Dean may have already lost the "South"
Stupid language or not it looks like a bad trend for Democrats in the latest elections.
That is Kentucky
How about Mississippi you ask?
Dean who????
REUTERS News
Did somebody say Dean? Dean who??
Discuss
Fellowship
Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Republican won the Kentucky governor's office for the first time in more than three decades on Tuesday
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Republican won the Kentucky governor's office for the first time in more than three decades on Tuesday
That is Kentucky
How about Mississippi you ask?
Quote:
Early results showed a tight race in Mississippi, where Democratic Gov. Ronnie Musgrove was seeking re-election against Republican lobbyist and former national party chairman Haley Barbour in the most expensive race in state history.
Barbour blamed Musgrove for the state's loss of jobs and sour economy. With nearly half of the vote counted, Barbour led Musgrove by 53 to 45 percent.
Early results showed a tight race in Mississippi, where Democratic Gov. Ronnie Musgrove was seeking re-election against Republican lobbyist and former national party chairman Haley Barbour in the most expensive race in state history.
Barbour blamed Musgrove for the state's loss of jobs and sour economy. With nearly half of the vote counted, Barbour led Musgrove by 53 to 45 percent.
Dean who????
REUTERS News
Did somebody say Dean? Dean who??
Discuss
Fellowship
Comments
why?
that's like saying bush is going to take california becuase they elected a republican groper...
the fact that states are going off in crazy directions is EXACTLY why bush JUNIOR should be scared. people are angry at the incumbents.
How happy do you think they will be with the current pres. when they start to look for someone to blame for the loss of 3.5 million jobs?
Yahhh thinnk they might blame the guy at 1600 pen. ave?
The chaos is favoring the democrats. Especially dean in the past 9 months and clarke in the next 12.
"Members of the security community report that the current standard is flawed. P1583 is largely a design standard, describing how to configure current electronic voting machines, instead of a performance standard setting benchmarks and processes for testing the security, reliability, accessibility, and accuracy of these machines.
For example, the standard fails to require or even recommend voting machine designs that permit voters to verify their votes. One such method that is already available from multiple election machine companies is a provision that the machines produce a paper ballot for each voter that allows a voter to see a summary of her votes to confirm them. Agencies administering elections can then store paper ballots separately so they are available for audits in the case of dispute or for a recount."
Worries grow over new voting machines' reliability, security
Judge Speeds Case on Electronic Voting Company's Threats Against Critics
E-Voting Done Right - In Australia
Dean hasn't won the nomination yet either. You're getting ahead of yourself. I believe that if our troops are still in Iraq next year on election day, and if the situation has not greatly improved, it's going to be a big problem for the Bush Administration.
"The big story in that election was the victory of Republicans in Mississippi and Kentucky. The secondary story, however, was a string of victories by Democrats in affluent suburban areas in the Northeast. In my state, New Jersey, Democrats took firm control of the state's Legislature.
What this tells us is that some people Ñ either in New Jersey, Mississippi or both Ñ voted against their economic interests. For whatever you think of Bush's economic plan, it's clearly much better for New Jersey Ñ a rich state, which gains a lot from tax cuts tilted toward the affluent Ñ than for a poor state like Mississippi.
Consider, for example, the effects of estate tax repeal, a central feature of the 2001 tax cut. Almost nobody in Mississippi pays the estate tax. In 2001 only 249 estates in Mississippi paid any tax at all; raising the exemption to $5 million, which some Democrats suggested as an alternative to full repeal, would have reduced that to a couple of dozen. By contrast, New Jersey, with three times Mississippi's population, had almost 10 times as many taxable estates.
Or consider the 2003 tax cut. It was also heavily tilted toward the affluent, and therefore toward rich states. According to Citizens for Tax Justice estimates, the typical New Jersey family got a $409 tax cut. In Mississippi, the number was only $165.
So did Mississippi voters support the Republicans, even though they get very little direct benefit from Bush-style tax cuts, because they Ñ unlike New Jersey's voters Ñ understand the magic of supply-side economics? If you believe that, I've got an overpass on the Garden State Parkway you may be interested in buying.
