From the closing days of Recontruction to the Election of Jimmy Carter in 1976 the southern block known as the "Solid South"voted most offten than not for the Democratic ticket.

Only a few times in the span of about 100 years did a Republican even win a single state in the old Confedercy.

Since Reagan the south both at a national and local scale has tilted more in favor of Republicans than Democrats.

Many in the Democratic Party including Bill Clinton and Howard Dean have been stressing as of late the need to win somewhere in Dixie in order to win back the whitehouse and control of congress from the Republicans.

In my own research on the subject I found that 39% of Democrats live in the south even though in the last two presidential races neither Democrat Al Gore or John Kerry carried a single state in the South.

Also I found figures stating that in order of anyone to become president without winning somewhere in the south or have a majority in congress, he or she would have to win 77% of the rest of the county due to the fact that a little over 100 million people reside in the southern states which has a combind total of 215 electoral votes with 270 needed to win.

John Kennedy in 1960 carried the state of Georgia by the greater number of votes than any other state he carried including his own home state of Massachusetts.

Jimmy Carter carried every state south of Virginia.

Until 1995 the vast majority of southerners in congress were Democrats.

Now the national and even local Democratic Party faces the prospect of being shutout in the largest region in America in future races which will give the Republicans a leading edge in any race for the next few election cycles.

Question is, what can the Democrats do to become more appealing to southern voters ?

Divide the country and keep the north? Republicans can keep the south and thus everybody's happy (apart for Abraham Lincoln).

What the democrats can do is recognize that they need to appeal to the South.  The old South is gone, and just having a "Democratic" label will not get it done any more.

Think about this:  The last elected president from the North was Jack Kennedy in 1960, a Dem.  Since then, ALL the elected presidents have been from the South and the West...California, Texas, Georgia and Arkansas.  (OK I know Geo. Bush I was originally from Connecticut, but he has been a Texan since after WWII)   The Dems need to wake up and smell the coffee.

The political center of gravity in America has been moving south and west since the 1820s when Andrew Jackson was the first president from the "West" (Tennessee then).  I do not think Hilary Clinton, of whom I am not a fan anyway, did herself any favor by relocating to New York so she could get elected to the Senate.  If the Dems think she can be elected president, they are still smoking weed left over from the 1970s.   

the only thing the dems need to learn how to do is nominate someone who is electable, I mean look at the presidential failures of the last 25 years.  Mondale, Dukakis, Dole, Gore, Kerry,  they were all very capable yet none of them were really likable.

When Johnson was getting his civil rights legislation passed, he was famously warned by Senator Russell of Georgia that if he did he would lose the South - by some accounts 'forever', by others 'for two generations'.

He did. Russell was right. And it is still lost.

The black South is solidly Democrat[1]. (Though once of course it was Republican.) The white South is just as solidly Republican. (Though once it was Democrat.)

Until the race issue is history, the current position will continue.

I maybe should add that my wife is from Georgia, and over the last 20 years I've spent a great deal of time there.

[1] Indeed, the non-white, non-black South is too. Apart from in Florida which isn't really part of the South any more.

This is how Jack Valenti (then Johnson's chief of staff) tells the story about Johnson and Russell. http://user688038.wx13.registeredsite.com/speech/valenti.html - http://user688038.wx13.registeredsite.com/speech/valenti.htm l

'So Russell came in to the second floor. He's about my size, bald, blue eyes; Johnson's 6 ft. 4. [Johnson] grabbed him and embraced him and they sat down on a little green couch overlooking the Rose Garden in what is called in the mansion the West Hall.

Johnson sat on a winged back chair so his knees were touching Russell's and I sat to the right of Russell and the President put his around him and he said "Dick, I love you and I owe you. I wouldn't have been the leader without you, I wouldn't have been vice president if I hadn't been the leader and I wouldn't have been president if I hadn't been vice president.

So I'm sitting here because of you, and because I love you and I owe you I wanted to ask you here so I could tell you face to face, please, please don't get in my way on this Civil Rights Bill. This has been languishing in the Senate for too damn long, I'm going to pass that bill, Dick, I'm not going to change one word of it." Then he lowered his voice and said "And if you get in my way, Dick, I'm going to run you down."

And Russell, impassive and mute until then, began to speak in those rolling accents of his Georgia countryside, and he said "Well, Mr. President, you may very well be right, but if you do you're not only going to lose the South forever, you're going to lose the election."

