The New Republic

Why oh why are the writers on the plank, as well as the pundit class in general, so obsessed with how the Democrats do in the south? It's a losing formula! The Democrats will not win the southern states at the presidential level for at least decades to come. They should stop trying. Does anybody see the Republicans obsessing about how their candidates won't do well in New England at the presidential level? No. I commented to an earlier post that this would matter if the Democrats were running for President of the Confederacy, but they're not. This line of thinking is counterproductive and harmful. The Democrats should be capable of crafting a message that will be compelling in places like Colorado and Ohio, but this won't necessarily be a message that will work in the south, nor should it be.

It is a blessing that the Democrats control Congress for the first time in their history without a significant southern constituency. It's not that southerners don't deserve good representation, it's just that the tradeoffs required to win in the south are not worth it and are not conducive to building a long-term progressive majority.

- jspangler

January 3, 2008 at 12:42pm

"Why oh why are the writers on the plank, as well as the pundit class in general, so obsessed with how the Democrats do in the south? "

1. Because the most important swing state of all is in the south.

2. Because the ONLY times in the last 25 years that we've won the presidency have been when we carried the south-- not coincidentally, with white male southerners atop the ticket.

3. Because we are indeed competitive in large parts of the south, including Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia and now Kentucky and even Virginia.

4. Because a focus on the south forces our side to stop neglecting the most important NATIONAL constituency that accounts for about 25-30% of actual voters, the one that, unbelievably, we continue to lose by a 2-to-1 margin to the GOP: two-parent working families with school-age children.

on point #4, the most important point, we should be CARRYING, not losing, that demographic. If we were to focus like the proverbial laser beam on 2-parent working families with kids, we'd likely sweep FL AR LA WV KY VA and probably pick up a couple more red states as well.

IOW, realign American politics for a generation or more. Instead, we have kulturkampfers determined to sneer at / dismiss/ p*ss on traditional working families in the south and elsewhere.

sigh

- teplukhin2you

January 3, 2008 at 1:04pm

I've seen not a single indicator that national Democrats can compete in Arkansas, Kentucky, or Louisiana.  Anybody?

I don't think anyone really considers Florida to be a Southern state, other than geographically.  Sure, the panhandle and much of north and central Florida count, but they are more than surpassed by the southern part of the state and northern transplants.

Virginia is a unique situation.  It's pretty easy to make the case that Democrats can win there because Virginia has become less Southern, not because the Democratic Party has become more palitable to traditional Southern constituencies.  Fairfax/Arlington counties continue to grow and help outweigh the southern and southwestern parts of the state.  The southeastern parts of the state (Chesapeake, Portsmouth, Newport News, etc.) have large percentages of african american residents and have always, to my knowledge, been pretty safe for Democrats.

As an electoral strategy, it seems plainly obvious that winning Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, etc., will be more important, and more realistic, than pretending that the nearly 40 years of culture war voting patterns have miraculously stopped overnight.  Asky Rudy how that's turned out in Iowa, NH, SC, etc.

- jmurph79

January 3, 2008 at 1:26pm

A few points:

1. I think good politics is economic-based, and I'm in favor of a national economic agenda that would be good politics for picking up the demographic you discuss (2-parent working families). In fact, a lot of the gains Dems saw in 2006 in the south were culturally conservative democrats with economically liberal/populist positions. That's a good thing! Contrary to your misinformed assertion that I am a "kulturkampfer", I have no interest in a political agenda based on cultural issues, nor do I think that this type of politics would be the best way to create a progressive nationwide majority. Indeed, one would be rather hard-pressed to argue that cultural politics is a good way to win states like Ohio and Colorado, and I wouldn't make that argument. For a good example of what I'm talking about, look no further than Ohio's Senator Sherrod Brown.

2. I'm not in favor of ignoring the south, I'm just opposed to trying to pander to the south with the bullshit we've seen for years now. Every Democrat that runs for president can't win if they don't win the south (which is just mathematically untrue). Then they're told, over and over, that it's not about economics, it's about authenticity! As long as we have a politics where Democrats are forced to pretend like they like NASCAR. I'm not saying that to impugn NASCAR or it's fans, just to point out that it's an absurd basis for political-decision making. In fact, I would argue that the fault lies mostly with the media culture more than with any real cultural decision-making.

3. If candidates like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have trouble winning the south, it's not because of a balanced look at their economic record by two-parent working families, and it's not pissing on traditional working families to point that out.

4. Overall, Dems are poised to make and have been making significant gains in the interior west, in states as diverse as Montana and Colorado. This is not due to an embrace of culture-war politics, but due to a long-term trend towards the Democrats within a number of constituencies, and a recognition by the Democrats that they needed to back off on certain issues, like guns (I'm not in favor of comprehensive gun control by the way).

So, do these positions make me a culture-warrior? If anybody sneers at /dismisses / pisses on working class families, it's the Republicans, who have declared war on the lower and lower-middle classes. Should the Democrats point this out? Absolutely, all the time, every chance they get. Should they hope to build an economic message that can attract working families in all parts of the country? Of course. But you're dreaming if you think that will win the south.