Now maybe New Jersey voted Democratic because of irrational Bush hatred. But I think it's a lot more likely that white Mississippi voters, unlike their counterparts up north, are still responding to Republican flag-waving Ñ and it's not just the American flag that's being waved.
Yet the fact is that Mississippi, being relatively poor, will lose disproportionately if the right wins on its full agenda, which involves a big rollback of New Deal and Great Society programs. (I'll explain in a future column how Republicans are using the prescription drug bill to lay the groundwork for later Medicare cuts.)
Mr. Dean wasn't suggesting that his party adopt the G.O.P. strategy of coded racial signals, and by and large African-Americans Ñ my wife included Ñ understand that. What he meant by his flag remark was that Democrats must make the case to working Americans of all colors that the right's elitist agenda isn't in their interest. And he's right."
yep, i am betting you can count ALL of those elctoral votes going to bush. democrats might be able to make some headway in the midwest, the northeast and the west coast. maybe...
The South and the North have, on average, different values. The South is more in line with the modern Republican party. So be it. People like Zell Miller think Southern Dems ought to be more like Republicans. I don't think so. He's conservative and shares the values of many of his fellow southerners, or at least the vast majority of white male southerners. I don't think Dems ought to change their political philosophy just to pander to one demographic in one part of the country.
He just says we should make a better case for their vote. It's in their own self interest. Everyone is better off.
Except maybe the rich. Industrial polluters. And the Christian Rights thought police.
Originally posted by BRussell
Interesting Krugman article, but I don't think it has one bit to do with economic interests. It has to do with value issues, like religion, death penalty, guns, etc.
The South and the North have, on average, different values. The South is more in line with the modern Republican party. So be it. People like Zell Miller think Southern Dems ought to be more like Republicans. I don't think so. He's conservative and shares the values of many of his fellow southerners, or at least the vast majority of white male southerners. I don't think Dems ought to change their political philosophy just to pander to one demographic in one part of the country.
hmmm... opposed life values separated by geography and class differences. wouldn't a second civil war be fun?
Originally posted by rok
living in louisiana, i can tell you this state will vote for republican, except new orleans, which seems to be about 50-50 on the subject (no, i haven't seen a poll... just giving you my general feel for the city on the subject). you know how texas will vote (g.w.'s a hometown boy!), alabama and mississippi have grown more and more conservative over the past 4-5 years (if that's possible), and florida still re-elected jeb. not sure about georgia. can tell you both carolina's are pro-tobacco and increasingly conservative. kentucky's gone republican now, gore couldn't even take tennessee last time.
yep, i am betting you can count ALL of those elctoral votes going to bush. democrats might be able to make some headway in the midwest, the northeast and the west coast. maybe...
W. is NOT a hometown boy. He is a rich kid from Conneticut. I don't understand everyone's perception of him as a southerner.
the US is strange...our working class (union-folk) vote more conservative in this country than anywhere else. it is almost as if they are so blinded by a desire to be "patriotic" that they don't realize their situation would be bettered by a democratic administration.
when my 90 year old grandmother, whose husband has donated thousands of dollars to the bush campaign starts questioning bush and saying "if things don't pick up, he's gonna be out of there!", i know bush has some problems
sorry if this post was scatterred and not entirely on topic
Ronnie Musgrove was an attempt to go back to the way things were, and he was simply outclassed, out-run, and out-spent in the re-election by Hayley Barbour, who's a high-profile player at the national level. I don't think he's lived in MS in decades.
You also need to keep in mind that in places like MS (and really at the national level across the nation) there's very, very little appreciable difference between Republicans and Democrats.
As for the contention that "Dean may have already lost the 'South'"... Of course. The assumption for any democrat post-Nixon would be that most of the South is nearly unwinnable. It's simply not on the table.
But then, MS does strange things. We shall see.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Cheers
Scott
Scott you make very well delivered observations. Well said.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Scott you make very well delivered observations. Well said.
Fellowship
Danke, FCiB.