And Johnson, I must tell you, in all the years that I knew him after that, I was never prouder of him than on that Sunday morning a long, long, long, time ago, because he looked Russell in the face, grabbed him by the shoulder in an affectionate gesture and he said "Well, Dick, if that's the price I have to pay, I'll gladly pay it." '

There is no such thing as a too harsh statement for the south...I wont go into details but it bothers me like no other part of the world except Saudi Arabia (which of course is very similar to the south). 

And basically yes, if the democrats revered to their old bigoted short sighted and intrusionist ways, yes they would win back the south.

At least when the southerners voted democratic they got some free handouts from it.  Now I really have to ask just what they get from their blind ideology. 

How about what do we get?

To prop up a bunch of parasites, Federal grant money, who are too damn lazy and ignorant to set appropriate tax rates in their own states.  I'm sick of my tax money going to support their cheap housing!  If those southerners need to build bridges and highways let them raise the money themselves!  Lets face it the wealthiest areas in this country not only are but always have been progressive.  Massachussetts, Manhattan, the Gold Coast of Chicago... whilst conservatism has brought us Appalachia and the Tennessee River valley, oh wait Liberals industrialized it...

To call the 21st century south, a region of racist biggots is downright wrong and ignorent. Truth be known the south hasn't seen racial unrest since the late 1960s.

Pennsylvania and New York have a higher percentage of percapita "hate crimes" than any state in the south  http://www.google.com - www.google.com  

In the 1970s Boston Mass. had unrest and near riots over the issue of busing. (blacks going to white schools and vice versa.)

1991. Los Angelas Cali. Rodney King was dragged from his car and beaten half to death for speeding.

1992. Los Angelas Cali. The worst race riot since the 1960s accured after an all white jury aquited the police for beating Rodney King

!994. Cleveland Ohio. Two unarmed black teens were killed by a police officer.    

!997. Idaho. A young homosexial teen was beaten and tied to a fence and left to die in the snow.

1998. New York City. A Black man was brutaly sodomised with a toilet plunger by the N.Y.P.D

1998. New York City. An unarmed Hatian Immagrant was was shot 41 one times by the N.Y.P.D for simply walking outside his aparment.

2000. Cleveland Ohio. Race Riots on account of the slaying of two black youths by the police.   

My whole point in that is to show that racism can not be confind to just one state or one region. It is a national and global issue that has never been fully addressed north or south.

I myself am neither a liberal or conservative though I am a southerner and by no means a biggot nor do I know of any where I live. The only biggotry I see in America is towards southern people for their conservative veiws that run counter to the views of most liberals.

I don't think race had or has as much to do with the failure of the Democratic Party in the south and elsewhere I think it has more to do with a broad range of issues, gun control, abortion, defence and ecnomics. Truth be known the Democratic party has lost 30% of it's party membership in the last 20 years. (In 1980) 62% of americans were reg. democrats.)

In every election since 1980 the democratic party has been losing ground in the strong union states of the mid west and upper midwest and it is said that within 2  more elections cycles the whole country outside a large pocket of the northeast and California will be trending republican.

How can any party win without winning some states in the south and midwest ?

Do you live in a racially mixed area? Or in a racially segregated one? Forsyth County, Georgia? Or even Cobb  County?

If you're white, how many blacks live in your street? How many blacks go to your church (unless it's Catholic). If you're black, how many whites live in your street? how many whites go to your church?

In either case, how many Hispanics?

Go look at any team doing landscaping around Atlanta. The owner will be white, the foreman probably black, the labourers Hispanic.

How many whites voted for Cynthia McKinney or John Lewis? How many blacks for Bob Barr?

The discussion here is not about issues of violence or overt hatred, but the balance of political power. And that, certainly in Georgia, is race-based.

For the record I am a 26 year old wanna-be poet/ artist and amature historian, here in the great State of Louisiana. Born and Raised. A state which is 60% democrat and second only to California for reg. dems per cap. 

I come from a long line of "Southern Democrats" who support many progressive deals exept, gun control, abortion and a few others.

My late mother and grandmother road with the freedom riders in the early 1960s to the state capital to protest the right for blacks to vote.

Dr King and Rosa Parks are two of my heros along with Stone Wall Jackson, Robert E. lee, Congressman Davy Crocket, Walt Whitman, The Man in China who stood in front of the tanks in 1989, Geronimo and most of all my father.

