Skip to comments.
Democrats need Southern strategy
The State (South Carolina) ^
| Sun, Jan. 16, 2005
| LEE BANDY
Posted on 01/16/2005 2:47:19 PM PST by nickcarraway
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 next last
To: nickcarraway
Democrats need Southern strategy. And an Northern strategy. And an Eastern strategy. And a Western strategy...a Northwestern strategy...a Mid-Western strategy...
To: nickcarraway
Here's your southern strategy, lib/dems:
But that would make too much sense, wouldn't it?
To: nickcarraway
Southern strategy?
When Hillary runs, the Dems and MSM will anoint her Saint Hillary of Ark. That will help her touch multiple constituencies simultaneously.
4
posted on
01/16/2005 2:54:35 PM PST
by
TomGuy
(America: Best friend or worst enemy. Choose wisely.)
To: nickcarraway
Very good observation, The only problem is the South is full of Democrats, there just isn't a Democratic representation in the upper levels that they will follow into their extreme liberalism.
The Liberal party has overthrown the DIMocratic party management, but the voters haven't followed. DUMmies
5
posted on
01/16/2005 2:57:56 PM PST
by
PROSOUTH
( Deo Vindice "God Will Vindicate")
To: nickcarraway
Democrats need to work on connecting with the American people and shared American values again. Pandering to the likes of the DUmmie fringe of society will continue to be the cause of the party's demise, and no amount of strategy and spin can change this. Democrat talking heads like to say that they didn't get their message out, but once again fail to realize that their message does not appeal to the majority of Americans, especially in the South.
Zell Miller has been telling them this for a couple of years now. If they can't listen to one of their own, then they are completely lost.
6
posted on
01/16/2005 2:59:44 PM PST
by
SaveTheChief
(There are 10 types of people -- those who understand binary, and those who don't.)
To: nickcarraway
Democrats are just going to have to become better liars. Their current crop of lies is transparent, and the truth would drive more votes away.
7
posted on
01/16/2005 3:00:46 PM PST
by
Doohickey
("This is a hard and dirty war, but when it's over, nothing will ever be too difficult again.”)
To: nickcarraway
The Dems don't need the South. They need Ohio.
8
posted on
01/16/2005 3:13:03 PM PST
by
Torie
To: nickcarraway
Absent a major political realignment, there isn't a single Southern state (other than Florida, which really isn't "Southern" culturally), where a Democratic Presidential candidate figures to run close to national Dem figures -- and in most cases, the gap will be huge. Virginia is probably the next most realistic Dem hope, as the NoVa DC burbs continue to grow rapidly, but the state wasn't very close in 2004.
In the near-term future, Dems will carry Southern states only in the event of a national Dem rout. There will be a realignment some day, of course. Nothing stays the same forever in politics. But the South looks to be a GOP stronghold for at least the next couple of decades. And that's with the obligatory white Protestant Southern male occupying one or both places on the Dem ticket. One wonders when they'll jettison that strategy.
9
posted on
01/16/2005 3:15:22 PM PST
by
southernnorthcarolina
(OK, Congress is back in session -- Where's my tax cuts for the rich? )
To: Torie
They reached their high water mark in Ohio. Also, the upper Midwest is in play. Look at the efforts the Donks made in Minnesota and Wisconsin to win those two states.
I'm not going to cite fraud, just that the Democrats and their 527s was responsible for remarkable turnout that overcome GOP efforts.
I doubt the Donks can replicate that, and Ohio I believe is now a lost cause for them.
10
posted on
01/16/2005 3:18:49 PM PST
by
lavrenti
(Think of who is pithy, yet so attractive to women.)
To: nickcarraway
In 1992, with Bill Clinton heading the ticket, Democrats were competitive in the South. Running a centrist campaign, Clinton won five Southern states. Morons. It's because of Bill Clinton's eight years in the White House that cost Democrats a southern strategy.
To: nickcarraway
If anything, the Dems chances in the south are getting worse as more and more whites are moving to the GOP. There are only two white Democratic US Congressmen from Texas today, and realitistically, there should be none the way the districts were re-drawn.
Democrats in the South tend to be black, hispanic, or the university-type white liberals.
12
posted on
01/16/2005 3:19:24 PM PST
by
Dog Gone
To: nickcarraway
A Democratic Party without the South is a little bit like greens without the cornbread.
I'd say the Greens are FULL of "cornbread."
13
posted on
01/16/2005 3:23:17 PM PST
by
Socratic
(Ignorant and free? It's not to be! - T. Jefferson (paraphrase))
To: nickcarraway
The only Southern Strategy that will work for Democrats is for them to quit being the party of Unlimited Homosexual Legal Jihad and Unlimited Abortion. Until then, forget it.
14
posted on
01/16/2005 3:23:43 PM PST
by
spodefly
(This message packaged with desiccant. Do not open until ready for use or inspection.)
To: Torie
The Dems don't need the South. They need Ohio.They have about as much a chance of winning one as the other.
Ohio was never a swing state. No democrat for president has won 50% of the vote there since LBJ.
A majority of the congressional delagation, the 2 senators, the governor, and the secretary of state all are republican.
I don't know about the AG or the legislative branch.
There's a story Bob Shrum wrote after the election, which kind of should have tipped off everyone.
The democratic party brought in something like 50,000 volunteers and workers from out of state to work Ohio, the GOP matched them......with only instate folks.
That is not a swing state.
15
posted on
01/16/2005 3:27:54 PM PST
by
Sonny M
("oderint dum metuant")
To: Torie
The Dems don't need the South. They need Ohio.They'd be better off trying for the South, or border states.
Of 7 statewide offices in Ohio, all are GOP and have been for a while. The state legislatures have been GOP since 1994 and both Senate seats have been Republican since Metzenbaum and Glenn retired.
The Dem Party in Ohio has been dead for a while, it just gets (barely) re-animated once and only once every 4 years and that takes massive money from the DNC.
16
posted on
01/16/2005 3:29:21 PM PST
by
NeoCaveman
(Quote the DUmmie, we got Roved)
To: SaveTheChief
And they branded him a traitor, and didn't even go to his farewell speech.
17
posted on
01/16/2005 3:29:37 PM PST
by
vpintheak
(Liberal = The antithesis of Freedom and Patriotism)
To: nickcarraway
" In 2004, Democrats proved they could win at the state and local level but not nationally."
What did they win locally. We gained representatives, senators, governors. Oh, they stole Washington Gov by fraud.
18
posted on
01/16/2005 3:30:19 PM PST
by
lawdude
(Leftists see what they believe. Conservatives believe what they see.)
To: nickcarraway
They're going to need to find God for real to have a chance.
19
posted on
01/16/2005 3:37:21 PM PST
by
trebb
("I am the way... no one comes to the Father, but by me..." - Jesus in John 14:6 (RSV))
To: dubyaismypresident
Ohio trended Dem this year by about 2%, even as the nation trended GOP by about 3%, in margin. Given the numbers in 2004, the electoral college has a Dem bias. Absent suprise candidates, Ohio is where the action is, not the South. The Dems are also making a move on Colorado and Nevada. We shall see how that plays out. Minnesota and Wisconsin appear locked in place.
20
posted on
01/16/2005 3:40:18 PM PST
by
Torie
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson