you know, Southern feelings are hurt because of stereotyping? Boo fuckin hoo. My whole adult life has been blighted by the very, very successful Southern Strategy which lead the President George W. Bush.
308: Yeah, I can see that. In an attempt to reach out, I promise that the next Democratic president will flay Emerson.
Speaking only for myself, John, it really isn't a matter of hurt feelings. I honestly believe that the route to re-establishing Democratic control of our politics leads through the South—Florida and Virginia especially—and I'd like for folks not to burn that bridge before it's crossed.
xpost from Klein on Edward's Poverty Program
Too small to be inspirational nationwide. $20 billion is pocket-change, bubblegum money in this economy with our budget.I am not a fan of Clinton's welfare program, or other plans that move the poor barely up into the working poor.
Cass Sunstein had the nerve to bring it up: FDR's Second Bill of Rights
If you are really going to differentiate the Democratic Party from Republicans, think trillions, not billions. They do. I think it is called "balls".
Edwards looks to be trying to win the primaries, without concern for the general. This itty bitty little feel-good will get Ezra excited, but won't win a election, get passed by Congress, or change America.
Okay, who here has been to the South, and who hasn't?
re: 314
Visited all southern states. Briefly (several months) stationed in South Carolina, Georgia (twice) and North Carolina (three times), and lived in Oklahoma probably three years over the course of three assignments.
Overheard in the South:
The Weather Channel is so liberal.
Okay, who here has been to the South, and who hasn't?
Never lived down there. Went to Nashville several times at my previous job on business trips, and have a brother I visit out in Georgia.
312 gets it exactly right. And building solid Democratic candidates in the South does not mean hugging a Bible made of flags to our chests with one hand while lighting a cross with the other. It means doing what politicians are supposed to do, and what LB seems to suggest: setting aside the ugliness of regionalism (on both sides, I will gladly admit) and trying to find common concerns that can be used to pry 'swing' voters away from knee-jerk Republicanism and then seeing where it goes from there.
This process should be an opportunity to prove we're the ones who really have the big tent, not an exercise in deleting states from the map.
Okay, who here has been to the South, and who hasn't?
Born in Kentucky, lived in NC since I was 3.
Married a southern boy. Spent a summer in Alabama. Haven't seen all the south, but like the parts I've seen.
she's the butchest Dem we have -- way more butch than Edwards. More butch than McCain, too. She can do the folksy thing, too, but she never does it. Watch her go real folksy when she runs.
Every time I say this people tell me I'm wrong, but secretly, I agree with you, Adam.
Does St. Louis count as the south? If so, I lived there for several years.
I am not a Democratic strategist or spokesman. I speak only for myself. When I'm thinking politically I don't say these things.
If the Democrats look to the South and it works, without sacrificing anything substantial on the issues, wonderful. But it's not like this is a new idea. It was first tried in 1976. It worked with Clinton, but with very mixed results in a policy sense. I'd say there are several better places to start than the South.
As a person role, I'm just sick of the idea that somehow Democrats have been mean to the South, or that the South's feeling's have been hurt, and that the Democrats have to do more, and that there's some kind of symmetrical bigotry and we should all just try to get along.
I don't think that the bigotry is symmetrical. How often do you hear people saying the stuff I'm saying in a public place? Democrats have been cringing in the bushes for years. I wouldn't have said a word of what I said if I had any optimism left.
Democrats don't peep a peep about this kind of stuff. We finally ended up deciding here that Kerry *seemed* anti-Southern because he wasn't a Southern kind of guy, so *of course* Southerners wouldn't vote for him, and somehow*he* was the offender because he didn't cater to their feelings, and the Southerners were the victims.
I've never lived in the south. I've been in every southern state except LA, and I've been in all the rest for at least a day except for TX and AK. However, I did live for a while in a city half an hour on the north side of the M-D line, and most of my negative opinions about the south are probably extrapolated from the famous analogy that Pennsylvania consists of Philly on one end, Pittsburg on the other end, and Alabama in between.
On the other hand, I did misread 312 as "burn that cross before it's bridged." Is there a word for a Freudian reading slip?
Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Missouri, Virginia, Maryland are the former slave states I have been in.
My sister lived in SE Kansas near Oklahoma, Missouri, and Arkansas. It seemed pretty Southern to me, and it was a disastrous time of her life.
I've passed through W.Va., Va., Arkansas and Mo. without spending much time there.
I've visited a lot of the states (TN, AK, NC, TX off the top of my head), but only visited for days or weeks at a time.
For once I wish instead of the press asking Dems about their "southern problem" someone would ask GWB why he has such a "free state problem."
Not that I've participated in this discussion (though I've been reading it with great interest all day), but I lived in TX for four years.
somehow*he* was the offender because he didn't cater to their feelings, and the Southerners were the victims.
Nonsense, we didn't decide this at all. Most people felt that Kerry's lack of appeal for Southerners was basically the fault of the Southerners, and those of us arguing otherwise in no way said the man was an offender or that southerners were victims. We said that from a practical standpoint, the man's mannerisms read a certain way in certain parts of the country, and that this is a political problem.
UPETGI9, U10GETDISCHARGED.
Somebody slap Emerson on the back, I think his record's skipping.
I was born in NC in 1974 and have lived here ever since.
I'm a legal resident of Georgia, formerly a student in Minnesota, and currently a student in Louisiana, but really I'm from Missouri.
I have some family in the Northeast, but being away at school is the first time I've met a lot of coastal-type people. By and large, yeah, assholes.
Also, I wish Emerson's sister had not had a terrible time in Kansas. I suspect I'd have a terrible time in Kansas, too. However, it is not the South.
the first time I've met a lot of coastal-type people. By and large, yeah, assholes.
How and in what way, and all that good stuff.
By and large, yeah, assholes
Okay, granted, these are the coastal types who came down to New Orleans to party their way through college, and the Southerners I've met here are the sort who go to expensive private colleges. So my acquaintances are not really representative of either group, and the context is designed to reinforce negative stereotypes of Coastals and provide counterexamples of negative stereotypes of Southerners.
Still, I can't promise that this experience won't sway the way I perceive candidates.
Let's have the "what is the south?" discussion. Do Texas and Florida count? I say Texas is the southwest, and Florida is indeed the south.
But that may be because I've only been in the panhandle.
Also, there's more than one coast, you know.
Florida is not monolithic. The panhandle is clearly the deep south. Miami is carribean. Whether "Florida" is in the south is an unanswerable question.
I agree about the practical consequences of Kerry's mannerisms, and I would not have voted for him, for other reasons, in the primary had he not had the nomination locked up by the time the campaign got here, but I can't be the only one who has been somewhat offended by what southern (and western) people on this blog have said about those mannerisms. And I know you all voted for him, and are only trying to express what people feel. I can't help thinking you you feel that way yourselves. Which means that's what you would think of me, and my father and brother. Thanks a lot.
Let's have the "what is the south?" discussion.
