It will be interesting if the Republicans pick up 15-20 seats in the South. Based on the New York Times’ reporting, we could see another solidification of the North/South realignment, which will then be amplified when it comes time to do the redistricting. What’s unsurprising is that the really vulnerable Southern Democrats are the ones who are representing majority-white districts:
There are 59 Democrats in House seats across the South from the 11 states of the old Confederacy, totaling 43 white representatives and 16 black ones. Of those seats in predominantly white districts, nine are leaning Republican, eight are tossups and at least five more are competitive, according to the latest rankings by The New York Times, creating the prospect of the biggest Democratic losses since 1994, when 19 seats fell…
Don Fowler of South Carolina, who is a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said the party could lose those seats for years to come if Republicans win the districts in November. He said the Southern states with significant population growth, particularly Virginia and North Carolina, might be the only ones to retain significant Democratic representation.
“In those places where there has not been a demographic change and you are relying on a split between most white people and African-Americans, the move toward Republicans is going to proceed at pace,” Mr. Fowler said. “But if there were 18 to 20 losses this year, that would be catastrophic.”
It would be catastrophic from Mr. Fowler’s point of view, because he cares about South Carolina. But, every action has a reaction. For example, the following is also true in reverse:
“It’s not a good prospect for the Democratic Party in the South,” said Glen Browder, a former Democratic congressman from Alabama. “It should be a moment of reflection for Democrats. When you forfeit the South, your sights tend to drift too far left.”
When the Republicans finally forfeited New England in 2008, their sights went careening to the right like a car that has lost its brakes. It seems like we are increasingly living in four different countries. We have the North and the left coast, we have the Old South, and we have the New South, and we have a region where the Mormon Belt is butting up against massive growth in the Latino population. Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida are part of the New South, and the difference is brought about by diversity.
Obama made inroads in the New South and in the Mormon Belt (by winning Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada). But he did very poorly with the white vote in those areas. Obama’s physical appearance may have acted as a propellant to a political shift that was already taking place, but the closer we come to having a split between a White People’s Party and an Inclusive Party, the less our politics are going to be about issues, and the less accountable our politicians are going to be. Take a look at Charlie Rangel and David Vitter. Their constituents are not really considering voting them out because they consider the alternative party to be completely unacceptable. We’re going to see more of that, and it’s really a quite dangerous thing.
the only reason I’m not willing to write off the deep South like some would is because of the concentration of the Black population in the South, and I believe they should have representation. if not for them, I’ll be honest, I’d say fuck the South.
link
72,173 votes hardly gets into GOTV territory. These are just early birds. And in North Carolina, there are white men in almost every county who vote Democratic. In short, it’s too early to tell.
And most likely, it will increase the “enthusiasm” of folks working on GOTV activities and frighten a few benchsitters into getting out to call and canvass.
Take a look at Charlie Rangel and David Vitter. Their constituents are not really considering voting them out because they consider the alternative party to be completely unacceptable.
This is nonsense Boo, and you know it. Rangel’s seat is going to stay Democratic whether he won or lost his primary. Vitter? Who knows, but he won his lackluster primary. What we do know is that voters don’t seem to care about their corruption, lack of morals or possible law breaking.
Why are you always telling me that I’m talking nonsense when I never am? I’m not talking about primaries, I’m talking about the general election.
Off topic, but if you want to know what kind of changes might occur in a Republican House, check out this paper that discusses what they did last time they took over (.pdf).
Let’s do these government haters a favor and sell the TVA to the highest bidder. Maybe a good dose of “free enterprise” is just what the doctor ordered. I hear Enron is looking for new worlds to conquer.
Southerners don’t seem to have listened to their grandparents explain to them they are not sitting in the dark because of Franklin Roosevelt, the Democrats and socialism.
They listened when their grandparents were alive but now that they are gone, the grandkids have forgotten their real traditional values.
Wish I could agree with you, TarHeel, but the history of the South tells me that the real traditional values of the region are get rich quick schemes – gold mania from the early days of Virginia, the tobacco boom of the 17th century in Virginia and Maryland, the cotton boom which destroyed the soils of Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi in the 19th century; low taxes and public investment unless paid for by Yankees – which persists to this day; poor public education, also persistent; all disguised by demagogic manipulation of the common folk by a self-entitled elite.