I do not own a Confederate Flag, I do own a 1984 Poster of New Jersey's own  Bruce Springsteen standing in front of a Confederate that Reads "Darlington Country" that was issue on his southern leg of his "Born in the U.S.A. tour.  

Anyway, I do not live around anybody white, black, yellow, or brown on acount that my nearest neighbor is like a mile away, She is white. I have traveled to 38 states and two foriegn countries. I must say that in my opinon Las Angeles California, is and was the most segregated city I've ever been to.

I find it ironic that so many people outside of this region of America try to label the South as a backwards wilderness of racist and rednecks. Truth be known that the fiberoptic Cable that is sending this internet signal was invented in Atlanta Georgia along with the Coke your drinking.

Look it up the pacific north west is the stomping Ground for right wing extremest in America. Neo Nazi's and the Such.

Let me make myself clear there are pockets of Racist in the south as there are everywhere but we have learned the hard way and are still learning. Most folks involved in race relations in America will tell you that the New South has outpaced the rest of America on dealing with race relations. A little under half the nation's blacks live in the south so if it was so bad wouldn't you think they would leave ?

Most jobs I've worked were either owned or ran by minorities.

As a matter of fact the south is the fastest growing region in America population wise and ecomically. More than 15 million people have left the North East for the Southern States.     

Yes, at one time we had jim crow and segregation but we have moved beyond that thanks to a southerner who in spite of many failures signed the civil rights acts of 64-65. What did the north do for blacks ? Herlam New York, which was a mostly black city, was owned by whites until the late 1930s. It wasn't until the late 1960s that blacks began to take control of city governments.

As a matter of fact the vast majority of blacks serving Congress are from Dixie. The President of the Sons of Confederate War Veterans is black. (J.J Johnson.) As far as latinos I don't see many in this Great State. I have seen them pick their fingers bare in the fruite fields out in Cali. And as far as gays go the man that cuts my hair is Gay and he says gay marrage should not happen. I on the other feel that if a man can leave his wife and kids for the whore down the street than two men or two women should be able to make their union legal.

In closing, my good man. I hope that your outdated views on the south will change and that you will have the wisedom to research this topic further and come to know that racism is not a southern problem or even a national problem but a world wide germ that festers in the hearts of wicked and cruel souls of every nation and mindset. Until you, me and the rest of the world comes to the knowlege of that fact we as a humanity will only suffer that bloody history of the past.   

I happen to have lived there usually about three months a year  for the last 18 years. Over the last year I spent nine months there. Sounds as though I have more direct experience than you.

If you live that far out in the country (a mile from anyone) then I suggest you take a look at some cities and small towns around the south.  Look at who does what jobs. Look where the unemployment rates are highest. Look in the churches. Look who lives where.

And from the point of view of this thread and topic, look at who votes for whom.

And, incidentally, if Louisiana is 60% Democrat, how come you have five Republican Congressmen (Jindal, McCrery, Alexander, Bake, Boustani) and and only two Democrats (Jefferson and Melancon) ?

What's the racial distribution between the five Republican districts and the two Democrat ones?

and come to know that racism is not a southern problem or even a national problem but a world wide germ that festers in the hearts of wicked and cruel souls of every nation and mindset. Until you, me and the rest of the world comes to the knowlege of that fact we as a humanity will only suffer that bloody history of the past.   

everything i listed, my friend can be researched http://www.google.com - www.google.com

Louisiana is a fairly conservative as well as progressive state which Clinton carried along with about half the south by 10% of the vote.

Gore and Kerry both lost this state and a lot of key swing states through some warped minded view that a democrat only needs to BYPASS the largest electorial region in the country in order to win.

Yes, a democrat can win without carrying a single southern state, though it has never been done, (even John Kennedy needed Texas.) and most political strategist say a democrat's chances are slim to none without winning somewhere in the south. In order to win without the south, which is something that both Clinton and Dean have warned against trying, a democrat would have to win every swing state in the midwest and southwest.

John Kerry made this very clear when he said he would and could win without the south and unless I'm dreaming he did not.

Neither my or your opinions have realy helped in solving the bigger issue of just what the national party plans to do to offset the growing tide of the republicans not only in the south but else where outside the north east and california.

What I think the democrats should and need to do is distance themselves from the lobiest and special interrest that have taken over both parties in the last number of years and to streamline their message and be honest and up front with the country, of the economy, healthcare, defence, and how's this for starters ? free healthcare for all veterans of the armed forces, and do away with the failed V.A hostpital system, defence spending on weapon's systems as apposed to some of the pipe dreams that many on the right would spend money on and the old tried and true civil liberties for all people.      

