Thanks to Nixon's "Southern Strategy," the south dictated presidential politics for nearly 40 years. But after Obama's election win without states like Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee falling in his column, and with two northern democrats on the winning ticket, does this spell the end of southern politics at a national level?

The NY Times has a pretty interesting article about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us.../11south.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

Discuss.

These is no room in this country for the sharp social conservatism. At the same time more government is not the solution to our problems and There needs to be a mix. I think MANY Obama supporters would be suprised to find themselves more in line with rebublican economic and government policies than democratic, its just that the repubican social policies are out of touch with the american people.

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 1): These is no room in this country for the sharp social conservatism.

Too true. You can be anything but one of those.

Quoting Planespotting (Thread starter): does this spell the end of southern politics at a national level?

No. Two reasons. 1. Voters, too many of them to ignore and the population there is growing more rapidly than other parts of the the country. 2. Money. Too much to ignore and that is growing too. "The South Will Rise Again" was not a hollow motto.

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 1): I think MANY Obama supporters would be suprised to find themselves more in line with rebublican economic and government policies than democratic, its just that the repubican social policies are out of touch with the american people.

You're describing perfectly millions of people, including myself, who are now independents because Democrats are out of touch on the economy and the GOP has sold themselves down the river with this government in the bedroom/marriage/child-rearing/pulpit malarkey.

While the last thing we need is more problems in our country, part of he hopes the democrats f*uck it up so people will see that neither party alone has the answer to our problems. some of the far left liberals are just as bad as the far right conservatives.

I think a San francisco - rural Alabama swap would make for a great reality tv show.

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 4): I think a San francisco - rural Alabama swap would make for a great reality tv show.

Amusingly enough, it's already been done... with the exact two areas you mentioned  

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 1): These is no room in this country for the sharp social conservatism.

Well, my own personal opinion aside, nearly half the voters in the US would disagree.

Whether some like to admit it or not, this country was founded on many Judeo-Christian values and our Founders are quite clear that we need VIRTUOUS citizens. Certainly, the uber-fundamentalists on the right take it to an extreme, but it is not productive to deny the fact this social conservatism is a legitimate factor. Melding a rational balance of a political platform should be the aim.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 2): 1. Voters, too many of them to ignore and the population there is growing more rapidly than other parts of the the country.

I would point out, however, that where we have seen rapid population growth in the South it has been due to an influx of people from other parts of the country, not through skyrocketing birth rates. So, where we have seen rapid population growth we have also seen dilution of social conservatism as well as economic conservatism. North Carolina is a good example. The Raleigh/Durham area has grown rapidly over the past ten years and the political climate of the region has tacked away from the right and more to the middle.

The South may "rise" again, but if it does so it will not resemble the South as we knew it forty years ago. Or even twenty.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 2): No. Two reasons. 1. Voters, too many of them to ignore and the population there is growing more rapidly than other parts of the the country. 2. Money. Too much to ignore and that is growing too. "The South Will Rise Again" was not a hollow motto.

I agree with you on this point for sure. However I think that the demographics of the south will begin to shift noticeably in the next few decades as well, especially with the large influx of Latino immigrants into both the urban and rural south. If those that gain citizenship and their American born children get involved politically there could be marked shift in the political landscape down there. So the south may rise again, but it may well be a very different south.

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 7): I would point out, however, that where we have seen rapid population growth in the South it has been due to an influx of people from other parts of the country, not through skyrocketing birth rates.

I would argue that it does not matter why the population has grown, only that it has. As always, the trick is to figure out how to appeal that population, but the sheer number of votes means that elected officials marginalize this area at thier own peril.

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 7): The South may "rise" again, but if it does so it will not resemble the South as we knew it forty years ago. Or even twenty.

The same could be said of almost any region. I am not yet 40, but I can't think of any area that has not changed in the past two decades.

Quoting Slider (Reply 6): nearly half the voters in the US would disagree.

...can you substantiate that, or are you just assuming that nearly everyone who didn't vote for the Democrat(ic) ticket embraces the manner of social "conservatism" in question here?

