In news sure to bring a smile to Tom Schaller's face, it seems that of the DCCC's top forty targeted congressional districts only four are in the South and all four of them are in Florida. Basically, the view is that the Democratic Party has a lot of growth potential in the Midwest and the Southwest, but that nothing's doing in Dixie.
« The Proverbial Rug | Main | All I Want for Christmas »
Whistling Past Dixie
24 Dec 2007 05:02 pm
Comments (20)
Um ... North Carolina's 8th District?
Do you think the migration of illegal immigrants westward has anything to do with this?
This is absolute, rumor mongering, so take it with a grain of salt.
There was a robbery here recently in Don Manzullo's hometown. There was a high stakes card time ran by Chicago mob types and a pair of kids broke into it stole all the money. Well, someone there had dialed 911 during the robbery so when they ran out they ran into a phalanx of cops. The old man whose game it was was chasing them out and didn't realize the cops were there and shot one of them. When the cops started yelling at him, he turned around gun facing them and they killed him.
This is where it gets interesting. There was something going on there besides cards and it involves politicians. The county state's attorney recused himself, then when they asked the State's Attorney to step in she recused herself with absolutely no explanation at all. Last I knew a special prosecutor was supposed to be appointed for this.
Those are facts, this is just crap I've heard. The mob guys involved had interests in casino development and the story is that they were buying off various politicians. The stuff I've heard is second and third hand, but Manzullo had to give back his Jack Abramoff money from the Indian tribes that would be the competing interest here and he's petty enough I could see him trying to get his money back on the sly from the mob.
Please explain how Rockford, Illinois has anything to do with this post, or why we should care.
Because it would put his seat into play.
and quit being a prick, Merry Christmas.
Apart from Larry Kissell, chances are that any southern gains on 2006 would be 'Bush Dogs' for the post-Bush era. Money's better spent elsewhere.
I would like to see the DCCC support Pat McHenry's opponent, Daniel Johnson (no Bush dog) in NC-10. McHenry's a jerk and a DeLay wannabe.
Johnson's a strong candidate and McHenry's poll numbers are falling. If the DCCC had supported Kissell at all last time out, he'd be in Congress now. Let's hope they support Kissell and Johnson in 2008.
Even though the 2008 senate elections are focussed in the South...
That doesn't tell you anything about where the DSCC is planning to focus its energy. My uninformed bet is the top targets will be NH, NM, CO, VA, MN, OR, ME, followed maybe by AK, KY, NC, and NE (possibly depending on candidate recruitment). The elections may be mostly in the south but the pickup opportunities mostly aren't.
VA-11 is hardly a "Southern" district as it's in northern Virginia. But it does qualify as a border district. And Tom Davis is increasingly vulnerable.
Beyond NC-08, there really aren't many non-Florida Southern districts that we could pick off. Tennessee already has a Democratic majority in its delegation. Georgia was just redistricted by Republicans and the ratio is still a nice 7-6. Mississippi is 2-2. South Carolina has no room for pickups. Louisiana is tough after Katrina. Arkansas is 3-1 in our favor. Texas might give us some more seats in a few years but not yet. The most pro-GOP delegation is Virginia's and Alabama's. And it's only a matter of time before Virginia tilts back to 50-50. Alabama is probably the toughest Southern nut to crack over the long term.
All of this hardly counts as whistling past Dixie. We've got a respectable representation in every Southern state outside Alabama and Virginia.
there are four competitive districts in NC currently held by the GOP.
Might be nice for the beltway boys to realize that.
And schaller is wrong.
There's an opinion floating around among Democrats that Republican gains in the South over the last few decades are entirely attributable to racism, and that the party should simply write off the region. I think that's wrong on both counts.
National attitudes on race, including in the South, have undergone a considerable change since WWII. Jimmy Carter, hardly a racist, carried the entire South and most border states in '76. Bill Clinton, famously "the first Black president", won Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, Florida, and West Virginia, and obviously would have lost without doing so. On the other hand, on all four occasions Democrats nominated Northern liberals in the last four decades, they lost. Southerners, including Black Southerners, are simply more conservative than voters in other sections. By nominating moderates Dems can carry the South and win. Otherwise, the evidence is that they will lose.
As the substantive differences on race between the two major parties (which are virtually invisible now and in my view significantly exaggerated in the past), continue to disappear, Democrats run the risk of losing the votes of Black Southerners who are much closer to Republicans in their views on religion, abortion, education, welfare, gay marriage, and other issues than to Democrats.
As others have pointed out, Democrats are actually pretty maxed out in some Southern states like Arkansas, Tennessee, and Georgia.
Still, I think Democrats are going to have more opportunities this year than in 2006 in the South and I hope that the DCCC doesn't pass them up.
In addition to NC-08, which is a complete toss-up, Democrats have a shot in and have good second tier recruits in TX-10, VA-05, & VA-10 (which I'm hoping will end up an open seat).
Like others, I also think NC-10 needs to be targeted, especially since the incumbent McHenry may have to weather some scandals and may face a right-wing third party challenger.