I forgot to mention that Musgrove's re-election loss also doesn't *particularly* tell us anything other than that the RLC decided to pay some attention to MS. You see, in the last election before this one, Musgrove defeated the Republican incumbent by an *incredibly* narrow margin. The election was actually decided by the Dem controlled house, and since representatives in MS aren't required to vote along with their districts, they were able to install him as Gov. To a certain extent, he was a lame duck out of the gate.
Meanwhile, places like OK have recently rejected their dalliance with Republican governors.
I've got a sneaking suspicion that the 2004 presidential election is going to be interesting. Assuming, of course, that the democrats get their heads out of their collective asses. The odds of that happening, however are slim. They've got to do something, though. They're seriously getting their asses kicked all over the place, mostly I think because they're failing to modify their rhetoric in the same way the republicans did. I would like to see them adopt the "rhetoric of oppression" that served the Republicans so well for 30 years.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Danke, FCiB.
I've got a sneaking suspicion that the 2004 presidential election is going to be interesting.
Cheers
Scott
No doubt it will be one of the most entertaining to watch unfold.
Cheers back atcha,
Fellows
Originally posted by midwinter
As for the contention that "Dean may have already lost the 'South'"... Of course. The assumption for any democrat post-Nixon would be that most of the South is nearly unwinnable. It's simply not on the table.
Not so. It's simply not on the table for a northeastern, highly secular liberal like Dean. (The "highly secular" part is probably what hurts him the most.) Dems have won post-Nixon with southerners like Carter and Clinton. And they almost won with Gore.
As for the recent election, Mississippi doesn't mean much as a predictor but Kentucky sure does. Kentucky is a swing state that's trending sharply away from the Dems.
Finally, the flap over Dean's recent comments re: the Confederate flag highlights his weakness. It was a risky move but I applaud him for trying to reach out to voters who think differently from him (especially because he did it so poorly
I think we can all agree that is what's been happening for at least 2 decades.
You don't have to understand the south very much to know that's true.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Not so. It's simply not on the table for a northeastern, highly secular liberal like Dean. (The "highly secular" part is probably what hurts him the most.) Dems have won post-Nixon with southerners like Carter and Clinton. And they almost won with Gore.
As for the recent election, Mississippi doesn't mean much as a predictor but Kentucky sure does. Kentucky is a swing state that's trending sharply away from the Dems.
Finally, the flap over Dean's recent comments re: the Confederate flag highlights his weakness. It was a risky move but I applaud him for trying to reach out to voters who think differently from him (especially because he did it so poorly
zaphod_beeblebrox you establish the actuality that you are exceptionally astute with your understanding presented above. Your method by not faulting Dean for his stereotypes provoke me to reach such levels of understanding and forgiveness. (Sometimes frustration gets the best of me) I have to watch for that constantly. I want to laud you for your well delivered findings.
Respectfully,
Fellowship
This is a circular argument. You have to be from the south to understand a southerner? So by that supposition every democratic candidate ever put forward for president should be from a southern state... or at least pretend to be a good ol' boy like Bush?
And southerners don't make assumptions about yankee liberals?
What makes Dean secular?
By your agruments... Dean just doesn't pander well enough.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Wow southerners will vote for southerners... that's a revelation.
This is a circular argument. You have to be from the south to understand a southerner? So by that supposition every democratic candidate ever put forward for president should be from a southern state... or at least pretend to be a good ol' boy like Bush?
And southerners don't make assumptions about yankee liberals?
What makes Dean secular?
By your agruments... Dean just doesn't pander well enough.
chu_bakka I understand your frustration as I have had my frustrations during this thread. I will tell you that with my trip to Boston MA I felt more American than ever. It was a place steeped in American History and I ate it up. I can tell you that while from Dallas which is in the southern part of the US I have no ill feelings towards northerners. I am half northern myself if you look at my family tree. That is beside my point I am making however. My point to those running for President be they Democrat, Republican, or Other is that they not stereotype a group of people. Stick to issues and that will impress me or lose me as a voter. The talk of North vs/ South is very sad. This is one country and the correct thing to do is talk issues and not geography. That is my thought to correct the problems of communications between different regions of the country.
Respectfully,
Fellowship