Skip to main content

For those of you with your images turned off, that’s President Lyndon Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act into law. Martin Luther King, Jr. stands immediately behind him.

It is taken as virtual gospel among progressives that Democrats once had a lock on white working class voters, but that position quickly eroded in the 1990s and later as party leaders pursued cuts to social programs, Wall Street deregulation, and anti-union trade agreements.

But what if the Democratic position among the white working class hasn’t eroded at all outside the south? What if, even as Democratic Party economic policies undeniably became more obsequious to the one percent, the entire Democratic decline among the white working class can be attributed to Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”?

In a paper (PDF) published on the eve of the 2012 election, political scientist Elisabeth Jacobs presented compelling data pointing to that exact conclusion:

On average, Democratic presidential candidates prospects with self-identified white working class voters have diminished somewhat over time. ... Yet, the downward trend in Democratic presidential vote choice between 1956 and 2008 is concentrated amongst the Southern white working class. ... White working class presidential party vote choice for non-Southerners is remarkably stable over time; if anything, the period between 1984 and 2008 has been one of improvement for the Democrats amongst this group. The opposite is true in the South. Prior to the 1960s rights revolutions (including, most notably for the South, the major upheavals of the Civil Rights Movement), a strong majority of the Southern white working class voted for Democratic candidates. Southern white working class voting appears to have settled into a basic equilibrium with Reagan’s 1984 election, with the notable exception of an uptick for Clinton’s first election in 1992, and again for Obama’s 2008 election gambit.
Please read below the fold for more on this story.

More from Jacobs:

[P]erhaps most importantly because it is so often overlooked in popular analysis, the defection of the white South from the Democratic Party plays a central role in driving the overarching story of white working class politics. As Bartels succinctly summarizes: “Democratic presidential vote share has declined by almost 20 percentage points among [S]outhern whites without college degrees. Among non-southern whites without college degrees, it has declined by one percentage point. That’s it. Fourteen elections, 52 years, one percentage point.” The same basic relationship holds across all income groups of non-college educated whites: a 20-point-gap between the South and the rest of the country. This is Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy come to life, not a widespread national defection of white working class voters from the Democratic Party. Case in point: in 2008, Obama won 54 percent of whites with incomes under $50,000 outside of the South, while he secured just 35 percent of this group in the South.
For the greater good of this country, to reduce America’s intolerable levels of poverty and its obscene levels of inequality, every effort must be made to get the Democratic Party to become a serious advocate of pro-working class economic policies. On that front, we have a long way to go.

However, just because Democrats moved to the right on economic policy does not mean that was the cause of their decline among the white working class. Instead, the Democratic decline among the white working class happened because the party did the right thing and stood up against oppression.

The fact is that whether “working class” is defined by income, education or by self-identification, Democrats have not seen their performance among the non-southern white working class decline at all over the past six decades. What’s more, the decline of Democrats among southern working class whites coincided precisely with the photograph at the top of this article, and not with the rise of the Democratic Leadership Council.

The dominating Democratic coalitions of the past were based not only on organized labor and economic populism, but also significantly on Jim Crow and American apartheid. It’s OK for us to admit that. As progressives, we strive for a better, more equal future that has never been attained, not for a past golden age that never really happened.

Originally posted to Chris Bowers on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 07:32 PM PST.

Also republished by Barriers and Bridges, Three Star Kossacks, and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (303+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BobBlueMass, NM Ray, Angie in WA State, nomandates, implicate order, asindc, NWTerriD, don mikulecky, RandomNonviolence, kurious, basquebob, ER Doc, jasan, Susan Gardner, Aaa T Tudeattack, texasmom, rudewarrior, majcmb1, poco, FG, Involuntary Exile, TomP, IndieGuy, Mary Mike, Glen The Plumber, Lujane, Jay C, spunhard, urnumbersix, LilithGardener, FogCityJohn, sulthernao, LillithMc, mconvente, solesse413, greycat, Nulwee, sawgrass727, maggiejean, a gilas girl, mookins, gizmo59, belinda ridgewood, Simplify, Shockwave, ORswede, bronte17, LinSea, prettygirlxoxoxo, EdSF, ItsaMathJoke, Jim R, wu ming, Gowrie Gal, Railfan, Blu Gal in DE, JeffW, wader, thomask, leftist vegetarian patriot, CJB, high uintas, Emerson, Subterranean, Chaddiwicker, pixxer, elfling, Sharon Wraight, ferg, defluxion10, AaronInSanDiego, kaliope, agiftagain, TXdem, LeftHandedMan, anyname, Trendar, gnothis, tegrat, PrahaPartizan, myrmecia gulosa, happymisanthropy, eru, BenFranklin99, Youffraita, Vico, Pam from Calif, smartdemmg, eeff, OrganizedCrime, BelgianBastard, Rashaverak, stevenaxelrod, Egalitare, onionjim, rat racer, Dood Abides, riverlover, HudsonValleyMark, mamamedusa, radarlady, Chi, Cofcos, limpidglass, OleHippieChick, nancyjones, golem, StrayCat, HCKAD, Curt Matlock, BarackStarObama, howabout, camlbacker, Onomastic, MrJayTee, deminva, copymark, Tchrldy, OllieGarkey, jem6x, johnrhoffman, concernedamerican, Linda1961, HeyMikey, Lawrence, eagleray, BYw, mikeconwell, Alice Olson, Denise Oliver Velez, get the red out, HedwigKos, BluejayRN, MadGeorgiaDem, WhizKid331, oortdust, leeleedee, dlemex, Temmoku, dengre, Australian2, Floande, a2nite, Susipsych, ItsSimpleSimon, Jake Williams, BlueJessamine, Josiah Bartlett, TexasTom, semiot, countwebb, Sylv, No one gets out alive, profundo, Yellow Canary, ashowboat, mungley, Front Toward Enemy, hlsmlane, RLF, milkbone, SaintC, rasbobbo, puakev, SherriG, Sybil Liberty, opinionated, blueyescryinintherain, janmtairy, Davis X Machina, Hillbilly Dem, FischFry, cpresley, Assaf, Dodgerdog1, gramofsam1, DawnN, elwior, Brian82, stegro, blue aardvark, unfangus, Its any one guess, Debby, livingthedream, Matt Z, Columba, pierre9045, FutureNow, appledown, chrisculpepper, JBL55, zerelda, DeanObama, roses, ShowMeMoBlue, Chitown Kev, millwood, tofumagoo, leonard145b, ChariD, fumie, poopdogcomedy, Loudoun County Dem, SouthernMan, New Minas, miasmo, TexDem, UtahLibrul, boran2, sturunner, blackjackal, missLotus, Crabby Abbey, Geenius at Wrok, boofdah, Ian Reifowitz, glitterscale, thanatokephaloides, jediwashuu, john07801, crose, Fire Monkey, Loge, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, bartcopfan, Sandino, TheMeansAreTheEnd, cka, FarWestGirl, wxorknot, Berkeley Fred, tiponeill, Prognosticator, greenomanic, miango113, Tony Situ, touch128, ewmorr, twocrows1023, lu3, tikkun, mapamp, SphericalXS, rapala, gmats, LABobsterofAnaheim, NYC Sophia, Grandma Susie, nota bene, skyounkin, divineorder, Tangerinegirl20, Foothills of Oblivion, northerntier, sethtriggs, joynow, bobwilk, raincrow, bob in ny, agitatednactivated, devis1, Simian, shanikka, Jyrki, BachFan, DavidMS, barleystraw, Justus, Libby Shaw, khughes1963, Loose Fur, fcvaguy, scott5js, Recovering Southern Baptist, Phoenix Woman, buckstop, jck, RUKind, duhban, rbird, Jeff Y, bethann, JKTownsend, aitchdee, bloomer 101, richardvjohnson, graceadams830, Homer177, laurak, kfunk937, citizen dan, turn Virginia blue, MarciaJ720, tkirkland, Plan9, MooseHB, gas28man, mcstowy, solublefish, walkshills, Pixie5, SilentBrook
  •  Southern white working class voters (104+ / 0-)

    Have to realize that the GOP still plays their moral issues like a fiddle, and laugh all the way throughthe dance.  The GOP knows that government has no role legislating morality but as long as Southern whites continue to vote against their economic interests to support what they perceive as their morality, that's what we'll have.

    My wife, daughter and granddaughters should have more privacy in their doctor's office than I have buying another rifle or shotgun.

    by NM Ray on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 07:47:01 PM PST

      •  Plus, 90% of Americans think they will one day... (49+ / 0-)

        ...be in the top 1% and don't want to be taxed when they get there.

        Of course, a lot of people buy lottery tickets, too.

        Obama: Pro-Pentagon, pro-Wall Street, pro-drilling, pro-fracking, pro-KXL, pro-surveillance. And the only person he prosecuted for the U.S. torture program is the man who revealed it. Clinton: More of the same.

        by expatjourno on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 10:51:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  @ expat- temporarily embarrassed millionaires! (23+ / 0-)

           That's the phrase that has been tossed around for the 90% whites who vote Republican.

          •  Hahah! Sad, but true. And funny! (6+ / 0-)

            Obama: Pro-Pentagon, pro-Wall Street, pro-drilling, pro-fracking, pro-KXL, pro-surveillance. And the only person he prosecuted for the U.S. torture program is the man who revealed it. Clinton: More of the same.

            by expatjourno on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:49:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Obama (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              slothlax

              Oh yes you can say that, but he has to President to all people. Sure I would like to see a Eugene V Debs. Bit it is not going to happen.

            •  Sad indeed (0+ / 0-)

              You have that right. 'Democrats' like Obama continue the conservative policies that are wrecking our country. Seeing pictures of Hilary Clinton being promoted as a choice is almost as chilling as it used to be seeing GWB on screen as President. I do have to give Clinton credit for her work with women's rights, but another corpo-dem like her just sinks us further. I think Alan Grayson should run - I don't think they could dismiss him because of expressing emotion in a pump-up-the-troops speech as they did with Howard Dean because he has already shown himself ready to be bold out there - harder to make news of his style because he has already established it.

              •  Hillary= Tyson Chicken Queen (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PhilK, agitatednactivated

                Everybody knows the Clintons were bankrolled by Tyson & they know they better not bite the CORPORATE hand that feeds them. Remember who put through NAFTA & sent almost all of our clothing, shoemaking & light manufacturing to points south never to be seen again.

              •  Too big to fail corporations OWN the nation having (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MarciaJ720

                bought it fair and square.  The only hope of getting anything better is to figure out how the **** corporations can even better fulfill their sole and sacred duty of maximizing shareholder profits and at the same time do better at what you believe ought to be done about ___.
                For me the only issue that meets that criteria is global warming--I believe that is very likely to destroy civilization by messing up Earth's climate too much for our crops to adapt to well enough to grow enough food to feed world's population.

              •  Or not (0+ / 0-)

                Actually, Alan Grayson began as a powerful advocate for the poor.  He (and several other Dems, including Dean) abruptly dropped the issue at the same time, raising the Middle Class Only banner.  H. Clinton has consistently supported only the better-off. Remember that she was a powerful lobbyist for NAFTA, which caused so much job loss. Maybe we should be wondering why much of the lib media is promoting her to run for president in place of VP Joe Biden. It's important to remember that the policies and programs that were in place from FDR until Reagan took the US to its height of wealth AND productivity. This generation reversed course, wiping out those policies and programs, with the obvious results.

              •  Dems and Clinton (0+ / 0-)

                Hillary and Bill are "big business" all the way. I wouldn't change to Republican party over her candidacy, but wish we had a real populist who supports middle class citizens. Money has jaded our party nearly as much as the Republicans. Alan Grayson has some appeal, but he hurts himself too often, I think. I believe a pro union Democrat should be in the mix, to bring the conversation back to the working men and women, and to show the contrast to the plutocrats who dominate the agenda these days. Money has corrupted our government and we will spiral downward if it isn't corrected. Corporations are not people, my friend, and money is not the same as speech.

          •  That's an annoyingly stubborn Steinbeck misquote (20+ / 0-)

            that I've seen in someone or another's signature line...no callouts, please. :) As he wrote in a June 1960 Esquire article, "Except for the field organizers of strikes, who were pretty tough monkeys and devoted, most of the so-called Communists I met were middle-class, middle-aged people playing a game of dreams. ... I guess the trouble was that we didn't have any self-admitted proletarians. Everyone was a temporarily embarrassed capitalist" (emphasis mine). I find this much more interesting and nuanced than the usual misquoted line.

            •  I have not been a self-admitted preoletarian. My (0+ / 0-)

              father of blessed memory taught microbiology at NYU medical school.  My mother taught elementary school.  I ended up with an MS in Mathematics but could not get through a job interview without totally freaking out and killing all chances of landing a job.  The few jobs I have had most emphatically did NOT require a college education.  I was a lowly clerk in an insurance firm for about five years, a sewing machine operator for about five years, a computer lab monitor at a local college for six months, a bookkeeper placed at the local franchise of the YMCA for about five years (last year and a half on a volunteer basis), a community service employee program lucky job recipient doing more back office clerical work for a local non-profit trying to alleviate poverty for four years, six years doing the same job for the same organization at the minimum wage when the community service employment program job ran out, and the rest of what I have done has been as a volunteer.

          •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

            90% of whites vote Republican? Clinton actually said one correct thing: "It's the economy, stupid." For whom should the mass of low-income/poor people vote?  The majority of our poor are white. Democrats and the middle class since Clinton have deeply alienated those who aren't as well off as middle class. NAFTA has been a leading cause of job loss in the US, in our post-poverty relief nation. Lib media has been supporting H. Clinton for president while condemning NAFTA -- even though she was a powerful lobbyist for NAFTA! What the poor figured out years ago is that the two leading parties joined forces to implement the destructive agenda we have today, steadily phasing out the middle class, giving even more power to the richest few. Deeply pitting the middle against the poor (which Dems did) has ensured that there will be no popular backlash this time.

            •  Lib Media (0+ / 0-)

              I hate to keep hearing about the "Lib Media". There are some outlets that are somewhat progressive, but by and large, all main stream media are owned and run by very wealthy people. They allow a certain amount of progressive dogma, but it's what they don't allow that is more important. We need local news outlets and public radio and television that will keep on top of the news, and call out the errors and omissions of the right wing machine.

        •  These days they have a bigger chance of winning (12+ / 0-)

          a lottery than they have ending up "on top" no matter how hard they work or how lucky they are.

          "An egg is not poultry.” An old Blues tune's brilliant insight into the notion that a zygote can, in any sense, be "a person."

          by carbonman1950 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 11:23:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  That's silly (10+ / 0-)

          Very few people think they'll ever be rich and (can I say it without being accused of blasphemy?) many of us have no interest whatsoever in wealth. We do want a measure of safety and quality of life, enough food, modest but comfortable homes for our families. More often than not, excessive money does some ugly, destructive things to people.

          •  I agree (11+ / 0-)

            I think most people would be happy with a regular job that afforded them a modest house, a survivable retirement and  time on the weekends for  family, beer, barbecues and ballgames.  The wolves think that everybody is just like them, but there are plenty of us sheep out there who just want to chill and enjoy our brief moment of life on this beautiful planet.  My pressed flower is just as pretty and far less vicious than your compressed shiny stone!

          •  There are many (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RUKind

            Red neck bigots that think they will win the multi-hundred million dollar lotto tomorrow that will never stop believing, because they are "good christians" that will give half of it to the churh.

            •  True story: (0+ / 0-)

              Sometime during the 90's when I was living in Atlanta GA, a guy that was living in a trailer park in GA won $100 million in the lottery.  He had been spending $100 a month on lottery tickets for a long time.  When he was asked what he would do with the money he said 'I've got some land in Alabama that I'll put a double-wide (trailer) on.'

          •  Beyond (0+ / 0-)

            the ability the keep food on the table and a roof over my head, I really don't give money much thought. It's just a means to those ends, and a crude one at that. Certainly, I would not be comfortable in the opulence some wallow in. To me, it seems...vulgar. To much affluence, for too long tends to make people bitter, paranoid, and a little dumb. One day they look around and find that no one else quite measures up. They engage in gluttony out of fear that those they find unworthy will somehow benefit from something rightfully theirs. Some even believe that right to be divine in nature.

            And so, to them, success really has no meaning without the knowledge of other's misfortune. After all, of what use is heaven, unless others burn in hell?

            When elephants fight, it's the grass that suffers. -- African Proverb

            by LouisWu on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 10:18:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I try and warn my son (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RUKind, Lonesome Jeff

          who attends a church devoted to R politics that the promise by the 10% to come to their banquet table will be to clean it up, be careful of the crystal and serve Brandy and cigars in the drawing room.
          Then get out!

        •  Maybe 90 percent of Americans (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lonesome Jeff

          who are still in school think that, but by age 30, most people adjust their expectations.

          We won't be getting a lot of new votes by trading in stereotypes of the devastated working/middle class.

        •  Like the line goes (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RUKind

          There is a sucker born every minute.

      •  I have often tried to fathom how so many people (34+ / 0-)

        vote Republican.  No matter how hard I try, I just don't get it.  I do think that your theory about "those people" is part of it based upon all the negative remarks I hear from them.

        "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

        by blackhand on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:08:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not that hard (28+ / 0-)

          to figure out. They vote a certain way because of their religious beliefs or their supposed religious belief. The GOP gives them false self esteem telling them they are better than "the other". There really isn't a lot of reason to what they do sometimes.

          It's the policy stupid

          by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 03:59:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Evangelicals / fundamentalists only (8+ / 0-)

            about 20% - 25% of the voters.

            Even if you throw in the Catholics it's hard to get to 50%.

            And I can guarantee you that they aren't getting 100% of the vote from any religious sect.

            Further explanation than religion is required, although I'm sure that's part of it.

            Purity is for primaries; in the general, our worst are better than their best.

            by blue aardvark on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:52:25 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Lots of Catholic Dems In US (13+ / 0-)

              The Catholics in the US are hardly a unified voting (or even belief) block. So it's more accurate to say, "Even if you throw in the conservative Catholics..."

              You meet them halfway with love, peace, and persuasion ~ And expect them to rise for the occasion...

              by paz3 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:43:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Indeed (4+ / 0-)

                Catholics historically were overwhelmingly Democratic in the U.S. It's only in the last few decades that you see Catholics voting Republican in any kind of numbers. My grandfather once said he was 20 before he met a Republican. There are many, many people raised Catholic who don't buy into the social agenda and continue to vote Democratic.

                “Republicans...think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people... And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” Harry S. Truman

                by fenway49 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:03:55 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  are you talking overall or just in the South? (19+ / 0-)

              Because you cant swing a dead cat and not hit an evangelical house of worship in much of the South.   100% dyed in the wool Republicans, at least from my neck of the woods, are extremely religious.  For these folks, Republicans could say just about anything so long as they were pro-life.  I've had countless conversations with folks, who are essentially Democrats on economic issues (once you strip down the rhetoric) but will absolutely refuse to vote for a Democrat on that one issue.  What's worrisome to me is that it's getting worse, not only is it religion, but Fox news and other GOP propaganda have started to damage even the economic message.

              We all went to heaven in a little rowboat, and there was nothing to fear and nothing to doubt. --Radiohead

              by Tzimisce on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 10:03:47 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Swinging A Cat (5+ / 0-)

                Like the phrase, a lot.  Personally, I think the Democratic Party is better off without the great grandchildren of slave owners being members.

                "This is our version of capitalism: a system of economic policies that benefit the extremely wealthy, and the rest survive as best they can."-- Chomsky

                by truthronin on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 11:13:58 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Really? (8+ / 0-)

                  I am glad that demographics are changing in a way that make it easier to win elections with a smaller percentage of white votes. But excluding someone from a party because of something done by a distant relative whom they have never even met? Really?

                  •  No, it's like this (8+ / 0-)

                    The white southern population was 85% Democratic for more than a century and a half. The Democratic Party was the party of states' rights and Jefferson. The South had no use for Republicans; they were the Party of Lincoln.

                    Then the Democrats started to stand up for civil rights and white southerners started to look around for alternatives. Lyndon Johnson signed some major civil rights bills in the 60s and, lo and behold, before long the white southern population is 85% Republican. So it's not about what an ancestor did but about what living generations chose.

                    “Republicans...think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people... And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” Harry S. Truman

                    by fenway49 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:07:38 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  An inconsequential comment on your sig (0+ / 0-)

                      Sorry to seem picky, but Harry Truman didn't have a middle name - he was only given an initial.  Ergo, his name should appear as "Harry S Truman".

                    •  I don't disagree... (0+ / 0-)

                      with any of that. But that is not what truthronin said. Do you want to kick out the Southern white people who remained in the Democratic Party after they embraced civil rights? That was the statement I was responding to.

                      •  turthronin's comment (0+ / 0-)

                        as I read it, was about the Democrats being better off without the people in hyper-GOP evangelical churches who don't vote Democratic. I have no problem with the (few) who do.

                        “Republicans...think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people... And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” Harry S. Truman

                        by fenway49 on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 12:04:33 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

              •  surprising (8+ / 0-)

                I live in WI, and FOX "news" was always skewed on socioeconomic issues.  When were they not GOP propagandists? That's just their function. (MSNBC began progressive, but has steadily been pulled to the Dem right/Clinton's "New Democrats.") Either way, such stars of the right as O'Reilly admitted that they rely on low-information viewers, so this would explain why they keep things simple, reciting old mottos with familiar jingoistic spins on current events.

              •  Your right about the churches and their positions. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Odysseus, RUKind

                I worry that it is becoming Taliban like, just listening to someone like Huckabee makes chills run up my spine.  I have three granddaughters, don't want them to live in a world where women are property and that is the direction they want to take us.  

              •  My neighbor used to say he voted based on faith .. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kfunk937

                And I used to tell him that trying to make abortion illegal wouldn't prevent it. I told him that if he really wanted to reduce the number of abortions in this country, he should support better sex education in the schools, support birth control education and insurance coverage, support better and affordable day care for children and paid maternity leaves for women, support better pre-natal health care coverage for women, and support education for boys which teaches them to respect women. Banning abortion is "too little, too late" to affect the true cause of abortions, and serves only to criminalize women and doctors.  

                I made no headway with him until he lost his job. And then lost his next job, and the next. And his wife's pay and  benefits got cut back by her company. And then he developed cancer and their insurance didn't cover enough for his treatments.

                Now he votes Democrat.
                Surprise! Surprise!      

                Democrats just need to bring home to working class people what Republican government REALLY means to them, and how that conflicts not only with their best interest, but also with basic Christian values.

                We all do better when all of us do better!
                (That's my personal mantra. Simple, easy to comprehend, and to the point.)

                •  Unfortunately, letting the 99% do better does NOT (0+ / 0-)

                  let the 1% do better.  The 1% are so bad jealous that it really irks them to see a member of the 99% do better this year than last year even though the 1% still do way better than any member of the 99%.   Austerity helps only vulture capitalists seeking to grab bargains in distressed properties to milk of all value and then discard.  But austerity really floats the boat of those vulture capitalists.

                  •  Actually, those of the 1% in real businesses (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jsb113

                    do better when we all do better. It is spending by the poor and middle classes which drives our economy, and that doesn't happen when the poor and middle classes are suppressed.

                    And when businesses do poorly, so does their stock.
                    So those capitalists invested in real businesses also lose capital gains when businesses fail to perform.

                    Example: Waltons pushed (with their $$) the tea party agenda to cut the length of unemployment, and to cut food stamps. When those cuts took effect, Walmart's lost a ton of business, particularly for their groceries. Apparently, many people on food stamps were buying their groceries at Walmart's to stretch their food stamp purchase power. When they lost their food stamps, they quit buying as much food. So Walmart's revenues dropped significantly. And the people kicked off food stamps went hungry.
                    So when poor people were doing better (including many Walmart employees) by receiving food stamps, Walmart's did better, and so did their stock holders.

                    Those people in the 1 % who make their income from capital gains on wall street investments, business profits, financial industry interest rates, etc., all do better when the economy is growing. Those who make their income by buying up failing companies and selling their assets only do better while the rest of the 99 percent do worse until the overall economy really tanks. So it is short term gains, but eventually the whole system tanks if profits are all based on the failing economy. In the end, there must be goods and services being bought to sustain the economy.    

                •  The problem being... (0+ / 0-)
                  "Democrats just need to bring home to working class people what Republican government REALLY means to them, and how that conflicts not only with their best interest, but also with basic Christian values."
                  That the above cannot happen so long as Democrats continue to be center-right, instead of progressive. We have no progressive party any more. Libertarians are just the Tea Party, without the religion. Independents, despite the name, are actually derived from the loony ideas of its founder, and not sound either. Same with pretty much anyone else you might name who actually has an official party, which anyone has actually heard of. The closest to socially and economically progressive you can bloody get would be to go all the way to the communists, and... if you placed them on a scale, it would look something like:

                  Arg.. The post system eats repeat characters, so.. lets say a scale, where 0 is left, and 100 is right, and 50 is middle:

                  Communist = 0
                  Old Democrat = 25
                  New Democrat = 60
                  Republican = 70
                  Tea Party = 85 Evangelicals (at least the ones that are also hyper capitalist, hyper-moralist, Biblical literalist) = 100

                  and.. Libertarians would be like 34, 55, 64, 77, 93, all over the bloody board. I would need a 16 dimensional chart, and string theory math to explain where they actually stand on anything, other than the basic thinking that a) government isn't really necessary, unless it is, but then, its probably isn't. I.e. very little regulation, or force to prevent people breaking rules, since no "enlightened" person would either be 1 - likely to break them, or 2 - have a surviving business in their fantasy world), and b) every one of them is one of these supposedly enlightened people, who would succeed, and never do wrong, thus not needing a government, or anything like it, to watch them, if we just got rid of most laws, including wage laws, discrimination laws, possibly even criminal laws, and then.. I guess fire all the cops, since "violence of any kind is the worst crime of all, even if its government doing it to protect other people!".