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 9): The same could be said of almost any region. I am not yet 40, but I can't think of any area that has not changed in the past two decades.

MBMBOS and my point is not that change is not happening elsewhere, is that it is going to be much more marked change in the make-up of the south. The influx of yankees into the major metropolitan areas of the south (RDU, CLT, ATL, etc...) plus the influx of Latino immigrants in both urban and rural south will change the electoral make-up of the south. Though there maybe significant urban/suburban vs. rural divides. Certainly what happened in Virginia and North Carolina illustrates that clearly. The rural, white, blue-collar southern voter will likely be marginalized as both urban and suburban communities evolve.

Quoting Slider (Reply 6): Whether some like to admit it or not, this country was founded on many Judeo-Christian values and our Founders are quite clear that we need VIRTUOUS citizens. Certainly, the uber-fundamentalists on the right take it to an extreme, but it is not productive to deny the fact this social conservatism is a legitimate factor. Melding a rational balance of a political platform should be the aim.

I wouldn't disagree with you on this point. Clearly our founders were principled men, who were generally men of faith to varying degrees. But they were also heavily influenced by many of the major secular thinkers of their day as well. Virtue as in having a clear and solid set of morals and ethics is important. What the social conservative/religious right movement has pushed is so narrowly focused that it excludes a lot of people. I really don't want the state regulating issues concerning sexuality, reproductive rights, civil unions etc.... I think the social conservatives have considerable room to pick up other issues and have a meaningful positive impact on them that should be consistent with their belief. Such as the environment, social justice, and so on. But they haven't moved in that direction in any meaningful manner.

It's the old Confederacy trimmed here and there to be sure, but there it is.

I've heard a lot about how the new south ain't the old south, not like your daddy's Dixie, no sirree, but there it is. It has been so in my lifetime and will remain so thereafter I think.

Some are calling it the Republican redoubt, and I tend to agree with them. When the Democratic party decided that civil rights was in the picture and Knee-grows were OK folks who could enter by the front door and didn't have to work in the kitchen, the Dems lost the allegiance of the Dixiecrats and have never regained it. Moderate Republicans lost a lot of purchase in Dixie after Ike sent in the troops to Little Rock, and they've never regained that sort of traction-the Rockefeller wing of the Republican party is long gone.

And today-horror of horrors! a black man is soon to take the oath of office as chief executive-that flopping sound you hear is synchronized rolling over in the graves of John Calhoun and Jeff Davis-at about 700 rpm.

Quoting DesertJets (Reply 11): I wouldn't disagree with you on this point. Clearly our founders were principled men, who were generally men of faith to varying degrees. But they were also heavily influenced by many of the major secular thinkers of their day as well.

Very much so ... in fact, many of them were Deists, who believe that while God created the earth and has a plan for the Universe, he does not intervene with the goings on in it. They believe, like many, that God's gift to man is the ability to reason, which isn't that different from a secular viewpoint like existentialism.

Quoting DesertJets (Reply 11): Such as the environment, social justice, and so on.

So social conservatives should only speak out on approved issues? Many, actually, have, but it does not get heard because all of the attention is given to opinions on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and other hot button issues.

If conservative opions on those vague, nebulous issues is not to your liking, will they loose the blessing to speak out on those, as well?

Quoting Slider (Reply 6): Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 1): These is no room in this country for the sharp social conservatism. Well, my own personal opinion aside, nearly half the voters in the US would disagree.

Empahsis on the sharp. whether or not people disagree ( i dont always agree either) conservative politics have a place in our government. However the sharp close minded conservatives (ala Westboro Baptist church and the like) have no place.

Of course the South isn't quite so solidly Republican any more. Virginia, North Carolina, and sort-of-Southern Florida all went for Obama, and it was pretty close in Georgia and South Carolina.
The state which swung farthest to the Republican side compared to last election was not a Deep South state, it was Oklahoma, which is more Midwestern than Southern.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 2): The South Will Rise Again" was not a hollow motto.

The South has been rising, and continues to do so!

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 2): These is no room in this country for the sharp social conservatism.