You miss the point. The white south votes Republican. The black South votes Democrat.  This has been an increasing trend over the last 40 years, until now it is pretty well complete.

Until it changes, the south will stay Republican.

(I notice you don't challenge any of my facts.)

And the far west in general (Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Nevada. New Mexico. The key demographic trend here is possibly the growing Hispanic (non-Cuban emigré) vote. Immigration from South Asia, Africa and the West Indies may make a difference, but at the moment it tends only to result in increasing Democratic majorities in already Democratin districts.

Don't see why. The Republicans aren't distancing themselves from their lobbyists and special interest groups.

Since the Republicans win by NOT being upfront and honest, why should the Democrats hope to gain by being either?

Well, every civilised country has free healthcare for everybody, and doesn't need it specially for veterans.

Are you really suggesting that the US should squander and throw away even more money on useless weapons systems?

So you're saying your saying that they should bypass the largest region in america and simply pen their hopes on the hispanic vote which is slowly splitting republican. that logic could be the reason that democrats have been in steep decline that last 30 years, losing their majorities in 94-95 and only winning 3 presidential elections in the last 40 years.

The republicans are the ones who are growing and the democrats are the ones being pushed out not only in the south but in the midwest. The southwest went to Bush in 2000 except, New Mexico , which he carried in 2004. Had Al Gore carried his own home state he would've been president. Had Kerry carried florida or just half the states clinton carried in the south or midwest he would be.

Kerry and Gore lost every swing state in the south. Arkansas, Tennesee, floridia, Georgia, Louisiana and the three border states of Kentucky, west Virgina and Mossouri. all of which Clinton carried.      

Could it be that Clinton( the only full two term democrat since Roosevelt.) who carried Georgia and half the rest of the south knew what they didn't ? How to win. In politics every vote matters and every vote has to be fought for nobody wins by not fighting.

What the republicans do or doesn't do doesn't matter if the democrats just let them take half the nation without a fight. Even Raugh Nader said that.

As far as veterans getting free healthcare, I think they should on account that many suffer from the long term effects of you know, defending the country. And Yes, I think vets should get special treatment when we can and should give it to them and anybody who is ungreatful for their service should go live in Saddan for a while and see how bad it could be.

On the issue of national defence, I think we should spend a great deal to ensure that if we ever have to send our youth to war, which i hope is very offten that they have the best weapons and training we can give them. When I said that about pipe dream projects I meant a lot of the weapons systems the Defences Dep. wants, which the Republicans give them without question, Plane are totaly out of touch with the real world situation confronting us in the 21st century and were intended to confront the Soviets in the early 1980s. Acording to the Defence Deptartments own study last year. No major power can challenge us for the foreseeable future. 

Examples of Defence waste.. 1 Billion dollars spent per plane on B2 spirit in early and mid 90s which can now be tracked by radar by a few nations including Russia, China, and a few more. This money should have been better spent on researching and building more pilotless drone aircraft and even pilotless stealth aircraft that would be far cheaper.  

Millions spent to Design, build and test M.O.A.B or better known as Daisy's mama, while deploying servicemen and women to iraq without body armor and armored Hummers.

There are a lot of further examples I could give but these should give you the jest of my statement.

They already hold the largest region in America - the north-east. Granted Ohio, Indiana and Iowa ended up in the Bush camp, but only just. It wouldn't take much of a nudge to swing Ohio.

I am saying that the South is lost (to the Democrats) for a long time ahead. The only thing that could possibly stop that would be a major economic collapse, which might bring back an FDR situation.

In the meantime Democrats have been suffering from attempting to buck an irreversible slide - the switch of the south to the Republicans.

The mid, south and north west however ARE vulnerable to Democrat attack, all the more as the Republican party becomes more and more identified with Southern attitudes.

I don't think you can count Florida as part of the traditional south any more. I wouldn't give up there.

Carrying Ohio alone would also have won for Kerry, and taken only a 1% swing. Carrying any two of Missouri, Arizona, Indiana and Colorado would have given Kerry the election. Any three of a great number of non-southern states would have given the election to Kerry.

None of those are too tough a challenge. the Democrat tactic ought to be to create a split in Republican support between the north & west on the one hand, and the south on the other. This shouldn't be impossible, since the north has much more in common with the north-east and states like Minnesota and Wisconsin (won by Kerry) than with the south.