Fuck the South. What is upstate New York?
Yeah, let me just add that I think the criteria most of the country (not just the South) uses to select its leaders is vacuous to the point of being retarded, and I'd love it if we didn't select them that way. But we do, so the challenge is to find a decent candidate on the issues who can still play the game.
I'd say: VA, WV, NC, SC, GA, MS, AL, LA, AK, TN, KY and the panhandle of FL. Anything south of there is just NJ with a fever. TX is totally its own thing, and I think it wants it that way, and hey, that's cool.
the panhandle of FL.
Is south of ogged's nose.
Florida is southern. Texas is its own country.
You may be right about TX being its own thing, and it certainly is peculiar, but I can't weigh in on it because my only other southern-by-any-stretch experiences are a weekend wedding in Arkansas, and a week spent on the beach in North Carolina. Which, by the way, was fucking beautiful.
342: Why not MD? What distinguishes western MD from VA?
How and in what way, and all that good stuff.
Cross-posted with my 335, which may offer some clarification. Seriously, though, I've had a lot of conversations in which people have (a) not known what state Kansas City is in, and I don't mean just not knowing that it's in both Kansas and Missouri, I mean people who think it's in Oklahoma for God's sake, (b) not known, geographically speaking, where Missouri is, (c) demonstrated their expertise in all things Midwest by asking me if I tipped cows over for fun, ha ha ha ha ha fuck you, etc. Lots of them are more generally not fun to be around, but that might be true of the 18-19 year old rich kid set in general.
The idea that your hometown/region isn't worth visiting or knowing anything about, or is some kind of national joke -- it stings.
Anyway, when I want to sound cool, I say I live in Atlanta.
345 to 342, though it seems to go to 344 quite well.
Also, there's more than one coast, you know.
Some of us are completely surrounded by 'em.
BTW, B, you had a list of western placenames upthread that had a bit of a "one of these things is not like the other" flavor. Would a person be completely off-base to speculate that you had some connection to the odd name? I'm just curious because I grew up in that area.
Oh shoot. Only Oklahoma and fuck you were meant to be italicized. I won't even bother with trying to sound cool anymore.
I can't help thinking you you feel that way yourselves.
You'd be mistaken.
Oh, I've not spent a lick of time in MD other than a couple of lunch-stops and one very entertaining car repair in Baltimore, so I omitted it quite probably out of ignorance and not at all with intended malice (or whatever). I'm just providing my answer to bitchphd's question. I'm betting everyone has their own list of qualifiers, and there is no definite right answer.
You know who will really, really bomb up north, not only with Democrats but with (I think) most Republicans as well? Bill Frist. He's the Anti-Clinton. Not only because he's totally lame, but because of the ways his lameness manifests itself. In that, not only do most all Democrats disagree with him, and plenty of northern Republicans as well, but he's a near-perfect example, straight from central casting, of a sanctimonious prick. Which plays into a southern stereotype, of course, which hurts him even more. He will not enjoy New Hampshire.
I don't think anyone believes he has a chance anyway. Just saying.
I wouldn't count West Virginia, but I grew up about an hour north of it, so, well, maybe.
It's Pittsburgh with an "h', Urple. It's not really Alabama in the middle, but it's pretty conservative and you can get stuck driving behind an Amish buggy.
Anyhow. Mostly short visits, some longer than others: WV, SC, GA, FL, LA, TX (truly its own place). Florida didn't feel Southern because it was disneyfied, Georgia did, and Shreveport, Louisiana, is a scary place. Tigerbait! indeed.
I don't think anyone believes he has a chance anyway.
No, he really doesn't. I also doubt McCain can take the nomination, though he at least has a chance. The GOP really doesn't have a front runner right now. I expect their primary season to be pretty mean and nasty.
Visited the panhandle of Florida for several months. Been through and vacationed in LA, MI, AL, KN, TN, AR.
Live 25 years in Dallas and Austin, if Texas counts as the South. Born and raised in a upper Midwest state which is at least an honorary Southern state, tho my part was rustbelt.
Maybe MI is the upper midwest state with all the rust.
I can't be the only one who has been somewhat offended by what southern (and western) people on this blog have said about those mannerisms. And I know you all voted for him, and are only trying to express what people feel. I can't help thinking you you feel that way yourselves. Which means that's what you would think of me, and my father and brother. Thanks a lot.
I'm sorry I offended. FWIW, I say a lot of things that are boiled down versions of how people read social cues, including stuff about how gender cues signify, that in no way represent my own personal beliefs.
I do think that midwesterners are awfully touchy, though. ;)
DaveL, did you now? If it's the place I think you're thinking of, I don't really: I just know of its existence. But maybe you're thinking of someplace else.
FWIW, y'all are welcome to make my hometown into a national joke. I'm fond of the place, because it's home, and it certainly has its good points, but really it does kind of suck. I wouldn't wanna live there.
The one I meant was by far the smallest place on your list. The state capital/onetime source of bad beer.
Thought so. Actually, I've never been there, no. But I might have spent some time not too far away, for educational reasons.
I think it was in a place called Emerald Isle, which may or may not have been an actual island.
347: Yeah, I totally get that. Gawd, I fucking hated those people. They really are pricks.
I can't help thinking you you feel that way yourselves. Which means that's what you would think of me, and my father and brother. Thanks a lot.
We can't help it if you come from a huge clan of dorks. I kd, I kid.
Wait, why does 354 refer to me? I haven't commented anywhere on this thread. I haven't even read the thread, and 365 is too damn many to read (especially for this quite-possibly-the-most-boring-ever topic), so I can't figure out what's being referred to.
a week spent on the beach in North Carolina.
(Later, the beach is named.)
Just for kicks, when about were you there?
No one is going to explain anything to you, Urple, if you can't be bothered to do the reading.
MS, yes. Several times. Once as a hippie where I slept in a van on a country road. I was busted in Mobile, but they just took our pot away. A couple weekends in Pensacola, luvved the parties. But felt like a block away from the banjo player in Deliverance.
I consider myself a Midwesterner.
Sensitivity about ones's hometown/region just doesn't resonate with me. Probably the Los Angeles upbringing. Natives there will bitch about that town as much as any visitor.
364: I gathered that from the thread the other day. I'd always assumed that your roots were somewhere farther east, but the comments earlier made me wonder, mostly because they rang so true to my own experience. It's different now, but when I was a kid you were pretty much in John Birch territory between Olympia and Portland. And my dad developed an instant affinity for the rural south the first time he went down there (which is not at all to suggest that he's some kind of racist--he's not--but just that it felt a lot like the kind of world he'd grown up in).
Does 354 refer to 323?
B, I've tried to do the reading, really. But I red 3 or 4 comments and then get stuck wondering "why is eveyone spending their whole night in this thread?"
I don't actually know what we're talking about, so this may be off topic, but I grew up in Ky and it is nice. Very friendly people. Lots of pollen though, so not so good for the allergies. And fairly reliably republican.