Agreed. And it's more rampant in the South sure. But lucky for us we have Atlanta, smack in the middle of the South. And every day I am more and more amazed that Atlanta is the way it is, considering its location!

Quoting Misbeehavin (Reply 17): Quoting Lowrider (Reply 2): The South Will Rise Again" was not a hollow motto. The South has been rising, and continues to do so! Quoting Lowrider (Reply 2): These is no room in this country for the sharp social conservatism. Agreed. And it's more rampant in the South sure. But lucky for us we have Atlanta, smack in the middle of the South. And every day I am more and more amazed that Atlanta is the way it is, considering its location!

South Postpones Rising Again For Yet Another Year

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28559

Social Conservatism and the Religious right have claimed the hearts of Small town and Rural America.


The Deep South, isn't so much Deep as it is Broad. Cities are tending to have more and more centrist leanings. More Catholics, more Jews, more muslims, more agnostics, more athiests, ...... The rural and small town areas still cling tightly to the Protestant Church, and mostly Baptist at that.

The problem for Social Conservatism/Religious right and the "Deep South" GOP right wing, is that they depend on the Rural and Small towns. Currently the US is becoming more urban/suburban. The Collegiate population is booming in this nation, and a lot more Collegiates find more to worry about in Elections than Social Conservatism and using it as an agenda in politics.


Seperation of Church and state matters to more and more people that are able to compartmentalize them to where they belong. This nation does not need evangelism in the governmet dictating relationships. Creationalism, abortion, worship or other items.

I agree with many people that the Government spending, Defense oriented notions of the Republican party are embraced by many, mysef included, but if the GOP is going to pander to the Social Conservatives, then they are going to loose my vote, because I don't think the Religious Right has the monopoly on theology and it's application to the family.

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 19): I agree with many people that the Government spending, Defense oriented notions of the Republican party are embraced by many, mysef included, but if the GOP is going to pander to the Social Conservatives, then they are going to loose my vote, because I don't think the Religious Right has the monopoly on theology and it's application to the family.

Strike your colors, then. There's no place in the GOP for you.

If by forever you mean 'four years', then yes...the "Deep South" is marginalized forever. If by forever you mean for all eternity, definitely maybe. But more than likely not. America's population is shifting away from some western states and most northeastern states into the southern states. The southland is gaining votes at the expense of the northern states. Consequently, the southern states will become more important if a candidate wants win a presidential election. However, when all these migrants (for lack of a better word) come south they carry their political ideology with them. Perhaps the southeast will become more purple and the northeast will remain a bastion of Democratic rule albeit with fewer electoral votes.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 20): Strike your colors, then. There's no place in the GOP for you.

People don't have to be single issue voters. I know i don't agree with the entire Democratic platform but they still got my vote.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 21): The southland is gaining votes at the expense of the northern states. Consequently, the southern states will become more important if a candidate wants win a presidential election. However, when all these migrants (for lack of a better word) come south they carry their political ideology with them. Perhaps the southeast will become more purple and the northeast will remain a bastion of Democratic rule albeit with fewer electoral votes.

Bingo!

The Deep South as a bastion for the Religious Right will be marginalized. However, the Deep South as an important source of electoral votes won't. Thus, if Republicans want to keep their hold on the South (or reclaim Southern states like VA/NC), they will have to change strategy. Simply relying on white rural voters and evangelicals to carry these states won't work going forward as demographics change.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 20): Strike your colors, then. There's no place in the GOP for you.

It';s a two party system and I swing my loyalty where the issues land me. I am a thinking person, and I have no choice but to switch my party loyalty when the future of the country I love is at stake of being taken over by Religious Fundementalism

From the article:

Don Dollar, the administrative assistant at City Hall, said bitterly that anyone not upset with Mr. Obama’s victory should seek religious forgiveness.

“This is a community that’s supposed to be filled with a bunch of Christian folks,” he said. “If they’re not disappointed, they need to be at the altar.”