Yes, there have always been the Jeffersons and Alexander Stephens’ and George Wallaces in the South who start out with good instincts and ideology, but they always seem to end up defending their ‘peculiar institutions,’ letting their racial solidarity overcome their pan-racial and unionist stances, and making sure they ‘never get outniggered again.’
Too many white Southerners today (I am born in the deep South and live here now) continue to nurture a profound sense of victimhood, not by their own elites, but by Northerners, liberals, African-Americans, Democrats, socialists – whomever. They know they are getting screwed, but most are too damned ignorant and stubborn to accurately identify who is doing the screwing – and they almost always have been.
Welcome to get-rich-quick scheming America, from sea to shining sea. Even the Puritans got into it.
Jefferson was conflicted and finally lacked the courage of his philosophy. George Wallace started out segregationist and populist and ended up a moderate integrationist.
I agree about the sense of victimhood. It a defense from admitting that the Civil War was finally a stupid move if one were trying to preserve slavery, but whose results actually made America a better country. There never was a de-Confederatization during Reconstruction like there was de-Nazification after World War II. And no Marshall Plan either.
I disagree about not accurately identifying who is doing the screwing. They know that very clearly but they also know the risks of directly opposing them. And they suspect that if they ever were to turn radically against the local MOTUs, they would get no support from progressives in the rest of the country. The national union’s abandonment of the TWUA strikes of the 1930s is not a conscious presence but it underlies distrust of unions. In South Carolina, at least 20 white textile workers died on strike for a union that was rapidly desegregating. It’s not ignorance or stubbornness, it is fear. Stronger national labor laws might begin to unwind that but don’t count on these folks to openly support them.
Increasingly in the New South of Atlanta, Charlotte, RTP, “their elites” are from outside the South. Even the textile boom of the 1950s-1970s was from relocations of northern plants. And today, the elites include Japanese, German and French managers for BMW, Michelin, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan. The front office might look Southern and good-ole-boy, but the decisions are made elsewhere.
in many ways we ARE different countries, with very little in common. The national consensus no longer exists (if it ever did). Sometimes it feels like the end of the USSR here, when government got so corrupt it couldn’t do anything, and people became more loyal to their nationality than they were to the greater republic. And you can see that here, especially in the states-rights moves against health care reform and the Citizen’s United decision.
And, like some of the commenters here, i’d be happy to let the south go, especially after the past 10 years.
The problem is that countries that split apart due to differing ideologies or what have you never make good neighbors. Look at India-Pakistan, or North-South Korea as just two examples. Obviously you’re not talking about the South splitting off into a new country (I think?) – after all at least we were able to settle that 150 years ago. But I think the dynamic and danger of neighbors that hate each other remain the same.
Except that the “states-rights” moves in this country are penny-ante temper tantrums and not the real ethnic divide/status as conquered nations issues of the former USSR.
I see the analogy you’re going for but I’m not buying it. Yes there is a very vocal minority of separatists in this country who scream a lot. They’ve been part of this country since the founding of the Republic and they were a lot more influential and a lot more dangerous 150 years ago than they are now – they’re effectively neutered at this point. No one takes separatists seriously except maybe in Hawa’ii and Alaska. And even there they’re on the fringe.
The “states-rights” moves by the GOP are all – ALL – about political posturing. They’re not real. If the US government called their bluffs and said “go ahead – secede” they’d cry like mewling kittens that they were being kicked out of the country and that it was un-American and it would turn into a different kind of political posturing. This is not 1860 and there are no real secessionists in any government in the US. What there are are a bunch of people who think that screaming about ‘states rights’ will win elections and give them the leverage to cut taxes.
This is the part of the cycle where history is repeating. 1860 was the tragedy. This part is the farce.