In several of those states, notably Georgia, the old Democratic party machine was still controlling things in Clinton's day. The idea of a Republican governor or a Republican State house was unthinkable. That's now gone.

The south isn't half the nation. Not by any means. The south has less than a quarter of electoral college votes, and approximately a quarter of representatives.

The rest of the country gave 252 out of 404 electoral votes to Kerry. 19 more would have swung it.

It's time the tail stopped wagging the dog.

Ralph Nader is an expert on winning?

I'm not arguing they shouldn't get free healthcare. I'm arguing for a compulsory national health insurance scheme.  If everybody had reasonable healthcare, veterans wouldn't need special treatment. Technically I'm a (British) veteran. i don't feel any need to have special healthcare provision.

I've no problems with generous pensions for veterans, so I've no problem with adding to the pension (or including in it - much the same really) health insurance premiums. I do think that, administratively, the system of specialist VA hospitals isn't very sensible though.

I would agree that there's ground for the Democrats to build on on this issue, not just in the south.

What you're now saying about national defence I would also agree with: it wasn't clear when you first posted. I thought you were calling for more money to be spent on defence, not less.

Probably true. Someone asked why the black population doesn't move north. The answer is that they have things much better where they are (and it's warmer ).  There are plenty of ways for blacks to advance in the south, particularly in places like Atlanta, where for political advancement you pretty well have to be black.

But that's not the point. The point isn't that blacks are discriminated against (though some other immigrants may be). The point is that they are on the whole residentially separated, there are therefore black districts and white districts, and the white ones vote Republican (not of course entirely, I know some white Democrats in Georgia) while the black ones vote Democrat.

To the extent that at the moment it is pointless for the Democratic party to do anything about it.

You mean trying to establish a society on a European model? Probably true, and, yes, that's the Democrats' problem not the South's (at least not the southern whites). Which is why I think the Democrats should give up on the, and concentrate on getting enough electoral college votes and Congressional seats elsewhere to be able to ignore the south's conservatism.

Yes, I got that second time around.

Btw, I didnt know you were a Brit.. are you?

Yes. I've lived in Luxembourg for abut twenty years, and my wife is American (from Georgia).

 I often wonder what it would be like if the South would have won the Civil War, or if the Union had just decided to let them go. I love Southern Culture, food, and people but I don't like the way they run their states. I think, the more liberal of a place, the more enjoyable it is to live in. I come from Oregon which is as liberal as you get in the US, and its just soo different than the southern states.

lots of talk about the 2004 election here.

 I just moved out of ohio to Az, but I was in Ohio during the election. The Republicans only won becasue they had a more extensive grassroots campaign. I saw them going door to door and signing up voters a million more times than I ever saw the Kerry people doing it. Simply said, the Bush people were far more active than the kerry people were. I thought the kerry campaign in Ohio was a total disgrace. Thats why I have no sympathy for Kerry losing in Ohio. Even though I voted for Kerry, I think he deserves to have lost Ohio.

Given what the Republican governor of ohio is doing to that state, it should not have been hard for the votes go to a democrat. its just a shame the democrats didn't put forth any decent amount of effort in the state that decided the election. And with a city like Cleveland where the economy is so very horrible, the Republicans should not have been allowed to win. Kerry just didn't get his message out there well enough.

Though, the Democrats are far from dumb. And I expect that tehy've learned from this past election and will know how to better compete with the Republican grassroots campaigning style

I think its a misconception to say my disdain for the south comes from race relations.  I think the only thing the south has done right has been the repair of its race relations, I think thats their best mark yet.  The problems I have is I as a northern taxpayer fund their state budgets which they then run to the ground, and I as an American citizen are subjected to the laws made by their extremist politicians.  For a place that pretends to just want to be left alone it very much likes to force its "values" (obesity and ignorance?) on everyone else. 

I iknow not if the country would have been better if the union had divided, but I know I would be much better off as an individual.

Its interesting. The South seceded because the North was imposing their their values on the south. Now, many Northerners are upset because the south is imposing their values on them. Weird way to think of it i guess.

and really, I don't think the divide between north and south has ever been this strong since the Civil War. I don't forsee another civil war or any secessions lol, but it is intersting to note that the wounds caused by the civil war never seemed to have fully healed.