I'm at a loss to explain this kind of comment. I'm a Christian but I still get a surprise that people expect all of us Christians to vote for the same party simply cause we're Christian. I heard Obama talk about his faith in a way which is similar to how I'd talk about mine. Now just cause he might think differently on some issues than I would, I don't see how that means he (or the Christians who voted for him) can't be Christian. I love the fact that there are areas of Christianity that are grey and don't fit the black and white approach that the comment above seems to think it should.

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 23): Quoting Dougloid (Reply 20): Strike your colors, then. There's no place in the GOP for you. It';s a two party system and I swing my loyalty where the issues land me.

Your party is in the process of hounding out any of the few remaining moderates that can be found. It's not the party of Ike and Nelson any more-you've been co-opted by Limbaugh and Hannity.

The ghost of Father Coughlin must be laughing. There's a party and fragments of a second.

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 23): future of the country I love is at stake of being taken over by Religious Fundementalism

Um, just how do you come to this conclusion? I am a Christian and think the country has slipped its moral moorings some time ago. One need look no further than the conduct of representatives on Capitol Hill for further evidence. The Republican party has always assumed I will vote for them. However, they don't seem to stand for anything anymore so why should I? Fiscal Conservatism? No evidence of that in the past 8 years. Yes Bush had to sign all the spending bills, but where did they originate? They had control of the legislative and executive branch for 6 years and couldn't pass any meaningful Social Security reform, border security, tax reform, or any other social legislation. They claim to be pro-life, but couldn't get much done there either. Gay marriage? They can't even articulate a cohesive opinion. Same for assisted suicide. Talk about poor stewardship. Given the results of the 06 and 08 elections, it would seem your fears are somewhat unfounded at this point.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 26): Um, just how do you come to this conclusion?

it's not a conclusion, just a statement of fact of why I voted the way I did. It is also why a lot of people votes as I did. The GOP has gone off to la la land as you have stated quite well.

It has been overrun by people that do not uphold the base principles of the party. Instead they have launched Crusades against foreign "threats" , and striking first and violating certain soverenties in the war against terrorism. They have attempted to assert government interference in schooling. Republicans have helped given tax breaks while increasing spending. and basically become a crazed organization.

The selection of Palin is what sealed my defection on the vote . The Republican party with all of McCain's promises for overhaul, and distancing from Bush was crushed when he succumbed to the need to grab a Christian Right opponent. This meant the same old GOP was still in Charge, and the values of the Republican/ Conservative ways were not as important as appeasing the Social Conservatives.

Quoting Planespotting (Thread starter): does this spell the end of southern politics at a national level?

Yep!

That's it! Never! Not even in a trillion years! Not once! Absolutely 103.25%! *deadpan*

Sorry, but posing the question that way makes it very easy to answer.

At least for the next few years, the South may be out, but it's not permanent; nothing is.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28): Sorry, but posing the question that way makes it very easy to answer.

Obviously, "southern politics" referred to the race-baiting, "we'll say 'states rights' because we can't say 'nigger nigger nigger'" Lee Atwater way of campaigning.

Not "will the south stop voting in national elections?"

For over 100 years until the late 1960's, most of what we call the south was Democratic. The party shifted more toward the urban mainly northern and immigrant attracting areas starting in the late 19th Century, with a major split in the late 1940's (especially in 1948) and started to turn away from the racism and segaration in the South. The Republican party then moved to the South, filling in the vacuum created by the regional shift of the Democrats and bringing their fiscal and social, pro 'states rights' views with them and gained strength there.

As others have noted, the South is changing as northerners and non-US born move into the region, binging in a more centerist shift of politics there. You also have over 40 years after the Voting Rights Acts, a growing involvement of Black Americans in the south who are still there pushing and voting for Democrats and being elected to public offices. I think we will see a gradual moderation of support to involve both parties in the 'Deep South' region, if demographic changes continue to evolve as they have been for the last 30-40 years, as we have recently seen in the Obama wins in Virginia and NC.

Quote: The rural and small town areas still cling tightly to the Protestant Church, and mostly Baptist at that.