That is bull. And it is how the national media and Republicans want the issue framed. There is a large consensus about what has to happen in government even in the South. There are likely more out-of-the-closet gays than Civil War re-enactors in the South. Most of the churches in the South are neither the politicized Southern Baptist Convention churches nor the suburban megachurches although there are lots of examples of those. There are probably more Southerners who are members of congregations with gay pastors than there are Klansmen.
The Citizens United decision was by the Supreme Court on a case that came directly out of K Street and went to the DC Circuit Court.
Not all of Southern attorneys general have joined in the case opposing healthcare reform and not all of those attorneys general are Southern. For example, the attorney general of North Carolina, Roy Cooper, has not joined the suit. Florida (Bill McCollum) and Virginia (Ken Cuccinelli) are the most outspoken supporters of the court case.
I have family in Washington state, Michigan, Alabama, Maryland, and North Carolina. The issues and opinions in all of these places are not much different. The major differences are between highly rural areas and university towns and between suburbs and cities. Central Pennsylvania is little different in attitude from Western North Carolina or the Finger Lakes region (outside of Ithaca) of New York.
You would keep John Boehner and lose Jim Clyburn were you to let the South go. You would keep Mitch McConnell and let Brad Miller go. You would keep Darrell Issa and Pete King and Michele Bachman and Steve King and let Tom Perriello go.
I’m getting tired of this silliness from folks who have little idea of the complexity of what is going on in the South.
Complexity or not, a look at Congress confirms that without the South the US would be a liberal country. Of course it doesn’t have a monopoly of idiots and liars, but the pols who represent it constitute a lasting and predictable obstacle to progress. Politically the South is the flat tire on the bus of state.
How does a look at Congress show that without the South, the US would be a liberal country? Are you counting non-Southern Blue Dogs as liberal? How about non-Southern New Democrats. Liberals hold around 100 seats in the House at best. That is not likely to change with this election.
Liberals hold maybe 35-40 seats in the Senate. And that is likely also not to change with this election.
Names like Altmire, Dahlkemper, Stupak, Skelton, Harmon, and so on represent as much an obstacle to progress as Southern Democrats. Not all Southerners are white, less so each year. And not all white Southerners are opposed to progress. Or do you consider Southern California, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Missouri, western Colorado, Wyoming, and the 6th district of Minnesota a part of the South that you want to get rid of.
In North Carolina there is likely only one vulnerable Democrat, Mike McIntyre. And he will pull it out.
In Alabama, AL-05 already changed from Democratic to Republican with the defection of the Democratic Congressman, who the lost the GOP primary. Bobby Bright (AL-02) is the likely loss there.
In SC, LA and GA, there is not much left to lose. In MS, there might be one or two. In VA, Nye and possibly Perriello. Likely two in AR. And two to three in TX.
I count 12 out of that, mostly in areas in which they have outperformed their PVI because they are well-known and well-liked from previous public office.
Don Fowler’s term as DNC chair has hurt us the most in the South. Brought in to shore up and regain Southern seats, he failed. The DNC chair with the most success was Howard Dean; a lot of the folks in danger were elected during his 50-state strategy. He has been in duck-and-cover mode since then, hoping that inertia would keep Democrats in office. His time has passed even in his understanding of SC. BTW, his wife is the executive director of the SC Democratic Committee staff and shepherded through the response to Alvin Greene’s surprise nomination.
The problem in SC, GA, AL, and probably MS and LA is that the state Democratic committees are dominated by the old guard, who are now battle-weary from a decade and a half of losses. Fortunately there are some younger folks coming forward, but they haven’t gotten enough experience yet. And all of these state need to reconstitute their county and precinct committees and have some support for getting their message out locally. In addition, they have to work over against 24/7 wall-to-wall coverage of conservative talk radio in the tractors, in the fields, and in some of the New South suburbs.
It is ironic and sad that the sons, daughters, grandsons, and granddaughters of folks who strongly supported FDR are now flirting with the Tea Party. Southern Democrats need to take a sharp left turn, supporting the growing labor movement in the South being organized by Hispanics and bringing in white workers and talking about farm and manufacturing issues again. Folks who are squeezed financially see tax reductions as the only part of the equation they have control over. Government action to deal with increasing wages and lowering prices can bring them back.