- jspangler

January 3, 2008 at 1:49pm

Hillary would be favored to win Arkansas and would likely be competitive in Louisiana. John Judis recently made a strong case that Kentucky should be considered a swing state along with its coal-belt neighbor, West Virginia.

You say, "It's pretty easy to make the case that Democrats can win there because Virginia has become less Southern."

Well, the big point here is that large parts of the South have "become less southern" as global manufacturing, banking, pharma, retail and other corporate behemoths have transformed city after southern city in the last few decades. Texas has more high-tech giants than all of the northeast. North Carolina and Georgia have first-world, cutting-edge economies. The most innovative, dominant world leading firms in Transportation and Retail are located in Tennessee and Arkansas, respectively.

Socially, these hubs have also been transformed as millions of not yankee and european and asian managers, bankers, lawyers, research scientists and engineers have migrated south. Go to a high school in Plano, Texas or Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill and you'll see plenty of asian faces (Plano high schools had ~80 National Merit Semifinalists last year, of which about 50 or so were either Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian or Russian).

Finally, thanks to heightened competition in nearly every industry and increased volatility, there is now huge migration across regions. Fewer and fewer families in any given metro suburb have been in the same town for the last ten years. Your typical white-collar bedroom town in the south is no more "southern" than Schaumburg IL or Columbus OH or Phoenix or San Jose.

It would be foolish beyond measure for us to follow the Republicans' example and pursue a regional strategy at a time when our economic problems are national in scope, when our population in EVERY region is rapidly becoming mroe and more hispanic and asian, and when we at last have a shot at putting a stake through that old stereotype of our party as the captive of bicoastal gazillionaires and culture snobs.

- teplukhin2you

January 3, 2008 at 1:51pm

jmurph,

You're absolutely right. And it's not condescending to point that out. The Republicans don't get grief because they stopped trying to win over northeastern and coastal liberals. Why should the Democrats pretend like they should be the party of everybody? They can't be. They need to win, and they need to do it with a progressive agenda.

- jspangler

January 3, 2008 at 1:52pm

spangler - OK, I hear you. I think you and I are in total agreement-- excellent point about the need to move beyond the codewords 'n' symbolism BS ie the NASCAR/cracker routine. I think that the crashing and burning of George Allen's career has severely damaged the appeal of teh faux redneck, especially when set next to the example of a real Jacksonian son o the south, Jim Webb.

We can probably agree that Webb's resume and perspective represents the direction that our party needs to move in: authentic, natural, intelligently populist AND worldly, at ease with foreign policy and the military and with the most important foreign theater of all, Asia.

Appreciate the discussion,

best,

t

- teplukhin2you

January 3, 2008 at 1:57pm

Not only can Dems not compete in AR, KY, and LA, Ms. Landrieu is in some trouble herself.  FL is sufficiently red to the point where no Dem of the top 3 has a chance here.

Sorry, tep, I think murph is onto this one - try to take NM, CO and maybe, just maybe VA, which is getting far less southern in the northern end, and it will be a Dem year in VA with Mark Warner winning the Seanate seat.

If we have the good sense to nominate McCain, we've still got a shot.

- butchie b

January 3, 2008 at 1:59pm

Tep,

I agree. I think Webb is a wonderful example of the type of Democrat we should want more of. Funny you should mention Plano, because I went to high school a few miles away (about a decade ago), and that area is exactly how you mention it. I don't see Plano voting Democrat any time in the next two hundred years or so, but your overall point is right on.

- jspangler

January 3, 2008 at 2:06pm

butchie, et al - I guess my feeling, having lived in the south for a while as one of those corporate warrior transplants I mentioned and having seen how wide is the gap between stereotype and reality, is that progressive politics hasn't failed in the south; it hasn't been TRIED.

I still believe that a progressive economics platform emphasizing single payor + reform + targeted interventions to help working families would make us competitive in the south.

Especially if delivered by authentic, straight-talking types like Webb instead of weak and hokey characters like Edwards, who answered my q to him at a Silicon Valley fund-raiser a month ago by going on and on about Blackwater and Halliburton and raging inequality (this was at a $500-per-head shindig in a tech gazillionaire's house).

- teplukhin2you

January 3, 2008 at 2:20pm

Cohn -

All of these class/demographic breakdowns are fine and dandy, but the biggest issue is change. On a very superficial level (admitedly, this often drives swing voters), Edwards and Clinton CANNOT be for change, becaues they are old names. Obama can. Toss in some post-partisan BS that indies eat up, and you've got a huge win.

- virginiacentrist

January 3, 2008 at 2:55pm

Tep-

It's not that I don't agree that Democrats should be running national campaigns on the issues you're mentioning (and in fact, I think most of them are or will once the primary season is over), I just think you're overestimating the chacnes that we have of winning in this election year, and the extent to which the cultural stuff is behind us.  It's absolutely not.  And this is based on recent time spent living in Louisiana, as well as time spent in Biloxi, Atlanta, etc.  I will bet my life and anyone else's that Hillary Clinton has as much chance of winning Arkansas, Kentucky, or Louisiana this year as I do.