Several additional Southern districts that should be in the DCCC crosshairs may not be on the current target list because candidates have not yet emerged. The most obvious targets are VA-02, AL-03, and LA-05 (especially given the post-katrina influx of blacks).
With good recruits, Democrats may be able to compete in open seats like MS-03 and, if a special election is called, in MS-01. Ex-Rep. Ronnie Shows and LG candidate Jamie Franks would be top-notch candidates for the respective districts.
Democrats, meanwhile, are rumored to have candidates lined up for open AL-02 and LA-04. Montgomery Mayor Bobby Bright in Alabama and ex-Shreveport Mayor Jim Hightower are mentioned, though both have flirted with party switches. These districts have very large black populations and big benches of local Democrats, including, in Louisiana gubernatorial candidate Foster Campbell, someone who would make a great progressive addition to Louisiana's delegation.
Robert Powell:
As the substantive differences on race between the two major parties (which are virtually invisible now and in my view significantly exaggerated in the past), continue to disappear, Democrats run the risk of losing the votes of Black Southerners who are much closer to Republicans in their views on religion, abortion, education, welfare, gay marriage, and other issues than to Democrats.
Robert, your hilarious ignorance and blindness on race makes me better understand how you can hold such insane views on Iraq. Perhaps you should try to meet a black person and an Iraqi and then get back to us.
Dear 23456 (may I call you 23?).
Thanks for your input. It's sound advice. I have been in close, not to say family, contact with "black persons" all my life. I've only had personal contact with Iraqis since 1991. Do you have some kind of substantive point?
Re: Democrats run the risk of losing the votes of Black Southerners who are much closer to Republicans in their views on religion, abortion, education, welfare, gay marriage, and other issues than to Democrats.
Is the GOP still dreaming that dream? If so Bush's numbers in the last election should throw cold water on that. Blacks, as a group, may be more scoially conservative than other Democrats (yes, I am using the broad brush here) but they show little sign of actually caring about those issues politically. Rather they seem to have the great good sense to worry more about whether they have jobs to go to, food on their table, and decent schools for their children than over who is sleeping with whom or how many people are showing up to sing hymns on Sunday morning. Would that some other folks would absorb some of that common sense.
Black Southerners may be more conservative than white Northern Democrats on gay marriage and religion in general. But they are MUCH MORE LIBERAL than even Northern white Democrats on virtually all economic issues.
For those who think race issues are exaggerated in the South, consider this: In 2004, 85 percent of white Mississippians voted for George W. Bush. 90 percent of black Mississippians voted for John Kerry. How can you explain that difference in terms other than race itself?
The problem for the Southern Democratic Party is that the higher the black population in a state or region, the more likely are whites to vote Republican. In states with smaller black populations - like Kentucky or Tennessee - the white population is more likely to vote Democratic than in heavily black South Carolina, Mississippi or Louisiana (outside the Cajun belt). Race is still central to Southern politics.
No one can deny the importance of race in American politics, especially in the South, and I'm not trying to do that. But I think it is very dangerous for Democrats to assume that they have a permanent advantage with Black voters, especially if they don't do anything in particular to earn it. The Voting Rights Act passed a long time ago, and needed significant Republican support to do so. Given Colin Powell, Condi Rice, etc. I suspect that Bush got votes from lots of White Mississippians who aren't racists for reasons having more to do with national security and economics. Why so many Black Mississippians voted for Kerry is a good question, but I would suppose it reflects the residual strength of the Democratic organization in the Black community there. It's a lot easier for me to see reasons why they voted for Clinton and Gore.
On "non-social" issues, it is not clear to me that Democrats automatically offer more when it comes to "food on the table, jobs to go to, and decent schools". As the prospects of Blacks in general and Southern Blacks in particular improve, they are much more likely to appreciate the appeal of school vouchers, lower taxes, and more business-friendly attitudes. A guy like Mike Huckabee on the ticket could change Black voting patterns, and Dems need to be awake to that possibility.
Re: On "non-social" issues, it is not clear to me that Democrats automatically offer more when it comes to "food on the table, jobs to go to, and decent schools".
The Democrats may not be offering a Neww Deak of a Great Society these days, but they still beat the GOP hands down there.
Re: they are much more likely to appreciate the appeal of school vouchers, lower taxes, and more business-friendly attitudes.
The Democrats are not exactly business-unfriendly these days, in case you haven't noticed. The CEO of Morgan Stanley isn't supporting Hillary Clinton because he likes her couture. As for lower taxes, there aren't enough extermely wealthy Blacks for that to matter (GOP tax cuts are chump change for everyone below the top 5% or so). And school vouchers are a local issue, maybe state issue at best, with no effect on national elections.
Dream on. The Democrats could lose the Black vote, but it will not be to the GOP; it would be to a new party that offered something better.
Comments closed January 07, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Even though the 2008 senate elections are focussed in the South...
http://www.dscc.org/races
Posted by otto | December 24, 2007 5:30 PM