[central_va]

Whether or not a socialist is from the North or the South matters little because now it is the North that is bastion of liberal/socialist voting base. The monies spent on placating southern poverty would not be spent(wasted) in an independent South. Just wouldn't happen. johnson fooled the south in the 1960's, after that, the lesson was learned, at least below the mason-dixon.

The 1980 election ended the Demo stranglehold on dixie.

[equalitybeforethelaw]

To Central_VA

You are looking at Presidential electons. The year 1994 ended the Dem stranglehold over the South at the Congressional level. We can thank bill and hills for that gift. Remember, the only moderating influence on the hard left Dem party came from seniority of southern dems. When the hard left took out senority around 1973 after the Wilber Mills Tidal Bowl scandal the party went forever from the “liberal” coalition to the “socialist” coalition. It took roughly 20 years of painful experience for southern voters to conclude that the Dem party dispised them and alter course. The south made one more try with the dems this past cycle, but that will be the last for an eternity. Two Illinois transformers should be enough to put the south beyond the siren call of “free stuff”. The Dems have become what they always were, a community of Tammany Halls.

[Non-Sequitur]

The monies spent on placating southern poverty would not be spent(wasted) in an independent South. Just wouldn't happen.

Nonsense. Southern politicians haven't changed a whit over the decades. If not for the fact that they found they could change parties and still keep their big government/big spending ways all your congressmen and senators would still be Democrats.