Baptists arent Protestants. Anyway, I agree that most small southern towns cling to extremist faiths like Baptist or Fundamental Non-Denominational Churches. This is one of the things the south needs to lose. These churches Preach hate and damnation to everyone who does not agree with them.

The Protestant church is very broad. I'm Episcopalian and cant be thrown in the same boat as Evangelical Protestants.

-Delta767300ER

Quoting Delta767300ER (Reply 31): Baptists arent Protestants.

That's up for debate ... some think of themselves as protestants, some don't. It's not a hard and fast rule. Most people outside the Baptist church look at Baptists as Protestant, mainly because any Christian denomination other than Roman Catholic is usually considered Protestant.

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 1): These is no room in this country for the sharp social conservatism.

WRONG. If you look at the polls, most people in America are against gay marriage and more are anti-abortion than pro.

Quoting DesertJets (Reply 8): I agree with you on this point for sure. However I think that the demographics of the south will begin to shift noticeably in the next few decades as well, especially with the large influx of Latino immigrants into both the urban and rural south. If those that gain citizenship and their American born children get involved politically there could be marked shift in the political landscape down there. So the south may rise again, but it may well be a very different south.

I doubt it. As someone who spent 14 years in Birmingham, AL, I have noticed a couple of things. People who move south from the north generally end up leaving after a while because the pace of life is "slower" in AL. Second, while there is a large amount of immigrants they are not enough to change the general way in which the state votes.

As for me, I can't wait to get back to AL. Its a different type of lifestyle. However do not think that places like BHM are full of a bunch of country bumpkins because they aren't.

Quote: That's up for debate ... some think of themselves as protestants, some don't. It's not a hard and fast rule. Most people outside the Baptist church look at Baptists as Protestant, mainly because any Christian denomination other than Roman Catholic is usually considered Protestant.

Ya, I have seen the debates. From the info. I have gathered, Baptists never broke from Rome because they were never part of Rome. Baptists do have similiar beliefs to some Protestant branches though.

-Delta767300ER

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 26): Fiscal Conservatism? No evidence of that in the past 8 years.

  

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 27): The selection of Palin is what sealed my defection on the vote

Right there with ya dude.

Quoting Delta767300ER (Reply 31): Baptists arent Protestants.

Would certainly disagree there... their espoused values line up almost completely with protestants vs. the alternative.

Irrelevance for two stiff white men running against each other? No. For a religious or racial minority candidate? Yes. This area is regressing.

I'm betting a record number of N-bombs have been dropped across the clodhopper crescent this past week. While it's sad, it sure will be entertaining to watch Cletus cry about the "scary terrorist Muslim" black man "over them" for the next 8 years.

Quoting Ual777 (Reply 33): WRONG. If you look at the polls, most people in America are against gay marriage and more are anti-abortion than pro.

Show us these polls, oh great purveyer of information.

From what I've seen, it's pretty evenly split


Time Poll conducted by Abt SRBI. July 31-Aug. 4, 2008. N=808 likely voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Should gay and lesbian couples be allowed to marry, giving them full legal rights of married couples, or not?"

.
Should/Should Not/No Answer/Unsure

47%/ 47%/ 7%


NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). Sept. 6-8, 2008. N=860 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.3.


"Which comes closest to your view on abortion: abortion should always be legal; should be legal most of the time; should be made illegal except in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother's life; or abortion should be made illegal without any exceptions?"


Always Legal/Legal Most of the Time/Illegal With Few Exceptions/Illegal no Exceptions

9/6-8/08
25%/ 24%/ 37%/ 10 % 4% unsure

Quoting Ual777 (Reply 33): BHM

While the state of Alabama went decisively for McCain in the election, Jefferson County, where Birmingham is located, was carried by Obama. Jefferson County has a very large African-American population, but Obama could not have carried the county without a lot of white votes, as well. Things DO change.