Nope, not an Easterner. Everyone always thinks that, though. It must be because I come across so snooty-like.
369: Man, that is an excellent question. Umm.
I think late May of 2003.
371 to 357
358: From Milwaukee to Albany, a 30 mile strip pretty much all the same.
We don't have anywhere else to go, Urple. Thanks for rubbing it in.
Also, "read."
376: Please let silvana have hooked up with Standpipe in a drunken stupor, please let silvana...
I don't think I would have needed to be in any kind of stupor to have hooked up with Standpipe.
375: I didn't mean east east, just east of there. But maybe you're from south of there.
B- No, B, "read" is the present tense. I was using the past tense, "red." Duh. Now will someone please start answering some of my questions?
I think late May of 2003.
Alas. Cold shower for Tim-Tim.
Interesting. I've been to all the southern states except Louisiana, Alabama and South Carolina; I've never lived in any. Most of my trips were very short (changed planes in Atlanta, drove through NC, etc.), but I have spent somewhat longer periods in some (still on the order of days, though).
I generally consider Texas part of the South, mostly because I really don't want it to be part of the Southwest, but also because it's very southern culturally and quite different from western states in a lot of ways. What's important to remember, though, is that Texas is a big state in every way, and the different parts of it are really quite distinct. Houston, for instance, is as southern as anywhere, while El Paso could plausibly claim to be part of the West.
Now will someone please start answering some of my questions?
No.
If your question is "does 354 refer to 323," I think it's clear the answer is "yes," no?
380: The stupor was solely for the purpose of maintaining the complete mystery that is SB.
Probably the Los Angeles upbringing. Natives there will bitch about that town as much as any visitor.
That most definitely wasn't my experience there.
I've spent the bulk of my life in Texas. Pretty much all of that in Austin, which, while it's a very Texan city, is most definitely not typically Texan. I've travelled throughout the state, and East Texas is squarely Southern, including a history of slave plantations. I've travelled through pretty much every other Southern state, and most northern and western ones as well.
388-Yes that was my question, I think, and no, not so clear to me.
Nevermind this is not that important.
What's important to remember, though, is that Texas is a big state in every way, and the different parts of it are really quite distinct.
I've driven from Austin, which is about four hours or so from the Texas coast, to Los Angeles. I've also driven from from Austin to San Francisco. It's about 24 hours of drive-time to L.A., and about 12 of those are in Texas. Once you finally get out of the state, you at last start feeling like you're making a little headway.
Also, I remember staying with a friend in Houston while his relatives from Germany were visiting. They looked at a highway map and announced at lunch, "Why don't we drive up to New Orleans for the afternoon?" Um, no, we're not in Europe no more, you silly krauts.
I was born in Georgia and grew up in Virginia, but in the D.C. area, so it doesn't count. My whole extended family pretty much still lives in Georgia. Right now I live in Tennessee. But I haven't lived that long, period, and most of my adulthood was spent in big northern cities.
I think there are a lot of southern men who are insecure in their manhood, and it manifests itself in a lot of negative ways. I'm not sure where it comes from, though I could concoct a lot of ugly theories. It makes the word "effete" very powerful to them, but here is something I only realized fairly late in life: a tall man like Kerry, no matter how large his vocabulary, could beat the crap out of a smarmy little guy like W. He is a better man in all regards. There aren't many men like Kerry in the south, and it's hard for many southern men to take.
There aren't many men like Kerry in the south
Tall?
That's true, B, but both terms were used against Kerry and have a connotation of unmanliness, so what's your point, exactly?
Yes, apo, tall, frankly. I've noticed, in Georgia at least, the men are much shorter than in New York, Massachuesetts, and Illinois. At least, the white men. I'm not particularly tall myself. I have rarely found men who are as physically imposing as Kerry is in person amoung the southern population.
You can add to that characteristic others such as well educated and articulate. And there is one other thing: Kerry is willing to express feminine characteristics. It's a strength, and the failure to do so creates a cramped personality, my opinion.
"Effete" /= "effeminate."
And this is where Clinton's womanizing was a plus. Made him immune to getting painted with the faggy brush.
Oh, I'm just trying to become the resident expert on effeminacy.
you're going to have to fight me for it. we all love the word so much, on account of we're gay.
but I won't fight well on account of being effiminate.
My money's on B because text is short.
I'm short too.
Text, let's disappoint them all and go shopping for some new high heels.
I'm short too.
Yeah, but that's measured in girl feet.
average height! perfectly average height! absurdly long cock!
My cock is pretty big for a man.
My cock is pretty big for a girl. I've never tried it on a man.
In the dark, all cats are gray.
On a related note, Aunt Esther has a story.
Apo, I know you didn't just say that my pubes are gray.
Isn't that what they say about girls with big feet?
Big feet, gray pubes? No, that's elephants.
Damn. Hoo boy, do I have some explaining to do.
417: OK, it's been a pretty shitty day up until now, but I laughed out loud at that one. Although I suppose it's against house rules to admit it.
Aww, I'm glad I improved your shitty day.
Elephant pubes: the quicker picker upper.
Thanks, B. And now I'm home, beer has been poured, and my outlook on life is improving dramatically.
It was Negra Modelo, and it's gone now. Off to seek udon.
1.) I've only ever been to South Carolina to campaign ofr Dean. I have a Californian friend who married a guy from Mississipi and is living there now. I'm planning on visiting her sometime. The Episcopal diocese of Mssachusets paired with the diocese of Mississipi for Katrina relief purposes. We're sending them money and volunteers. I may go down for that.
2.) slol in 95:
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.
If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I'll vote for her in the general, of course. If Joe Biden is the nominee, I will stay home. I know that there's no chance in hell that he'll be the nominee, but I want to be clear about the fact that he's completely unacceptable. His posturing about how bad the Dems are on foreign policy can be as bad as Lieberman's, and on some issues he's worse. His role as the manager of the Bankruptcy Bill is FUCKING unforgivable. I know that he's from Delaware and that Delware is owned by MBNA, but that doesn't mean that he should get a pass on it.
3.) I never really liked Bill Clinton. He was bad on civil liberties, and the Rector business really offended me. I didn't like him, becuase he was so charismatic. I simply don't trust people with that kind of charisma. I've heard it said that when he looked and talked to people, they felt as though they were for that moment the most important person in he world. I think that allowed him to manipulate old friends and to get liberals to trust him when they shouldn't have. I'm not at al representative, of course. I liked (and worked for) Bill Bradley. I probably would have been one of those clean fpr Gene eggheads in 68.
4.) Dean did win teo primaries: DC's non binding primary and Vermont's. The DC one might have been an important pre New Hampshire boost except for the fact that all of the other mainstream candidates pulled out. Dean was way in the lead there. There was an independent grass roots campaign canvassing the entire city, and Dean was going to win it. In the end Al Sharpton did pretty well in Ward 8. Dean lost the caucus to Kerry, but by then the thing was wrapped up.