                  I don't think I have ever had a discussion with someone claiming that political position which ended coherently, even if it started out vaguely plausible, or even if I generally, in principle, agreed with what they appeared to think about a specific subject. Inevitably, their justification for it would live a sort of quasi-existence, half of which was in the real world, and half of it in what ever the libertarian version of Narnia, or Never Never Land would look like.

            •  "Morality" (4+ / 0-)

              Religion and morality are not exactly the same thing. Morality can encompass psychological tendencies beyond fundamentalism. Someone can be an atheist and still fall prey to the feeling that rich people and those espousing rhetoric used to justify capitalism and plutocracy are somehow more moral. George Lakoff has talked about this quite a bit.

              •  Any data on percentage of atheists who vote (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Odysseus

                republican vs democrat?  ALL atheists I know are intellectuals, often with doctoral level educations, and all voted for Obama.  I admit these are university or other non-profit research scientists, so it is an non-representative sample.
                I had reasoned (but with no data) that to become an atheist requires a high level of thinking for your self, and disbelief about positions not supported by data.  Such people are not today's republicans.  

                •  You need to get out more. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  writeofwinter, miasmo

                  I know several atheists who are Republican or Libertarian.

                  -7.75 -4.67

                  "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

                  There are no Christians in foxholes.

                  by Odysseus on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:22:53 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  The really intellectual position on religion is (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  miasmo

                  agnostic.  I know a very liberal Rabbi who is agnostic.  He is of course very well versed in the TNK (known as Old Testament by Christians).  He also was all but dissertation on a PhD in economics before he decided to go to Rabbinical school.   I suspect he is enough of a ham that he figured that at the time he decided, becoming a Rabbi was his best bet for being able to perform for an audience and make a fairly secure middle class living to support a family both at the same time.

                  •  I have heard that a lot of Jesuits are athiests. (0+ / 0-)

                    Don't know if they were when they started, but actually studying the ancient texts will expose a lot of bullshit. But, hey! I guess it's like being a permanently funded student, being paid to get your nerd on. It's not hard to see why they would want to keep their jobs.

                •  Interesting... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  kfunk937, miasmo

                  I have noted the same thing about atheists tending to vote more on the D side of the ticket and I think your supposition is correct.

                  When one has a natural tendency to look for fact supported positions to take on political issues they are most likely going to steer away from the Republicans.

                  Too many of their positions are obviously idiotic when stripped of their emotional arguments and looked at from a purely logical perspective.

                  I have also noticed that a significantly larger portion of my college degree holding friends and acquaintances also lean heavily towards the Democratic side.

                  My RWNJ Uncle chocks this up to the "Heathen Athiests" natural tendency to vote for the "godless Demoncrats" and his reasoning for the college educated leaning towards the left are due to "Brainwashing from Ivory tower intellectuals" (BTW, since when did being educated and an intellectually minded person become a bad thing???)

                  I think the simpler answer is that both groups are too smart to buy the B.S. that the right is selling.

                  I guess this would explain why the Repubs are trying to make our educational system more and more expensive and less efficient.

                  It's easier to lie to, and control, your constituents if you keep them too ignorant to know when your screwing them.

            •  Self esteem (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PinHole, Dirtandiron, Phoenix Woman

              the GOP tells them that they are somebody and they are going to be rich one day. Tells them that they're better than  that other "person over there" and then the rest of those who vote for the GOP are maybe gun nuts.

              It's the policy stupid

              by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 12:17:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Please excuse me (17+ / 0-)

              for jumping in here.

              Unless it has been mentioned somewhere way down in this thread, my take is that a fair sum of why they vote the way they do is...LIBERAL.

              My gawd how that word has been used to demonize Democrats.
              For hells sake, some Democrats are afraid to use that word to describe their political leanings. The far right turned anything and everything liberal toxic.

              The Republicans use liberal to describe their foes. Even fellow Republicans are attacked as being liberal as if being liberal was akin to being a mass murderer.
              Listen to the right wing and the tea partiers talk about liberal Obama, and liberal Pelosi, and liberal Clinton.

              There is the liberal media, liberal judges on the bench enacting liberal policies for the godless liberals.

              Said it before and I will say it again. Liberal needs to be redefined to the voters so they understand full well that being liberal is in their best interest.

              So long as the right wing own their warped definition of liberal, they will own the message.

              I am a liberal and damn proud when someone calls me a liberal, thinking I will be offended because in their view it is derogatory.

              "We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Louis Brandeis

              by wxorknot on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:46:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  that's exactly right (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JKTownsend, wxorknot

                Just this morning the local newspaper (here in red SD state) had an article ("news" yes, not editorial) about the extremists in both parties, the tea party and the liberals, being way out there on each side.

                After a while I quit hitting my head against the wall...

                And thought some more about Marshal McLuhan's The Medium is the Message. Prophetic words he wrote.

                tea party - the flesh eating bacteria currently feasting on the body politic

                by callmekate on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 10:33:41 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Perhaps I'm over thinking this, but (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JKTownsend, wxorknot

                to me the term 'liberal' is more about social issues, while 'progressive is more about economic issues.  I'm both, so I guess I should call myself a progressive liberal.

                •  Many define (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DebFrmHell

                  themselves as such in the Democratic party. Progressive liberals.

                  Not rigid, open to new ideas and thoughts. Not afraid to progress if you will.

                  I tend to think that liberal thinking along with liberal attitudes is a way for humankind to progress.
                  Afterall, to not progress, one is either regressing or is stagnant.

                  "We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Louis Brandeis

                  by wxorknot on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 11:45:52 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Pre-Civil Rights Law, This: (22+ / 0-)

            Pre-disposition of southern whites, a song written before the Civil Rights Act was signed. "Only A Pawn In Their Game."

            A South politician preaches to the poor white man
            “You got more than the blacks, don’t complain.
            You’re better than them, you been born with white skin,” they explain.
            And the Negro’s name
            Is used it is plain
            For the politician’s gain
            As he rises to fame
            And the poor white remains
            On the caboose of the train
            But it ain’t him to blame
            He’s only a pawn in their game

            (c) Bob Dylan - 1962,1963

            You meet them halfway with love, peace, and persuasion ~ And expect them to rise for the occasion...

            by paz3 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:40:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer (5+ / 0-)

            pretty much lays it all out.

            - The existential compulsion to avoid accepting their silent and unspoken self-judgement that their lives are failures.
            - The compulsion to avoid responsibility for their failure by believing they failed because they have been oppressed.
            - The compulsion to believe they are part of a movement that will defeat their oppressors and convert their failed lives into successes.
            - The compulsion to willingly sacrifice their own interests to that "greater purpose."

            Hoffer wrote in the 50s, about other mass movements, so his examples are not up to date, but IMO his analysis is spot on and explains it all.

            "An egg is not poultry.” An old Blues tune's brilliant insight into the notion that a zygote can, in any sense, be "a person."

            by carbonman1950 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 11:39:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  GOP members are Puritans--not Christians. (0+ / 0-)

            They may believe they are Christians, but when it comes down to morals, they are Puritans.  True Christians make at least some honest effort to relieve poverty, whether by hiring the poor for odd jobs when they have low-skill work they need done or by donating to or volunteering at a local non-profit that serves the poor (like a soup kitchen, a homeless shelter, a community clothes closet).

        •  The onre thing that binds the Republican (20+ / 0-)

          coalition across its parts is hate at paying taxes, especially federal taxes. Different parts of the coalition hate taxes for somewhat different reasons. For southern, working-class whites the issue is "I don't want to have my money taken by the government and given to the n****." I've heard this sentiment time and again. Racism blinds these folks to the thievery they are suffering at the hands of moneyed interests that run the GOP.

          Courage is contagious. - Daniel Ellsberg

          by semiot on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 06:37:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  it's all religion (13+ / 0-)

          I'm surrounded by Republicans, and the one thing that really keeps them being Republicans is religion.  The GOP panders to it so they feel like it's the party that's looking out for them... even though the Democrats are far better at doing things that actually follow the teachings of Jesus.

          Republican voters are faith-based in all things.  They don't think or look at results, they just listen to what their preacher tells them... even if the preacher's Limbaugh.

          "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

          by Front Toward Enemy on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:25:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The numbers don't add up, though (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            suetiggers, Lonesome Jeff

            Republicans get close to 50% of the vote nationwide.

            Evangelicals are not 50% of the voting population. More like 25%.

            Purity is for primaries; in the general, our worst are better than their best.

            by blue aardvark on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:54:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm just talking about the South (8+ / 0-)

              I'm not sure what drives Republicans in other regions, but the South is heavily slanted toward the religious.  Most of them I know don't even understand issues, they just vote Republican because of abortion/prayer-in-school/evolution/keeping-the-gays-from-having-rights.  Even the non-Evangelicals I've met are still very God-driven in their Republicanism.

              "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

              by Front Toward Enemy on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:14:29 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  the EC/Senate vote isn't distributed equally (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RUKind, Lonesome Jeff, kfunk937

              the square states and smaller Southern/rural states have outsize influence in Washington per capita compared to large blue states like CA/NY/IL.

              On top of that, D voting blocs tend to be less likely to vote overall than R voting blocs. So the Rs don't actually quite need 50%. (See also 2000, 2010.)

              This is why kos keeps saying "when our people turn out, we win." We have structural advantages (especially in future cycles), and the Republicans' only real countermeasure is voter suppression.

              You WANT me on that server! You NEED me on that server!

              by nota bene on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 04:01:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Totally this (7+ / 0-)

            I want to believe that we can reach everyone, but increasingly I think that I just can't conceive of a way how to reach these types of voters.  When you have your own set of "facts" and your entire thinking is based on faith and belief, then what can you do to appeal to that voter?

            We all went to heaven in a little rowboat, and there was nothing to fear and nothing to doubt. --Radiohead

            by Tzimisce on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 10:08:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  fear of thinking (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JerryNA, aratinga, kfunk937

              If you sat down with a stranger and discussed the issues, how do you know he wouldn't regard you as being just as narrowly locked into an ideology? That's the difficult thing. I don't think you would find many hard-core right-wingers who consider themselves to be narrow-minded, and the odds are dead against being able to truly communicate with a narrow-minded person. When you stir some religion into the mix, some are honestly afraid to consider any notion that might drift from whatever they were taught.

            •  Reach them where they can be reached, (0+ / 0-)

              like NSA spying, and work out from that.  There are a few basic American values that cut across regional, religious, and party lines.  We need to capitalize on those values, sell them hard and loud, and make our mutual interest so obvious it eclipses all the stale, festering culture-wars boilerplate crap.

              We've pretty much got those issues rooted on our side, already.  They'll flourish--but without an end to corporate peoplehood, government interference in our private reading and communication, and the wholesale degradation of the earth and its elements and systems, we'll have no future.

              Promote the common good in language everyone can relate to. People will get it.

          •  Dems (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            miango113, dhshoops, RUKind

            That's no longer true.  Democrats support war as much as Republicans, and are just as eager to, "shoot first, ask questions later." On Christianity:  Jesus was a powerful advocate for the poor, and both parties are anti-poor.  Jesus told us to help provide for the poor, elderly and disabled, and Democrats (since Clinton) have specifically targeted this chunk of the population. Jesus specifically spoke against focusing on accumulating wealth, and both parties today exist for that purpose.

          •  I don't think you can leave out racism. n/t (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Phoenix Woman

            America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

            by Back In Blue on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:28:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I don't understand either (6+ / 0-)

          Even if I invented the next Candy Crush and became really rich, I still wouldn't vote R.

          I don't see anything that would in the long or short term that would benefit me.  

          Less taxes for me?  Yeah but then who will buy more lives on my game when more people are unemployed?

          I think R voters must be very, very very short sighted.

          •  They've been scared to death (5+ / 0-)

            for so long, they have lost the ability to be anything but short-sighted in this manner. When everyone you pay attention to has been telling you for years that if you even listen to someone else that you are either a) going to go to hell; b) going to lose your job; c) going to lose your house; or d) lose your life--and in most cases, e) all of the above--it would require an extraordinary person to overcome all that to pull that "D" lever.

            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

            by bryduck on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 11:36:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  At least where I've lived in the South... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          northerntier, Phoenix Woman

          The answer has been abortion. Period. The marriage of the antiabortion movement with the Evangelical Church and the Republicans means that people who are 100% on board with us on other issues will never vote for a Democratic candidate.

          No, you can't fix stupid. You OUTNUMBER stupid. -Wildthumb, 1/10/2013

          by newinfluence on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:09:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then we have to change (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Odysseus, kfunk937

            the way we talk about choice.

            We need to talk about child abuse and neglect and the sad situation of children born unwanted, or to people who really can't care for them.  

            We need more stories about how adoption isn't always a panacea, and more clear drawing of lines that show connections between early parenthood and lifelong poverty, family violence, addictive behaviors, and crime.  

            We need to put out there some suggestions for getting the (er) job creators to start doing their thing in this country, and giving the people who make them rich some tangible gratitude in the form of good wages and decent working conditions. . .so people who choose to have kids can care for them properly.

            Because a lot of women who oppose abortion can still relate to the lousiness of the current set of choices.

            •  Should Already be Happening (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Foothills of Oblivion

              What I don't understand is why the Dems aren't ALREADY hitting on this stuff with a huge verbal barrage. The GOP gives us tons of ammunition, but our leaders fail to use it. Dems stick to the high ground against what could legally be defined as libel or slander against them, both personally and as a political party. When will they take the gloves off?  I've been waiting for the Prez to do it since the get-go. I thought, surely now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election, he'd call "BS" BS instead of "organic fertilizer."  Sometimes I think he's too damned Hawaiian----this is the most polite state imaginable. I don't think that plays well in DC.  Okay, some of you will say he can't go against the rich but, why not?  He literally has nothing to lose.  I don't see him as a future lobbyist, but maybe I'm being naive.  Comments welcome.

            •  When you believe life begins at conception (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Foothills of Oblivion

              there isn't much room for any other choice.  The religious argument for life literally means that a soul is created at the moment of conception.  Tie that in with the belief that god has a plan for everyone and there's nothing more to discuss.  

              That said, I do agree with your approach and think that it would be very effective to shore up people on the fence or those who put themselves in the "don't know" column.

              America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

              by Back In Blue on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:37:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Anyone who votes republican (0+ / 0-)

          who is not old, white, rich, and old, is a fool who is voting against their own interest.
          Total fools.

        •  The same way that the wealthy (0+ / 0-)

          have managed to turn working people against each other for millennia.  By making a scapegoat of another group.  That's why it's called the Southern Strategy.

          Of course African Americans aren't the only group they scapegoat.  Sarah Palin famously scapegoated urban Americans as not part of 'real' America, for instance.  Then there's the religious, or rather religious conservatives vs. everyone else.  Real 'Mericans vs. immigrants.  Etc.  But not the poor and working class against the wealthy.  Heavens no.  Because according to the Republicans, everyone works for a wealthy person, the "Job Creators", like Wall Street financiers.  Which isn't remotely true.

        •  I hear ya ! (0+ / 0-)

           How can so many people consistently vote against their own best interests ? I'm always asking the Republicans I meet exactly what it is they don't like about Obama. There is NEVER one specific answer. It's always some one, single issue that resonates with them. Blackness is a given, although they never mention it, it's pretty easy to figure out, given the rest of the personality. Often it's the latest Fox News talking point, Benghazi, the economy, the trade policies, the immigration issues, and on and on. The funny part is they never seem to know very much about the specific issue, just that Obama is a jerk and he screwed everything up. I think we can sum it up by saying "low intel voters" and pretty much cover all the bases.

      •  Problem is (0+ / 0-)

        The Transylvania tea bags want to take welfare and food stamps away form all recipients.

        the fools that keep voting for the right wing vultures just have not got their teeth kicked in yet.  When that finally happens, they may wake up.

    •  Not morality (43+ / 0-)

      Rather, culture and identity, of which morality is but one component. There's also race, gender, beliefs, ideology, etc.

      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

      by kovie on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 08:38:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You & I & Orwell agree. (38+ / 0-)
        The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions—racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war—which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms, and which they have usually destroyed so completely in themselves as to have lost all power of action…nationalism, religious bigotry and feudal loyalty are far more powerful forces than…sanity.

        —George Orwell, “Wells, Hitler and the World State” (1941)

        http://orwell.ru/...

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 04:57:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wow (10+ / 0-)

          Great quote. Orwell had this all nailed shut years ago.

          "Political ends as sad remains will die." - YES 'And You and I' ; -8.88, -9.54

          by US Blues on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 06:13:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Except the "destroyed so completely in (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dirtandiron, nota bene

            themselves" part.

            Destroyed? I like to think; moved beyond.


            "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis Brandies

            by Pescadero Bill on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:56:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  whatever word you prefer, you prove his point (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              HeyMikey, bartcopfan
              Except the "destroyed so completely in themselves" part.

              Destroyed? I like to think; moved beyond.

              To the dismay of libertarians and socialists alike, most people are not Homo Economicus.  They're Hegelians rather than Marxists, who hold that production and consumption are derived from identity and morality, and the way to shape the economy is to first shape the soul.  The values, actions, and aspirations (and possessions) that started as mere byproducts of one's socioeconomic status - expected of one by one's peers but otherwise irrelevant - first became symbols of that status and then became the goal in their own right.

              Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

              by Visceral on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 10:53:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Socialists believe in Hom. Econ.? Expand, pls. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bartcopfan
                •  socialism was all about production and consumption (6+ / 0-)

                  In trying to explain why the working class had not made a revolution against the owners and exploiters at any point within the previous 3000 years - why even the American and French revolutions were fundamentally "bourgeois" revolutions and were satisfied with liberalism and capitalism - and why workers of the world seemed more interested in rallying to tribal totems and competing with fellow workers than in uniting to overthrow the owners and their states, Karl Marx developed the idea of "false consciousness".

                  Very long story short, people [are taught to] attach a number of labels to themselves: race, sex and gender, religion, ethnicity (language, culture, etc.), citizenship, and so on, and determine friend and foe based on how many of these labels another person shares with them.  But in the final analysis, these labels are all quite irrelevant; what really determines your place in the world and the trajectory of your life is a simple dichotomy: worker or owner.

                  In Marx's mind, an owner in one society differs from an owner in another society only in superficial matters of language, religion, dress, food, etc.; their actual interests are ultimately the same - maintain ownership at all costs, expand ownership wherever possible, and extract the maximum surplus from what is owned.  Likewise a worker in one society differs from a worker in another society only in superficial matters of language, religion, dress, food, etc.; their actual interests are ultimately the same - to reap what they sow rather than surrendering it to another out of necessity or fear.

                  In order for the socialist revolution to take place, workers must shed false consciousness in order to truly see themselves as workers, defined and united by a condition of exploitation.  But as Lenin started where Marx left off (The Communist Manifesto only ends with a call to revolution) and concluded that since the workers will not and probably cannot shed false consciousness on their own power, it needs to be done for them … much as the revolution itself needs to be made for the workers rather than by them.  All communist states thus made a major effort not simply to reorganize the means of production, but to systematically dismantle the old identities and value systems (centered on church, state, family, tribe, etc.) and replace them with a new identity and value system built squarely on worker-hood.

                  In practice, one's existence under communist rule became defined by production, one's value became determined by productivity, and everything from human rights to the environment to were ruthlessly and (according to the propaganda) proudly subordinated or outright sacrificed to production.  After all, Marx's vision depended on leveraging the full power of industry in order to eliminate scarcity.

                  Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

                  by Visceral on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 12:32:43 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You're defining it too narrowly. (0+ / 0-)

                    I think of Orwell--he always considered himself a socialist, but was a fierce critic of the Soviet Union. For Orwell the most important thing was whether a political-economic system gave ordinary people a fair shake. He considered that essentially impossible for unfettered capitalism, and possible only through democratic socialism. But he recognized that any system, no matter how good in theory, could be corrupted by evil people in practice.

                    Though I've been a fan of Orwell since high school in the 1970s, I somehow put off reading The Road to Wigan Pier till a few months ago. Wonderful book. Prominent example of what I'm talking about.

                    It's available on Amazon for 6 bucks. Well worth it.

                    "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

                    by HeyMikey on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 12:03:06 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  I think that's a thinly veiled reference to (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              HeyMikey

              the appeasement policy; Orwell wrote several stridently worded things along those lines, which maybe don't necessarily translate all that well from a year like 1941 to a year like 2014. It's a very different world now.

              (FWIW, I've always thought Orwell was writing about himself when he talked about "a majority of one." It's difficult for any political side to actually claim hin as one of theirs, since he harshly critiqued basically all of them at one point or another, and yet his actions and his words were so thoroughly concerned with political matters.)

              You WANT me on that server! You NEED me on that server!

              by nota bene on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 04:09:36 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Orwell & MLK. (0+ / 0-)
                Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

                --MLK, Letter from a Birmingham Jail

                I don't know if King read much Orwell, though I suspect he did. But Orwell's bottom line seems to be pretty much like King's. Orwell saw that some political-economic systems are inherently unjust, and even political-economic systems that are potentially just can be perverted into injustice.

                The problem of wielding power without abusing it is eternally present in ALL governmental systems.

                For Orwell the judgment of a government was not based on its theoretical foundations, but on whether it in practice treated ordinary people decently.

                "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

                by HeyMikey on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 05:22:03 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Orwell's quote (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HeyMikey

          was so good I had to steal it for my sig.

          "Nationalism, religious bigotry and feudal loyalty are far more powerful forces than…sanity." —George Orwell, “Wells, Hitler and the World State” (1941)

          by Blood on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 04:49:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  More here. (0+ / 0-)

            http://en.wikiquote.org/...

            I've been an Orwell fan since high school in the 1970s, but somehow avoided reading The Road to Wigan Pier until recently. I highly recommend it; it's amazing how little has changed since the 1930s.

            "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

            by HeyMikey on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 05:24:22 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah (18+ / 0-)

        It's bigotry masquerading as morality, at best.  They use words like morality and values to describe their positions, but they're based exclusively on identity politics and repression, not any real sense of right and wrong.

        •  Bigotry, intolerance, rigidity, authoritarianism (17+ / 0-)

          a sense of absolute cultural and racial superiority as to not be questionable, etc. We're dealing with people who are likely genetically predisposed to be intolerant and uncompromising (there's lots of data to back this up so I'm not just speculating), growing up, living and working in a relatively isolated and sheltered social, cultural and racial environment in which their values and beliefs are reinforced and the norm and rarely if ever challenged from within, lashing out furiously and desperately at a broader society that only began to seriously challenge and oppose their values and beliefs 50-60 or so years ago, nowhere near read to admit defeat and lay down their arms, or understand that they're going to have to, in the end, because that's how things work (i.e. evolution--a concept most of them reject of course--takes place on the social and cultural level as well, however non-linearly and complexly).

          Dems have clearly sucked at understanding and managing this. Instead of their decades-long losing strategy of trying to appeal to such people by pretending to be "jes folks", which is transparently phony (even Obama does this), they just need to be themselves, or, rather, true to traditional liberal and progressive Dem values and policies, and do so proudly, openly and defiantly, the way they used to. They may not win most of these people over, but they'll win over some, and let the rest know that it's not going to be a cake walk for them. Over time, that will wear many of them down and lead them to give up and withdraw into the shelter of their tiny regressive lives, where they'll eventually die and their kids will finally break free of their cultural shackles.

          I'm talking several generations here. Change like this never happens over a few election cycles. It's a waste of effort to even try.

          "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

          by kovie on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 06:40:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes & no. Aristotle & Obama. Hope! (5+ / 0-)

            I think we're talking about fundamental components of human nature. The people who are guided primarily by logic and not primarily by emotion have always been exceptional, not the rule, and I suspect always will be.

            Though it seems clear autism & Asperger's are becoming more prevalent--not just diagnosed more, but actually existing more.

            Aristotle's three elements of persuasion were pathos (emotion), ethos (credibility of the speaker/writer), and logos (reason). Pathos was the strongest; logos was the weakest.

            Obama's 2008 campaign was brilliant because it hit all three elements. The Dems 2009-14 have stumbled because they've been all logos and no pathos. (And the Dems never had any ethos to start with.) E.g., we argue about how much Obamacare increases or decreases the deficit, and not about how it makes people able to get medical treatment for their sick kids, and avoid losing their homes in medical bankruptcies.

            Notice how most of the GOP opposition to Obamacare is individual stories of people losing their insurance, and small business jacking up premiums for their just-like-us ordinary--folks workers. Pathos. Now, fire up the old logos and you find out those stories are full of holes. But pathos trumps logos every time.

            The Dems need to remember human nature in governing, not just in campaigns. We promised healthcare reform in 2008, and we should have delivered before the 2010 elections. People react to immediate stimuli, not to the prospect of future stimuli.

            Speaking of stimuli, the 2009 stimulus package stopped the jobs bleeding, but didn't result in actual improvement. Again--logos says we'd have lost a lot more jobs without the stimulus package. But pathos doesn't see mere arresting of deterioration as good enough; pathos sees that things still suck, and refuses to go to the polls in November 2010 to vote for more of the same. And that's why the stimulus should have been bigger.

            Human nature is utterly predictable. Hasn't changed since Aristotle. Hasn't changed since nomadic goatherds starting telling the Genesis tales around their campfires. It's about time the Dems caught on.

