Skip to comments.Opinion: Dems hold hope for the South
Posted on 09/03/2012 4:46:30 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Why are we here? Why did the Obama reelection team pick North Carolina for the Democratic convention? As the convention begins, prominent Democrats are still grumbling about that question.
They fear the Tar Heel State is no sure win for the president. Recall that in 2008, Barack Obama won North Carolina by 0.4 percentage points over Arizona Sen. John McCain (R). Before that, the state had gone Republican in every presidential election since 1976. Current polls have Obama and Romney tied in the state. When then-President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he famously told an aide that the Democrats would lose the South for a generation.
But in 2008, two Southern states, North Carolina and Virginia, swung to the Democrats and helped to elect the first African-American president of the United States.
The Democrats want a repeat of that Southern magic this fall. They have reason for optimism in the steady rise of Southern minorities, immigrants, high-tech workers and educated women. That explains why, a year ago, Charlotte seemed like a smart pick.
And even if the Tar Heel State is a loser for Obama, there are Democrats who see value in sending a clear message to the GOP that they have not given up the South. Thats why Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both former Democratic Southern governors who became president will address the convention in prime time.
But battling the conservative, Republican, white-male dominance of the South will be tough. Mitt Romney was too moderate for much of the region in the GOP primary, losing South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee. Even one of the Souths most prominent black politicians former Alabama Rep. Artur Davis recently switched to the Republican Party. He does not see a political future for himself as a Democrat in the South.
In fact, of the 22 U.S. senators representing the former states of the Confederacy, only five are Democrats. White Southern Democrats in the House are also in the minority. They have been defeated by Republican gerrymandering that concentrates minority voters into isolated districts and frees GOP candidates to pursue hard-right agendas with a secure base of conservative, mostly white votes.
In the House, Southern Democrats are swamped by the GOP. There are now only 13 white, 18 black and four Hispanic Democrats (35 out of 135 seats) from the South now in Congress. They are outnumbered by 98 white and two black Republicans.
Many of the state Democratic parties in the South are weak. This year the winner of the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in Tennessee was an anti-gay-rights activist who had to be disavowed by the Tennessee Democratic Party. In 2010 the U.S. Senate candidate from South Carolina was Alvin Greene, an unemployed man facing felony obscenity charges.
Currently, Republicans control one or both state legislative chambers in every one of those states, with the exception of Arkansas. All of the Southern states have right-to-work laws effectively neutering the labor unions, the political lifeblood of the Democratic Party.
After the Civil Rights Act, President Nixon attracted disaffected white Democrats to the GOP by using the so-called Southern Strategy. He appealed to white racial fears with a law-and-order approach. Reagan further tightened the GOPs grip on the South in 1980 and 1984 by railing against the dangers of welfare queens and kicking off his reelection campaign in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil-rights workers were murdered in the 1960s.
The Republican capture of the South gave rise to many towering figures who helped shape American politics for a generation Sens. Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott and Phil Gramm. They influenced national politics in Washington because their strong political base kept reelecting them, thereby giving them seniority in Congress and stature in the party.
But times change, and these giants of Southern politics have departed the stage in recent years.
Now the story in the South is about the surge in minority populations.
More than half of the nations population growth during the past decade, 51.4 percent, occurred in Southern states. It was driven in large part by an in-migration of an estimated 2.3 million people. Most of them are from demographic groups that tend to favor Democrats: blacks, Asians, Hispanics, college-educated people, the elderly and immigrants.
Between 2000 and 2010, the number of eligible Hispanic voters in North Carolina more than doubled going from 84,000 to 182,000.
Add an influx of young voters to the Southern electorate and the soil is fertile for Democrats.
Forty percent of North Carolinians belong to Generation X born between 1982 and 1995 or Generation Y born after 1995. There are also roughly 30 college campuses in North Carolina that helped put Obama over the top in 2008. President Obama remains in the hunt in North Carolina. There is still reason to hope for another win here and in Virginia.
And that is why any discontent with the decision to hold the convention in North Carolina is low-level grumbling.
Juan the Obama a$$-kisser.