5.) What do you all think of Wes Clark. He's growing on me in some ways.
I've never been to the south. Crossed WV twice on the train, once in each direction; at Harper's Ferry I remember looking out at the river and up at the mountains and wondering what the fuck John Brown was thinking.
Harper's Ferry is actually pretty cool.
What do you all think of Wes Clark. He's growing on me in some ways.
I think (a) I don't know anything about him, and that makes me think (b) he can't win. We all know a little bit about Edwards, Warner, HRC, Kerry, and Gore--Clark is starting way, way behind, especially for someone who ran last time.
Wes Clark. He's growing on me in some ways.
Try slapping a little Gold Bond medicated powder on the affected areas.
Wes Clark!? Are you people out of your fucking minds? He could never take the south, and not only because he can't possibly come on like a country singer.
He's just too handsome. When you're that handsome, the South will tag you as a fag.
BTW, I lived in the South two years. I started picking up fast once I learned that when they talked about The War, they didn't mean WW2 like the rest of the world.
Until the Dems field another Bill Clinton, they'll never take the south. Hillary is the closest thing to him we have.
What Hillary has to do is give herself a little Ann Richards makeover. Bigger hair, more Southern sass and folksiness (which she knows how to do), keep on wearing those ghastly pastel pantsuits, and stay as butch as she is ... and she can swing it, I swear.
Here's what I posted at Tapped:
Of course the disgruntled audience member told Schaller to kiss his ass. After all, Schaller had basically told him that he didn't count, had basically said the party he identified with shouldn't care about him, had said that the progressives he cared enough about to travel to Las Vegas to be with really ought to abandon him. Is Schaller so naiv that he thinks this wouldn't produce an emotional reaction?
As for writing off the South in presidential elections, numerous posters here have pointed out how well that works. Now maybe at the end, if a candidate has to choose between one last trip to Ohio and one last trip to Georgia, there's some sense in that view. But from the very beginning? That's just a guarantee that absolutely everything else have to go exactly right for Democrats. Plus it means you're playing defense all the way down the field. That's just silly.
The way to be competitive in all 50 states is to build the party in all 50 states. Not to build it in some set thereof and come back to the others later. Because there may not be anything to come back to.
Also, campaigning in rural areas sends a signal to people who, though they may live in the suburbs now, still remember where they came from. It's not just about the votes in Virginia's southwest, but also about the people who've moved from there and want to see their prospective governor cares about the whole state, not just the parts most likely to vote for him or her.
Likewise, there's a lot of the South outside the old Confederacy. Write it off, and you tend to write them off as well. And suddenly you're losing West Virginia and Ohio and Pennsylvania and more besides.
So by all means, keep converting the Northeastern liberal or moderate Republicans into Democrats. By all means, keep developing the new breed of Mountain West Democrat. But write off the South? That'd be almost as foolish as secession.
(ps. Schaller writes, "Hold aside Florida and Louisiana, and in general the blacker the southern state, the wider George W. Bush’s margins were during the past two presidential elections." Well, yes. But if you exclude nearly 20 percent from your sample, it's pretty easy to reach almost any conclusion. I hope he's not a quantitative political scientist.)
Way back at 37:
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.
Except that the size of the black population in AL and MS means competition for statewide office is definitely there, as it is in many Congressional districts. If you're as removed from daily life in the south as your personal statement implies, you ought to be very wary about pronouncements of "two hostile groups." Plus, there's increasing inward migration, increasing suburbanization and increasing Hispanic populations. All of these are opportunities for us Democrats. Fact is, the MS Democratic vote is something that can be built on. Especially by the MS Democratic party. Which adamantly does not need the national party running away from it, nor people like Schaller saying "write 'em all off."
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.
Well that's nice and all, but seems like a good reason not to listen to what you're saying about the south.
56: And I know a bunch of you are going to say "who could have known?" and I really wish...
Remember Hurricane Ivan? It missed New Orleans, but I wrote this anyway back in 2004. Short version: anyone who knows anything about hurricanes knew New Orleans was in deep shit, and the poorer the citizen, the deeper the dung.
But how this translates into hostility toward Edwards baffles me. I can think of a dozen people more responsible, and that's in like the first dozen seconds.
I've heard it said that when he looked and talked to people, they felt as though they were for that moment the most important person in he world.
That's a fascinating characterization, and I think one that's probably not that uncommon in politicians. I have a law school classmate who is clearly trying to cultivate that exact quality, and obviously has mad political ambitions, and it kind of even worked for the first few weeks I knew him, but then I was like "what the fuck is up with this guy?
re 105: However, running for VP and Senate at the same time isn't a very classy way to act.
See Lieberman, Joe.
128: 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.
This is just like what I hear Over Here (Germany) among people who equate GWB and company with America now. America tortures people; America invades; America this and America that.
But if it's a false analogy about America, then maybe it's a false one about the south as well?
132: 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.
Yes!!
163: I just want to know what we have to do to win the South.
First, what do we mean by win? Elect more Democrats locally? Elect more Democrats to state legislatures? Elect more Democrats to statewide office? Carry more southern states in presidential elections? All of the above? In what order?
There was a comment further upthread about needing machines again. I don't know if we need machines, but we do need functioning party organizations in every state, every congressional district and, ideally, every precinct. As near as I can tell from Over Here, what Dean is doing at the DNC is helping. Comments about the DNC sending people to "pick their noses in Mississippi and Utah" do not help. (Duly noted that no one here has made such comments.) Dean's signal from the top that every part of the country counts is important, very important, to the folks doing the hard slogging of grassroots work.
Counsel, like Schaller's, to abandon a whole region does a significant part of the Republicans' work for them. In the south, there's also been at least two decades' of consistent Republican work to demonize the Democrats as not southern, i.e., 'them' not 'us'. That's going to take lots of hard work, and some time, to overcome among the share of whites and Hispanics that is necessary to win state-wide or presidential elections.
Kung Fu Monkey's advice about communication that was linked to way above is also very good.
203: I do not think that the focus of these efforts should be the white Southern vote.
This is a very different thing from saying "Democrats should abandon the south."
Do also bear in mind that significant regions of non-southern states have culturally southern aspects.
See, I think there's a huge distinction, and one which I didn't clearly make, between abandoning Southern states as hopeless (a bad idea) and abandoning the endless tearing our hair out about how to show respect and embrace the culture of the "South", where the "South" is defined as those voters in southern states who are demographically and culturally very very unlikely to vote for us. Better we should recognize that the Southern states aren't wholly populated by the voters who get described as the "South", and appeal to the ones we can get to.
Democrats should abandon the deep south as hopeless
309: You can only hear that sneering stuff about Massachusetts-NY-California liberals for so long, and it comes from very influential Southerners beloved in their home states.
Well, I've heard it from two US Ambassadors to Germany: one a former Senator from Indiana and the other a guy from Ohio who inherited his position atop a major company. It's not a southern thing, it's a Republican thing.
