But that would make too much sense, wouldn't it?
Posted on 01/16/2005 2:47:19 PM PST by nickcarraway
South Carolinian Donnie Fowler put it simply: “A Democratic Party without the South is a little bit like greens without the cornbread.”
He made the comment at a meeting of party officials who gathered last weekend in Atlanta to grill candidates for the party’s highest position — chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
Fowler, 37, a political consultant and son of a prominent South Carolina Democrat, is one of seven candidates seeking the job.
“I did this out of frustration,” he said, after seeing the party commit the same mistakes of past defeats.
Divided and battered by the second bitter presidential defeat in a row, Democrats have been seeking answers to their predicament. Nowhere has the wrangling over the party’s direction been more prominent than in the search for a new party chairman.
Of primary concern is the party’s inability to connect with enough voters to recapture the White House.
Well, you certainly don’t do it by writing off the South, said Fowler, whose dad, Don Fowler, chaired the DNC from 1995 to 1997.
“The Democratic Party has conceded so much of this country that we don’t have a lot of voters to talk to,” he said.
In addition to the South, Fowler said the party has written off the Rocky Mountain states and “religious” voters.
“At some point, the national party is going to run out of people to talk to,” he warned.
Others seeking the DNC post are former U.S. Reps Tim Roemer of Indiana and Martin Frost of Texas, Democratic activist Simon Rosenberg, former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, former Ohio Democratic Party chairman David Leland, and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a 2004 Democratic presidential candidate.
The next chairman, who will replace Terry McAuliffe, will be selected by the 431 members of the DNC at its February meeting in Washington.
At the Atlanta gathering, candidates assured party officials they have no intention of writing off the South.
That’s a familiar refrain. So, after John Kerry’s crushing defeat last year, party officials have been more pointed in asking candidates how they intend to back up the rhetoric.
“It’s not just what they say. It’s what they are going to do. I want to hear specifics,” said Joe Erwin, chairman of the S.C. Democratic Party.
In 2004, Democrats proved they could win at the state and local level but not nationally.
“That tells us that Democrats can compete and win when they are not encumbered with a national message that is confusing and offensive to a great many voters,” Erwin said.
Democrats face an awesome task in trying to gain a footing in the South, which has become an electoral fortress for the Republican Party.
Few Democrats believe the party can — or needs to — be competitive at the presidential level anytime in deep South states such as South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi.
Waring Howe, a DNC member from Charleston, said there’s no way the Democrats can win the solid South, but he stressed it can capture enough states to win the presidency.
In 1992, with Bill Clinton heading the ticket, Democrats were competitive in the South. Running a centrist campaign, Clinton won five Southern states.
“Their best hope is to split the South and deny Republicans a total sweep of the region,” said Emory University political science professor Merle Black.
The South is home to 168 electoral votes — almost two-thirds of the 270 required for election.
The key for Democrats is to pick a candidate who can seriously contest a handful of Southern states.
And an Northern strategy. And an Eastern strategy. And a Western strategy...a Northwestern strategy...a Mid-Western strategy...
But that would make too much sense, wouldn't it?
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
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.
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.
The Dems don't need the South. They need Ohio.
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.
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.
Morons. It's because of Bill Clinton's eight years in the White House that cost Democrats a southern strategy.
Democrats in the South tend to be black, hispanic, or the university-type white liberals.
“A Democratic Party without the South is a little bit like greens without the cornbread.”
I'd say the Greens are FULL of "cornbread."
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.
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.
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.
And they branded him a traitor, and didn't even go to his farewell speech.
" 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.
They're going to need to find God for real to have a chance.
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.