            "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

            by HeyMikey on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 12:14:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think you're wrong (7+ / 0-)

              about Dems having stumbled from 2009-14 because they've been all logos and no pathos. I think they've been doing this since the early 70's, when the New Deal coalition fell apart due to a split between white working class and rural Dems on the one hand and urban liberal and black Dems over LBJ's Great Society reforms, opposition to the Vietnam war and the '68 convention fiasco.

              The latter took over the party while the former either left the party outright to become Repubs or slowly faded away. And the latter, wanting to not come across as too extreme or liberal lest they lose even more support, began the march towards the center and toning down of their message, to the point where it mostly appealed to urban white professional liberals and working class blacks (and, with Carter at least, white evangelicals, although that was short-lived). The epitome of this trend was Mondale and Dukakis, but also Gore and Kerry, the very image of the mild-mannered passionless technocratic liberal Democrat stereotype that the GOP has so effectively mocked.

              Obama, like Clinton before him, may have successfully broken from this mold, but once elected they governed like technocratic centrists, perhaps keeping the trains running on time and paying our bills, but in a way that inspired little passion or confidence or involved much risk-taking and which opened the door to yet more GOP criticism and mockery, however dishonest.

              Until Dems have skilled and talented leaders who not only sound like fighters, but actually ARE fighters, this will continue to be the case. Of course, Wall St. and other entrenched interests don't want that to change as they like the way things are right now. It's why they tried to destroy Clinton when he initially actually tried to be more liberal. It's why they mocked Gore and then Dean and Kerry when they tried to talk liberal. Why they didn't do it with Obama, at least when he ran in ''08, I don't know, although I suspect that he cut a deal with them before he first announced that no matter how progressive he sounded while campaigning, he'd continue the Clinton neoliberal policy agenda.

              Hillary will not be a meaningful deviation from this. She cut her deals years ago and is now just waiting for her turn to come.

              "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

              by kovie on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 01:46:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  This is your friendly reminder... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              HeyMikey

              Not everyone with autism is Rain Man, not everyone with autism is hyper-logical, there are plenty of people with autism that have emotions and feelings and are not shy about expressing them. Thank you very very much.

              signed,

              an autistic person who does not appreciate tired stereotypes

              When the scribbling devil is got into a man's head, he falls to writing and publishing, which gets him as much fame as money, and as much money as fame. ~ Cervantes

              by scribblingTiresias on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:57:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thank you. (0+ / 0-)

                My daughter has Asperger's, and very definitely has emotions. I did not mean to imply that those on the spectrum lack them, or are not influenced by them.

                Thanks for the reminder.

                "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

                by HeyMikey on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 05:13:19 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Welcome. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  HeyMikey

                  I'm just fairly autistic, but you'd never know it because i'm not the stereotype. I'm a writer, I'm a creative, bubbly, outgoing (and frankly kind of spazzy) person. Pathos affects me way more than logos. And I'm autistic. Soooo. Yeah.

                  When the scribbling devil is got into a man's head, he falls to writing and publishing, which gets him as much fame as money, and as much money as fame. ~ Cervantes

                  by scribblingTiresias on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 09:17:18 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Here lies the biggest difference (34+ / 0-)

      between liberals and conservatives: the things that we think have nothing to do with politics, to them, are politics.

      I'm living in America, and in America you're on your own. America's not a country. It's just a business.

      by CFAmick on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 09:34:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think this is the best comment here. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Whatithink

        I would also add that both sides are pretty much unable to understand why the other is that way.  I imagine it to be how we would be regarded by aliens.

        We all went to heaven in a little rowboat, and there was nothing to fear and nothing to doubt. --Radiohead

        by Tzimisce on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 10:10:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sums it all up perfectly. (0+ / 0-)

        "Nationalism, religious bigotry and feudal loyalty are far more powerful forces than…sanity." —George Orwell, “Wells, Hitler and the World State” (1941)

        by Blood on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 04:54:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  NAFTA got rid of the northern white working (25+ / 0-)

      class voters 30 years later.

      Thanks Bill!

      "If Wall Street paid a tax on every “game” they run, we would get enough revenue to run the government on." ~ Will Rogers

      by Lefty Coaster on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 09:37:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  A fan of NAFTA I am not (16+ / 0-)

        but after reading the above diary, are you ascribing the 1% drop in support from northern whites without college degrees solely to NAFTA? Or, perhaps more interestingly, are you talking about the absence of the wide lead the Republican Party's horrendous policies should have given Democrats in that demographic but somehow has not?

        My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
        --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

        by leftist vegetarian patriot on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 09:54:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  NAFTA is a symptom of a bigger disease (29+ / 0-)

          Party is essentially indifferent to labor 21 or 22 months out of every 24.  In even-numbered falls, Dems rely upon unions to serve as backbone of GOTV efforts.  After election is over, they generally ignore labor once again, although they occasionally kick it in the shins w/ "free trade" agreements like NAFTA and, perhaps, the TPP.

          Remember EFCA?  Remember how it was expected that some version of it would make it to Senate floor* after 2008 elections?   Every Senate Dem voted for it in 2007 when it stood no chance of enactment.  Given the 2008 party-wide sweep, it was assumed that the battle would be fought over whether EFCA died in a Senate filibuster.  Instead, EFCA remained stillborn.  It never even made it to the floor when Dems had 59-60 votes and when president assured AFL-CIO he would keep fighting to pass it.

          This neglect was nothing new.  It happened when labor law reform died in a Senate filibuster in 1978.  Only 2 more Dems needed to vote for cloture then, yet 17 voted against.  It happened when a striker replacement bill died in a filibuster in a Dem-dominated Senate in 1993.

          Obviously, racism has played a critical role here.  The failure to support labor has been critical, however, too.

          *Assumption was that if, EFCA got through Senate, House would pass it and president would sign it .

          Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

          by RFK Lives on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 06:52:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The diary isn't big on actual data (4+ / 0-)

          Nor is the article the diary is based on.

           There is no attempt to break down the data based on time periods (i.e. before-after Reagan, before-after NAFTA, etc).
             There also is no attempt to take into account the depopulation of the northern industrial cities from the 1970's onward.

          None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

          by gjohnsit on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:38:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  A chart would have been very nice, yes (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dirtandiron, Phoenix Woman

            One showing the rise and dips in support. I'm not sure how easy it would have been to come by consistent data sets for such a chart, though. And the larger point of the diary has some validity regardless of any troughs there might have been over the last few decades.

            As for the depopulation of the northern industrial cities, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. A lot of this depopulation was to suburban areas not at all far from the cities losing population. There are all sorts of problems associated with that phenomenon, but what does it have to do with the point of the diary?

            My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
            --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

            by leftist vegetarian patriot on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:56:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  For data compare the map of the election of 1956 (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Loge, Dirtandiron, JerryNA, Phoenix Woman

            with the one in 1964 and 1968,

            In '56 a liberal northerner carries only the south against Ike.  In '64 a southerner loses only the deep south.  In '68 a Democratic southerner bolts the party, and the Democrat loses the deep south.

            To anyone familiar with the history of electoral politics the substance of the diary is not controversial.

            •  Exactly. (0+ / 0-)

              Really, what part of "Democrats only lost one percentage point's worth of non-Southern working class whites since 1964" is so hard to understand?

              If anyone wants to know why Democrats lost even that much, it's because of the non-Southern racists that fled the cities for the exurbs.  There's a reason that Republicans now really hate cities, especially those with more than 500,000 in population:  The bigger the city, the more left-liberal it tends to be.

              Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

              by Phoenix Woman on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:49:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  OK, I've now looked over the intro/abstract (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Odysseus

            of the original article, and I see lots of analysis about the behavior of people in the voting booth, but little about whether or not they went into the voting booth. She's basing a lot of her work on "vote share" which as I understand it is percentage of total votes cast which your party gets. Or your candidate gets.

            My cursory examination of the voter participation data suggests that from 1960-1970 voter participation overall was high; that it began to decline in 1972; that it went high in 1992, but then endured a precipitous decline in 1994 which lasted for about 10 years until around 2004/2006 elections, at which point it started to rise again, and peaked in 2008. Plummeted in 2010, and rose somewhat in 2012, but not back to 2008 levels.

            That's not looking at specific data on working-class whites, which I don't have. I would like to see some analysis of both the overall and the working-class white voter participation before I made any conclusions about the loyalty of working-class whites to the Democratic party.

            We always hear how important GOTV is for the Democrats--it's almost a mantra. So we should look at it when we're doing large-scale analysis.

            I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 04:54:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I remember the 1994 election (5+ / 0-)

          I remember how the labor unions warned beforehand that they wouldn't turn out to vote Democrat if Clinton pushed through NAFTA.
             I then remember how the northern Republicans destroyed the northern Democrats in the 1994 election when the Democratic voters had a poor turnout.

             So don't try to tell me that NAFTA didn't have any effect.

          None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

          by gjohnsit on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:49:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is not an argument (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Phoenix Woman

            because neither I nor anyone else that I have seen here has yet asserted that NAFTA (or any other specific Democratic failure) was not responsible for a drop in Democratic partisanship at any given moment in time.

            The diary is talking about support over the long run.

            My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
            --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

            by leftist vegetarian patriot on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:01:20 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  The drop-off (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dr Swig Mcjigger, Phoenix Woman

            in key electorates did not differ in '94 from those that occurred in previous elections.

            •  I'm not sure (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Johnny Q

              what you mean by "key electorates", but I clearly remember the voting numbers and the number of Democrats voting in '94 had a large drop-off from the previous non-presidential election.

              None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

              by gjohnsit on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 10:22:56 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  94 was about much more than NAFTA (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rabrock, Phoenix Woman

            Taxes and gun control probably hurt more than NAFTA. And WhitewaterFosterTravelGate didn't help either. Plus the economy, while better, hadn't yet really show the vigorous signs of job creation and growth that helped make Clinto so popular leading up to the 96  elections.

            •  Newt's contract for america (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dr Swig Mcjigger, Phoenix Woman

              didn't have much to say on trade deals, and while I'm sure there were some gains in the northeast, i think the pickups were pretty across the board; what comes to mind are losses of long-held seats in the south (Jack Brooks) and also in the suburbs where Nafta was probably seen as a plus.  
               

              Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

              by Loge on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 12:51:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Lots of the 94 loses (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Loge, Phoenix Woman

                Were building for years, maybe even decades. Quite a number of the people who lost in 94 saw were seeing their margins of victory get smaller in the 80s and early 90s.

                •  I just have a hard time seeing (3+ / 0-)

                  the economic force that would make southern working class whites republicans but not in the north.  It's not Nafta.  Companies had already started moving south to take advantage of non-union labor (which Nafta more or less made redundant), though the South wasn't ever terribly receptive to unionization, largely for reasons of race.

                  I think what the "fall" theme ignores is that Southern Democrats from back in the day were fucking terrible on every issue, not just race.  To the extent the Democratic party means anything ideologically (and I'm sure some here would dispute that it does), very little has changed.  Working class white voters, at least men, always voted conservatively., whether for Richard Russell, Sam Nunn, or Saxby Chambliss.  

                  Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                  by Loge on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 01:14:22 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It's all about the bigotry. (0+ / 0-)

                    The Southern Strategy works to an extent in the north's exurbs, just not as effectively as in the south.

                    Really, that's all it is.  And that's why demographics are destiny.  (That, and the elimination of lead from gasoline.)  

                    The bigots will wind up being outnumbered, which is why their rage is so extreme:  This is their last stand.

                    Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

                    by Phoenix Woman on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:55:21 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  No it didn't (21+ / 0-)

        Read the diary.  

        Among non-southern whites without college degrees, it has declined by one percentage point. That’s it. Fourteen elections, 52 years, one percentage point.
        NAFTA didn't help the Dems with the northern white working class voters but it didn't hurt them either.  

        Now it can be argued and it has been by me that the Dems SHOULD be doing better with the northern white working class voters and aren't BECAUSE of the Dems creep to the right on many issues, specifically economic ones.  But to say that NAFTA got rid of them is inaccurate.  

        This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

        by DisNoir36 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 09:54:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think this diary has two basic flaws in its... (31+ / 0-)

          ...premise:

          1.) What happened in 1980, with Reagan ascending to the White House very much affected a shift in some of organized labor's party affiliation(s) (I witnessed this firsthand, working for the Carter Re-election Campaign; the GOPers made serious inroads into organized labor, starting with the Teamsters. We're talking about millions of "northern, blue collar Dems."

          2.) There's no mention in this post--unless I missed it--of increasing economic inequality (since the late 70's/early 80's), to the point where we've now surpassed all records since reliable statistics were first established in 1917 to monitor those metrics.

          Our economy is--and has been--much more about POLITICS than it has been about virtually anything "economic." Essentially, that's why they refer to economics as "the dismal science;" since the study of economics in a vacuum (which is what the "science" is all about) is meaningless, since political decisions/power is what drives the outcome.

          So, referring to this, I would at least partially disagree with it...

          ...just because Democrats moved to the right on economic policy does not mean that was the cause of their decline among the white working class...
          ...and that's due to the old maxim that: "People vote their pocketbooks." (Pretty much without respect to whichever party's in power. Whomever's in power during a substantial economic recovery period--and, perhaps more importantly, whichever party's perceived as being the party that facilitated those periods of economic improvement--wins.)

          Democrats can spin this economy as much as they wish, but it's only the top quintile that's receiving ANY substantial, noticeable benefits from the economic policies of this administration (the ACA and bogus gov't/MSM misdirection on MEANINGLESS U3 Index unemployment rates and GDP measurements which have no bearing on actual quality of life issues on Main Street notwithstanding).

          If Dems try to run this year on what amounts to little more than spin about our grossly dysfunctional economy, what will happen is what Barney Frank stated back in the Summer of 2010: "'Things could be worse,' is NOT a winning campaign slogan."

          I wrote about this quite a bit four years ago, and caught a lot of shit for it here at DKos. But, it IS basic common sense.

          I see the spin machine ramping up and already making the same mistakes now.

          2010? Rinse and repeat in 2014.

          Maybe that's why Markos is already writing--as recently as YESTERDAY--about taking back the House in 2016 instead of this year?

          So, per my comments farther up in this quote, it's ALL about people voting their pocketbooks. (Unless there are US gov't plans to escalate military tension around the globe in coming months.) And, ignoring what happened in the 1980's and framing Democratic talking points about record-breaking income inequality in words other than that, simply to appease GOP'ers--or simply revising history or not even referring to it in posts such as the one in which I'm commenting now--is NOT a winning solution either!

          "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

          by bobswern on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 10:28:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bob 2014 will be a very tough year for Dems (13+ / 0-)

            I for one think the Dems can win the House in 2014 but it's a uphill climb.

            Reagan certainly won many white northern voters in 1980 and 1984.  The GOP brought alot of them over to the GOP side which is why the three elections from 1980 to 1988 were complete wipe outs for the Dems.  

            However, by 1992 these northern white voters were realizing that the GOP did not have their best interests in mind and many voted either Clinton or Ross Perot.  The GOP went from blowing the Dems out to losing a 3 way because of that.

            However NAFTA went into effect on 1/1/94 and those voters abandoned the Dems and elected Gingrich and GOP.

            I think this diary makes a good case that the Dems haven't lost the northern white voters over the last 40+ years but it overlooks the fact that the Dems haven't GAINED more of these voters despite the fact that the GOP has NOTHING to offer them.  The fact is the Dems SHOULD be making HUGE gains with these voters and could have if the Dems embraced more populist and left leaning economic policies. We've seen it.  In 2006 and 2008 the Dems made HUGE gains only to lose them again in 2010 when they didn't do jack shit with their majority.  If the Dems run in 2014 on populist and left leaning economic policies they WILL win the House and if they enact some of those into law they will crush the GOP in 2016 everywhere with the possible exception of the south for the very reasons this diary lays out and even then the GOP may only win the very deep south and some plain states.  

            This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

            by DisNoir36 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 10:40:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  In '90-'92 we were in a recession... (13+ / 0-)

              ...and "the Presidential zig-zag" ruled the day. Why? We're talkin' voters' pocketbooks.

              A link per the recession of the early 1990s.

              The economy trumps pretty much EVERYTHING, politically...'cept for "teh terr'ists."

              (In 1980, dealing with it firsthand, having "America Held Hostage" playing on Koppel for 1-1/2 years actually--IMHO--did trump the economy, contrary to some revised history to the contrary. But, the economy was a HUGE factor in that election, as well. And, also contrary to popular belief, Teddy Kennedy worked his ASS off for Carter after the convention--I handled a few of his appearances for the White House/Carter/Mondale myself--Anderson's third party candidacy also notwithstanding.)

              "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

              by bobswern on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 11:02:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not the economy--PERCEPTIONS of the economy. (9+ / 0-)

                I agree that people's concerns about the economy are primary drivers of election results.

                The problem is that those concerns are often wildly uninformed. Like:

                * Aid to the unemployed and poor, at home and abroad, is a major part of the federal budget.

                * The deficit has grown wildly under Obama, pushing us to the edge of a Greece-style economic collapse.

                * The huge deficit/federal debt is a primary cause of persistent unemployment.

                * The Federal Reserve is about to unleash Zimbabwe-style inflation. (I know, the Zimbabwe problem is the opposite of the Greece problem--don't try to talk facts to these folks.)

                * The New Deal made the Depression worse. (Seriously--a lot of wingnuts are pushing this Big Lie.)

                What underlies all this "reasoning" is the primal urge to Grab More For Me, Leaving Less For Others. And that urge is the real problem. Address people's emotional needs--appeal to their better natures instead of pandering to their worst impulses--and sound economics will follow.

                See my Orwell quote in another comment on this diary.

                "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

                by HeyMikey on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:09:54 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  public perception of the economy is usually (6+ / 0-)

                  a more accurate guage of what's actually happening on the ground than any of the numbers released monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  People know what is happening on the street, regardless of what politicians of either party or bureaucratic numbers crunchers put out there.

                  3% growth in the economy means NOTHING if it all accrues to the top one percent.  If only one in a hundred is moving forward, and the other 99 are either standing in place or slowly retreating, the economy is not improving.  It's getting worse.

                  L'enfer, c'est les autres....Jean-Paul Sartre

                  by Keith930 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:56:06 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  That is true (6+ / 0-)

                  And that's why the Democrats need to come out with an economic populist agenda to counter these perceptions.
                     Instead the neoliberal Democrats have simply abandoned the area to the Republicans.

                  None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

                  by gjohnsit on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:52:52 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  True. The failure of the attempt to rescue the (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                aseth, bobswern

                hostages hurt Carter, but the 1980 election was conducted in an environment of double digit inflation coupled with recession. Voters voted their pocketbooks.

              •  92 We were in a recession (5+ / 0-)

                but there was also alot of disillusion with Bush.  A group of core GOP voters were upset over his tax increases.  White middle class voters were getting squeezed and after 12 years of Reaganomics realized they weren't better off.  

                Clinton swept in and immediately righted the ship but he also pushed through NAFTA and was trying to do the same with healthcare or Hillarycare.  For the life of me I'll never know why Clinton did this and why he didn't try to expand Medicare instead to say 55 as was originally intended.  

                In 1994 between the Dem scandals in DC (which were petty and bullshit compared to the crap the GOP has done) led to the Gingrich Revolution.  The original Tea bagger revolt.  Had Clinton not pushed the DLC approved NAFTA deal and gone hardcore progressiveby expanding Medicare to 55 I doubt the GOP would have made the gains they did in 94 and we would have been spared the Starr Report, blue dresses and so on.

                It's the old adage of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.  The GOP had nothing to offer and the Dems had a clear opportunity to put them away but the Dems embraced right wing economic policies instead and fucked themselves.  There was no reason George Bush should have been in a position to steal Florida and had the Dems embraced progressive economic policies from the beginning he wouldn't have.  Then to compound the problem Clinton triangulated the Dem party out of the White House.  Had Clinton not pushed all the odious right wing crap through in his time in office the Dems would have made bigger gains with the white voters and the GOP wouldn't have won squat.  Just look at the list as incomplete as it is

                NAFTA
                Telco Act of 95
                Repeal of ban on DTC pharmaceuticals advertising
                Welfare reform
                Repeal of Glass-Steagal
                Commodities Futures Modernization Act
                Tax cuts on dividends and cap gains

                There's plenty more but we get the picture.  

                This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

                by DisNoir36 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:06:00 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Diary already explains why Dems didn't do better (0+ / 0-)

              The simple fact is that bigotry is strong in the north, too.  Otherwise the whites wouldn't have fled Detroit and set it up to rot even as many of the suburbs ringing it are so filled with rich car execs that they are among the wealthiest places in America.

              Bigotry, bigotry, bigotry.  To the point where pointing out that a policy is bigoted actually backfires on those doing the pointing-out.

              Let me explain.

              One of the things discovered by the persons working in Minnesota in 2012 against the ballot measure to amend the state constitution to allow voter restriction was that the Republicans loved it when the usual lefty folks protested that the amendment was racist.  They loved, loved, loved it.  Why?  Because the lefties were energizing the GOP's base and also the crypto-racist fence-sitters into backing the amendment.

              But when it was pointed out that the amendment would cost the already cash-starved state and local government tens of millions of dollars, THAT's when the GOP started to get alarmed.   A lot of the crypto-racists decided that they liked having money to fix streets or hire cops more than they liked making it harder for nonwhites to have their votes counted.

              And that's what sunk the amendment.

              Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

              by Phoenix Woman on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:07:13 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  And, for the record, "Mr. Bowers," you're one... (7+ / 0-)

            ...of my all-time favorite bloggers in this community (and I don't think I've ever told you that before)!

            I don't have it on this computer, but the reason for me making that statement is linked on a couple of my posts here, and I can't find it, but it's ALONG THESE LINES (although this isn't the post I'm thinking of right now), in terms of my respect for your understanding (and narrative/definition) of the very meaning of the term (for the precise reason[s] why I'm stating this)!

            "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

            by bobswern on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 10:46:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Neither party is monolithic (12+ / 0-)

            The Republicans are divided between the Corporatists and the Tea Party - and the Democratic party is divided between the Corporatists and the Progressives.  Obama is fundamentally a Corporatist.  It's not enough to vote Democrat - we must fight for and vote for Progressives.  There is a reason people are starting to talk about "the Elizabeth Warren Wing" of the Democratic Party.

            Warren/Grayson 2016! Yes We Can!

            by BenFranklin99 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 12:15:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Elizabeth Warren has eh capacity to be another (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Onomastic, Hillbilly Dem, bobswern, eps62

              Abraham Lincoln, or FDR.

              Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

              by StrayCat on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 03:55:10 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  We thought that about Obama, too... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bobswern, Johnny Q

                Perhaps we are better now at seeing the signs?

                In hindsight, was it obvious Obama would be corporatist?

                I would love to believe in Warren.

                I do believe in the power of money to corrupt.


                The Fail will continue until actual torches and pitchforks are set in motion. - Pangolin@kunstler.com

                by No one gets out alive on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:07:04 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I didn't. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  No one gets out alive

                  I was always a bit disappointed when I heard him speak. He just didn't seem to have enough fire about the wrong track we started taking in 2001. (And anyone who's looked at any of my comments will tell you, I know that track started a lot longer ago than that, but the 2008 electorate probably didn't agree with me.) He spoke a lot about "working together" and "finding solutions" and such, which I thought were woefully naive in light of Republican rhetoric (at least) since 1994.

                  "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                  by bryduck on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 11:44:33 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, it was obvious (0+ / 0-)

                  at least to me.  But the rhetoric was so ridiculously delusional around Obama (my favorite being the claim that his having lived in Indonesia as a child gave him foreign policy experience) that reason could not penetrate.  

              •  She's not running for President (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ahianne

                Please, please, PLEASE stop implying that she is.  Let her do the job that I and others elected her to do without trying to force her or draft her or bully her into doing something she has never once expressed a desire to do.

                This isn't freedom. This is fear - Captain America

                by Ellid on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:10:43 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  no, it's not true that people always (25+ / 0-)

            vote their pocketbooks. If you give them someone lower on the totem pole, there are many people who will gladly accept living in shit so long as they can be sure someone else is living in even deeper shit.

            Racist appeals do work. Giving people scapegoats to despise works. You very, very rarely go wrong pandering to the lowest common denominator--otherwise people wouldn't do it so much. That's the hard fact of life.

            Richard Nixon said, "People respond to hate, not love. They don't teach that in Sunday school, but it's true." And he won two presidential elections that way, so he ought to know.

            The idea that white voters are only Republican because the Democrats have failed to reach them by being sufficiently economically populist just doesn't hold water. The racist and culture war appeals the Republicans have used since Nixon's day are unquestionably effective.

            Many white voters vote on these issues no matter how bad things are economically. Even in the midst of an economic crisis not seen since the Great Depression, after eight years of the most disastrous presidency in living memory, Obama only won 52% of the popular vote! A whopping 46% of the electorate voted for Sarah fucking Palin!

            Did those guys switch en masse over to the Democrats because the economy sucked? No, Obama lost the white vote just like every other Democratic nominee since Humphrey in 1968. Just enough of the white Boomer-and-older demographic grudgingly switched over to Obama to put him over the top. And in 2012, with the economy "recovering", or at least not in imminent crisis, those white Boomer-and-olders went right back to the GOP, leading to a significantly closer election.