Quoting Planespotting (Thread starter): Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee

-
In the 1950ies and 1960ies, states like Texas and Louisiana and Georgia and Arkansas had proud Democratic parties, and let's not forget that Messrs Jimmy Carter (Georgia) and Bill Clinton (Arkansas) and Gore (Tennessee) came from the South. And these three gentlemen came AFTER RMN .
-
The problem is not about the South as such but that the Democratic parties in the South have to restructure and rebuild. That in the South, only Virginia and North Carolina got Democratic majorities shows the problem.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 39): In the 1950ies and 1960ies, states like Texas and Louisiana and Georgia and Arkansas had proud Democratic parties, and let's not forget that Messrs Jimmy Carter (Georgia) and Bill Clinton (Arkansas) and Gore (Tennessee) came from the South. And these three gentlemen came AFTER RMN .

No one's forgetting that the South used to be all democrat. That changed during the Civil Rights era of the 1960s, and the South (obviously) ended up all Republican, mainly due to the underlying racism of the GOPs messages in the south.

I just watched a great program on PBS' Frontline last night that chronicled the career of George Bush Sr. campaign manager Lee Atwater, who mastered the use of visual imagery (patriotic flags, cowboy boots, etc...) to show poor, white southerners that Poppy Bush was really just a country-lovin' Patriot with humble roots just like them (except he was the son of a Senator, born in Conn. and attender of Amherst and Yale).

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 2): No. Two reasons. 1. Voters, too many of them to ignore and the population there is growing more rapidly than other parts of the the country. 2. Money. Too much to ignore and that is growing too. "The South Will Rise Again" was not a hollow motto.

The first reason you've listed is only partially true. There are currently three Southern states in the top ten where the real power of the electorate is substansial.

States by Population (2000 Census)
California
Texas
New York
Florida
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan
New Jersey
Georgia

By 2030 that list will likely include four Southern states and is projected to look like this:

States by Population (2030 Projection)
California
Texas
Florida
New York
Illinois
Pennsylvania
North Carolina
Georgia
Ohio
Arizona

That is not a huge shift in population and political power in favor of the South. In fact the evidence suggests both NC and GA are moving fairly quickly toward a blue state demographic. Obama won 8 of the states on the first list, and 7 of the states on the second.

Your second point about the financial power of the South is way off the mark. Not only is it less economically powerful than other parts of the country, but key predictive factors strongly suggest that isn't going to change anytime soon.

Lowest Per Capita Personal Income (2004 Dollars)
Mississippi
Arkansas
West Virginia
New Mexico
Utah
Montana
Idaho
South Carolina
Louisiana
Kentucky

Lowest Household Income (2003)
West Virginia
Mississippi
Louisiana
Arkansas
Kentucky
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Alabama
Montana
North Dakota

Lowest High School Graduation Rate (2003)
South Carolina
Nevada
Georgia
New Mexico
Florida
Louisiana
Delaware
Alabama
Mississippi
Tennessee

Fewest College Graduates Per Capita (2003)
West Virginia
Kentucky
Mississippi
Arkansas
Nevada
Indiana
Alabama
Louisiana
Tennessee
Oklahoma

One of the most revealing statistics about economic mobility is infant mortality.

Highest Infant Mortality Per Capita (2002)
Louisiana
Mississippi
Tennessee
South Carolina
West Virginia
Alabama
Georgia
Delaware
Missouri
Arkansas

If "The South Will Rise Again", it has a very long way to go.

*These stats are all from the US Census.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 36): Irrelevance for two stiff white men running against each other? No. For a religious or racial minority candidate? Yes. This area is regressing. I'm betting a record number of N-bombs have been dropped across the clodhopper crescent this past week. While it's sad, it sure will be entertaining to watch Cletus cry about the "scary terrorist Muslim" black man "over them" for the next 8 years.

Good work there, m'good fellow. Welcome to the Dougloid RU list, don't spend it all in one place.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 41): If "The South Will Rise Again", it has a very long way to go.

-
While your statistics must be thoroughly frustrating for folks in the "Deep South", such things in the world are subject to change. In Europe, not too long ago, people in Central and Western Europe regarded Spain and Portugal as "nicely developing countries" who sent 10'000s of "guest workers" to the "more developed" Europe, and now, on many internet forums, "Iberians" give lectures about what Europe is all about, and at least Spain from a "receiver" indeed HAS become a net-giver in the EU. Portugal maybe even, Italy long ago became a net-GIVER. Changes at first sight are slow, but can be really thorough !