Your ire is misplaced, sir.
I also doubt McCain can take the nomination, though he at least has a chance. The GOP really doesn't have a front runner right now.
I agree. I think McCain will never win. The most powerful voting block in the history of Republican politics is determined to stop him, or at least to back someone else.
I keep seeing George Allen's face and getting scared. He could win the nomination. And the presidency, if we nominate Hillary.
337: Also, there's more than one coast, you know.
There are three, plus however you care to count Hawai'i and Alaska.
What Hillary has to do is give herself a little Ann Richards makeover.
AA, see here.
WillieStyle, did you read this part of the article you linked?
The vote was so close -- a margin of 1,850 votes out of 1.38 million
By that logic, we should abandon ever trying to win Florida or Ohio too.
440: Yes!
And in general, sorry for the flurry of posts. If y'all were in my time zone, it'd be more of a conversation. As it is, I'm glad not to have been teh threadkiller.
446 was me.
447: I've heard about Germany's willing threadkillers.
443: There was a rule upthread about not nominating people for president whose first name is "Senator." It applies to Republicans, too.
It applies in spades to Republicans whose first names are "Former Senator" which, with the nomination of Webb in Virginia, is not an improbable outcome for Allen at all.
448: Ack! Godwinned in the very first reply!
450: I'm all about the schwerpunkt.
446:
What sort of things would Dems have to do to win a state where 50% of voters oppossed removing segregation from the state constitution in 2004?
Appeal really strongly to the other 50%, and win the coin toss?
Appeal really strongly to the other 50%, and win the coin toss?
Statistically speaking, that is all but impossible.
Doug, Hillary's a Senator too, dude. If both got their nominations, one of them would obviously win.
And I highly doubt Webb's gonna unseat him.
457: Maybe it would be a tie. Would the Vice President then cast the deciding vote?
To answer the "who here has been to/is from the South" question:
I am from Alabama (had the banjo surgically removed from my knee whilst still a child). I live in NC now and have for (pause to count) 20 years. I've visited LA, MS, GA, SC, VA, and FL.
I would basically agree w/ Robust McManlypants on which states are "Southern"--MD just strikes me as too DC-related, though I understand northern VA is the same. (also, "NJ with a fever" was funny as hell to me)
Silvana, you were indeed on an island--The Outer Banks, a whole string of islands off NC's coast--even though Emerald Isle is really a community on the Banks, not an island in & of itself. I just got back from Kitty Hawk, myself, much further north along the coast. Loverly beaches and bridges that seem to go on forever (if you're not fond of burning them, that is).
457: Which is one of the reasons I think nominating HRC is a bad idea. Senators run, governors win.
458: Webb was underestimated in the primary, too. We'll just have to see.
461: Actually, you may be right. I'd love for that to happen.
Fingers crossed. We're all on the same side here.
I'm genuinely curious as to who the Christian right will pick as their guy.
Assuming he can finesse the residency requirements.
Good thing I refreshed before I made the exact same comment as 465.
Of course, 466 just shows that apostropher is not only faster, he's also the hero.
Actually, they're not so into him.
To answer the "who here has been to/is from the South" question:
Can't find where this question was asked (so much thread, so little time) but to answer it anyway: I was born in South, have lived in the South for all but 3 years of my life, and am currently living in the South. Despite all this I do not fit any of the stereotypes of Southerners in any discernable way.
I remember when I was a child our next-door neighbor once asked me, "Faw a Suh-thun boy, how come you got such a Nawthun accent?"
To answer B's question, St. Louis is not part of the South, however, parts of Missouri may be considered Southern. The deciding factor is whether people in the location pronounce the state's name "Missouree" (Northern) or "Muhzourah" (Southern).
I remember when I was a child our next-door neighbor once asked me, "Faw a Suh-thun boy, how come you got such a Nawthun accent?"
Did you immediately challenge your neighbor to a duel on the field of honor?
I'm often told I don't have a southern accent (I do, but it's slight). I tell people that I have the Sesame Street accent.
471: The War of Next-Door Aggression.
I tell people that I have the Sesame Street accent.
From this point forward, I will find it difficult to resist reading all your comments in the voice of Grover.
I was thinking apo was more the Cookie Monster type myself.
Two! Two clever comments! Ah! Ah! Ah!
Did you immediately challenge your neighbor to a duel on the field of honor?
My neighbor was a judge who was about 35 to 40 years older than me, so I declined to challenge him. I probably responded with the blank stare of a confused 9-year-old.
His younger son and I, however, got into numerous scuffles over the years.
My neighbor was a judge who was about 35 to 40 years older than me, so I declined to challenge him.
And you call yourself a man?
And you call yourself a man?
I do, and your mom agrees with me.
You dare slander my sainted mother? I challenge you to a duel!!
You dare slander my sainted mother?
Hmm, "slander." Is that what the kids are calling it these days?
I challenge you to a duel!!
Very well. I challenge you to a game of Albatross or Not Albatross. Best two out of three.
Nope, Rubik's Cube.
Albatross?
My accent is very, very thick. (Oh, yeah, I'm a big ol' hick. Actually, I am. I'm 6'3". I have no idea why dudes are short in Georgia. In fact, my 6'4" father is from Georgia, but maybe that's why he moved. He is an aberration, however, as both his parents were tiny. As a rule, however, men on my mother's side of the family are on the tall side.) In general, where I grew up, guys have lots of masculinity issues. I think that's true pretty much everywhere. Pick a region and there's probably a stereotype that describes guys working too hard to express their masculinity ("guidos" from NJ come to mind for this purpose).
One time in Scotland the grandmotherly lady who was playing hostess introduced me to a guy she knew while we were waiting for a ferry to arrive. He had a Scottish accent that could clog a PVC pipe. He and I just stood there making syllabic salad, neither of us understanding a word the other was saying.
I'm often told I don't have a southern accent (I do, but it's slight).
What happened to your thick southern drawl?
He had a Scottish accent that could clog a PVC pipe.
And that's not a euphemism.
What happened to your thick southern drawl?
Please direct that question to my massive schlong.
Doug 422:
I have rough data about the Mississippi 2004 election. 37% of the voters were black, and 95% of them voted for Kerry, giving Kerry 34% of the eventual total vote. Kerry's ultimate total was 43% -- a disastrous defeat.
By my arithmetic, the white vote for Kerry was 10% or so. To have won, he would have needed 3 times that.
These are just impossible numbers. This isn't something that can be made up by tweaking the campaign or by nominating a more appealing candidate.
And it justified my judgement that Missisippi voting is impossibly split according to race. 5% of the black voters voted with most white votes, and 10% of the white voters voted with most black voters. This means that at least (0% of Mississippi voters voted on strict racial lines.
For a second piece of evidence, 42% of Alabama voters still believe that racial intermarriage should be illegal. This was an official vote on a referendum -- not an opinion poll.