As a southern man I can honestly say the country is far better of because of the union's victory. In the second wold war it took every american north, south, east and west to help bring about the allied victory over the axis powers. In the cold war Americans from every part of the country stood strong in the face of the commuinist. Though I am not a democrat it does pain me when a republican says that being a democrat is unpatriotic (my dad is a democrat and a veteran of vietnam.) I think there is good ppl and bad ppl in every party. I myself am a proud libertian.

I do think jimmy carter in 1976 will be the last democrat to sweep the south at least in our lifetimes (im 26.) but i do think clintons model will be used in the future. (spliting the south.) I will say that TX, MS, AL and maybe the Carolina's are out of reach for the dems but there are swing states down here. Louisiana, Arkansas and Florida at least.

I dont think we can look at the south as one big block anymore. I think in the future it will become more diverse as it is becoming and less solide. I still think if Gore who came to louisiana once, never left out of new orleans while bush came her 4 times and went out into the state.   or Kerry who once and never went to Arkansas or Georgia while bush repeated  2000 and went out into these states. I believe had they spent more time down here either man would have been president .

"In 2000 Bush didn't win the South, Gore Lost it." Bill Clinton.   

Originally posted by cattus Well that the breaks Tobo, love it or leave it!

Then Im taking the northeast with me, you can have all the crappy parts inbetween the west coast and good old PA.  Hey our Founding Fathers did the same thing when the ignoramiuses in the British empire said "love it or leave it".  If the people with the intelligence to question and challenge leave and all that is left is theose who are content..progress is stifled.

And I never understood that the north ever idd anything to the south by forcing anything on them.  The south controlled the presidency and the courts overwhelingly int he antebellum years, and we all know what "states rights" meant, slavery pretty much and agriculturual stagnation.  No one in the north wanted to convert southerners to evangelism or change anything about how they conducted themselves.  But southerners always want people to tow the line within their society. From their sad attempts to immitate Ancient Greece in Antebellum or their current attempts to imitate the Taliban pretty much.

The South is the biggest region in America in terms of population (190 million ppl.) and electorialy with a combind total of 215. elect votes and growing, with only 272 needed to win. The Northeast has 198. 

google.com

Econimicly the South has out proformed the rest of America for the last 25 years and is the fastest growing region in America. 20 million ppl have moved to the south from the north since 1980.
a little under Half of America's largest companies are based in the south, where the internet modem and fiber optic cable were invented. If the south was it's own country it would rank 2nd behind Japan as the world's richest nation. 

Education wise, Blacks and whites graduate at the same level as opposed to the rest of America where blacks lag behind whites.
Southern Schools rank as some of the highest in America in terms of test scores and generaly have higher standerds than it's counterparts in the north. In most districts in the south if you don't make the grade you don't pass.

As for Democrats winning without the south I will say this, No Dem has ever won the Presidency without winning somewhere down here. Even JFK needed Texas. In order to win without it a Democrat would have to win 77% of the rest of America's elect. votes. and win every toss-up state leaving no margion of error. And how are you gonna ever hold a clear majority in congress?

The Democrats have won only 3 Presidential elections in the last 40 years all three times carrying states in the south, which is the birthplace of the party and where 39% of democrats live.

In that same time span, the Democrats have lost 30% of it's party membership,(in 1980 60% of americans were reg. dems.) the once solide union vote, which was split between Bush and Kerry and it's majorities in the house and senate.

In 2004 Bush made inroads into the Black vote by winning close to 20% and the Latino vote was almost split.

I also hear much about the Southwest, name me one state in the Southwest, outside of California, that went to Kerry in 2004. Gore did win New Mexico by 400 votes in 2000. In the last 3 elections the upper midest treaded more and more Republican and at that rate, it is predicted that many of those states will be republican within 2 election cycles. Then What?

The Democrats as a party need to reach out to all 50 states, unless Canada joins the union, and take the fight to the heartland and be honest about your message. they've already proven they can carry large areas of the declining northeast and sunny California.    

I come from a long line of gun totting Christian Democrats, but unlike my late mother and my father, I have  stepped away from one party, (Democrat.) politics in favor of the growing Libertaian movement on account of the narrow midset of many Democrats who seem to show only distain and intorerence for traditionial minded people in rual America everywhere.
Showing Contempt for a person based on their beliefs or their voting habbits to me is just yet another form of BIGGOTRY! that goes for all of us.