            WHITE VOTE IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
            2012: 72% of electorate, Romney 59, Obama 39
            2008: 74% of electorate, McCain 55, Obama 43
            2004: 77% of electorate, Bush 58, Kerry 41
            2000: 81% of electorate, Bush 55, Gore 42
            1996: 83% of electorate, Dole 46, Clinton 44 (Perot 9)
            1992: 87% of electorate, Bush 41, Clinton 39 (Perot 21)
            1988: 85% of electorate, Bush 60, Dukakis 40
            1984: 86% of electorate, Reagan 66, Mondale 34
            1980: 88% of electorate, Reagan 56, Carter 36 (Anderson 8)
            1976: 89% of electorate, Ford 52, Carter 48
            Sometimes people do vote for baser motives. In fact, a lot of the time they do.

            "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

            by limpidglass on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 03:57:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Racism clothed in economics. (10+ / 0-)

              See my other comment, "Not the economy--PERCEPTIONS of the economy."

              A lot of white voters actually believe they're voting based on sound, prudent economics. But their economic views are shaped by racism, when they believe it's the other way around--they think their racial views are shaped by economic observations.

              "You can't reason somebody out of something they weren't reasoned into."

              "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

              by HeyMikey on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:16:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I think you're both right, lol (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TomP, bobswern, eps62

              I know that may sound a little goofy since you're disagreeing, but the thing of it is...its pretty complex with a lot of layers and variations.

              If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution. ~ Emma Goldman

              by Lady Libertine on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 06:18:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Far too large-scale view of the "white vote". (9+ / 0-)

              It's no more monolithic than any other "demographic" - there are wide variances between regions. Consider, for instance, the 2012 white vote by region:

              South: 27%
              Midwest: 42%
              West (coast): 45%
              Northeast: 51%
              Frankly, the South dragged the nationwide "Whites for Obama" total way, way down.

              It's not white racism (disguised as economic self-interest) that's at issue here, it's Southern white racism.

              "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

              by Australian2 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 06:31:46 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well yes (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                k9disc, bobswern, eps62

                But that would disturb the narrative

                Also, it isn't necessarily the southern racist vote as the southern fundamentalist vote.  Since the two are conflated it is very hard to untangle racism and religion but religion plays a massive role here also

              •  Both right and wrong, I think (5+ / 0-)

                I'm not arguing with your numbers or your explanation for the disparity, but white support for Obama of 45% in the western states and 51% in the Northeast was frankly pathetic, considering the quality of the competition. There is more racism in the white South, and it is more open, but it is only by comparison with them that the rest of the country looks even halfway decent. The last few elections should have been Democratic blowouts. We cannot pin it all on the white South. The whole country is sick.

                My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
                --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

                by leftist vegetarian patriot on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:30:38 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  That's the diarist's point (0+ / 0-)
                Frankly, the South dragged the nationwide "Whites for Obama" total way, way down.

                It's not white racism (disguised as economic self-interest) that's at issue here, it's Southern white racism.

                Racism did affect the white vote elsewhere, but not to this extent.

                Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

                by Phoenix Woman on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:10:21 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Let's not overstate our points (4+ / 0-)

              It's true that there is an element of racism involved here. I don't think anyone is going to deny that. The problem is by just chalking it up to racism you've oversimplyfied the issue.

                For example, your chart of white voting. You could put beside it a chart of black voting and show an overwhelming percentage of blacks voting Democrat. Does that mean blacks are all racists? Only if you claim whites are all racist.

              The idea that white voters are only Republican because the Democrats have failed to reach them by being sufficiently economically populist just doesn't hold water.
              No one said only. But it certainly is one element.

              None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

              by gjohnsit on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:59:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Wow, where did you get (0+ / 0-)

              those voter participation numbers? I haven't seen any numbers anywhere near 80% of the electorate or over, not even in the mid-30s to mid-40s or in the 60s.

              I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 04:57:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Agree about Reagan (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP, Ellid, bobswern

            Goldwater planted the seed, but stuck to race for the most part.  Reagan dumped on plenty of fertilizer by adding gender.  The Cadillac driving welfare queen was AA after all.  

            Unions, like Democrats lost the same voters for standing up against oppression as well.  Unions, with a few exceptions, were segregated by race and gender.  When AA men and women apprentices started showing up on the (white) job, that was a bridge too far for many of the white guys.  

            Their wives didn't like the inclusion either,  thinking an integrated workplace would be a threat to their marriages.  They mistakenly thought that segregating occupations might make cheating less likely.  Little did they know.

            Don't look back, something may be gaining on you. - L. "Satchel" Paige

            by arlene on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 04:31:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Reagan won because he was able to shake his (5+ / 0-)

              reputation as a right wing nut by appearing amiable and reasonable during the debate with Carter. Americans were seriously demoralized by the end of the Carter administration. Recession, inflation, a string of foreign policy failures, shortages of gasoline and other fuels...People liked Carter but Reagan offered them a way out from under what was seen as a rolling disaster.
                 Although Reagan played well in the South, I think he would have beaten Carter without a race issue.

              •  Carter brought much on himself (and us) (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                k9disc

                by not investigating and prosecuting the corruption that was the Nixon administration.  Many of the unprosecuted returned to form the Reagan and Bush administrations.  History has begun to repeat itself, and so far, it doesn't look like a farce in the making.

                75534 4-ever or until dk5

                by NearlyNormal on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:46:51 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Indeed Bob (14+ / 0-)

            It's bizarre to write this post and not address (or perhaps debunk) the idea that Reagan brought many wwc voters into the GOP fold.

            It is taken as virtual gospel among progressives that Democrats once had a lock on white working class voters, but that position quickly eroded in the 1990s and later as party leaders pursued cuts to social programs, Wall Street deregulation, and anti-union trade agreements.
            No, what's "taken as gospel," if anything, is that the abandonment of unions and workers generally, and the embrace of corporations by Democrats -- which began not in the 90s but in the early 70s -- resulted in Reagan's victory, powered in part by the Reagan Democrats -- who, by and large, lived not in the South but in the North.

            A lot of Democrats who voted for Carter in 76 voted for Reagan in 80, and a lot (a third I believe) of people who supported Ted Kennedy's liberal populist campaign in the primary ended up voting for Reagan.

            Now, there are various factors for this, race among them. And other cultural issues like national security and abortion. And more mundane issues like the fact that the economy sucked under Carter (partly because of his policies.)

            Overall, it's simplistic, fatalistic, and self-serving to attribute the GOP's increased ability to capture wwc class voters exclusively to race.

            Now, there's no question that white backlash to the positive social changes of the sixties has helped the GOP -- duh -- but the point of economic populism is that it's so powerful it can overshadow prejudice and other factors as voters make decisions.

            I recall one voter in 2008 saying something along the lines of, I think Obama's a terrorist but I'm going to vote for him anyway because he'll do a better job on the economy than John McCain."

            In short, the drift of wwc is attributable to race, other cultural factors along with the pro-corporate drift of the Democratic Party, which began two decades before Bill Clinton came along.

            •  I don't see this diary as a dig at economic (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              david mizner, bobswern, Phoenix Woman

              populism as much as an argument over history.  White voter anxiety in the late 70s had a lot to do with the combination of a stagnant economy and the rising competitiveness of a rising black middle class. The massive amount of demonstrations, anger, and rioting in the NORTH over busing led to white flight and allowed Reagan's message to resonate even more among white working class voters.  Reagan ran on an economic push but he also used the Southern strategy.  A southern strategy that succeeded in the north. His war on drugs and crimes were mostly wars on inner city black people.  He played up the welfare mother to scare working class white voters.  

              Did Democrats have a good answer to that?  Not in all cases.  But it can't be ignored that one reason Bill Clinton even rose to power is because of the failure of economic populism to trump racism in national elections.  Reagan beat Carter and killed Mondale.  Bush beat Dukakis.  Reagan and Bush were corporatist.  The argument can't just be the Dems didn't offer a working class solution.  Because neither did the Republicans.  Indeed the entire reason Wall St. Dems came to power is b/c Progressive Dems couldn't build a coalition that could win national elections.  

              I love the work of my fellow populist on Dkos.  But it starts to sound like the Communist or the Tea Partiers after a while "if they had really tried true populism, everything would have worked out great!"  Well, step back and lets understand why true economic populism never took off.

              •  I didn't take it as a dig (5+ / 0-)

                at economic populism. I said the story is more complicated than race and that he ignored the history between the sixties and the nineties -- esp. the history of the seventies, which you aptly discuss.

                But I don't agree with your analysis.

                The argument can't just be the Dems didn't offer a working class solution.  Because neither did the Republicans.
                But cultural racist populism is a working class "solution." It's an argument that appeals to working class voters. For that matter, so is a low-taxes message. Populism, as you of course agree, is morally neutral. It can be good; it can be bad. My argument is that our populism is bigger and better than theirs.

                As for Clinton, his political genius (and great moral failing) is that he embraced racist, cultural populism (Rickey Ray Rector, Sister Souljah, welfare deform) as well as economic populism, which he mostly abandoned as soon as he was elected. Reagan, for his part, married cultural racist populism to the conservative populist low tax-small gov message.

                So yeah -- call me a true believer -- but liberal economic populism will usually win. The cultural winds blowing in the other direction have to be enormous to prevent it from prevailing.

                Now, as for precisely why, when, and how Dems abandoned it is a long story...

                •  Well my response would be that racism consistently (5+ / 0-)

                  undermines any attempts at economic populism. Many white working class voters see any attempts at populism as a great giveaway to minorities. Bussing and white flight are just one example of that come to mind.  The lack of funding for education, made progressively worse through the 80s and 90s is another.  Another is the flight of white people from unions as they became de-segregated.  

                  The right wing noise machine has effectively portrayed almost all government programs designed to boost people out of poverty as welfare or affirmative action.  I don't think its a coincidence that these two programs came under attack vigorously at the same time.  The whole libertarian rise is built on each man/women should take care of himself, should be responsible for himself.  That is built on - we're tired of taking care of those darkies.  Many white voters felt the gains of the civil rights movements were made on their backs.  After living for 200 years in a race based society, everyone wants to all of the sudden be colorblind.

                  Why would consistently lowering taxes on the wealthiest resonate with working class voters if there isn't the corresponding message of punishing the free loaders - the blacks, immigrants, welfare queens, etc. You can't support lowering your bosses taxes unless you think your neighbor is getting by. What I don't think people anticipated was how good the Republican party would become at scapegoating.  Oh - now women are the problem.  Oh its the gays.  Its UNIONS! No, its the public sector!  Republican individualism and scapegoating has begun over the last 20 years to take a life of its own.  It no longer needs race, although that is its back bone. Everyone who may take a dollar out of your pocket is the enemy.

                  The Republican message of low taxes, states rights and individual responsibility is inexplicably tied to belief that people shouldn't have to take care of those darkies.  Crypto-racism drives their form of populism and undermines ours. How many white Republican voters believe the ACA (not that the ACA is populist) is a giveaway to minorities?  And those same people are going to turn around and support health care for all? That is the crux of our problem.  

                  •  Oh I don't disagree (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    greenbell, burlydee, aliasalias, bobswern
                    racism consistently undermines any attempts at economic populism.
                    I'm saying it's an effective -- indeed the only -- way to fight racist cultural populism (when it's funded by corporate cash) is liberal economic populism. Without racism the U.S. would have a much better chance at a social democracy akin to those that exist in mostly white Scandanavian countries.

                    But I would also argue that such "attempts at economic populism" have been few and far between. If Democrats tried economic populism in a thoroughgoing way and still didn't become dominant, that would be a different story.

                    But they haven't. They drifted away from the New Deal legacy and despite great speeches by Elizabeth Warren still haven't made it back. Now would be especially good time for it American populace is in an antiwar mood; that is, the GOP will be hard press to use war to divide.
                    (Speaking of, another thing Bowers neglected to mention was Vietnam - hugely important when considered the drift of wwc voters.)

                     Here's one good piece on the betrayal by Democrats.

                    The trouble was that—much as the Populists had been folded into the Democratic Party under William Jennings Bryan—liberalism had now been folded into a Democratic Party that, in considering only its short-term institutional needs, was about to disembowel itself. It turned out not to be necessary for the right to actually become Populist. Absorbing the old cant now constantly echoed by an intimidated or captive mass media—that liberals are naive, impractical, “out of the mainstream”—Democratic leaders fell for the idea that the right represented the true will of the people, and acted accordingly.

                    The most incredible expression of this trend was the internalization by Democratic leaders in the 1980s of the Republican charge that the Democrats were the party of “special interests.” Suddenly, the myriad individuals liberalism had helped to liberate—union members, African Americans, gay people, women—were illegitimate political actors, no better (or even worse!) than corporate lobbyists. It was ludicrous, but it worked, in large part because it shifted the balance of power not just to Republicans but also to the whitest, wealthiest, most conservative Democratic elites. Assuming a posture of helplessness before the Republicans’ fraudulent Populism, the Democrats acquiesced to and assisted in bundling up the nation’s industrial base and shipping it overseas—a policy that shut down the working-class escalator to a better life, gutted the unions, and deprived liberals of their main source of political power.

                    The liberal political system had relied in large part on maintaining American cities as self–perpetuating economic engines, where industrial and postindustrial economies existed side by side. People of all kinds could work at unionized blue-collar jobs that paid well enough for them, or their children, to make the leap to the white-collar jobs of the future, right next door. When liberals and conservatives alike rushed to embrace the new ethos of “globalization,” a basic power relationship was reversed. America’s business leaders no longer had any stake in the success of the national project, and they accelerated the shipment of both jobs and capital overseas.

                    •  Democrats supported legalistic equality while (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bobswern

                      they were capitulating on the economic structure needed to support it.  

                      It's unfortunate that the Civil Rights Act wasn't passed in 1945 when a rising economic tide could have lifted all boats.  Instead Democrats went all in on EEO just about the same time they stopped strongly supporting unions.  

                •  Busing issues were MUCH more predominant... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...in the early to mid-70s. By '78 or '79, the story was NOT at the top of the news as it was just a few years earlier. (I state this from a Boston point-of-view, in terms of the political landscape there--where I first started out in my political media work, at the time--as opposed to elsewhere in the country. If this was "the" hot-button issue elsewhere, still, in '78 and '79, I wasn't aware of it. And, yes, I know it HAS raised its ugly head many times since.)

                  "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

                  by bobswern on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:23:09 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The white-flighters moved out of Southie.... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...and anywhere else that busing was happening.

                    Where did they go?  To the exurbs, generally.  Not suburbs, but exurbs.

                    Why? Inner-ring suburbs were themselves no longer lily-white, so the white-flighters decided instead to go for the hourlong commutes from their exurbs rather than live in the cities where they worked.

                    The people that remained in the cities and inner rings were those who were either non-bigoted or didn't let bigotry trump all else.

                    Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

                    by Phoenix Woman on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:19:00 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  In fact, I remember a voter from TX (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Phoenix Woman

              an old white man, on the radio saying of then-Senator Obama, "That N***r is the only one saying anything that makes sense. I'm voting for him." It blew me away that he could call Obama that and give him his vote at the same time, but it was also the moment when I thought, "We've won."

              I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 04:59:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  This diary has several more flaws (7+ / 0-)

            This diary isn't big on actual data, which isn't the fault of the diary because the article it is based on isn't big on providing numbers.

            1) There is no attempt to break down the data based on time periods (i.e. before-after Reagan, before-after NAFTA, etc).

            2)  There also is no attempt to take into account the depopulation of the northern industrial cities from the 1970's onward.

            3) The article appears to concentrate on just presidential election numbers and ignore state and local election results.

              But my big problem with the diary is the implied assumption that the overriding issue is race when all white working class polls say the big issue is economics.
               Maybe the issue still is race, but then you then you have to say that millions of people are lying to the polls.

            None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

            by gjohnsit on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:46:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Phoenix Woman

              both the economic-based and the racism-based arguments have merit, and that it's not much of a stretch to think that as open racism becomes less acceptable, that those concerns will be sublimated into economic issues (cf. "welfare queens" and similar). So it's not exactly lying to the pollsters, I think it's more like speaking in code, or perhaps dialect.

              You WANT me on that server! You NEED me on that server!

              by nota bene on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 04:24:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  4)How do they deal with turnout? (0+ / 0-)

              I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:00:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Then you really don't understand political history (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bryduck, Phoenix Woman, duhban

            Defections among the white working class started in earnest in '68.  Wallace peeled off significant portions of them in '68. Go back and watch the returns in '68 - they are full of discussions about how labor abandoned Humphrey. Nixon did well among the white working class as well.

            Political Scientists regard '68 as the year that the outline of the GOP majority emerged.  Reagan won with the majority that had already become clear earlier.

            •  It was still, very much a north-south issue... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PhilK

              ...in 1968. You can practically (except for a few counties in Ohio, Indiana and southern Pennsylvania) draw the Mason-Dixon Line in THIS MAP, to confirm this statement.

              The discussions regarding Humphrey being abandoned are a non-starter. He was, without question, the most pro-union major party candidate since World War II.

              It was MUCH, much more about the Republican Party's new-found, opportunistic "southern strategy," which was born in the '68 election cycle, where the GOP'ers capitalized on racism, for sure. (The year MLK and Bobby were assassinated.) Most of the entire '68 election--and the entire year's news cycle for that matter--was about racism, whether it was acknowledged or not. During that era, the MSM portrayed African-Americans as "the terrorists" fighting for their basic civil rights.

              By the way, I'm definitely of the opinion that Wallace was, at the very least, taking away more votes from the GOPers than from the Dems in '68. Many concur with this assessment, too. In fact, the GOPers' southern strategy was a blatant attempt to piggyback on this!

              "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

              by bobswern on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:50:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  By the way... (0+ / 0-)

                ...claiming I don't know what I'm talking about, when I majored in 20th Century American Studies (cross-disciplinary major in History, Poli-Sci, Sociology, etc.) at a top U.S. university is just lame (not to mention being highly regarded in the Democratic Party, nationally, before I had even graduated from college).

                "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

                by bobswern on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 03:02:20 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  '68: When Nixon took Southern Strategy national (0+ / 0-)

              Though it had been road-tested before then by Poppy Bush in his Texas congressional races, IIRC.

              Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

              by Phoenix Woman on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:22:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  It's not clear how those two points (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Phoenix Woman

            would aid in understanding the diary's main thesis, that the post-Johnson decline of D party support among white working class voters is extremely prominent in the south and hardly apparent anywhere else.    Point 1 was part of a big nationwide swing away from Carter, and I don't think union support for Reagan lasted past the ATC strike.  Point 2 would be more salient if it could be shown how regional variations in income inequality played out.  I don't know that the fact that income inequality has increased shows how or why the class interests of white voters disaligned along regional lines.  The South has always been anti-union, for instance, and what changed is the party ID to go along with that.

            What might be interesting to disaggregate is gender - the extent to which during this period, voting habits among men and women may have changed.  I think a lot of the "firewall" in the north is attributable to through the roof support among unmarried women, and if you take out southern working class women, the gulf in party affiliation is far too big to ascribe to economic changes, alone.  The parties have taken stronger stands on culture issues, but even if the Democratic party is objectively more conservative on economic issues, it's still the relatively liberal one compared to republicans.  

            The point about the fluctuations in the economy gives us noise, not data re general trends, though of course the better economy the better it is for the incumbent party.  It's why the Republicans keep trying to sabotage it!  And if that doesn't work, they still have their base of Michael Dunn's.

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 01:01:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Women vote D > R, but not overwhelmingly so (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Phoenix Woman

              If we go by the 2012 Presidential Election, with the caveat that exit polling was not complete, not only did white Americans overall vote more for Romney than Obama, but white women did as well:

              Men: +12% R > D
              White Men: +27% R> D

              Women: +11% D > R
              White Women: +14% R > D

              The +11% advantage Democrats have among women voters overall is actually made up of huge advantages among minority women: +93% among African-American women, +53% among Hispanic women, +35% among all other nonwhite women. Single women vote strongly Democratic, based on exit polls from the 2013 Virginia election, but married women vote Republican.

              As for young people aged 18-29, they are more Democratic (60-38 D-R), but among white voters in this age group Romney won them by 7%, 51-44.

              Even outside the South, Obama lost the white vote in every state except Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut and New Hampshire.

              My takeway from these results is that age, marital status and gender (and other factors such as income level and religion) are not independent of race in terms of predicting party preference.

              Bottom line: don't anyone kid themselves, race is still the dominant cleavage in American society and politics.

              •  the breakdown among women (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Phoenix Woman

                was one i suggested, specifically citing single unmarried as key.  for this discussion, i wasn't getting into voting patterns among higher income women or minority.  Agree on the race point; my speculation is that gender is more of a counterweight in the north than it is in the south, among the working class white population.  We lose white male voters in the north, but by not as much, and we gain white women voters in the north by more.  Cross-tabbed for income, you see holds in the north among working class voters, increases in support among higher income earners; and deep losses in the South among white voters are compounded the higher up the income scale you go.  Why don't doctors in Mississippi vote like doctors in newton, mass?

                Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                by Loge on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 01:53:57 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Rust Belt decline predates NAFTA by decades (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Simian, Phoenix Woman

        Working class whites from the north worked in mines, mills, and factories and have been decimated by those jobs going overseas starting in the Seventies.  Thank Yankee culture for them not going hard right the way the Southerners did.

        Outside of coal country, the Southern working class was much more agriculturally oriented.  But logically NAFTA wouldn't have swayed them either, since it's Latin American farmers who've been put out of work by subsidized American crops.

        Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

        by Visceral on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 11:05:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Dems have lost only 1% if white working class (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Phoenix Woman

        Voters outside the south over that last five decades, according to the study cited in this diary.  NAFTA had no effect on that,

    •  Chris did everything but utter her name: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, StrayCat, costello7

      Elizabeth Warren is fighting for the little guy!  And so is Alan Grayson!

      Warren/Grayson 2016! Yes We Can!

      by BenFranklin99 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 12:04:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not sure that Southern whites actually are (8+ / 0-)

      voting against their economic interests. The Dems are a corporate party just like the Republicans. While the Dems offer some benefits on the margin - extended UC, opposition to food stamp cuts - on the ground its hard to see any difference between them on economic policy.
         On NAFTA, TPP, immigration, deficit reduction instead of stimulus, school privatization, chained CPI, and a host of other economic issues the two parties are on the same page.
        The Democratic assumption that working class whites are voting against their own interests because they're hyper-religious and racist bigots is a fundamental misunderstanding based on class bigotry.

      •  Not really the same on economics (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Back In Blue, Phoenix Woman

        True enough that there are corporate-friendly Democrats and relatively few that are willing to enact really progressive economic policies. But the Republican side has gotten much more extreme in the past few election cycles, with the rise of Libertarian-leaning politicans like Ryan. There are highly visible differences between the parties.

        Obama's 2009 stimulus bill passed the House with 11 Democrats voting against it, vs. 177 Republicans against. In the Senate, all Democrats voted for it, joined by 3 Republicans.

        On healthcare, of course, PPACA passed with 0 Republican votes.

        It is a little hard to tell what the Republicans would do if they were actually governing, but it is a pretty safe bet it would involve much more aggressive austerity measures than currently in place (to reduce the deficit) and far deeper cuts to the social safety net.

    •  All voters should... (0+ / 0-)

      ...realize that their moral issues will be played like a fiddle whenever there's a nickel or a vote to be gained.

    •  And the Democrats do the same with (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laconic Lib, costello7

      gays and abortion.    But hey, as long as we keep our mitts off of Wall Street's money and power, they're happy to throw us the same crumbs the GOP throws to their rubes.

      People vote based on party affiliation, against party affiliation, for "the candidate", or like a ping pong ball between the two corporate parties depending on which one they are pissed at less.   The system is broken, and the people are stuck with it.  Some of them get fooled by the parties/candidates all of the time, some some of the time, and others just quit voting.  What's missing from the system is push back.   Everybody plays the game. Vote or don't vote - Wall Street doesn't care.

      I will not vote for Hillary. What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

      by dkmich on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:28:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I give you the prophet Dylan (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aliasalias

      Not one damn thing has changed in 40 years.

      Purity is for primaries; in the general, our worst are better than their best.

      by blue aardvark on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:50:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  oh the Fiat Chrysler automobile salesman! ;p (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blue aardvark, Blood

        I still love Dylan's music, always will but I couldn't resist the joke considering his Superbowl ad for 'an American car', one which is owned by an Italian company (Fiat) and its executive office is in the Netherlands.

        Thanks for the song btw.

        without the ants the rainforest dies

        by aliasalias on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:28:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Great post (0+ / 0-)

      And as long as individuals like Ted Nugent find a forum among a certain demographic, that is what we will have.

    •  Not just Southern but rural in general (0+ / 0-)

      since the "values" that are present in the South are also present in rural America. In the words of Jeff Foxworthy, Rednecks can be found in all 50 states.

    •  As I posted below (0+ / 0-)

      It was not the white middle class vote.
      It was the redneck bigot vote they lost.

    •  Northerners Can Be Bigots, Too (0+ / 0-)

      My neighbor in MI was a UAW member, retired GM employee enjoying all the benefits. She'd worked with and liked a few black women, BUT she was deeply religious. She believed mixing races was wrong and said the Bible agreed with her. I don't know how many times she tried to get me to agree with her and her version on the Bible. I would cite science and say that any two individuals who could mate and have viable offspring were the same species---ergo, since black and white people can have babies they are the same species.  She didn't like that much, and I certainly didn't change her prejudices, but I enjoyed making her uncomfortable.  I hope she didn't pass it on to her children.
      Another interesting part of her personality was that she told a story of being afraid of a German neighbor during WW2 and running past his house as fast as she and her friends could. I'm not even sure he was German-born.  HER last name, before she married, was Adolph.  I loved the irony of that. BTW, she's dead.