These are among my reasons for being hostile to the South, and also among my reasons for saying that these states (along with maybe Utah) should just be written off. You can ignore what I say, since I am not being a nice person, but it's pretty much true anyway.
I think that there may be a few Southern states that are doable, and if so, go for it. But I don't think that Democrats should agonize or startegize about "How to Win the South". The South is our least promising area, and partly for reasons which reflect well on Democrats and reflect ill on the South.
You don't need direct firsthand knowledge of a place to know something about it. You can read secondhand reports and you can judge by the representatives that they choose to send to the outside world.
If there are non-Southerners repeating obnoxious shit about Massachusetts and San Francisco, I don't like them either. But you'd hear that smirky, nasty stuff all the time from Lott, Delay, Helms, and whole bunch of the rest of them
Me: 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.
Doug: This is just like what I hear Over Here (Germany) among people who equate GWB and company with America now. America tortures people; America invades; America this and America that. But if it's a false analogy about America, then maybe it's a false one about the south as well?
The reason for the intensity of my feeling is that I am not sure that the Germans are wrong. The next ten years will tell. We do not know that Bush and Cheney have not succeed in remaking American in their image, in which case the Germans will have been right.
As far as I can tell, the particular, unique Southern contributions to American politics have been bad. I don't blame Southern individuals who didn't contribute to that, but I think that it's broadly treu. And for this reason when people tell me that Democrats should make concessions to the South, respect Southern culture and values, etc., it pisses me off.
Especially since the South is not the most promising area for the Democrats, based on voting patterns. Except for a few Rocky Mountain and Great Plains states, it seems like the least promising area.
It should be obvious, but Alabama+Mississippi != the South.
491 -- I was thinking the same thing last week when I was rewatching Jim White's "Searching for the Wrong-Eyed Jesus". White is a native of LA and lives there, and he was talking a lot about "The South" but seemed to be referring to LA + MS.
John, you sound kinda cranky. Do we need to set you up with a nice raccoon or something?
I don't really understand why Utah is so broadly Republican. Yes, there's a quiescent respect for authoritarianismy in Mormon culture, and obviously the Church has a burr up its ass about patriarchal families, but I can't see why those would necessarily lead to supporting Republicans, particularly given that party's militarism, which doesn't jibe particularly well with Mormon values. I don't really get it.
I meant to add something along the lines of "unless the Church is in fact politicizing its proselytizing."
494: Well on the one hand, more Republicans wear suits. On the other, more Dems ride bicycles. So it's kind of a wash.
Do we need to set you up with a nice raccoon or something?
We'll make sure it's a northern raccoon.
Utah is Republican because it's always been Republican, just like most of the West.
I would think the Mormon's would want to vote for Republicans because they want to eliminate most social programs and leave that stuff up to churches. Good way to get converts.
Of course, it would seem that Dems are more likely to have a NTTAWWT feeling about two men going around everywhere together all the time, IYKWIM, so it is puzzling, JM.
I'm sure b-wo does great work and all, but he's terribly unresponsive, so now that you're here, Becks, can I ask if something has changed on the site in the last several days or so to make comments windows jump to the front of the screen once they finish loading, when they didn't do that before? Am I the only one this is happening to?
Seriously, can somebody gently nudge him or something? His needle's stuck. At least flip him to the B side, which involves consensual reality and thus the existence of Southerners whose names he'd recognize who had/have progressive ideals. Oh, I know, I know, I'm just oppressing you with my Suth'ness again. Sorry to spill grits all over your hate-on like that.
Though come to think of it, raccoons are frequently rabies carriers, so maybe all this makes sense.
But as far as I know, RMMP, John Emerson isn't into biting.
And "spill my grits" is right up there with "thick southern drawl"!
Utah is Republican because it's always been Republican.
That's not what I've heard. According to my mother, at least, Brigham Young directed half of the flock to affiliate Democrat and the other half Republican so that the government wouldn't fear Mormon political power. Again, according to my mother, until a couple generations ago, descendants maintained their assigned affiliations. (I've always suspected that Harry Reid's forebears might have been directed to register Democratic.)
M/tch: About six months ago, a gay man told me that there was an underground gay Mormon community in NYC, most of whom had discovered their sexual identity with their missionary partners. It amazes me that I'd never even thought about that possibility.
Becks, 499: Yeah, that makes an unfortunate amount of sense. The Mormon charities are almost a parallel social service; in the case of Katrina, they were much much more efficient. But they're focused on helping members...
M/tch - I don't know of anything that has been changed with how the comment pages load. I really don't know what would be causing that. Sorry! I doubt that was the answer you were hoping for.
And I plan to give myself 50 lashes for the "Mormon's" typo in 499. I hate possessive/plural mixups.
Thanks for the response though, Becks!
What sort of things would Dems have to do to win a state where 50% of voters oppossed removing segregation from the state constitution in 2004?
Trying to find something resembling a bright side and considering the symbolic nature of the vote, one might hope that some part of that 50% represents resistance to being told what to do (prove that you've reformed by passing this measure) rather than an actual desire to restore segregation.
505 (Heh): I hadn't heard that; it's probably true. But keep in mind that the Republican party was hugely powerful in the late nineteenth century, and the Democrats were mostly limited to the South and certain large cities and shunned elsewhere ("rum, romanism and rebellion"). So it would make sense for Mormons to gradually sort of drift toward the GOP even if they started out split 50-50. The other western states are primarily Republican for the same reason.
As for today, well, why should Mormons be Democrats? Your experience may be different, but most of the (practicing) Mormons I know are very conservative.
OK, sorry for poking Emerson like that. It's just so fun.
In truth, I agree that the Dem party money should go where it has the best chance of creating a flip from red to blue and preventing a flip from blue to red. The fact is, though, that means spending some of it in red states. I don't suffer from some delusion that a little cash thrown at Alabama is going to keep Roy Moore's fan club so busy they forget to vote Republican, but the existence of a significant minority population that can pull 1 out of every 3 votes means that there are people down there working their hearts out to fight the good fight. Telling them to go jump in a lake because America Is Tired of The South is a slap in the face to those people. It isn't going to hurt the Republican machine one bit. That seems like an awfully dumb way to go about punishing the South for Strom Thurmond.
(Side note: in the late '80s and early '90s, a radio station in upstate SC's morning show had a recurring character meant to parody Strom Thurmond, named Strong Thermos. They played him as a skirt-chasing knee-jerk Republican who'd drawl that Bush41 was The Great American Prezdint, Jawj Bush. It was pretty funny. Kind of a lame anecdote, but seeing him called Strong Thurmond up-thread made me think of it.)
Yeah, and I don't think Emerson disagrees at all about the practicalities -- he's just resting on his 'crazy uncle' privilege to be rude about the Strong Thermos South.
I got crazy uncles already. I wouldn't put them in the same league.
Pistols at dawn!