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 1): I think MANY Obama supporters would be suprised to find themselves more in line with rebublican economic and government policies than democratic, its just that the repubican social policies are out of touch with the american people.

Agreed - it's the reason I can't ever see myself as a member of either party. Neither fully represents my views. I'll choose the candidate that I feel best fits the needs of the job, the "D" or "R" after their name notwithstanding. I really wish a 3rd party candidate would have a realistic shot one of these days. The two party system needs a shake-up.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 44): a member of either party

-
the strange thing about either of these two parties is that they have quite some "range", the Democrats range from heavily conservative to mildly social-democratic "areas" and the Republicans from extreme right wing to just left of the centre "areas"

Quoting WellHung (Reply 36): I'm betting a record number of N-bombs have been dropped across the clodhopper crescent this past week. While it's sad, it sure will be entertaining to watch Cletus cry about the "scary terrorist Muslim" black man "over them" for the next 8 years.

Hyper specualtion ... Go spend some time in the south. You will see white folks and blacks getting along just fine. Are there problems ? of course but it has come a long way since the 60's.

Your premice ,like others on here is that if you didnt Vote for Sen Obama your a backwood racist. Crazy , Closer to the truth is that people in the south dont like Washington ! They dont trust em and they are being proved right. Are there racist in the south , of course but is it the majority or even close no.

And the southern states will be very important in future elections , the last election was a extraordinary case , and extraordinary timeing.

"Forever" is a very long time, so I doubt the South is marginalized forever.

But it does appear that the "Solid South" is splintering. Virginia and North Carolina are the first examples, with Florida being the other (although most Southerners probably don't consider any part of Florida south of Gainesville as "Southern").

Democrats are already talking about Texas in 2012, given the huge influx of people into Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio. A lot of those people are coming from the Northeast and the West Coast, and bringing their more liberal views with them. In addition there is the very large Hispanic population increase going on there, and they are tending to vote more Democrat.

You can see in the Rocky Mountain states how this is already happening: Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico all followed the trend of having major influx of people (esp. from California and Hispanic immigrants) and they went Democrat this year. If McCain wasn't from Arizona, they probably would have gone Blue as well. The Social Conservative banner the GOP has been flying plays less well in the West (minus Utah), than the traditional "low taxes, less government" message they used to practice.

I don't see how one election is a trend, however. If Obama screws things up (even more than W has), then there will likely be a Republican carrying states that went Democrat this year. But if Obama shows the same competence as President that he showed on the campaign trail, it will likely be a long 8 years+ for the GOP.

I'll read the whole thread when I have more time, but some general comments.

Saying "forever" is pretty final, isn't it? Politics go in cycles, no matter what country you're in. The South had it's heyday back in the 1850's before the Civil War. The "Solid South" was a Democratic mantra for almost 80 years, between the end of the Civil War, and Harry Truman's presidency. Then the "Solid South" was the GOP mantra from the late 1960's until the present day.

The South will be important again, but the South has always seemed to lag when there is a transistion of major proportions, and this will be no exception. The "southrn strategy" to win the WH has been shattered. No, Obama didn't win a lot down there, but by taking Virginia, N. Carolina and Florida, and by making a serious case of it in Georgia, the cracks are starting to show.

There's no doubt in my mind that the South-and, to add to that, the Great Plains and Upper Midwest, will vote GOP again in 2012. I have no doubt of that, even if Obama does well. It may be that Georgia and Montana get peeled away to the Democrats, but places like South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas will lag behind the nation for some time. So will other states like Utah, Kansas and Wyoming.

The South isn't finished, by any means. It'll be back someday.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 63): by taking Virginia, N. Carolina and Florida, and by making a serious case of it in Georgia, the cracks are starting to show.

  

Those are the Southern states with the most transplants from the north. Those are the Southern states with jobs, prestigious Universities and well educated professionals.
We just need to work on Texas now.