    •  When I lived in Mississippi (1971 to 1996) I (0+ / 0-)

      mostly voted Republican because: I was married to a card- carrying member of the John Birch Society, Southern Democrats were to right of Republicans running in Mississippi, and Republicans were more successful in winning elections there.  I fussed at politicians even then, but mostly taking common sense positions like--when helping those who have lost homes to natural disaster we should buy the land their lost home was on for park or pasture and help them build a new home in a less vulnerable location rather than helping them rebuild in the same place.

    •  Look at their history (0+ / 0-)

      These people voted for Thurman, Wallace, Bush and Romney. This proves they are not very smart so what do you expect.

  •  the Democrats lost their racist elements (30+ / 0-)

    During the Civil Rights era.

    The problem now is that racism has climbed out of it's hidey-hole with the advent of opinion-driven hate radio and overtly pro-racist television news. Those public voices have encouraged the privately racist to once again spout their fear-based nonsense to anyone who will listen.

    We can't try and get these votes back, there's no room in the Big Tent for them.

    What the Democrats CAN do though is target women, immigrants and Latinos - who agree with our policy goals AND whose numbers are becoming The Majority in the next 20 years.

    fyi: More women than men have voted in every presidential election SINCE 1964. When women vote, America Wins!


    "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

    by Angie in WA State on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 07:53:41 PM PST

  •  Thanks (26+ / 0-)

    President Johnson is one of my heroes despite Vietnam.  When he died in 1973, I and two friends drove the 78 miles from San Antonio to Austin to pay respects.  There were thousands in line.  One of the two with me was Tom Daniels who is now an aide to a State Representative.  Tom's Dad John Daniels was a former San Antonio City Councilman who had been the County Democratic Party Chairman.  In the line we met Tom's parents and his Dad's bud former County Judge [Execitive] Blair "Bruzzie" Reeves and his wife.  Judge Reeves was elected as a conservadem but governed more like a liberal and his legacy was the large public hospital system he largely created.  He was in a wheelchair and was known for having the only vacation home on the coast with an elevator in it.  Our other friend was Craig Cooley, a Republican then but the good kind that we seldom see anymore.  We had a good time in line taking turn pushing the Judge in his chair while many old friends greeted him.  The closed casket was displayed in the LBJ Library at the University of Texas at Austin.  It was in the 40s, cold for Central Texas.  The feeling of most was, "Oh, what might have been!"  LBJ's legislative achievements created electoral problems for our party but they were worth it and he knew that.  Tommy was wearing a red winter cap with earflaps like he was a Yooper or something.  Craig told him, "Tommy, you can't wear that hat in there to see that body!"  So he held it over his heart, tears in his eyes.  

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

    by Kangaroo on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 08:04:42 PM PST

  •  Comforting, but chronologically impossible. (5+ / 0-)

    Nixon's last competitive election was in 1968, and election in which he didn't carry a single state in the deep south.  The CVA game in the middle of 1964.

    The next competitive election after Nixon, democrats prompt carried all the deep south, and continued to win states in the deep south well into the 90's.

    •  For 40 yrs after '64 the South only voted for Dems (15+ / 0-)

      when there was a Southerner (Carter or Clinton) as the Democratic candidate.  That changed in 2008.

    •  FL, VA, NC, SC, and TN (11+ / 0-)

      But yeah, other than those five states (five out of the eleven states in the old Confederacy), Nixon didn't carry a single state in the deep south.

      A piece of advice.  Try using Google before you make statements like that.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 08:41:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Highly misleading and inaccurate (19+ / 0-)

      in the 12 elections since 1968 in 13 states that make up the south: Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky (I'm including Kentucky and Missouri in)

      The Dems won

      Texas 1x,
      Louisiana 3x
      Alabama 1x
      Mississippi 1x
      Arkansas 3x
      Missouri 3x
      Florida 3x
      Georgia 3x
      Tennessee 3x
      Kentucky 3x
      South Carolina 1x
      North Carolina 2x
      Virginia 2x

      in 1968 Nixon didn't carry several states in the south because uber racists and pro segregationist George Wallace did.  The only states Nixon lost in the south were Texas (which went Dem for the last time ever), Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia which Wallace won.

      In 1972 the Dems carried no southern states.

      In 1976 Carter who was from the south when the south hadn't realigned quite yet carried the whole south except Virginia.

      In 1980 the Dems lost the whole south except for Georgia which was Carter's home state.

      In 1984 and 1988 the Dems lost the whole south.

      In 1992 Clinton/Gore won Louisiana, Missouri, Kentucky, Georgia and their home states of Arkansas and Tennessee.

      In 1996 Clinton/Gore lost Georgia but picked up Florida.

      In 2000 and 2004 the Dems lost the whole south.

      In 2008 and 2012 Obama won Florida twice, Virginia twice and North Carolina in 2008.

      Out of 156 elections in 12 presidential runs in those 13 state the Dems won a grand total of 29 contests for a 19% win ratio.  Of those 29 wins in southern states 6 were the home states of Carter, Clinton and Gore.  Of those 29 wins in southern states Carter ALONE won 13 which means that outside of Carter the Dems won a grand total of 16 elections in southern states.  

      So when you say Nixon didn't win a southern state in 1968 that's a lie.  He did win southern states and the ONLY reason he didn't win them all outside of Texas was because a more racist piece of shit won them instead.  The fact that you omitted the whole role of Wallace is a lie by omission.

      When you say the Dems continued to win southern states well into the 90's that's a lie.  They won a grand total of 21 elections from Nixon to 2000,  That's out of 104 elections during that time.  In the 4 elections since 2000 the Dems have won an even more paltry grand total of 5 elections in southern states, ALL by Obama in 2008 and 2012.  

      When you say the next competitive election after Nixon the Dems won the whole south, well again you failed to mention that the Dem candidate was Carter who was from the south running against an unpopular Ford who was from Michigan.  Lie by omission.  Against Reagan who embraced the southern strategy, Carter only won his home state in 1980 thus completing the transition of the south from a Dem strong hold to a GOP one.  

      I don't know what your motive is but you either don't know how to use google, don't know your history or hope we don't know either and just overlook your lies.  It's pretty obvious to anyone with a rudimentary grasp of US history that the south was lost to the Dems after LBJ.  

      This diary attempts to put to rest the myth that white working class voters OUTSIDE of the south never left the Dem as many have erroneously concluded.  The fact that all the erosion has occurred in the south and everywhere else has only seen a 1% decline is pretty significant proof  of that.  The only quibble I would have with the diarist is that he seems to trying to take some of the blame away from the DLC for why the Dems didn't do as well as they would have liked.  Certainly the DLC didn't have anything to do with the disastrous results on the Dem side from 1980-1992.  However, I would lay the blame squarely at their feet for why the Dems didn't do as well from 1994-2006 and certainly cast the complete blame at their feet for the disastrous pick of Joe Lieberman as VP in 2000.  

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 09:35:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Indeed. Joe Lieberman: WAY worse than Nader. n/t (4+ / 0-)

        The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war. ♥ ♥ ♥ Forget Neo — The One is Minori Urakawa

        by lotlizard on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:00:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  These are all good facts.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Charles Hall

        But I think it's important to note something that isn't in the diary.  The South in the 1960's is NOT the same South as it is today.  Take for example my home state of Georgia.  Looking at historical figures, in 1960 Georgia had 3.9 million people.  In 1970, it had 4.5 million people.  By the year 2000, Georgia had grown to 8.2 million people, and in 2010, to 9.7 million people.  

        But maybe all the growth in Georgia has been largely in non-white populations?  A quick check shows that the white population of Georgia in 1960 was 2.8 million people.  Today, fueled by migration from the north, the white population of Georgia is at around 5.8 million people.  

        It's comforting to think that Democrats have been losing elections in the South due to a moral high mark back in the 1960's.  But it's also possible that elections today are decided by people living today on the basis of issues which resonate today, not on a piece of legislation that was signed half a century ago.  

      •  This isn't helping your case. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nextstep
        In 1972 the Dems carried no southern states.
        The Democrats carried one state + DC in that election.
        In 1984 and 1988 the Dems lost the whole south.
        ...and virtually everything else.  Landslide elections.
        Out of 156 elections in 12 presidential runs in those 13 state the Dems won a grand total of 29 contests for a 19% win ratio.  Of those 29 wins in southern states 6 were the home states of Carter, Clinton and Gore.  Of those 29 wins in southern states Carter ALONE won 13 which means that outside of Carter the Dems won a grand total of 16 elections in southern states.  
        You probably should omit elections that were so one-sided that Republicans carried New York and California.
        So when you say Nixon didn't win a southern state in 1968 that's a lie.  He did win southern states and the ONLY reason he didn't win them all outside of Texas was because a more racist piece of shit won them instead.  The fact that you omitted the whole role of Wallace is a lie by omission.
        If you chose a very broad definition of "southern state" then you're correct. Those states promptly went Democratic in the next presidential election than mattered, 1976.
        I don't know what your motive is but you either don't know how to use google, don't know your history or hope we don't know either and just overlook your lies.  It's pretty obvious to anyone with a rudimentary grasp of US history that the south was lost to the Dems after LBJ.  
        I think you're veering into self-parody here.  The factual record stands pretty strongly against both yourself and the diarist.

        I'm a little unsure why you think Carter and Clinton being exceptions (and from the south) helps you.  Neither ran against Civil Rights, and Clinton liked to refer to himself as the "First Black President."

        The whole Southern Strategy myth is a comforting narrative for Democrats to explain away losing the white working class as sour grapes.

  •  bill moyers (38+ / 0-)
    When he signed the act he was euphoric, but late that very night I found him in a melancholy mood as he lay in bed reading the bulldog edition of the Washington Post with headlines celebrating the day. I asked him what was troubling him. "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come," he said.
    and found the democratic party's soul.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 08:08:32 PM PST

    •  Aargh, 2 mins too late! :) n/t (4+ / 0-)
    •  I thought he said a generation to come (0+ / 0-)

      Either way the title of this diary is wrong and the revisionist history it promotes it wrong.

      The Civil Rights Act did not alienate white working class voters across the geographic United States. Period.

      The main factor alienating working class people was the corporatization of  the Democratic Party.

      How about NAFTA?
      How about talk now of Obama proposing cutting Social Security in his next budget?
      How about productivity rising the last four decades and real wages going flat, at best, while the Democrats sat on their thumbs?
      How about NONE of the banking criminals being prosecuted by the Obama administration?

      Get a clue diarist - and stop with the lame revisionist history.

      •  Lee Atwater begs to differ with you (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laurence Lewis, MJB

        You said:

        The Civil Rights Act did not alienate white working class voters across the geographic United States. Period.
        Then please tell us why the Southern Strategy worked so well at locking up the south and the white-flight exurbs.

        Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

        by Phoenix Woman on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:30:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  wow (0+ / 0-)

        um. it started long before nafta and obama. wow.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 10:50:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sigh (0+ / 0-)

          Yes, it started before NAFTA. It really started to gel when Reagan became President and the Democrats had no clue how to deal with him. Sad.

          Still, the loss of working class voters across the country is not the result of the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act lost the South - all conservative whites in the South - rich and poor.

          The loss of working class voters outside of the South was because of Democrats suckling at the teat of Corporate America.

          •  right (0+ / 0-)

            because the republicans stand up for the working class. or something.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 10:54:58 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No (0+ / 0-)

              because the Republicans had no problem pandering to racist and repugnant cultural strains in the conservative white culture in the south.

              The Democrats had nothing to counter that with because they had largely abandoned the working class. Not just in the south but across the country.

              It's important not to lump in the loss of conservative whites in the south with the loss of the "Reagan Democrats" in the rest of the country.

              There were two different things going on and if you don't understand that you won't be able fix things.

  •  LBJ said to his aide, Bill Moyers... (27+ / 0-)

    after signing in that legislation:

    I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.
    He knew it then.

    It's really sad that our country punishes political parties and their leaders when the do the right thing, and rewards them for the wrong thing.

    •  For fifty years. But it's turning (8+ / 0-)

      purple. A long way to go before it turns blue, but purple is enough. We advance with a purple south. The days of a red south are nearing an end.

      •  The days of a conservative America (13+ / 0-)

        are coming to an end.  40 +/- years of this bullshit is coming to a slow end.  The old racists are all dying off and being replaced by young minority, multi-cultural  and more tolerant young voters.  Even if the deep south doesn't turn purple, it won't matter because the rest of the country is turning bluer.  They can either remain the rump or follow but they will be a very small minority in a matter of time.

        This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

        by DisNoir36 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 10:00:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Now we get to vote for the same failed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Johnny Q

          conservative policies served up by Democrats, heh... not funny, I know...

          Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

          by k9disc on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:14:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah you're not a fan of history it seems (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Phoenix Woman

            History is replete with patterns and cycles.  The conservative cycle has reached an end and much like a rubberband the political spectrum is being stretched to such extremes on the right that it's going to snap back very soon.  When it does we'll have progressive policies until the left overreaches and the rubber band snaps back again.  So on and so forth.    

            This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

            by DisNoir36 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:17:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I actually am a fan of history. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bryduck, Johnny Q

              I don't know if that is going to happen. I sincerely hope so, in a somewhat orderly fashion, no less. That would be fantastic.

              I'm aware of the cyclical nature of history, but there has to be some elasticity in that rubber band or it just stays all stretched out or falls apart.

              With a Establishment holding so many of the cards: military, omniscience, production, food, energy... on a finite planet with finite resources & too many people.

              I just don't see any precursor in history like it. Do you?

              Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

              by k9disc on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 10:08:14 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  But the question is, which do we lose (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bryduck

          . . . the conservatism or the Americanness?

          I have a sinking feeling that conservatism is going to bury America rather than vice versa.

          "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

          by Geenius at Wrok on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 11:47:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I'm confused. Why isn't your title (11+ / 0-)

    "Actual photo of the moment Democrats lost the Southern white vote?"

    Because that's what the rest of the diary suggests.  it didn't really have to do with white working class at all, but rather being a white southerner.  Or am I missing something??

    •  Because this is a reaction to a popular view (27+ / 0-)

      As I mentioned in the second paragraph, there is a fairly common viewpoint among progressives that there has been a general Democratic decline among white working class voters and that it coincided with the party's right-wing turn on economic policy. It's the "What's the Matter with Kansas?" argument.

      This diary is a counter to that view, arguing instead that that Democratic decline among working class whites was was confined to the south and was a direct reaction to the civil rights movement.

      •  That's what I thought your point was (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YucatanMan

        I am still baffled by your title though.  I guess it was a sort of joke, given what follows?

        Anyhow, maybe I am particularly dense tonight.  Interesting take on this conundrum.  Thanks.

      •  I never thought that myself (4+ / 0-)

        Strictly racism, north or south.

        I hold with Atwater: can't say 'nigger' so you say 'big government' or 'welfare.'

        The GOP has perfected it and let's face it: racism in this country is an appallingly easy sell.

      •  asdf (6+ / 0-)
        This diary is a counter to that view, arguing instead that that Democratic decline among working class whites was was confined to the south and was a direct reaction to the civil rights movement.
        Except where they vote, if that, but don't turn out to canvass, phone, etc. because we've run anti-labor candidates in their district or state and generally shown nothing but disdain for them.

        I'm surprised they cut us as much slack as they do. I mean, they were seriously attacked and badmouthed for not putting up big bux to fund our scab convention.

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

        by enhydra lutris on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 08:56:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So if the problem is that we're anti-labor, how in (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Phoenix Woman

          the hell did we lose the VW union election?  Or are you trying to tell me that only the employees sought to be unionized were anti-labor but everyone else in that district was pro-labor?

          Come on, be serious.

          "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

          by auron renouille on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 09:58:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No point in being serious if you can't (0+ / 0-)

            understand anything I post, now, is there? Perhaps you meant to respond to somebody else? Try responding to what I said, and, if your response is intelligible, I might consider what you say.

            bye.

            That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

            by enhydra lutris on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 12:21:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  You have left out contrary information (9+ / 0-)

        From Page #7 of your link

         In other words: the white working class does not vote based on cultural preferences, but rather makes its political decisions based on economic policy....
           In contrast, economic policy issues have grown in importance for the white working class. In short: James Carville was right. It’s “the economy, stupid.”
         Leaving stuff like that out of your diary makes it appear that whites that abandoned the Democratic Party are just a bunch of racists because the only thing that mattered was civil rights. End of story.
           It's not true.

          I have a problem with that.
           

        None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

        by gjohnsit on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 09:30:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  A little additional information (7+ / 0-)

          From Page #11

          n contrast, however, the white working class is substantially more liberal on issues of economic policy. White working class respondents gave more liberal responses to questions about the appropriate
          balance between government services and government spending, and to questions about the role of government in seeing that people have jobs and a good standard of living. In general, when asked to place themselves on a liberal to conservative ideological scale, self identified white working class voters are marginally more liberally identified than their peers.
           Given this information, don't you think the neoliberal shift of the Democrats might turn off white working class voters?

          None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

          by gjohnsit on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 09:35:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Not remotely (12+ / 0-)

          This diary argues that, contrary to popular belief, non-southern working class whites have not punished Democrats for their rightward turn on economic policy. Maybe they should have done, but they haven't.

          Only a segment of working class whites--southern working class whites, and even then only some southern working class whites--punished Democrats for something. But that segment punished them for supporting civil rights, not NAFTA.

          The data you accuse me of leaving out actually supports my argument even further. Within non-southern working class whites--defined in that case as whites without college degrees (one of the three definitions the paper uses)--lower income non-southern working class whites have become more Democratic, while higher-income non-southern working class whites have become more Republican. In other words, lower income whites have become even more Democratic, not less, in recent decades.

          For a decade now, my life's work has been based on pushing Democrats to the left. But as I am engaged in that work, I am not going to pretend that some things which did not happen actually happened.

          Whether we like it or not, non-southern working class whites did not leave the Democratic Party when the Democratic Party moved to the right on economic policy. That did not happen, even if it should have, and even if we wanted it to.

           

          •  You made a good case, but... (0+ / 0-)

            I hear what you are saying, and I even rec'd this response.
            However, there is still a basic contradiction here:

             On one side you say that the issue is race. On the other side white working class people say the issue is economics.

              Both sides can't be correct.

            None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

            by gjohnsit on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:34:16 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Both sides can be correct (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Berkeley Fred

              Per the diary, for white working class people in the south, the issue is race.  They may claim it's "economics" - but they vote for policies that  screw them over. I think it's a little more complicated. The issue is really tribe. Historically, the modern southern political tribe arose because of the Southern Strategy and its racist appeal. By this time, it's grown more bred in the bone, and involves (as well as racial attitudes that are usually less consciously central) a common religious outlook, a sense of regional pride, resentment of the college-educated (Wallace's "pointy headed intellectuals".)

              For white working class people in the north, the issue is economics - and, per the diary, the Democratic tilt to the economic right hasn't hurt with them.

              It's a valuable data point. It would be nice to see a timeline rather than a point for point comparison. I suspect there really were a lot of "Reagan Democrats" in the north, and that over time we've won them back.  I also suspect that we'd have expanded our share of the northern white vote considerably on economic grounds, simply because the Republicans have become so much more nakedly the spear carriers for the one percent, if national Democrats hadn't trooped rightward on economics over the same period.

          •  What your diary misses is the potential pick up (4+ / 0-)

            if the Democrats performed or even supported Unions & kitchen table economics.

            They didn't. Pretty much since McGovern, and surely since Carter, they've been aping Republicans.

            It's really hard to grab poor working class people who you offended when you also don't offer them anything other than empty promises and half measures.

            There's 30+ years, straight, of half measures and screwing and/or abandoning labor and the poor. Kind of hard to recover there, right?

            Economically, Democrats have totally screwed the pooch in terms of long term strategy. They have abandoned the principle of engaged proactive government and have given away too much ideological coherence in support of property.

            We already had a Property Party.

            Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

            by k9disc on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:37:09 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Makes sense if you believe all whites are racist (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gjohnsit, MPociask, Johnny Q

        Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

        by The Dead Man on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 09:39:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The diary blames the victim (4+ / 0-)

        to the extent it downplays Nixon's Southern Strategy, and its continuation by scumbags from Lee Atwater to the Turdblossom itself. Racism and economic paranoia were intentionally and skillfully deployed by the GOP, and your facts demonstrate that. I think the loss of those southern whites should be laid at the feet of democrats for not countering the Southern Strategy actively and explicitly, not because LBJ stood up to oppression. Sure that is a comforting myth to cling to in the face of electoral losses, but it does not seem precise or useful.

        •  Here's the problem with "countering" (0+ / 0-)

          There are many, many more racists out there than most people think.

          Attacking something as racist is often counterproductive precisely for this reason.

          As I mentioned upthread, the persons fighting the voter suppression amendment in Minnesota were getting nowhere when their arguments against it were mostly variants on "it's racist".   It was only when it was pointed out how much it would cost local and state governments -- to the point where many small jurisdictions would have to forego fixing roads or having cops in order to pay for it -- that the majority of people started to oppose it.

          Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

          by Phoenix Woman on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:37:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  can't believe this needs to be said on here tbh (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TomP

        Like....really?

        "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

        by TheHalfrican on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 03:11:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Because the theme of losing (16+ / 0-)

      the white working class vote is false outside the south.  We lost the racist working class vote and it skewers the numbers.  No doubt Chris can explain it better, but that is how I see it.  It is a myth that NAFTA and Clinton lost the white working class vote.  Does not mark NAFTA good, but believing myths helps no one.

      Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

      by TomP on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 08:27:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The white working class vote in the south (9+ / 0-)

        was lost well before Clinton, but the fact is that the Dems could have made big gains with the white working class vote everywhere else and didn't.  They lost 1% of that vote.  I think you and Chris are letting the DLC off easy.  The Dems could have made big gains with the white working class vote outside of the south and didn't because their policies for those voters sucked.  NAFTA was only one example.  The fact is the Dems should be wiping the floor with the GOP with working class voters but don't because many see them as the same shit.  So the GOP wins many on cultural issues because they offer a clear difference on those issues.  If the Dems stopped creeping to the right and embraced the left on economic policies that non south white working class vote would go up for Dems, not remain basically stagnant all these year.  Because frankly, the GOP has NOTHING to offer the working class.

        This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

        by DisNoir36 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 09:41:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  evidence? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TomP, Phoenix Woman

          You perceive the Democrats as creeping to the right on economic issues. Does the white working class perceive the Democrats as creeping to the right on economic issues? I don't see it.

          I don't think it's as easy to pick up more of those votes as you seem to suppose.

          "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

          by HudsonValleyMark on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 03:48:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, perceptions are fundamental (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            k9disc, Phoenix Woman

            The Democrats are already being painted as Socialists bent on sabotaging the American Dream.  I can't imagine how progressive economic populism is going to fly in this environment.

            It would be nice, but there is a whole lot more to be done in terms of preparing ordinary Americans to recognize they are being screwed and the solutions have nothing to do with tea libertarians and cracking down on immigration.

        •  That is possible. Even though too many (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Phoenix Woman

          Deems and Clinton supported NAFTA, we must remember that the majority of Dems in the House voted no.  Republicans supported NAFTA.  Has it hurt them also?  The DLC sucks.  It would suck even if they were electorally successful.  

          Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

          by TomP on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 04:53:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It hasn't hurt them because they are the Property (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP

            Party.

            Your whole focus on 'economic issues' as the place where Democrats failed is missing this point - it's all over on this thread too.

            Democrats are not a Property Party, and they have been, solidly, since 1992 and were gravitating in that direction after being routed in '68. I think they caught their stride in the time of Reagan, and unfortunately followed him right into the Abyss. We're hanging out near rock bottom right now.

            Only for the Democrats, it was an ideological and political abyss as well, as becoming a Property strains the old ideological moorings - making it hard to believe your political schtick.

            That ideological strain just isn't there for Republicans on Cheap Labor Economics. It's what they do,"Government sucks! Elect me and I'll prove it!"  

            The main reason we're at the mercy of these failed conservative economic policies is because Democrats drank the Voodoo flavored Kool-Aid provided ideological cover and legitimacy to their policy and values while weakening ours.

            Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

            by k9disc on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:52:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Republicans don't want it to work. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TomP

              They don't care if it "works" or not. All they care about is that their sponsors get more tax breaks and more freedom to profit. That's it.

              If things get worse, all the better, blame it on government and call for more tax cuts. It's really simple.

              None of their economic policy is set up to serve people, unless they're being served with a fine Chianti on some fat cat's balance sheet.

              That's what makes the Democrat's support of failed conservative policies so friggin' maddening. They are actively participating in the destruction of government so they can screw people economically to woo their vote.

              It's just not at all smart politics. One might think the fix is in.

              If you really take a look at DLC, corporate sponsorship, corporate friendly legislation, and the thrust of Republican politics, it's not hard to see that Property is over represented.

              Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

              by k9disc on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:16:33 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Nope (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Be Skeptical, Phoenix Woman

          unfortunately when you offer things that might help a lot of these voters don't think it's going to help them. They only think it's going to help "those other people" when realistically it could be helping them.

          What is needed is a candidate who can EXPLAIN how these policies are going to help them not someone who just offers up these policies.

          Hillary seemed to be very good at doing this back in 2008.

          It's the policy stupid

          by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:09:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  actually... (8+ / 0-)

    LBJ said the Ds would lose that demographic for 50 years

    those 50 years are up this summer

    Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
    DEMAND CREATES JOBS!!!
    Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 08:26:27 PM PST

  •  Excellent post, Chris. One of your (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener, TXdem, UnionMade, Tzimisce

    best.