Well yes the Democrats could become socially conservative to win the south, but in America social conservatism has a pretty dark past.  It would throw out the only thing left thats good about the democrats.  I would say there is nothing more evil to me or my intrests than social conservatism. Of course economic conservativism is 100% cool with me.

The thing is the south may be the fastest growing but thats because its has LOTS of economic catch up to do.  The overwhelming amount of money in America is made in the northeast and the west coast.  California alone is the worlds 7th most powerful economy.  People migrate to the south either because they are old and need better weather or because housing is much cheaper (because peopel can afford less).

My family is from North Carolina, and I can say from when I lived there that although there is weath in the south, it elludes most people and tends to be more stratified than waht I see now in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.  I also in ym new northern home get less obnoxious questions about "waht the hell are you" since mixed race people are more common here.  There may now be less racism in the southnow, but the communities are stil divided and being multi racial cna be a handicap.  In th enortheast its hardly a handicap at all, instead of being ostracized by both communities its more like being in both at once.  Obvioulsy this doesnt apply to Lousianna, the greatest and culturally richest of the southern states, but int eh southeast like the Carolinas it does apply.

Kepp in mind also that Massachusettes, California, and New York pretty much find all the southern states from welfare to deficiet relief.  And th eonly gratitiute they get is to derrided as liberals and weeners. 

Im neither a liberal nor a democrat, I used to be a moderate republican, and now am a libertarian (because of the republican partys hard cultural right turn mostly) but I see nothing NOTHING remotely libertarian in the south.  Leaving people alone to make their own descisions is not something the modern southerner wants to do.  No moral preacher or anti homo/bisexual bogot could get elected in a New England state, but they sure come from teh south, and even my state has one (though hes immensily unpopular and lives most of his time in Virginia). 

The most libertarian states in the union are Vermont and New Hampshire, theres a reason for that, theres also a reason they are the two healthiest and per person wealthiest states in the country.

I agree on a few of your points tobodai. Vermont is a fairly libertarian by most standerds. For example it is the one of the few states in the union that has no local or state gun control laws. The N.R.A called Vermont the Utah of the northeast.

As far as preachers go, I myself am somewhat of a Christian but I'm not the bible thumping type. I believe that all people have a right to worship in their own way or nothing at all. I have trouble with any group that tries to enfuse religion into politics. I believe for example that even an athiest can be moral. In saying this, I recently had a discussion with a white, male southern Penticostal preacher, who said he would never vote and had never voted for a Republican. He even told me he had voted straight Democrat in every election even the last one. LOL  Hell I know a white, male fire and brimestone southern Baptist preacher who preachers not far from where I live, who urged his church in the 2000 election to over look Gore's socially liberal stances and vote for him on account of econemic issues that would dirrectly effect them.  

My Dad is also a white male southern babtist and a vietnam veteran with 2 tours of duty under his belt, and he's voted Democrat at least most of the time with a few exeptions Nixion-68-72 Reagan-80-84 and Bush-2000-2004. and almost always in the local level.

I myself first, voted in a national election in 2000 and I voted for Bush on account of Gore's stance on many issues from Gun Control to Pardoning illegal aliens. I own a room full of firearms and more ppl have been killed in Ted Kennedy's car than by any of my guns. (i'm a gun and knife collector.)

In 2004 I voted for Bush due to John Kerry stating he would win without  the south. A statement that many southerners took to heart. That's  like saying that southern voters don't count. I would have voted for John Edwards Joe Liberman or Westly Clark, if they would have been nominated. Hell I kinda liked Al Sharpton if for nothing else than his bold wit.

    I'm not an American (though lived in America for a few years) but wasn't this support supposedly traced back to the civil war?

    Though recent years the tables have turned probably due to the issue stances and the fact that the Democractes get morons for their southern senators ( I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

???

Alabama 9     Arkansas 6     Florida 27    Georgia 15    Kentucky 9

Louisiana 9    Mississippi 6    N Carolina 15    Oklahoma 7

S Carolina 8    Tennessee 11    Texas 34    Virginia 13

169 by my count. Who are you adding in? And, as I said, Florida isn't really part of the South any more so I don't think it should be in there. That leaves 142, which, as I said, is around a quarter. (I'm not sure about Oklahoma actually, but i'll give it you.)

That is utterly false. The worst performing school systems are in southern states. They even admit it themselves. And, to give them their due, some of them at least are trying to do something about it.