Juan, give it up. You are NOT taking Virginia, Florida or North Carolina this year. 2008 was a fluke. Those states have seen what your homie has to offer and aren`t buying it.
I guess the resounding message of North Carolina`s 61%-39% defeat of homo marriage is lost on Juan. They don`t want your perverted ways, dems. Accept it!
Juan has ALWAYS been Juan the Moron.
He looks like a dear in the headlights.
Fat chance for Obozo taking my great state of Tennessee.
Not even home-boy FAT AL could get Tennessee.
Apparently Juan’s brush with reality when he got raped by the PC police has worn off. He is now safely back on the Progressive Fascist plantation.
Oh Juan, can you say “President Mitt Romney?”
Even with massive vote fraud (finally) coming to light, huge minority vote growing (until 2007, anyway). Even with the scandal of Voter ID not passing the GOP controlled legislature...
I'm telling you. Jefe will lose NC, by as high as 8 percent, no less than 3 percent.
May Jefe always believe his own PR.
More like he does not see a decent future for his country in the death cult that is the Democrat party.
They can wish in one hand, crap in the other, and see which one fills up first.
The "change" they got in January 2009, however, was just more obnoxious and loud "preaching" of a doctrine that pitted those less fortunate against their neighbors who had become wealthy through hard work, and a push to force through a government takeover of 1/6 of an economy already faltering, along with more regulations on the businesses that might have hired them, as well as the heavy-handed methods of Sebellius, Napolitano and Holder in their respective "police the nation" tactics.
North Carolina, in 1787, sent a delegate to the Convention in Philadelphia who turned out to be one of its staunchest defenders throughout the debates.
That delegate, named James Iredell, then was named by President Washington to the First Supreme Court of the United States, where he served honorably.
Quoted below is Iredell's assertion that "the People" reserved the sole right to amend or change their Constitution by the provision of the Constitution itself--making "the People" what Justice Story later described as "the only KEEPERS of the Constitution."
"The only real security of liberty, in any country, is the jealousy and circumspection of the people themselves. Let them be watchful over their rulers. Should they find a combination against their liberties, and all other methods appear insufficient to preserve them, they have, thank God, an ultimate remedy. That power which created the government can destroy it. Should the government, on trial, be found to want amendments, those amendments can be made in a regular method, in a mode prescribed by the Constitution itself [...]. We have [this] watchfulness of the people, which I hope will never be found wanting." - James Iredell - Elliot, 4:130
Surely, North Carolinians will not favor as their President a man who deeems that Constitution to be a "flawed document," a document of "negative liberties," and one which can be interpreted to allow any elected Executive, Legislature, or combination of elected officials ir judges to "amend" or bypass its provisions without the consent of themselves (the "People")by the process provided in Article of the document itself.
Hamilton (in The Federalist No. 78) was emphatic about this:
Although academics in some of the liberal colleges and universities in North Carolina may hail the current President's lack of hesitancy in bypassing laws appropriately enacted by the only constitutionally-appropriate branch of the federal government--the Legislative branch--the "People" who have studied their documents of freedom know that any amendment of that provision of the Constitution requires their participation in the process. It is not a prerogative of the Executive--any Executive in any generation.
"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it prior to such an act."
In 2008, with the wind at his back, Obama barely won NC. The state has a 9.0 unemployment rate right now. He’s not winning NC.
The Left can take this argument and use it to demand amendment by Plebiscite. If the People are the keepers of the Constitution then the People should be able to amend it,even outside the framework prescribed. A very dangerous possibility.
Once again Juan is confused. "Majority minority" districts are exactly what race-obsessed Democrats who practice racial identity politics crave.
When then-President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he famously told an aide that the Democrats would lose the South for a generation.
That ain’t all he said.
Is that when he said something to the effect that"I'll have those n----rs voting Democrat the next 50 years"?
His definitions of Generation X and Y are completely off base as well.
Generation X ENDED in the early 1980s, I’m not a Gen Xer at all. He’s actually describing Generation Y, and the next generation which to my knowledge has no fixed name yet.
He can’t even bother to check things like that, so I’m not even going to address how wrong he is about NC.
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.