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 08:28:38 PM PST

  •  In the final analysis we've won the past (7+ / 0-)

    6 out of 7 presidential races. (I'm counting 2000, because regardless of what the SCOTUS decided, we won the popular vote.)

    I'm willing to let loose a few old white Southerners. They weren't ever on the good team anyway.

    •  even if you count 2000 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MKSinSA, auron renouille

      the truth is we only won in the 90s because of Ross Perot. Without him Clinton doesn't win and I will remind you that's with two white southerners running for the democrats

      Der Weg ist das Ziel

      by duhban on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 08:41:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Clinton won in '92 because of Perot, but in 1996 (6+ / 0-)

        he won it with or without Ross.

      •  Perot drew equally from Bill and Poppy (6+ / 0-)

        Bush had about a 37 percent approval and that's what he got.

      •  Quit (5+ / 0-)

        repeating this lie. It comes from Rush Limbaugh and the GOP.

        The exit polls showed that Clinton would have won even without Ross Perot. Ross Perot hurt both Clinton and Bush equally.

        It's the policy stupid

        by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:12:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Correct. All scholarly attempts to (7+ / 0-)

          answer this question have concluded that Clinton still would have won. Granted, it's a tough puzzle to crack since you can't actually go back and rerun the election without Perot. But the best analysis I've seen of exit polling and academic surveys like the ANES do show that Perot drew from voters likely to have split evenly between the two major parties.

          You won't believe what this gay dolphin said to a homeless child. First you'll be angry, but then at the 1:34 mark your nose will bleed tears of joy.

          by cardinal on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 06:49:27 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It was widely accepted at the time (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          duhban

          It's true that additional analysis modified that view over time.  Who cares what Limbaugh says 20 years later?  To associate a belief with Limbaugh is a low tactic, as is claiming it's a "lie."  Better to refute with actual data.

          •  It was not (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Phoenix Woman

            widely accepted at the time except with the talk radio crowd. It was roundly shown by many people at that time that the exit polls showed that the vote was split.

            It's the policy stupid

            by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:29:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  link (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Phoenix Woman

            It's the policy stupid

            by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:30:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Well (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Phoenix Woman

            I can't get the link to post but polling report shows you how  Perot being in the race did not change the outcome.

            It's the policy stupid

            by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:30:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're right, it didn't (0+ / 0-)

              But that doesn't mean that many people didn't think so at the time, as I remember quite well.  Not everyone read the NY Times' analysis of the exit polls that week.  They looked at the vote totals and their personal knowledge of Perot-types and drew their own conclusions.  It was also the conventional wisdom before the election that Perot would hurt Bush more than Clinton.  It's true the exit polls and later and deeper analyses of state-by-state voting patterns proved otherwise.  But it is not merely a GOP revision of history.
              To call it a "lie" is excessive.

              •  btw, I'm in GA 5th......eom (0+ / 0-)
              •  Well, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Phoenix Woman

                the reason I said that was because right after the election that statement was debunked by CNN and probably others. The whole "Perot cost Bush the election" was something that was hatched in right wing radio and not based on facts. That is why I say it was a lie because it was. Perot not being in the election might have changed some votes in the EC like GA maybe going for Bush but it would not have changed the outcome of the election at all.

                And I'm not in the 6th district anymore. I think I've been redstircted to the 12th.

                It's the policy stupid

                by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:29:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  let me guess (0+ / 0-)

          you also think that Nader wasn't a spoiler either?

          Whether you like it or not the democrats won in the 90s because of Dole.

          Der Weg ist das Ziel

          by duhban on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 04:02:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You have to look at the numbers. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Phoenix Woman

            If you take equally from both like Perot did it does not change things. Nader took about 60% from Gore. If Perot had taken 60% from Bush maybe that arugment would hold water but it's not backed up by the facts.

            It's the policy stupid

            by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:10:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I have (0+ / 0-)

              There is at least a 100-200 EVs and more than a dozen states where in Perot's percentage was equal to or greater than the margin Clinton beat Bush I by.

              We'll never know what would have happened if Perot didn't run but to call my claim a 'lie' is a gross and blatant smear that ignores the results in favour of the narrative you desire.

              And even if you are right in your what if the reality still remains that Perot provided a margin of victory in the EVs and popular that Clinton would not have achieved on his own.

              Though really this is all tangential to the important point. Look at the Southern states Clinton/Gore won.  They won Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia and Louisiana. Of those 2 were home states and the other 2 were so close to Bush that it's impossible to argue Perot was not a factor when you consider that predominately Perot voters were white males without a college education.  

              So really the only thing not backed up by facts is your accusation.

              Der Weg ist das Ziel

              by duhban on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:35:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  What (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Phoenix Woman

                the exit polls showed was that the votes would have been split 50/50. Yeah, Perot got a lot of votes but if you give half to Bush and half to Clinton you STILL get Clinton winning the election.

                You're the one shopping the false narrative not based on the facts. The exit polls are the only thing that we have to go on and they don't support your narrative at all.

                Go to polling report. It has all the numbers.

                The popular vote would have been higher for Clinton had Perot not been in the election. The reason he got about 43% was because of Perot. The only way your narrative works is if all of Perot's votes were going to go to Bush which was not the case.

                Clinton would have won AR without Perot. He got something like 67% of the vote there. I mean if you think Perot got AR for Clinton, well, I don't know where you are getting your facts from but they are way off base.

                Clinton won LA, TN in 1996 too when Perot was barely a blip on the radar. The only one I will give you where Perot probably flipped it for Clinton was GA but since when has GA been a deciding factor in the election.

                Clinton got 370 EVs in 1992 and got 380 in 1996 where Perot was even less of a factor.

                It's the policy stupid

                by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:46:35 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  please go educate yourself on the final margins (0+ / 0-)

                  I've tried to stay nice even as you entered this with more insults than anything approaching fact or reality but I've really had enough of that from you.

                  Der Weg ist das Ziel

                  by duhban on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 06:08:38 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I looked (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Phoenix Woman

                    up the elections for 1992 and 1996. I'm sorry but they do not support your argument.

                    It's the policy stupid

                    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 06:10:31 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well since you declared it it just must be so (0+ / 0-)

                      never mind that Perot actually came in second in Maine (Clinton won) or that Clinton won GA by less than 1% (with Perot taking 13.8%) etc etc.

                      No since apparently you have god like power and just declared me wrong and a liar than it must be so.

                      Thanks for the laugh I've not seen this much arrogance and ignorance in a while.

                      Der Weg ist das Ziel

                      by duhban on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 06:23:48 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You are making (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Phoenix Woman

                        an assumption that all those votes would have gone to Bush and that is the problem. The only way you could assume that Clinton would have lost is if all those Perot votes went to Bush.

                        Clinton won Maine in 1996 too when Perot was not a factor.  If you want to call numbers and exit polls arrogance, well, have at it.

                        It's the policy stupid

                        by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 06:36:11 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No I'm not (0+ / 0-)

                          In point of fact the only thing I've assumed is that there would be a completely different race given that Perot's 'base' was white males without a college education which Bush won in 1988. More over the race would have been an entirely different dynamic with just Clinton in the race. This should be self evident just from the historic numbers Perot received in most states.

                          You've cited nothing you've walked in here with arrogance and insults. That is it. I have yet to see you actually cite a single statistic or number where as I've been constantly referencing verifiable numbers. For that matter if you want some more actual facts go look at the election in 1988 and compare it to 1992. Clinton despite being from the South and having a VP from the South did no better than Dukasis but Bush I lost 16 points. Isn't it odd that Perot got exactly that vote share?

                          Or maybe you would like to compare the white vote? It was 40-60 in 1988 which plummeted to 39-43-21 (Clinton, Bush Perot). But you want to persist in your claims? Well that's up to you but the only one the numbers do not back up is you. Perot had a statistical relevant effect on 1992 and a similar though admittedly smaller effect in 1996.

                          I'm done indulging you.

                          Der Weg ist das Ziel

                          by duhban on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 06:50:23 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I tried to link (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Phoenix Woman

                            to polling report that broke down the numbers. You are making assumptions apparently that those people who voted for bush in 1988 would vote for him again. You are also forgetting that at lot of those voters were also Cold War voters who no longer had that reason. You have given top line numbers which mean nothing. So what if Perot got 13% in Maine? That does not mean that Bush Sr. would have gotten the entire 13%. The exit polling would have pretty much given half to each.

                            Everything you are saying is based on what went on in 1988 and not what happened afterwards.  Heck Obama got less of the white vote in 2012 than he did in 2008 so what does that mean? It means things are not constant.

                            You're also forgetting that Bush Sr. had an approval rating in the mid 30's going into the election. Do you really think that he would have gotten almost 20 more points in 1992 had Perot not been in the race?

                            It's the policy stupid

                            by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:28:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I want to point out (0+ / 0-)

                            that your claim about Obama shows a poor grasp of statistics. A 4% swing in any given election is barely statistically significant and given the margin of error might not even be real. A 16% decrease in vote share is very statistically significant and points to a definitive change in voting.

                            We will never know for sure what would have happened without Perot (as I have said more than once) but statistically speaking, scientifically speaking Perot's third party candidacy almost certainly cost Bush the election. I'm not sure why you are fighting so hard against that but really it's a losing battle as noted by the fact that you're not even trying to claim I am a liar any more and seem to me to be grasping at straws (there's no valid way to compare a 4% decrease to a 16%).  

                             

                            Der Weg ist das Ziel

                            by duhban on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 10:01:02 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Clinton won Maine in 1996 (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ga6thDem

                            And Perot wasn't a factor.

                            Why do you persist in ignoring this?

                            Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

                            by Phoenix Woman on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:41:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  One of us is referencing facts and statistics (0+ / 0-)

                            One of us is not, would you like to guess whom is doing what? Here's a free hint I'm the only one bringing actual numbers into the debate.

                            But why worry about reality when it impinges on the narrative you want?

                            If you're not going to respond to my points and just repeat Ga6thDem's mistakes just do us both a favour and do not respond. It's one thing to disagree with a conclusion but what you are doing is just plain wrong. You do not get to declare things as true simply because you want them to. I've provided a case as to why Perot was a factor. You've provided nothing other than an opinion.

                            Der Weg ist das Ziel

                            by duhban on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:51:33 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

          •  No, they (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Phoenix Woman

            won because of the economy.

            It's the policy stupid

            by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:10:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  the economy didn't tank till very very late (0+ / 0-)

              and if it had been the over riding factor Perot would have won as his message was overwhelming more populist.

              Der Weg ist das Ziel

              by duhban on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:36:18 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ross Perot (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Phoenix Woman

                torpedoed his own campaign with his crack pot conspiracy theories about some hit men that were coming to get him and his daughter. He came off as mentally unstable so there's no way he was ever going to win a national election.

                The economy was bad and Clinton won because he had a message to offer on the economy and Perot came off as mentally unstable.

                It's the policy stupid

                by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:52:28 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  The question isn't whether it's OK to lose (0+ / 0-)

      a few old racist white Southerners. The question is whether the Dems' economic conservatism has hurt them with working-class whites. This article says no. The diary says no. If true, that bolsters 3rd-Way and DLC-style Dems who want us to believe that liberal and progressive economics either can't win or don't matter. Either an electoral liability or an electoral nullity.

      I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:06:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not about bolstering the DLC/BlueDogs/etc.... (0+ / 0-)

        ...so much as it is about stating what's pretty obvious to the people who will look at it without fear of what it might do to their agendas:

        1.  The Southern Strategy -- using race-based appeals to further corporate aims at our expense -- has been a very successful strategy for fifty years now.  (It was being tested by Poppy Bush in the early 1960s before Nixon tried it out on a national scale.)

        2.  The effectiveness of the Southern (and Exurban) Strategy is waning, due in large part to demographic changes.  Texas would be a lot less red, if not outright blue, if not for Tom DeLay's illegal gerrymandering.

        Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

        by Phoenix Woman on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:50:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  When class and economic politics (11+ / 0-)

    once again trump identity and culture politics is when this insanity ends. Until then, working class whites will continue to vote self-image over self-interest. It's crazy, but to many of these people, it's all they have. Or, at least, they've been made to believe it's all they have by the party of parasites that Tricky Dick Nixon created, perhaps the first troll president. The GOP has been to the US what the Nazis were to Germany. They played up its worst aspects to its worst elements, and took the whole country and world down with them.

    GOP delenda est.

    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 08:34:50 PM PST

    •  Media (0+ / 0-)

      with the current state of our media, the insanity isn't going to end.  It is going to get worse.  Imagine if the Nazi's had had 24-hour cable news to get their "message" out?

    •  It won't happen (5+ / 0-)

      class and economic politics very rarely trump identity and culture politics in our history.  The New Deal and post-WWII era when it did was an exception, not the rule.

      And for much of the last 40 years, that was to the aid of the GOP.  No more.  Obama finally made the GOP pay in the last two elections for their decades long attacks and ostracization minorities, young people, social liberals, gays, and others who are different.  For the foreseeable future, identity/culture politics will be a plus for us, not a minus.

      The teabaggers are basically Nazis.  And now they run the Rs.

      Racism, misogyny, and homophobia should NOT be protected by the Constitution.

      by TeaBaggersAreRacists on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 04:51:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Last two elections? (0+ / 0-)

        Are we forgetting the disaster of 2010 so quickly? And I'm not convinced that 2012 was an anti-GOP backlash election so much as it was an anti-TP and 1% election given how many nutjobs it nominated, plus Romney.

        Voters indicated their rejection of the GOP's most visibly offensive elements, but not its core elements, which while almost as bad, continue to do a good job of pretending to not be so bad, except to those to whom they dog whistle so effectively. To enough others, though, they effectively portray themselves as "moderate". Thus Christie's landslide reelection.

        I do agree though that identity politics has usually trumped interest politics, and will likely continue to do so. Most voters vote on a combination of party, culture and who they "like", and not on policy. At least, not on policy in any reality-based and coherent manner.

        E.g. people who vote for candidates who promise to balance the budget AND cut taxes and spending, even though it's impossible to do all three, quite stupid to try, and it's not going to happen in any case once they take office.

        But many voters are credulous suckers and ignorant morons, and most of them vote GOP. And there's a huge overlap with people who vote their cultural, regional and racial identity, most of whom also vote GOP.

        I don't necessarily agree, though, that this will work to Dems' advantage from here on, because, as I said, most people who vote on such factors, vote GOP.

        "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

        by kovie on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 06:19:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fine last two presidential elections (5+ / 0-)

          2012 is a very good example of how the demographics changed to favor us.  Who votes on cultural/regional/racial identities?  Why don't you ask the 93% of blacks, 71% of Hispanics, 73% of Asians, 80% of gays, 80+% of single socially liberal women who voted for Obama?  If you think the only people who vote based on cultural and racial identity are the ones who vote GOP, I've got a bridge to sell you.

          Obama's 2012 performance among white voters was pathetic.  It was in Mondale/Dukakis territory.  He basically got crushed among white swing voters and lost white working class "Middle America" badly.  Yet he still won handily.  He did so because the same people that the GOP has been scapegoating for years; blacks, Latinos, gays, single women, social liberals, etc. turned out in droves for him and outvoted conservative "Middle America".  

          2012 was not a "backlash" election.  The political environment was really neutral at best, and mildly pro-GOP.  The economy was still in the dumps and would have likely defeated most incumbent Presidents.   The mildly pro-GOP political environment was neutralized by Obama's campaign, but it was demographics and turnout that saved him.
          But that only bolsters my point.  The Ds had a 3-4% natural edge nationally (for Presidential elections) in 2012 due to cultural and demographic advantages, which will continue to grow by 1-2% every four years.  What that means is that eventually the Rs will only win the Presidency in a wave election.

          Eventually it will trickle down to midterm elections as well, although with the brutal gerrymandering, it may take some time.  I suspect that we will not win the House until the first midterm of the next GOP President (much the same way that it took the Reagan Republicans until 1994 to take the House), and we win it back easily then.

          Racism, misogyny, and homophobia should NOT be protected by the Constitution.

          by TeaBaggersAreRacists on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:21:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'll add another more groups to the list (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kovie, travelerxxx, Phoenix Woman

            Non-religious voters who have grown like crazy in the last 10 years, who are expressing their strong dislike for the "Christian" jihadist policies of the GOP.  They are also voting on cultural identity grounds.

            Racism, misogyny, and homophobia should NOT be protected by the Constitution.

            by TeaBaggersAreRacists on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:25:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I think that 2012 was a mild "backlash" election (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TeaBaggersAreRacists

            in terms of more moderate swing voters turning away from the GOP's more culturally radical candidates like Akin and Murdock (just as the 2010 election was in the senate), as well as, arguably, in the GOP losing a few house seats (due to its increasingly more extreme political behavior) and Obama getting reelected in an electoral climate that favored the GOP in an anti-1% kind of backlash (as opposed to a cultural or political backlash).

            So there were really 3 kinds of backlashes in 2012, even if they weren't as strong as we'd wish they were and needed them to be:

            1 - Anti-increasingly radical RW views and policies
            2 - Anti-increasingly radical RW political behavior
            3 - Anti-income and wealth inequality

            While the GOP may have dialed back a tiny bit on its radicalism this past year, out of political prudence as opposed to genuine conviction, it does so at the risk of alienating its remaining core group of far-right low-information white working and middle class bigots. So I don't expect it to dial it back much more. And given the demographic trends that you cited, this is a losing strategy, long-term, because this group isn't big enough to allow it to retain the house, take back the senate or win the presidency on a sustained basis.

            "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

            by kovie on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:49:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The problem with this explanation (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kovie, travelerxxx, Phoenix Woman

              is that every swing group of white voters voted for Romney.  Independents, white moderates, white college educated women (which Obama won easily in 2008, and was leading in polls throughout the year, but he got just 46%), young white voters (Romney won 51-44).  Romney won non-Southern whites 52-47 (while Obama got 50% in 2008).  Obama did win non-evangelical white voters with 50%.  

              If there was really a strong anti-TP or anti-1% backlash at the Presidential level, Obama would have won performed better among white voters in the center.  He didn't, which makes me conclude that demographics (and Obama's campaign which stressed cultural liberalism; birth control, gay marriage, immigration, and anti-Voter ID) simply overwhelmed whatever mild pro-GOP lean there was in 2012.

              Long-term, I don't think there is a real solution for the GOP problems.  As you mention, they can't keep going down the road of only relying on conservative and "Middle America" white voters, but when the move to the center (and eventually they will), they will lose the energy and enthusiasm of their base (white evangelicals and white racists).  So I think the GOP for the next 20-30 years will be winning Presidential elections only when there is a R wave.  This is not much different that the Ds in the Nixon/Reagan/GWB era when the Ds only won a majority of the electorate once in the aftermath of Watergate, or the GOP in New Deal/Great Society era (when they won only with Eisenhower, who won on personality alone and was a basically a RINO).

              And it is this phenomenon that will allow the country to move substantially to the left.   We need to kill off the teabaggers and take back the Supreme Court before we can effectively drive the country to the left.  It took Nixon to kill off the New Left and drain the Dem base of all its enthusiasm before the far right could get Reagan in there and really move the country to the right.

              Racism, misogyny, and homophobia should NOT be protected by the Constitution.

              by TeaBaggersAreRacists on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:29:11 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  My explanation may not work (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TeaBaggersAreRacists

                in terms of explaining why Obama won reelection, but I think it does work for explaining why Repubs lost seats in the house and senate. Moreover, I think it'll increasingly work in future elections, including presidential ones in which the Dem candidate will presumably not be an America-hating Kenyan Muslim terrorist (although in 2016 it may well be an America-hating radical feminazi lesbian who stands by her philandering cuckold of a husband).

                What's the explanation for why so many whites abandoned Obama in 2012, especially ones who favored him in 2008? Did this shift track more closely with race, class, education, region or "culture", and was it more about who Obama is, or his actions and accomplishments as president?

                "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                by kovie on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:56:03 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Certainly the Senate (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  kovie, Phoenix Woman

                  Without some of the teabagger candidates, the GOP probably could have at least won North Dakota and Indiana, and probably Missouri as well.  

                  Why did so many whites abandon Obama in 2012?  My guess is that it was the political environment.  The 8+% unemployment and the right track/wrong track numbers were pretty bad.  I don't think the switchers were racist or cultural conservatives for the most part, they were swing voters who thought Obama's performance didn't cut it and it was time for a change.  
                  Some of it also was sky high white evangelical turnout (who made up a record 26% of the vote and voted for a Mormon by a larger margin than they gave one of their own, GWB in 2004).

                  Racism, misogyny, and homophobia should NOT be protected by the Constitution.

                  by TeaBaggersAreRacists on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:07:14 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Which to me means (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    rabrock

                    that Dems still have their work cut out for them in winning over centrist swing voters who are open to GOP nonsense and lies about economic policy, but NOT by moving to the center let alone right, but rather by moving to the left and doing so proudly and unapologetically because it's what works and is right. Such voters will likely not only respect pols who stands up for their beliefs even if they don't necessarily agree with them, but eventually, in many cases, actually come to be won over to those beliefs if Dems sell them properly and are able to implement them. I.e. Dems will win more consistently when they move to the left, not center, and do so openly and proudly.

                    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                    by kovie on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:12:56 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks again, Abe. (0+ / 0-)

    Lincoln blew it. Wanna secede? See ya later, he could have said.

    But noooo.

    •  A "peaceful" secession would still have led to war (4+ / 0-)

      Probably sooner than later. Whether it would have come because Northern states no longer would have had motivation to enforce the much-despised Fugitive Slave Act (only passed to keep the Southern states happy) or because the Union and the Confederacy would have inevitably competed for lands out west or because the injured pride of disgruntled Unionists and the bumptiousness of an overconfident and triumphant South would have led to violence, or some combination of all of the above I don't claim to know. But the country was a powderkeg ready to blow at a spark. War had already broken out in the Territories years before any state seceded (e.g., Bleeding Kansas). Perhaps, maybe, war between the states could have been avoided, somehow. Not, however, by simply letting our errant brothers go.

      My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
      --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

      by leftist vegetarian patriot on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 10:27:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well (5+ / 0-)

      I'm pretty sure the descendants of slaves are pretty happy he didn't just let them go.

      Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

      by moviemeister76 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 12:24:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  asdf (8+ / 0-)
    For the greater good of this country, to reduce America’s intolerable levels of poverty and it's obscene levels of inequality, every effort must be made to get the Democratic Party to become a thoroughgoing advocate of pro-working class economic policies. On that front, we have a long way to go.
    A good start would be to stop running anti-labor candidates, to stop supporting them against pro-labor candidates, and to at least preend to try to pass EFCA. Back when we had both houses, we couldn't be bothered, it was a pony, it was unimportant, it was anything but part of our agenda - maybe some other time, guys, but we're busy sitting on our hands waiting for the Baucus caucus or some otherhigher priority that, becuase we cannot multitask, is all we can do.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 08:43:11 PM PST

  •  he said we'd lost them for a generation. (4+ / 0-)

    It's been more than that by now and there's no sign they're likely to change any time soon. I do have hope for the younger generation coming of age though, based on taking to kids my daughter's age (18). We can only hope, but hope is not a plan!

    "Watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, fanatical, criminal..."-7.75, -5.54

    by solesse413 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 08:44:19 PM PST

  •  At least we got rid of those long lived (7+ / 0-)

    Dixiecrat Senators who were chairmen of everything.

    Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. John Leland

    by J Edward on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 09:00:22 PM PST

  •  That doesn't explain (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Be Skeptical, Sandino, Johnny Q

    the Democrats decline in places like Michigan, Wisconsin, and the Great Plains states (to give a few examples).

     Also, you need to fix your link.

    None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

    by gjohnsit on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 09:07:17 PM PST

  •  As Volkswagen just showed us, the problems (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Be Skeptical, Ahianne, zizi, Phoenix Woman

    are bigger than race.  A couple generations ago, the civil rights movement aside, we would've had easy inroads amongst people as the party of unionized labor.  Today, however, "union" is apparently a dirty word in the south - even amongst those for whom a union would be most beneficial!  I'm not a sociologist but we apparently need to hire some sociologists ASAP, because I'm frankly at a loss as to why - it's bigger than simply "the plutocracy" (a cheap scapegoat if there ever were one), and it's difficult to imagine where we begin.

    So while I'm all in for more policies that benefit the working class, why do we think that will bring us more poor white southerners?  Those people vote against almost everything that we believe in, including their own self interests.  Instead, we need to reach out to community organizations and figure out how to educate people about these issues in order - I hate to say it - to change hearts and minds.

    I'm a big tent kinda guy and I recognize that in particular regions we need to accommodate particular issues - I'm in favor of the repeal of the Second Amendment but I respect that Montanan Democrats simply can't get out of the gate without being pro-gun, and I'm in favor of a sustainable and managed shift to 100% renewables, but I respect that nobody can get elected in Appalachia without mouthing support for "Clean coal."

    But while I recognize and understand those single-issue compromises, I'm not willing to throw out the entire party platform just to win working class white southerners who want pro-gun, anti-union, anti-government, anti-gay and anti-civil rights candidates.  That's not compromise, that's surrender.

    "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

    by auron renouille on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 09:50:55 PM PST

    •  Unions have never been popular in South (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP, UnionMade, Ahianne, Phoenix Woman

      Unions have always been deeply unpopular in the South, which isn't surprising given its history with slavery. Many southerners actually think there are no unions in the South at all, which isn't completely true. Even among liberal whites down here, unions just aren't that popular. It still shocks me to hear the way the folks around me who grew up here in the South refer to unions. I was raised to believe that unions would often go corrupt but were a necessity of life.

      Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

      by moviemeister76 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 12:28:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is a reason for this: race (6+ / 0-)

        Back in the 20s and 30s when Unions were fighting just to be recognized as a legitimate voice for workers there was initially support for Southern Democrats--especially progressives of the era New Deal supporters. But it turned out that some unions were color blind and that they would fight for the rights of black workers as strongly as they would fight for white workers. The possible change that these unions represented turned out too much for these Southern Democrats to support--and so the South became anti-union.

        The original "Right to Work" laws were passed as another element of Jim Crow laws to prevent race mixing and any movement towards equality.

        For those who want a deeper understanding of the shadows lurking in our progressive history, I would recommend Ira Katznelson's "Fear Itself". Race has always been--and still is--a deciding factor in American policy and law. This is sadly true, even if we wish to pretend otherwise.

        The Diary and its conclusions are spot on.

        Time to clean up DeLay's petri dish! Help CNMI guest workers find justice! Learn more at Unheard No More.

        by dengre on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 06:02:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's right (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ahianne, Phoenix Woman

          Another good book to read about it is "Gospel of the Working Class." It does a great job of showing how labor both united and fell apart along the race line in the South.

          I've also been in the archives reading letters from the late Senator Ervin of North Carolina who talked rather extensively about the fears the wealthy had of unions with his business friends. Those letters were quite the eye opener.

          Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

          by moviemeister76 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 06:26:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  "The original "Right to Work" laws (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Phoenix Woman

          were passed as another element of Jim Crow laws to prevent race mixing and any movement towards equality."

          I feel pretty stupid for not realizing that until now. But yes, Texas became a "right to work" state right after WWII. I figured it was just piggy-backing Taft-Hartley, and anti-communism, but you must be right, the widespread racial integration starting to happen at the time must have also played a major role.

          I will check out Katznelson.

          "Nationalism, religious bigotry and feudal loyalty are far more powerful forces than…sanity." —George Orwell, “Wells, Hitler and the World State” (1941)

          by Blood on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:20:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I would also say that many Southerners (0+ / 0-)

      link (or are told to link) the last 30 years of rapid economic growth of their region to right to work laws. They are very grateful that they have expanded options which they view as being brought in by keeping Unions out.

  •  The Southern Strategy (10+ / 0-)

    actually began in 1948 when Thurmond ran on a States Rights ticket. From then on, the most craven southern Democrats sought to lead a movement of southern racists into the Republicans. Goldwater and his ilk encouraged them for decades.

    Having watched TV while Fannie Lou Hamer spoke at the 64 Demoratic Convention, I personally said buh-bye in my heart to the racists and welcomed my new brothers and sisters into the newly aligned Democratic Party.

    At that time there were still some unions in the South to keep the faith, but then 500,000 jobs in the southern textile industry all fled the US, among other regretful trends.

    “The answer must be, I think, that beauty and grace are performed whether or not we will or sense them. The least we can do is try to be there.” ― Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

    by 6412093 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 09:52:44 PM PST

    •  Thanks for some perspective (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      6412093

      Nothing really started in 1968 with Nixon.

      "Nationalism, religious bigotry and feudal loyalty are far more powerful forces than…sanity." —George Orwell, “Wells, Hitler and the World State” (1941)

      by Blood on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:29:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  A centuries old con (12+ / 0-)

    Set the races and ethnicities against each other and reap the spoils.  Or as someone else succinctly put it:

    An rich man, a poor white man, and a poor black man order a pizza.  The rich man eats all but one slice, leans towards the white man, points to the black man, and says "he's gonna take your slice".

    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

    by Subterranean on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 09:56:32 PM PST

  •  This is a real eye-opener. Thanks! nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TXdem, TomP
  •  There were "Regan Democrats" (0+ / 0-)

    Before Clinton sold out the working class.

  •  Thank you! Have had to point this out in comments (8+ / 0-)

    many times. Obama and Kerry etc didn't win states like Maine, Vermont, Iowa, etc because of a huge minority outporing (even if the head of the Maine GOP said dozens of black people were seen voting). The entire fall is contrained to the South (and after 1996 to the South Applachia, and the Ozarks). Outside of this region there has been almost no drop off.

    The numbers have always shown this. I hate to use the term "skew" but the South, Ozarks, and Applachia really do skew the national numbers. In fact Democrats have actually improved with white working class voters in the MidAtlantic states, New England, the North West, and the Desert South West (mostly Colorado and Nevada, with only a slight uptick in Arizona and New Mexico, none in Utah of course). Go ahead and Google the numbers.  

    -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)! Follow on Twitter @dopper0189

    by dopper0189 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 10:18:51 PM PST

  •  The good news for them (7+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Egalitare, TomP, puakev, paradox, Ahianne, zizi, rabrock

    is that liberals, people of color, gays and lesbians, young people more open to liberal ideas and policies, and women are not like them.

    When the working class white resenter is in the minority, he will not live in fear other than fears of his or her own invention. Nobody is taking their vote. Crushing their voices. Marginalizing them economically.  

    When they are the minority, they will be treated well and they will not be punished and have years of resentment and scorn heaped upon them.

    The irony of it all is that, in majority minority America, they will be better off because their voting against their best interests will be overruled.

    Lucky folks, those Archie Bunkers.

    “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” — Auric Goldfinger

    by LeftHandedMan on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 10:37:21 PM PST

  •  to make any headway RW radio has to figure (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, lotlizard, Ellid, k9disc, rabrock, travelerxxx

    prominently.

    i'd be glad to talk about how i'm wrong but to analyze trends in politics while ignoring that the right got a talk radio monopoly of public airwaves in the late eighties is just fucking idiotic. but ALL the left does it so it's not a big deal.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 10:45:36 PM PST

  •  Straw man much? (12+ / 0-)
    It is taken as virtual gospel among progressives that Democrats once had a lock on white working class voters, but that position quickly eroded in the 1990s and later as party leaders pursued cuts to social programs, Wall Street deregulation, and anti-union trade agreements.
    No, it's not.

    LBJ said it at the time: "We've lost the South for a generation." So what you're saying here is very old news indeed.

    The question is why white working-class voters are STILL not voting Democratic and it should be obvious that the reason is that Democrats haven't offered them much and offer them less and less every year.

    When the DLC Democrat in the White House presides over an acceleration of inequality that is even faster than under Bush, it should be pretty obvious that those DLC polices are not going to win back working class voters.

    Obama: Pro-Pentagon, pro-Wall Street, pro-drilling, pro-fracking, pro-KXL, pro-surveillance. And the only person he prosecuted for the U.S. torture program is the man who revealed it. Clinton: More of the same.

    by expatjourno on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 10:50:32 PM PST

    •  Ah, you saw that. (0+ / 0-)

      I'm enough of an academic to care most about the numbers and the quality of the analysis, even when I see the pro-DLC uses this argument can be put to. But I am bothered by the fact that turnout seems not to be dealt with, unless I'm missing something. Also gjohnsit has a good point re: definitions of "northern working-class white" as a lot of those areas emptied into other parts of the country when the industrial centers of America declined. A lot of "northern working class whites" became southern whites.

      I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:08:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This has been said multiple times on DKos (8+ / 0-)

    The South is unique in its culture, its viewpoint on unions, race, etc..  Fox News derives a disproportionate amount of its audience from the South.  BHO's national approval #'s have always been skewed negatively due to the incredibly high level of disapproval of BHO in the South.  Like Kos said during 2012 "Obama is winning where it counts.'  Which means he was winning in the West (Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico), the Midwest (Ohio) and mid-Atlantic (Pennsylvania) and....Florida - which is a bit of everything (South, Hispanic, snowbirds, retirees).  

    And that's why the Gallup polls stunk, etc..  National approval #'s for a black President - sorry, there is just no other way to spin it - are going to be skewed by the South.  It is what it is.  

    The ONE 'Southern State' that Obama carried twice was Virginia.  And the reason is obvious: in-migration to NoVa from other states like Maryland, etc..  

    Keep Virginia blue - and it is looking more and more like that everyday and it is pretty much curtains for the GOP.  With Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado, all a Dem has to do is when ONE of the three of Ohio, Florida or Pennsylvania.  

    Think about that: Democratic Presidential candidates have won Pennsylvania the last SIX times and BHO carried it by 5 points in 2012.  Pennsylvania is not a 'Democratic lock' but given the last six presidential elections and BHO's 5 point victory in 2012, it is very definitely a 'strong lean'.

    BHO carried New Mexico by almost 10(!) points, and Colorado and Nevada by 5.5 and 6.5 points.  The fact that BHO carried these Western states by margins higher than that of Pennsylvania is very, very heartening news and indicates how difficult it will be for the GOP to win in 2016.  

    In other words, the Dems could lose BOTH Florida and Ohio and STILL win the election if it holds Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada (and Pennsylvania).

    Those are daunting odds for the GOP in 2016.

    •  The main issue is evangelical vs. non-evangelical (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP, Lawrence, FishOutofWater, Blood

      No discussion among white voters in the future can be had without separating white evangelical voters from non-evangelical voters.  Evangelical whites also tend to be much more racist, misogynistic, homophobic as well.  As culture trumps economics for most voters these days, separating evangelicals out is necessary for any good analysis.
      White evangelical voters gave Obama 25% and 20% in 2008 and 2012, while white non-evangelicals gave Obama 52% and 50% respectively. So basically among white voters who are not evangelicals, Obama did as well as he did nationally.

      Basically we do badly among Southern whites because they are more likely to be racist and evangelical.  We need to push our advantage among those who are not so.

      Racism, misogyny, and homophobia should NOT be protected by the Constitution.

      by TeaBaggersAreRacists on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 04:45:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I guess the question is, if we are the party of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rabrock

    science, why don't we move in this direction? Are we just as dumb as the other side? God help us...

  •  Democratic leaders don't understand (4+ / 0-)

    they threw out the 50 state strategy and have no plan at all. Right now they have a chance to go after the south. 2014 the GOP plans to run against health care. Its a perfect time for good well funded Democratic candidates to jump right in and call them out.

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:25:28 AM PST

  •  Easy way for Democrats to get that vote back (0+ / 0-)

    Side with the Republicans on a tough Immigration Reform Bill with no Amnesty, No Guest Workers, and big time penalties for Employers who hire Illegals.  Adopt the Romney self-deport.

    It would show those working class folks the Democrats support them.

    •  Let's reject the growing Hispanic demographic (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP, puakev, zizi, Johnny Q, costello7, travelerxxx

      to go after southern white voters that will be very hard to win over. That's a winner!

      “Industry does everything they can and gets away with it almost all the time, whether it’s the coal industry, not the subject of this hearing, or water or whatever. They will cut corners, and they will get away with it. " Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D, WVa

      by FishOutofWater on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 06:34:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Hispanic Strategy is really working great (0+ / 0-)

        Isn't it.

        Florida, Texas, and Arizona are solid Democrat States due to all the Hispanic Voters voting for them right???

        Last poll I saw that had details even had Rick Scott ahead of Charlie Crist among Hispanic by 20 points.

        Illegal Aliens are taking away jobs from America and so will Guest Workers.

        Illegal Immigration and Trade Deals have been a race to the bottom for working class people and if Democrats abandoned these and worked for working class people the GOP would have no shot.

        •  But Colorado, New Mexico, (3+ / 0-)

          and Nevada, all red states just 10 years ago, are all solidly Democratic as a result of the Hispanic vote.  And Georgia is getting close to toss-up status due to the growth in the Latino population there.  California went to Bush I in a landslide in 1988.  Obama won 60% in 2012 even though he lost the white vote 45-53.  It was due to the nonwhite vote.

          As for Florida, you do know that its Latino population is predominantly Cuban which is the only Latino group that mostly votes Republican, right?  And even then, the younger Cubans are trending Democrat, and the non-Cuban Latino population is growing there as well - it's how Obama won the state twice.

          "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

          by puakev on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:13:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe it's because of political opportunists who (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Johnny Q

          think that making undocumented migrant workers pay and casting suspicion on an entire demographic would be good public policy.

          The Republicans at least pretend to want to protect their culture from those illegals.

          Democrats won't win any votes by caving on their responsibility to protect those people. Kind of makes the promise to protect Southerners hollow, don't you think?

          Democrats win votes by attacking the people who employ and exploit undocumented workers. Drawing attention to the wage disparity between undocumented workers and citizens and lost wages siphoned off for profit and labeled a productivity increase.

          Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

          by k9disc on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 10:42:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  You are misinformed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          costello7

          re: Rick Scott's support from Hispanics.

          With Florida’s political world gearing up for a costly, divisive campaign, Democrat Charlie Crist continues to hold a comfortable lead over Republican incumbent Rick Scott in the battle for the governor’s office, a poll released Thursday shows.

          Crist, who is trying to make a comeback after an earlier stint as the Republican governor, leads Scott by a margin of 46 percent to 38 percent, according to the Quinnipiac University poll.

          The poll indicates Crist has comfortable leads with closely watched groups such as independents and Hispanic voters. Also, it continues to show that voters have a generally negative view of Scott. As Brown noted, 54 percent of voters said Scott does not deserve to be re-elected, while 38 percent said he does. Those numbers have changed little since the November poll.
          That poll data is as of late January of this year.

          My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
          --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

          by leftist vegetarian patriot on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 11:32:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  If we're going to have laws rendering people (0+ / 0-)

        "illegal" I have no problem with primarily punishing the corporations and other businesses that often hire them for crap wages.

        I'm also fine with ceasing to render people "illegal." I'd rather do that. But one thing that constantly galls me is all the pressure, or almost all, under current law, is on the immigrants, whether "legal" or "illegal." Almost none on the employers.

        I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:10:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  This is the worst idea of the day (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      costello7

      All that would do is alienate migrant voters.  The GOP would strut around like they won, and its base would believe it.

      We all went to heaven in a little rowboat, and there was nothing to fear and nothing to doubt. --Radiohead

      by Tzimisce on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 10:20:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is pretty much useless (0+ / 0-)

      without a Jobs Bill, rejection of TPP, & an attempt at dismantling/renegotiating NAFTA. There needs to be investment by the government in our infrastructure in such a way that creates jobs, either through 1)deficit spending 2)a transaction tax on Wall St, or 3)raising taxes on the wealthy back to where they were under Reagan.

      Stop offshoring of jobs. Stop offshoring of profits aka tax evasion. Pass combined reporting bills in all 50 states.  Write the tax code so that it encourages the 1% to invest in building things, rather than gambling. Also write it so we can maintain and improve our infrastructure. Create jobs at a living wage.

      Do that, protect Social Security, and the white working class will love the hell out of you. So will almost everybody else. Not because they're wonky enough to know what combined reporting is, or care, but because these policies will create jobs, and if done right, create jobs at a living wage.

      Create jobs. Protect Social Security and Medicare. Pay for it with taxes on the 1%, on corporations, or on financial transactions.

      Election in the bag.

      I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:17:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have three problems with this analysis (5+ / 0-)

    1. The definition of "white working class" shouldn't be self-identified.  Such a definition allows wealthy teabaggers to call themselves "white working class" when they are not.
    The correct definition used by most social scientists is that "white working class" are whites without a college degree.

    2.The real drop happened after 1980 among Southern white working class.  There is a peak for LBJ in 1964, but he won 61%.  Jimmy Carter got just 41%, and he still held up among white Southern working class.  It was after him that things dropped off.

    3. No discussion among white voters in the future can be had without separating white evangelical voters from non-evangelical voters.  As culture trumps economics for most voters these days, separating evangelicals out is necessary for any good analysis.
    White evangelical voters gave Obama 25% and 20% in 2008 and 2012, while white non-evangelicals gave Obama 52% and 50% respectively. So basically among white voters who are not evangelicals, Obama did as well as he did nationally.

    Racism, misogyny, and homophobia should NOT be protected by the Constitution.

    by TeaBaggersAreRacists on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 04:42:28 AM PST

  •  Old People (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, rabrock

    The people who made up the working class in 1965 are retiring in droves. Old-timey racists are dying off. A second generation who have always had the Internet are arriving at voting age.

    Ordinarily this would give me hope.

    That American public schools have been politicized ought to be obvious. Not-knowing and deliberate ignorance of current events is seen as a virtue. That news reporting has devolved into infotainment ought to scare us. Mencken's "booboise" are here, and they run the place. Add greed to the mix, and "it's a hard rain a-gonna fall."

    John Lennon told us "The dream is over." Due to good genetics and a lack of bad habits, I might have another twenty-five years, which is cause, I believe, for disillusionment. I don't want to believe moving to Denver and getting high for the duration is a reasonable idea.

    •  I Half Agree (0+ / 0-)

      I have good genes, too. I'm 69 but fear I have at least another 20 yrs in me.  I'm disillusioned.  Don't have a lot of hope left.
      But I would like my state to allow recreational use of pot. I'd rather make it through the remaining 20+ yrs mellowed out and not giving a shit.  Caring hurts too much.

  •  It's nice to see a reality-based diary that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, puakev

    clearly defines the main reason for "working-class" voters bailing on the Democratic Party, especially in certain regions.

    This is the type of diary that keeps me coming back to DKos.

    Imo, Dems should be focusing on enhancing their appeal to the  up and coming tolerant, multi-colored generation that kicks in with the younger Gen X'ers and is getting stronger day by day.

    And there should be a full court press for progressive issues that are a no-brainer and simultaneously popular, such as higher minimum wages, increased implementation of renewables, immigration reform, and the legalization of medical marijuana.

    Tipped and recced.

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:21:43 AM PST

  •  Inaccurate and bigoted. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbastard

    You're lumping all working class Americans with southern racists? I don't know where you came up with that idea, but it does not represent Democratic Party.

    Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

    by Betty Pinson on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:52:37 AM PST

    •  Either you didn't read the diary (3+ / 0-)

      or you are deliberately misreading it. Bolding added to quotes below.

      But what if the Democratic position among the white working class hasn’t eroded at all outside the south? What if, even as Democratic Party economic policies undeniably became more obsequious to the one percent, the entire Democratic decline among the white working class can be attributed to Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”?
      Then diarist quotes Elisabeth Jacobs (the author of the paper this diary is largely based upon) quoting Bartels:
      As Bartels succinctly summarizes: “Democratic presidential vote share has declined by almost 20 percentage points among [S]outhern whites without college degrees. Among non-southern whites without college degrees, it has declined by one percentage point. That’s it. Fourteen elections, 52 years, one percentage point.” The same basic relationship holds across all income groups of non-college educated whites: a 20-point-gap between the South and the rest of the country. This is Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy come to life, not a widespread national defection of white working class voters from the Democratic Party.

      My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
      --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

      by leftist vegetarian patriot on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 11:09:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •   Democrats move to the right on economic policy (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Johnny Q, costello7, Pablo Bocanegra

    has helped screw this country

    that's the problem

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by greenbastard on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 06:23:05 AM PST

  •  Very simplistic analysis. You mix many variables (5+ / 0-)

    that you don't control for or account for in any way then come up with a conclusion based on the behavior of one variable.

    If you're going to look at a complex problem it helps to read and analyze more than one paper.

    I tend to agree with you that the racial & cultural politics of the southern strategy are the #1 factor in explaining the voting patterns of working class whites, but that's not news to me or anyone else.  You don't even look at how women's votes have changed compared to men's votes. The gender gap has grown over the years but you don't account for it.

    Your analysis fails to analyze the importance of other factors that could have won working class voters over to Democrats. Your conclusion about the negligible effects of the Democratic Party becoming neoliberal are not supported by actual evidence. There's no analysis of what would have happened if Democrats hadn't voted for NAFTA & near-duty-free trade with China. Please show me the multivariate data. One dimensional analyses like this are not scientific.

    “Industry does everything they can and gets away with it almost all the time, whether it’s the coal industry, not the subject of this hearing, or water or whatever. They will cut corners, and they will get away with it. " Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D, WVa

    by FishOutofWater on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 06:50:30 AM PST

    •  Not scientific, no (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FishOutofWater

      And definitely simplistic. However, I did not take this for an attempt at scientific analysis. I took it for an attempted rebuttal of the following idea:

      It is taken as virtual gospel among progressives that Democrats once had a lock on white working class voters, but that position quickly eroded in the 1990s and later as party leaders pursued cuts to social programs, Wall Street deregulation, and anti-union trade agreements.
      in conjunction with the unstated but clearly implicated corrolary that this erosion had been permanent.

      Whether that "lock" quickly eroded in the 90's or not and whether it did so because the DLC dragged the Democrats hard right (and to be clear, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that were so), at this point in time a single variable does tell us something, because however far support might have dropped, it clearly rebounded.

      Now, regarding this objection:

      There's no analysis of what would have happened if Democrats hadn't voted for NAFTA & near-duty-free trade with China.
      I would have to agree that it seems very probable that the Democratic Party would have a stronger base of support had it only held the line against those policies. Exactly how much stronger I couldn't say--many people quickly forget or dismiss catastrophes successfully averted (e.g., the now almost obscure Y2K crisis). But it is rather difficult and beyond the scope of almost any diary to scientifically analyze what might have been. I would think such an attempt, to actually qualify as scientific, would require sufficient data and sufficient hedging to expand the analysis out to book or near-book length, far beyond anything that could be called a diary.

      My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
      --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

      by leftist vegetarian patriot on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 10:40:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Difference between southern and non-southern ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FishOutofWater, TomP, NearlyNormal

    working class is not solely race-related.  Southern workers are less well educated than their non-southern counterparts, thus they don't derive much advantage from policies aimed at skilled labor or organizations of skilled labor.  Unskilled labor has suffered more than skilled labor over the last few decades, especially in the current depression.  Chatter about "saving the middle class" might not resonate with people who know that they are not now and probably never will be part of the Great American Middle Class.  Southern workers are much less likely to be unionized or even exposed to union ideas and the union ideology of "all for one and one for all." Southerners typically don't live in states with state governments that pioneer the delivery of benefits to their citizens and pride themselves in delivering top-quality education, health care, environmental protection, etc.  

    Performing the analysis solely in terms of the percent of the working class votes going to Dems versus Republicans is vulnerable to the objection that it fails to consider whether  the primary effect of working class alienation from the Democratic Party is not a greater willingness to vote for Republicans, but simply a greater reluctance to vote at all.  Turnout declined steadily from 1960 to 2008.

  •  the crazy meme the GOP floats out there... (3+ / 0-)

    ...is that Democrats were the racists.  They point to a few, like Byrd, who had been in the KKK.

    While that's technically true, what the GOP never points out is, the Democrats who were racist defected from the party.  After trying the failed "Dixiecrat" experiment, they became Republicans... which is why the South is now solidly red when it used to be the "yellow-dog Democrat" stronghold.  Racism is what got those Democrats to stop being Democrats and become Republicans.

    It's not the total reason the GOP still holds onto the South.  Racism is a generational thing, and most young Southerners aren't buying into it (which is why my state of Mississippi probably won't go blue anytime soon, but does get a deeper purple every year -- our young people are becoming Democrats)... but, tradition runs deep here, and people vote like their daddy voted.  But the main thing that keeps the South in the GOP camp is religion.  This region is still crazy-Baptist, and they're starting to get as radicalized as any jihadist.   The Republicans got a lock on the South when they started pandering to religion.  Of course, in the long term it also destroyed their party because now they can't make a move without having to pander to complete whack-jobs who think the world's 6,000 years old and other fairy-tale bullshit.

    "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

    by Front Toward Enemy on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:03:01 AM PST

  •  I will trust that you found more in this data than (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FishOutofWater

    ...I can glean from the diary because it sounds incomplete or like a too narrow analysis...however this is a very important truth and if there's anyone who doesn't know it to be true they should...

    The dominating Democratic coalitions of the past were based not only on organized labor and economic populism, but also significantly on Jim Crow and American apartheid. It’s OK for us to admit that. As progressives, we strive for a better, more equal future that has never been attained, not for a past golden age that never really happened.
  •  It's part of it, perhaps the start as you say but (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Johnny Q, costello7, travelerxxx

    it's notIt, and it didn't have to go down this way.

    I think It is McGovern, or rather the Democratic response to McGovern's loss.

    Rhetoric & Policy vs Values
    That response severed the Democrats from their ideological and philosophical moorings. It was the start of the divorce of Democratic values, rhetoric, and policy.

    Democrats should have stuck with,"War is inherently unstable. A nation at war is, by definition, not secure. Democrats want to protect Americans, all Republicans want is war."

    But they didn't. It was a steady drumbeat - have to be tough or we'll lose face; paving the way for Reagan Democrats and cruise missile liberals, Dukakis in the tank, no peace dividend from Clinton, Iraq, LIEberman, Kerry's silence on war in '04

    Hillary Out Jingos McCain
    Democrats trying to out Rambo Republicans came to a head with HRC trying to out jingo McCain in 2007-8.

    Poverty? When's the last time Democrats actually acted on poverty? '84? '86? When's the last time we had some poor people rhetoric and delivered improved policy instead of reformed policy? '66?

    Smaller and smarter government, public private partnerships, tax breaks, NAFTA, welfare to work, abandoned unions, free trade, compete with China.

    Healthcare?
    Consumers. Shopping for healthcare.

    That's how they pitched it in 1992. "Gee, I wonder why it didn't resonate with the voters..." Seriously?

    More of the Same
    It's how we sold it with the ACA too a few years ago. Shop for healthcare, on the "exchange" - costs and copays - private health insurance.