(j/k plzkthx)
50% represents resistance to being told what to do (prove that you've reformed by passing this measure) rather than an actual desire to restore segregation.
I think this pretty much sums up the entire psychology of southern and western swing voters. And it's why they've been voting Republican lately, and it's the key to figuring out how to win their votes.
Reverse psychology!
("I don't want to use reverse psychology. It's too hard."
"Well, don't, then. See if I care."
"All right, maybe I will!")
515: It's definitely true in the West. I don't know enough about the South to say.
I think this pretty much sums up the entire psychology of southern and western swing voters. And it's why they've been voting Republican lately, and it's the key to figuring out how to win their votes.
You'd think that given that they hate the government, they would stop reelecting the people who run the government, but I guess Bush is just too much of a rebel.
Bush's entire shtick is based on y'all shouldn't be trusting the government. Seriously, I think this is pretty much an important insight. The entire Grover Norquist theory of governing is based on the idea that government is inherently bossy, and a lot of working-class conservatives express their conservatism in exactly these terms. The Dems need to figure out how to point out that the current Republican party is all about telling people what they can and can't do, and that liberalism is about people minding their own goddamn business.
I agree, Teo, that it's not a self-evidently easy sell today. If I were a Democratic strategist trying to appeal to Mormon voters, I'd emphasize the "we Democrats want to help people who fall on hard times and improve access to more people" angle: health care, tuition payments, the sort of thing that church services can't quite manage. (Mormons consider higher education a moral imperative.)
Some of the cultural values are really in tension (Mormons campaigned fairly illegally for Defense of Marriage Acts in the states), but some of them could be neutralized, I think. For all that Mormons are socially conservative, they're also marked by Western non-interventionism; maybe Democrats could reach some of them by promising to protect their privacy to make their own decisions.
I reentered in 488 because Doug specifically referenced me in 422.
The reasons for the intensity of my feeling are given in 489. I understand that no one else here is worried the way I am, and that I am violating the decorum of Unfogged, but a serious issue got raised and I got increasingly engaged. The thing I worry about in 489 is something that some of you might think about a little.
I've been hearing "Why Can't Democrats Win In The South?" now for anywhere from 18 to 30 years now, and finally I got sick of it. It was Mudcat Saunders who set me off, not anyone here.
The problem is with the South, not with the Democrats. I deny the premise of the question. For me the questions are, "Why Does The South Control the US?" and "Is it possible to escape from Southern domination?"
It may be possible to split off two or three of the less-Southern of the Southern states. Good. But the Democrats do not want to win in the South, and they can't. And no one needs to agonize about what we should do differently, or about the subtle nuances of the Southern psyche. (I seriously doubt that the 42% vote in Alabama was for the reason BPhd gives.)
Let's not go all Rodney King. Politics can be zero-sum. For 38 years now white Southern males have been mostly winning, and I've been mostly losing. I want to turn the tables. I want them to be pissed off for reasons as good as mine. (I say it that way, because a lot of them still seem to be mad a lot, even though they've been winning.)
John, we're not after the white southern males who are winning--the ones whose interests are actually being served by Republican policies--but the ones who are voting for the assholes who talk the way they do over the assholes who don't.
Strong Thermos
I remember that. Was it WRIX? My friends and I called him Strong Thermos for years after that (also we called him Sperm Thurmond for his facility at getting it up).
Lacking the time to comment further, I'll just endorse everything McManlyPants and Wrenae have said here. But since no one's made the point, I will offer apropos Kerry's "stiffness," that, IMO, it wasn't that Kerry was boring that made him seem stiff. On the contrary, JFK seems to have lived a wildly interesting life, he just never seemed able (or willing) to share those enthusiams with his audiences. Whenever I saw Kerry I thought "There's a man who could be doing 100 different things besides this and right now he looks like he'd rather be doing any one of them."
Also, Emerson has a standing invitation to visit my relatives in South Georgia the next time we fly him somewhere. He and my Aunts would have a fine time drinking beer, eating fried chicken, and hating George W. Bush.
For all that Mormons are socially conservative, they're also marked by Western non-interventionism; maybe Democrats could reach some of them by promising to protect their privacy to make their own decisions.
This will be extraordinarily difficult, since Democrats are the usual targets of Western non-interventionism.
Paul: Maybe? I can't remember which station. It was one of the pop stations with a local morning show, though. (Yeah, really helped narrow that one down.) They also had a running parody of the Clemson football coach, if that helps.
Emerson: 38 years ago? Shit, if you think Kissinger or Nixon are Southern no wonder you think we're all assholes. I realize they both talk funny, but neither of them are from around here.
I know, but I wonder whether that framing isn't up for a challenge. A Democratic version of privacy could cover things like: protecting consumers against identity theft, autonomy of medical decisions, reining in the civil liberties abuses of the Patriot Act--hell, even forcing the government and companies to honor their contracts with employees (veterans' benefits, pensions) could fit in their somewher.
OK. And? My family didn't fall for it, didn't participate in it. My mom has a sister who thinks Bush wears a cape when he leaps tall terrorists in a single bound, but she's crazy, and even she's embarassed by her husband's rebel flag stickers. She's also down with teh g4y, what with having a kid who, when in drag, looks just like my mother. Like I said, crazy. My dad has a sister who listened to Rush Limbaugh all the time in the bedroom she never left in her parents' home, but she's dead now. The rest of us had Kerry stickers two years ago. I mean, what do you want? There's a bunch of us down here who don't buy that line of crap, and I'm not buying it from you, either, especially if it's delivered as a guilt trip. Shall I apologize for people whose votes I didn't cast, starting from before I was born? You can talk Alabama or Mississippi all you want, but like apo said, AL + MS != The Whole South. Grab any nine North Carolinians off the street and you'll find that four of them voted for Kerry in '04. I'd love to flip that fifth one, too, but I'm not going to get talked down to by you in the meantime. If the fact that some but not most of us are already on your side is enough to tell us all to die in a fire, what do you do when you find out that a significant minority of the people in (I assume) your own blue state voted for Bush? Bring them up on charges of treason?
I have to say, this thread beats working any day.
Whoa, 528 seems like a disproportionate response if I ever saw one.
526: Maybe, and it would be great if it worked, but I'm still skeptical. Stereotypes die hard.
Yeah, on reading it, it's really not supposed to be as totally ballistic as it sounds. But then, there's a lot in this thread for me and everybody else to take personally, I guess. Sorry, I don't mean to be so inflammable.
Eh, inflammable is okay. Just don't go away mad.
It's that hot southern blood of yours, RMMP.
Either that or that prickly sense of honor all southern males suffer from.
it would be great if it worked, but I'm still skeptical.
Naw, I won't go away mad. Like I said, I didn't really intend to sound like I was kicking anything over when I wrote that. More exhausted. Now, I just need to find that velcro so I can attach the back of my hand to my forehead. If anybody has a folding fan, it'd be much appreciated.