As for the cultural stuff, I don't just mean the god, guns, gays stuff (though let's not pretend that's over- Mitt went through his magical arch-conservative make-over for a reason, and Rudy is going to get crushed in Iowa, SC, etc., if he sticks around), I mean cultural as in many people in Louisiana think the Clintons are just a tick above Satan.

- jmurph79

January 3, 2008 at 2:59pm

I meant to say "overestimating the chances we have of winning IN THE SOUTH this year..."

- jmurph79

January 3, 2008 at 3:05pm

RE: Virginia.

You all may just have to trust me on this one because it flies in the face of everything everyone thinks....

Webb's populism had nothing to do with his win. In fact, Webb had nothing to do with his win. He ran the most incompetent, pathetic campaign I've ever seen (aside from a few small shrewd tactical moves by Steve Jarding). Didn't raise any money, didn't do much of anything. I was an early supporter of this guy, and I love him, but by the time he got into the race (late) all of the talent was in all of the other states.  The DNC bailed him out with millions at the last minute. The local parties ran all of his field ops. The blogs did his oppo-attacks on Allen, digging up everything from  the Macaca video (which the Webb campaign didn't want to release) to much of the n-word allegations (direct from Larry Sabato). The Allen loss was almost totally self-inflicted. Any generic dem who raised money, ran a field op, and didn't have easy and attackable negatives (Webb had the past "sexist" comments) would have beaten Allen by 3-4 points.

Check out Survey USA's approval ratings. I believe Webb has a net negative approval. His populism, partisanship, and anti-war rhetoric haven't helped him in VA. This is one of his biggest fans talking here.

Virginia is trending blue for three reasons. Two are obvious, one is not:

1. Obvious one: Good governance by high profile Democrats (Warner and Kaine)

2. Obvious two: Growing NOVA

3. Not obvious: The growth of the federal voter in Virginia and the influence of the national media on the Virginia political mood. Virginians are all tied very closely to the federal government (whether it's the bureacracy or contractors). Even in the tidewater where you have heavy military presence. The Washington Post pretty much sets the agenda and characterizes the mood in many of these areas. Unlike other states that are far from Washington, voters in Virginia look to DC for cues on partisan identification, because DC is such a large part of their lives. When you combine Virginia's DC-centric political life with Bush's huge disapproval, you get a state that is tilting blue,

- virginiacentrist

January 3, 2008 at 3:05pm

VA, I lived in VA from 1991-2004, and you are of course spot on.  Points 2 & 3 are related, of course.

I try to stay out of y'alls fights, but the candidate I most fear in Nov 08 is Obama, for the reason VA gives.  Obama IS change, both substantive and generational.  I truly believe our guy (whomever) can beat HRC or Johnny-boy.

Why y'all want to nominate someone with 50% negatives is beyond me, but have at it.  And Edwards' class-warfare schtick will lose and lose big.  So please run him, too.  Obama, however, could win and win big.  His Presidency scares the bejeezus out of me, as he's green as grass.  But if he's as smart as advertised, he'll get good people to work for him, and that's most of the battle.

We'll see.  Long way to go.

- butchie b

January 3, 2008 at 4:20pm

I think Butchie B is right about Obama being the most electable of the Democratic candidates.  I could envision McCain beating him in a general, but he's the only one with a legitimate shot.  Then again, I think McCain beats anyone in the general, if Republicans care to nominate the guy.  

I have a tough time with national polls right now- Giuiliani is still leading on the Republican side, I think.  Does anyone think he's going to win a single state before he drops out?

- jmurph79

January 3, 2008 at 4:36pm

He might win FL.  He'll be strong in south Florida, and I bet he'll run OK among the northern FL military retiree set based on his 9/11 performance.

Other than FL - no.

- butchie b

January 3, 2008 at 5:19pm

As a fellow Virginian, can I just say to Virginiacentrist, "Can you please run the Democratic campaign for governor in 2009"? Looks like Brian Moran has joined the race with Deeds; either one could use your insight.

As to the need for Democrats to target the South with a "national" strategy, well. Isn't winning the Northeast, the bulk of the Mid-Atlantic, the Pacific Coast states, holding the Great Lakes and the Midwest, and making gains in the Mountain states and in the more-reconstructed fringes of the Confederacy a "national" strategy? How is it that when one party is poised to win all the country but one region, and the other party is withdrawing behind the shrinking borders of that single region, the party that wins every region but one is accused of not running a "national" campaign, whereas the increasingly South-only party gets away with claiming the "national party" mantle?

The fact that Minnesota hasn't elected a Democratic governor since 1986 is a hell of a lot more problematic for Democrats than the fact that Alabama and South Carolina would cast their electoral votes for Satan, if Satan were the Republican nominee. It's nice to win Tennessee, and I'd be proud if Virginia went Dem, but George W. Bush almost won Minnesota and Iowa twice this decade, and if you have to choose between winning one or two Southern states or winning all of the Midwest, the truly "national" strategy will take the Midwest, since successful appeals to voters there translate easily to other non-Southern regions, whereas a Southern strategy doesn't really translate beyond Dixie.

- rhubarbs

January 3, 2008 at 5:29pm