But Republicans have. That's the point. The switch of the south to the Republicans needs to be countered by a switch of some of the rest to the Democrats. It's going to be easier to bring mid-western and western states into the Democratic camp than to win back the south.

Actually that's almost certainly what is going to happen, eventually.

non southern people dont have a problem voting for someone out of their block, southern people do.  Thats part of the problem.  A northeasterner will vote for whoever they regard as the best canidate but a southerner often will just vote on who is southern and who is not. 

In the last 75 years southerners have repeatedly voted for non southerners. 

Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Adlai Stevenson, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H W. Bush.

All were non southerners and carried at least half if not all the south.  

As far as Democrats go, the party has been in decline for the last 40 years.  Once strong pro union states are sliding over to the Republicans.

30% of it's party members have left since 1980.

The Republicans hold most state houses and Govenorships in America.

Mass, New York and California have Republican Govenors, Louisiana, Tennessee and Virginia do not.

The Democrats have only won 3 out of 10 elections in the last 40 years. You call that progress ?

Yes, Al Gore and John Kerry could have won without winning a single southern state but it could also be said they would have won had they ran down here and won a few southern states.

By the way, Ohio is not considered as part of the northeast but midwest and has more southern babptist than any state per cap.  source http://www.google.com - www.google.com

Ohio has gone democrat only 3 times in the last 40 years.

Louisiana, Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia have voted in greater numbers for a winning Democrat than Ohio  in 76, 92 and 96.

In closing, I would like to add that as a independent minded person. I think the Democrats need to blame themselves for their national setbacks and not blame middle America for not following their progressive ideals.

Most Americans are fairly conservative so instead of trying to pull them to their points of view they could start winning by adopting the point of view of the majority instead of demanding the majority adopt the point of view of the party. Maybe the democrats need to try to listen instead of talk. 

By the way i think many liberals are just as narrow minded as the bible thumpers on the far right.

Progressivism is Dead in America.

Your right that the democrats are close minded weeners who dont know how to win votes or an election.  But I dont want the only non reactionary party in our two party dictatorship to adopt the backwards social policies of most of America.  That shows whats most wrong with democracy, tyrany of the whims of the majority.

Its worth recognizing this goes both ways.  The Republican party may soon be the good party again as their extreme elements have pushed to far and a division is growing.  They take their southern support for granted but they are about to lose any northern support they have.  You mess with abortion and you lose practically all republicans in the north.  Almost all republican governors or senators up here are pro choice and fairly liberal on social issues. 

Therefore the best case scenario is that the republicans destroy themselves, the democrats are too weak to take advantage of it, and the third parties take over giving us more a parlemenatary style system than a two party dictatorship.

the majority of the country take merely a passing interest in politics and can be described as a bunch of mush heads who recieve most of their info from political campaign ads. 

Well, if both candidates were northerners, as in all those cases except Reagan's first election, they didn't have much choice did they?

And, incidentally, in 1948, faced with choosing between Truman (MO) and Dewey (NY) four southern states opted out and went Dixiecrat.

When I said most Americans are fairly conservative , I meant personaly conservative not politicaly conservative, as in most folks tend to dread change.

I myself feel that within the next 30 years the Republican party will slowly begin to swing left and the Democrats will swing right. You can see it happening now in some circles. For example John  Mc Cain and Rudy Julonti are the heavy favorites for the 2008 Rep. nomination. Both men are far more liberal than say G.W Bush, or most bible thumpers.

You also see a tread of Democrats turning to the right on some issues such as Hilary Clinton.

I don't agree with either party on most issues. I am a stricted constutionalist.  

I do think your average 8 year old child has a clearer mindset than most of our political leaders in Washington D.C.

As far as the Solide South goes I am hopeful that in time the southern states will become more competative in the future. I have read and heard stories of the one party Democratic system that was in place for far to long and I know what it brought the nation, Jim Crow segregation and lynchings.

From talking with bible folks, I have learned that they feel that the Republicans have handed them a bag of broken goods. Though most folks where I live are in fact Democrats.

As far as Liberal V.s Conservative I think both sides have it about half right if that much. I don't think our founding fathers wanted a two party system devoted to big Corperations nor a nation were the vocal minority trumps the majority. 

The two party system is unpatriotic in my opinon. It is a system that places party above country. I think we should chill out on Democrat or Republican lables and call ourselves Free Thinking Americans.

I refuse to let a party speak for me. I have my own heart, mind and mouth and you guys most likely know it's a BIG ONE ! LOL