Also, M/tch, my hot Southern 'blood' and thick 'drawl' are what allow me to 'spill' my 'grits.' Just an FYI.
536: Maybe not the best messenger, there.
that prickly sense of honor
Talcum powder does wonders for that.
536: HRC pushing privacy will tell us more about how marketable HRC is than how marketable privacy is. Coming out in favor of privacy is a way of blunting the perception that she's a hardcore nanny-stater type. It's a position chosen for reasons specific to HRC and her negatives.
538: Agreed. The argument is exactly what I've had in mind for the last year or so, though.
Why, ah do believe McManlyPants has the vapahs!
I'll help him! After all, he's always depended on the kindness of strangers . . .
For the record, I extended an olive branch to the Manlypants of this world by having a nice glass of bourbon before bedtime last night.
Look, I can't possibly be offended by what RM has said. -- look at the things I've said. I've overstated my case because I lost my temper in a pretty extended way, based on 30 years of stuff.
It seems to be impossible to say what I mean without insulting people's families and ancestors, but I've been getting all this stuff for so long about respect for the Southern way of life and what the Democrats need to do to get the Southern vote, and I don't really buy it, and finally I blew up. I do have a specific culture of my own which is strongly not Southern, and we did fight a war awhile back, whcih is well-remembered in South.
I was talking about The South insofar as there is such a thing. The borders of The South are nebulous, and I tend to take a broad definition (including Texas, and Kansas right near Arkansas.) So I made generalizations which don't apply to everyone there.
I didn't intend to say that no one who's Southern is any good, but I guess what I said amounted to that. So I shouldn't have said that, it was wrong, and I apologize for what it's worth.
Li'l ol' drama queens like me are nothing without our men around to catch us.
No, to answer Emerson's actually very valid point, now that the red mist has lifted, the Southern Strategy is an indefensible piece of American history that was very regrettably successful, and the Southern honkies who fell for it are as much to blame as anyone who sold it to them, and I mean that with total sincerity. But I can't go back and change it. I can only work to make my community do better every time it has a chance. Thus, my frustration when I feel that I'm being lumped in as part of the problem, and I get all defensive. The great stupidity of my outburst, of course, is that (as LB pointed out) Emerson and I basically agree on the strategic points.
Excellent cross-post. Now you boys sneak past the pickets to sell each other tobacco or something.
OK, now we can hug.
You go first.
I'd put a winky face emoticon in here, but I get the feeling they're now considered, like, sooooooooo 1995.
526: Yeah, if the Dems don't hammer hard on the civil rights issues and the Patriot Act in the West and South, they're outta their minds.
Right, that.
I haven't eaten yet today, my brain's not working so good.
A bit of familial lore, while we're swilling bourbon around the campfire:
When the Civil War started, there were four brothers of fighting age in my family (on my mother's side). One of them was my great^n grandfather (I can't remember if it's two great's or three). His father, who is the one said to have participated in the UR, told them he was not going to decide their positions on the war for them, and he would welcome them in his home no matter what they chose. Two of them fought for the South, supposedly because they feared what would happen to their parents if none of them did, and two of them fought for the North on moral grounds. (The county where they lived, and where I grew up, was 9:1 against secession.) They all left on the same day, and they all swore that they would all return when it was over. They did in fact all survive, and all returned, and greeted each other warmly when they did so. So yeah, the war figured large for a lot of us down here. Just not always in the way it's expected.
Like I said yesterday, though, that may be a convenient fiction told by my family to cover for an ugly truth. If so, however, I like what it says about my more immediate ancestors that they would rather be remembered as the children of people who opposed slavery than as the children of people who didn't.
Now I'm going back to the exploding scrotum thread.
551: But breakfast and lunch are two of the three most important meals of the day.
552: As long as we're telling family stories, one of ours holds that the first of my ancestors to end up in the PNW were a young couple who left Arkansas to avoid the awkwardness of figuring out what to do about relatives who wanted to give them a slave as a wedding present.
548: Last time I saw a smiley on Unfogged was when Tia recently committed that horrible faux pas, and immediately aplogized.
In the comments over at Bitch's, on the other hand, they seem to be quite in vogue.
Hey! Are you dissing my comment threads?
I don't really understand why Utah is so broadly Republican.
The church of the first half of the 20th century had guys like James Talmage and Brigham Roberts in the upper echelons. That church is long gone. It's the church of Ezra Benson and Boyd Packer now, and I don't see much indication that's going to change anytime soon.
Hey, I won't judge you for it. If that's the way you slide over there...
Dude, it's a girlier and more flamewar-prone site. If a few smileys keep people (other than me, of course) from getting snotty, so be it.
You're not being very cooperative in my attempts to make out smileys to be a sexual kink, B.
RIP, joke.
Oh, I'm sorry. Nope, that one went right by me.
Boyd Packer. Yeah, there's the problem, right there.
My ancestors had a plantation in Mississippi, just south of the Tennessee border. When the war came the Yankees burned it down, so they formed a group of raiders, some of whom ended up fighting for Forrest. After the war they were ruined, so a couple of the brothers came out west to start over.
I've been getting all this stuff for so long about respect for the Southern way of life and what the Democrats need to do to get the Southern vote, and I don't really buy it, and finally I blew up. I do have a specific culture of my own which is strongly not Southern
I understand where you're coming from. My dad went to Berkeley and Michigan for his B.S. and Masters, but did his PhD at Florida State in the late 60's. I still remember his descriptions of Tallahasse back then. I know it's not the same as it was 40 years ago, but my gut reaction when I hear the whole schtick about respecting "Southern heritage" is to think it's time to resurrect William Tecumseh Sherman to go finish the job.
At the risk of annoying Pants, I should repeat the story of what my dad used to do for fun when he was in the Army in Georgia.
Yeah, I hate the "Southern heritage" thing too, and I actually have bigwig Confederate ancestors. But to me, that's a curiosity, not a point of pride nor shame. I certainly didn't come by any old money or anything from it.
This is part of why the whole Howard Dean Confederate flag remark made me bury my head in my hands. I mean, I know what he was trying to say (and it wasn't a meritless point by any stretch), but I wanted to shout, "Dude! We've just gotten to the point where that's considered trashy around here. For God's sake, don't encourage them!"
LB, I think that's pretty hilarious.
My Mom's family is pretty Yankee in the sense of being New Englanders of old stock who are not Irish. My Dad's family is basically French?german Alsacians from upstate New York.
There's some story that there was some man in my maternal grandmother's line who was Southerner. I can't imagine who it would be. The story was that he was in the Navy, and they were supposed to fire on the coast. He is, no doubt apocyrphally, to have siad, "As your commandin gofficer, I am ordering you to fire; as a Southerner, I am allowing you to desert." My grandmother's tory always had him never returning to the South.
I'm not up on my civil war battles. I swear that the Navy was going to fire on Charleston, but I'm not sure.
Sorry, duh, were thereany battles in off the coast of South Carolinar other than Fort Sumpter?