    Not exactly universal health care or Medicare for All, is it? Not exactly faith in government

    Deregulation, tort reform, privatization, streamlining, fiscally conservative, efficiencies of the market, freetrade, business friendly.
    Values & Rhetoric Have to Match Policy
    The point is that these positions don't hook up with Democratic values - those things that need to be activated in people to buy into your world view.

    I have no doubt your picture above had a huge part to play in this, but I don't think it's the major factor post 80s, personally. Proper usage of a party platform and an opposition party would have altered those numbers for the south I think.

    The problem is that Democrats were just unbelievable. "I'm gonna fight for you!" by Al Gore sounded so fake man.

    He spent his years tinkering around with smaller and smarter government - it's the Economy Stupid! Lower taxes. Every American a homeowner. GDP as health of nation.

    No Sale
    That's a stretch on core Democratic Values, so it rings untrue, or sounds opportunistic. The further away from our values we get the harder it becomes to get people to accept your legitimacy or your world view.  

    Democrats:
    Support Unions, ensure healthy and sustainable food, protect all workers, protect minorities and civil rights, support US industry, keep money out of justice, and ensure that justice has teeth big enough for all wrongdoers - health, fairness, and opportunity - these are the core Democratic values.
    We're out there talking about personal responsibility, property, profits, tax breaks, shopping for healthcare, and war.

    This does play a great role in this story as does the Southern Strategy. I'm not sure which one is more important.

    The problem, IMO, is that Democrats had nothing genuinely appealing to the working class other than we are not Republicans because we were distancing ourselves from McGovern (and our values) and co-opting and coat-tailing successful Republican values.

    Peace~

    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

    by k9disc on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:30:44 AM PST

  •  You disproved your own argument (0+ / 0-)

    In your second paragraph you state, "It is taken as virtual gospel among progressives that Democrats once had a lock on white working class voters, but that position quickly eroded in the 1990s."  Unless that picture was taken in the 1990s your title makes no sense.

  •  I for one would never want (3+ / 0-)

    to return to the world depicted in that picture (and which world eerily resembles any photograph of the power brokers of the Republican Party today). I recognize that many of the men in that picture wanted to usher in a new world and they are not personally at fault for the demographics portrayed.  But for me,  older white(straight)  males are not the be all and end all of existence in this country anymore, and I am not willing to go back. I want to still  move forward withthe pursuit of  equality for all.

    The problem with analysis of statistics of 'white working class vote' is that there are startling regional differences, with the south and some red pockets in suburbs in the north and out west being so overwhelmingly Republican that it distorts the degree of the change in white working class voting behavior.   And has created a mythos about how to appeal to these voters.  Everywhere but the south, appeal to their economic interests, their children's future upward mobility through education and fair economic and tax policies.   In the South,  I am not sure what can break through the hate as it is fanned by Fox News, local papers and politicians from the local to the national level.  It is going to be slow going, younger generations aren't as infected, but the general attitudes of too many suburban/rural white working class southerners are still tainted by racism, and they will endure obscene economic and social policy as long as they are convinced it hurts people of color more.

  •  If we didn't lose voters moving right (0+ / 0-)

    we might not gain any moving left.

    It may be that American voters are superficial and low-information for the most part.

    I would be interested in seeing if a rise in fundamentalist and evangelical church attendance correlates to voting patterns. We know that evangelicals tend to vote Republican, but do people who change churches change politics?

    Purity is for primaries; in the general, our worst are better than their best.

    by blue aardvark on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:48:17 AM PST

  •  It took another decade for desegregation to move (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Assaf, burlydee, TomP, rabrock, travelerxxx, Jyrki

    through a series of court cases and achieve wide effect. In the mid-seventies, legal challenges to "school busing" programs rocked southern California. White voters immediately expressed their displeasure with the "taxpayers revolt" that began with Prop-13 (slashing revenue from property taxes) and then spread to other states.

    Open, klan-style racism was definitely uncool in the Disco Era, but Republicans proved quite adept at sublimating white resentment into a hostility toward "big government".

    In his campaign for governor, Ronald Reagan learned how to run against desegregation without looking like George Wallace. When he ran for president, his "government is the problem" platform was a perfectly tuned dog whistle for white voters who had "fled to the suburbs" in the sixties.

    This "crypto-racism" simmered just below the surface of national politics until the election of our first non-white President brought it to a full boil.

    The TeaPuppet crazies have finally exposed it, and this will, in the long run, be a good thing. But most Democrats are too polite to call out crypto-racism when they see it.

    I see it everywhere. Trade unions were fine and dandy... until they were desegregated. Now working-class whites hate 'em.

    Attacks on teachers' unions and efforts to teach Creationism are just surrogate attacks on public (desegregated) schools.

    Attacks on the civil rights of gay Americans are surrogate attacks on civil rights of racial minorities.

    Blaming the nation's woes on illegal immigrants is a surrogate attack on non-white American citizens.

    Even the right-wing hostility toward abortion is a vehicle for their antagonism toward federal courts  - the same courts that desegregate their schools, workplaces and neighborhoods a generation ago.

    The generation who "lost" the civil rights struggle of the sixties are slowing going by the way. But we still have to deal with their offspring, who have inherited their racism, disguised as "Taxed Enough Already" hostility toward government.

    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing
    he was never reasoned into” - Jonathan Swift

    by jjohnjj on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:55:41 AM PST

  •  Yes, but Dem politicians have Happily played along (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Johnny Q, rabrock

    1. Since the Civil Rights Act electoral politics have turned into a culture war re-enactment of the Civil War via proxy issues like abortion, immigration and gay marriage.

    The Democratic Establishment has embraced this shift. It allows a huge chunk of Dem politicians to be bought over by Big Money, while turning partisan politics into one big lazy game of Irrelevancy Chicken.

    Yes, it's the GOP that seems to be "winning" the game and driving itself over the cliff as we speak. But Dems and the public are no better for having participated.

    2. Even though the driving force of all this has always been Civil War legacy (racism and South:North resentment), it has become Verboten to actually mention and continue fighting the Civil Rights cause itself, the way MLK had intended to lead when he was murdered.

    Thus, Brown and Poor America has been neglected by Dem Establishment as prey for Big Money (prisons, loan sharks, deteriorating education, etc.)

    So this is where we're at today. Enough hiding behind "but Republicans are racist". Our side's representatives, too many of them, have stood for nothing for a good generation-plus now.

    And they sure have not stood up for the anti-racist cause either. Not really.

  •  Abortion (0+ / 0-)

    Now that I have moved to a less religious area it seems quaint and strange, but abortion is maybe issue 1, 2, and 3 for many evangelical working-class voters.  I believe that social issues were the in and now themes of moochers and us vs them have also trickled into the mix.  I'm having a hard time coming up with what, if anything, would make a bit of difference bringing these folks back into the fold.  Frankly, I am also wondering if I even care to.

    We all went to heaven in a little rowboat, and there was nothing to fear and nothing to doubt. --Radiohead

    by Tzimisce on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:58:09 AM PST

  •  Lock Was Broken in 1970s (0+ / 0-)

    The Democratic lock on White working class voters wasn't broken in the 1990s. So by the time Democrats led by Clinton undermined those voters' economic security with finance deregulation instead of fixing what had actually broken the lock, it was already lost.

    Democrats lost White working class voters in the 1970s. While Nixon lost Vietnam and committed Watergate, it was Democrat Lyndon Johnson who started Vietnam and just quit 5 years into it as it got worse. These voters blamed Johnson as much as Nixon for Watergate - and Nixon at least gave them merciless bombings, and appeared to be winding the war down as he'd promised to get elected, before he was forced to resign over Watergate.

    It wasn't until Carter was president that the real damage done by Watergate and Vietnam had material effects. The hope that a change in president is designed to bring was deeply undermined by the reality that Nixon was pardoned and Carter didn't punish either Nixon's gang or the CIA. Then he did give immunity to "draft dodgers" who White working class people mostly hated for being "traitors" and for avoiding the meatgrinder the draftees patriotiotically got sent into (and for being right all along about the war's wrongness). Carter was a Southerner very sympathetic to Black people and the real gains they got in the 1970s, and an overt Christian who wasn't hypocritical on war and greed the way White working class people had come to expect from the nation's leaders.

    Democrats and Civil Rights were the way the country developed in the 1970s, in ways that White middle class voters rejected as it threatened their White privilege - even as it strengthened their rights under actual equality.

    Meanwhile Republicans appealed to those voters' greed, fear, bigotry, and newly overt distrust of the government - which now was a Democratic government, in all elected chambers. They rebranded with Reagan as the "anti-government" party, by branding Democrats as the "government party".

    In 1980 Reagan and a barely minority House Republican Party were elected. The Democrats recovered by spending the Reagan/Bush era compromising as Republicans took over the lock on White working class voters.

    The lock might have been cracked at that moment LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. But it hung on the door until he left them with Vietnam. The lock was reversed to make and keep those voters Republican starting in the 1980s. By the 1990s all the Democrats could do was lose Congress, and elect Clinton only because a real anti-government Republican (Perot) split the Republican vote. And indeed Clinton's reelection was because he and Republicans had unleashed so much cheap credit to bubble the economy - the same trick Republicans used to own the 1980s.

    Until Democrats understand how they lost a lock on people whose values and implicit policies they better represent, they'll never get it back.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 10:17:05 AM PST

  •  The discrepancy is rather easy to explain (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Johnny Q, Lawrence

    By and large, those in Congress most strongly opposed to civil rights laws tended to be Southern Democrats. There was a real split in views between Northern and Southern Democrats, not only on civil rights but on other issues as well, particularly the right of labor to organize. In fact, had it not been Southern tradition for white voters to vote reflexively against the "party of Lincoln" the shift would have happened decades earlier than it actually did.

  •  so what you are saying (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Johnny Q

    is that we have successfully transcended the vast majority of the southern working class racism that made the "southern strategy" successful.

    maybe you're idea of a populist movement will help democrats to regain the south.  I am not sure.  It seems to me that the forces that attempt to unite under an umbrella are overwhelmed by the constant pressures of economic stressors on the basic functions of life, and that these stressors make rational unitary thought almost impossible.

    Without real and effective policy shifts that make people better off in the south, the republicans will always have a pool of angry disenfranchised white voters to rely on for their midterm success.

    Time for a real working class hero

  •  It's the Religion Thing (3+ / 0-)

    I am a lifelong Southerner, a White Male. I am also a lifelong Democrat. I think the lock on White Southern voters is mainly about religion. The friends and relatives I know who are Republican are all religious. They attend church regularly and take the recommendations of their pastors very seriously. Most Southern Evangelicals oppose Abortion strongly. The Nixon Southern Strategy was key to winning the initial consideration of White voters. Regardless of what they say, most Conservative Whites still oppose anything they think benefits Blacks, even if it might help them personally.
      The Democratic Party needs to find some way to convince White Southern voters it has their interests at heart. The best way to do this is by bringing economic prosperity to the South. There is a growing number of former middle class Whites who are hurting financially. I admit this is very tricky because the usual solutions tend to run to areas typically anathema to the Democratic Party. Here is where fresh, new approaches can work.
      The encouraging thing about all this is that it is now possible to win in the South by getting a majority of voters from Blacks, Hispanics, and educated Whites, especially Women.

  •  Sad commentary on our white working-class voters (0+ / 0-)

    "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." - John F. Kennedy

    by boofdah on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 11:47:57 AM PST

  •  Jacobs' paper needs to be required reading (0+ / 0-)

    for every Democratic consultant, candidate, and official in the country. Now.

  •  Odd (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbell

    What about all the northern states, like WI and MI that have maintained hard-core right wing govt?  How do you differentiate between "the poor" and "the working class"? In this era, people tend to move between these two categories fairly often. An issue that lib media wouldn't touch:  Bill Clinton targeted the poor, giving us 8 years of Bush. The poor didn't vote for Bush, but they didn't vote for Gore, either. Dems in Congress (including those who are marketed as "Bold Progressives") have continued to target the elderly, disabled and poor. This chunk of the population knows with certainty that they can no longer trust the Democrats. Now, add in those who are still in the workforce, praying their jobs don't get shipped out. Lib media and quite a few Dems have pushed VP Joe Biden aside, pushing for Hillary Clinton to be president. Besides her solid anti-poor credentials, H. Clinton was a powerful lobbyist for NAFTA, and would guarantee the full implementation of the TPP, securing her reputation as anti-working class. To sum it up -- Democrats since Clinton have deeply alienated most of the base.

  •  Hmmm: Nixon had a southern strategy... (0+ / 0-)

    ...: this is news?

    If it is true that "It is taken as virtual gospel among progressives that Democrats once had a lock on white working class voters, but that position quickly eroded in the 1990s and later as party leaders pursued cuts to social programs, Wall Street deregulation, and anti-union trade agreements" then progressives have been living in some other alternative universe from the one I thought we were living in. I have always made a distinction between the white working class of the nation as a whole and that part of it that resides in the south.

  •  Those Southern Democrats, (0+ / 0-)

    or "Dixie-crats" as they became known as, switched to the Republican party after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act because they still supported slavery and were against emancipation. And...they have not changed and are still racist to this day. And regretfully, they pass it on and teach  racism and bigotry to their children. They now support and vote for those politicians  who tell them openly that what they promise to do is against their own best interests (the most welfare and food stamps goes to the red states where those getting those benefits vote for the candidates who promise to take those benefits away....along with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and affordable health insurance.  An amazing study in psychology.

  •  Um, what about the Democrats being bought out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    costello7

    like the Republicans? Lots of good analysis here but it completely ignores how all, ALL politicians, both parties, play the money game. Not the legislative game. Not the democracy game. The 'I spend 70% of my time looking for money for my next run for office' game.
    Making these theories of how any party lost a particular group of people is cute and clever. But is insane as changing the curtains while your house is on fire and commenting on how the new drapes really make the room brighter. The room is brighter because it's on fire.
    No party is valid. No theory is going to give an incisive analysis of the movement of a party. Not until we get money out of elections and out of politics.
    By all means, keep changing the curtains if it makes you feel good about yourself and your day. But it's all ashes. The Dems and Repubs are both motivated by money. The rest is just strategy. Neither serve the people unless as a by-product.

  •  It's Simple (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lawrence

    With the election of 1964, the Republican Party began to morph into a party based on race supremacy.  After 1980 with the likes of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, they began to model the party and it's organizing principals along the lines of the National Socialists after the onset on the worldwide depression in 1929.  The Big Lie, Scapegoats, Racial Hate and the marriage of Corporations and Government are now an everyday fact of life in the Republican Party.

  •  Oh, how I do agree!!!!!!!!! (0+ / 0-)

    Yeah.

    The American populace has been trained to vote against their own self interests on the basis of some supposed hobgoblins (communism / socialism) or their ignorance and societal prejudices (people of a different ethnic make up than the previous plantation owner.)

    We've just seen how they were easily convinced that having healthcare was a bad idea and that birth control is a bad idea and how welfare to support the unwanted children born to those deprived of birth control is a bad idea.  The limits to ignorance seem unbounded

    They remind me of a dog on a hot afternoon busily engaged biting fleas and not having an owner to take it to the Vet for flea treatment.

    "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness," Allen Ginsberg

    by Hermenutic on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 12:31:25 PM PST

  •  Very little's changed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Berkeley Fred

    old northeastern liberal republicans are now Democrats and Southern reactionary democrats are now Republicans.   Outside of federal infrastructure spending in the New Deal, very few of the dixiecrats espoused pro-worker policies, and were in fact strongly anti-union in many cases.  can't lose what you never had.  

    Moreover, at no point has the democratic party ever been to the right of the republicans on economic issues during the post-LBJ time frame, so it's hard to see "alienation," unless you want to look at enthusiasm and turnout.  

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 12:44:29 PM PST

  •  Good riddance to racists! (0+ / 0-)
  •  Well, duh (0+ / 0-)

    Um, every U.S. historian worth her salt has long known this.  As Hugh Graham pointed out, Nixon pursued a border South strategy because competing for the deep South white vote meant taking on George Wallace, which would alienate more moderate voters  than it was worth.  And, of course, Nixon was right.  He won in 1968 without carrying AR, LA, MS, AL, or GA.

    Bill Turner Left Hand Copy http://lefthandcopy.com/

    by wbtphdjd on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 01:15:44 PM PST

    •  Not as I see it. (0+ / 0-)

      Among historians (I am one), the role of the white South's defection from the Democratic to the Republican party is well known, yes - and plays a prominent role in our understanding of the "conservative resurgence".  But what this paper seems to suggest is that virtually ALL of the rightward shift of US political culture since the '66 election is the fruit of that southern shift alone. That would be remarkable, and would change our understanding of the shift.

      This is not how the history is ordinarily written.  Rather: historians tend to write of a broader shift of specific groups out of the "Roosevelt coalition" of voters into the new "Reagan coalition" , a shift that really began with Nixon. White southerners of course are a big part of this, but so also was the "white working class", both north AND south - the "hard hats" as they are sometimes called, presumably in reference to the helmeted construction workers of NYC who beat up antiwar protesters. Important also were the votes of other groups which Jacobs does not consider (Ken Phillips' sunbelt suburban voters; white collar suburbanites in the north, etc.)

      It seems to me that Jacobs paper makes an exaggerated argument ("it was the South alone that screwed us") based on a rather narrow slice of evidence. But my curiosity is piqued - I will read it later today.

  •  And to assist (0+ / 0-)

    the old southern Democrats in getting working class, southern white voters was to switch to the Republican Party.  Georgia's current and last governor used to be Democrats.

    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities - Voltaire

    by cka on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 01:28:00 PM PST

  •  WHAT DOES IT MATTER? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    costello7

    Politicians from all parties have been in the back pockets of corporations for decades. The U.S. has belonged to the wealthy and corporations for the past thirty years. Our country was sold long ago and it no longer belongs to the people.

  •  Democrats lost the white working class vote (0+ / 0-)

    Playing the race card makes for some interesting conversations, but this one just does not work.  The Democratic Party is majority white Americans.  The Washington Post 's graph shows that 58% of the Democratic Party are white. - http://goo.gl/...

    Besides, you say that they were lost on at the moment LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act and then stated the white vote started eroding in the 1990's.  So which is it?

    Additionally, the Act would not have passed if the GOP did not support it.

    History -  It's a wonderful thing.

  •  Much of the commentary below (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    travelerxxx, solublefish

    misses the essential point of the article.  Let me try to sharpen it.

    Suppose that, after WWII, the Germans had been allowed to reunify immediately, to continue treating Jews and Romani as second-class citizens, and to term the conflict "the war of Western aggression"?  Suppose they had obtained veto power (joined the Security Council) in the new United Nations?  Suppose they took offense at any international laws that were in conflict with the "German way of life"?

    No, the Confederacy did not commit genocide.  Their chattel were far too valuable to be shipped off to slaughterhouses.  But during "reconstruction" (what a joke) the fomenters of the only armed insurrection against the government of the USA were allowed to retain power, and soon had a lock on the U.S. Senate which they held for almost a century, until Lyndon Johnson betrayed them by pushing through, and signing, the civil rights bills and especially the voting rights act.

    Sure, there are neo-Nazis in Germany and Austria, as well as all over the USA today, but they are a tiny minority, the lunatic fringe.  People who call the U.S. Civil War "the war of Northern aggression" are a significant percentage of the current GOP base.

    There's a reason the critically-acclaimed film "Twelve Years a Slave" has done poorly at the American box office.  It shows what the "Southern way of life" was really like.  This country is largely unready to face that reality, even more than a century after legal slavery was abolished.

    It's way too late to round up, in 1870, everyone who could be proven to have owned slaves and try them all for sedition and treason.  AND to publicize throughout the country how the southerners who didn't own slaves had been duped into laying down their lives in defense of that abhorrent system.  But if something like that had happened, the way it did in Germany after WWII, Nixon would not have had a "Southern Strategy" to fall back on, labor unions (which didn't exist in the North at the time but were on their way) would have done very well in the South, and so forth.

    Talk about the dignity of labor!  How dignified is a slave hanging by his neck with his toes barely touching the ground, while his fellow laborers watch?  How dignified is a sharecropper who can be lynched for looking the wrong way at his landlord's wife?

    If you're a progressive living in the South, please don't get me wrong.  You're part of a significant minority, as are the racists in places like Idaho that never had a slave on their soil.  I''m just saying that this country missed a great opportunity to right a terrible wrong, immediately after the Civil War, and we blew it.  By the beginning of the 20th century, the reality of slavery was buried under propaganda films like "Birth of a Nation" and "Gone With the Wind".

    And if you want a precedent for the cushy way that the captains of  Wall Street who nearly torpedoed the world financial system have been treated, look no farther than the canonization of Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee.  It's an American tradition.  Our glorious leaders (plantation owners, CEOs) can do no wrong.

    •  percentage of the current GOP base. (0+ / 0-)

      "People who call the U.S. Civil War "the war of Northern aggression" are a significant percentage of the current GOP base."

      True or not, is that supposed to tell us something about the GOP?  One can just as easily assert that 'People who call the U.S. Civil War "the war of Northern aggression" are a significant percentage of the current Democratic Party base.'

      I believe can establish that people who refer to the Civil War as "the war of Northern aggression" live in the states that were part of the confederacy and that almost all of those who were from "Union" states or territories that did exist at the time simply refer to it as the "Civil War". The Southern people consist of mostly Republicans and Democrats, as does the Northern states, making your point pointless.

  •  Ok..I totally agree, but... (0+ / 0-)

    when you still vote in Hillary's, Gillibrands, and Schumers, you get corporate Democracy which is bad for poor folks whether white or people of color.....

    www.norenforsenate.com Scott Noren DDS

    by DoctorNoren on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:13:21 PM PST

  •  I'd say they lost (0+ / 0-)

    the STUPID, white, working class vote. Not all working class white folks are stupid, but the ones that started voting republican are definitely so.  Just like the TeaBaggers of today.

  •  Voting right,s (0+ / 0-)

    Great picture. Great history. And it took a lot guts to sign that bill. Yes that was the moment in history when the south went red. Johnson knew it.

    •  Yes that was the moment in history when the ... (0+ / 0-)

      " ... south went red. Johnson knew it."

      More revisionist history.  This along with Nixon's "southern Strategy" is believed by racists to have moved large numbers of Southern Democrats to the GOP.  The fact is you will only be able to find opinions claiming those stories are true.  But if you look at Nixon's elections, congressional (state & federal), governor & presidential elections, along with voter registrations, you will find that only about 2% of Southern Democrats changed parties.

      Time for a new narrative.

      History - It's a wonderful thing.

  •  globalization and abortion (0+ / 0-)

    http://www.dailykos.com/...
    I can't speak to the percentage of non-southern working class voters lost from the Democratic party, but my own experience is more in line with that described by Thomas Frank in his book, "What's the Matter with Kansas?"  Both my parents' families were working class, one at Westinghouse in Sharon PA, the other at Republic Steel in Youngstown OH.

    Although some of us still vote Democrat, the others lost faith in the Democratic Party for two reasons.  The first was the Democrats' overarching preoccupation with abortion, which most members of both families -- Protestant (Methodist/Lutheran) or Catholic -- are against, myself included.  I won't go into our reasons, which in most cases have nothing to do with religion, but I will say that, even if I were pro-abortion, there are way too many more important issues we need to face, rather than spinning our wheels on that one -- for the last 40 years!

    The second is globalization.  It started in the 70s when the US government allowed Japan to dump steel and electronic appliances on US markets, below cost, while overcharging  their own people.  It led to protests by Japanese housewives, who couldn't afford to buy Japanese products, and virtually wiped out both industries in the US in less than a decade -- while the Democrats led both houses of Congress, if I remember correctly.

    Democratic party leaders have only themselves to blame, not the Civil Rights Act nor the southern working class.  In fact, if it weren't for the Civil Rights Act, the party probably wouldn't exist at all.  Keep in mind that most people of color in the south are working class.  If they aren't all voting, and voting Democrat, we've got some hope -- and some work to do.  Focus, people!  Or, as the Civil Rights song said, "Keep your eyes on the prize" -- for a change!

  •  Southern Voters (0+ / 0-)

    "White working class presidential party vote choice for non-Southerners is remarkably stable over time; if anything, the period between 1984 and 2008 has been one of improvement for the Democrats amongst this group. The opposite is true in the South. Prior to the 1960s rights revolutions (including, most notably for the South, the major upheavals of the Civil Rights Movement), a strong majority of the Southern white working class voted for Democratic candidates."

    Which means they were racist all along...but then became stupid.  Racist because they feel they are better than any minority, and stupid because they have, since then, voted against their own self interest.(But they haven't cornered the market on that score)

  •  lost white working class vote (0+ / 0-)

    It is shameful to leave the political party that gave rights to Americans.   Why not just wear a racist sign on your back?

  •  Pure Horse Exhaust (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    Lawrence

    I was already listening to FZ's Mothers of Invention before this shithead took over the presidency, and this self-aggrandizing opportunistic pseudo-liberal Kochsucker soured me on Texans going on 50 years ago.

    I'm sure there are Texans who need to point to anyone to explain why they should be protected under the EAC, but fuck them. These cocksuckers and cuntwipes deserve the Samuel L. Jackson righteous indignation that will wipe that slate clean and turn them into whatever these POS become in the real world.

    LBJ would have sucked AIDS-infected antelope dicks to get a vote. If he didn't fuck JFK's neck wound, I'm sure it's because Lady Bird advised him against it.

    Fuck him, and fuck this diary. Ruthlessly.

    Your pal,
    Osama bin Laffen Hizazzoff

    "You think this is bad. This ain't bad.," said the hobo to Billy Pilgrim on the train to Auschwitz in Slaughterhouse Five.

    by drfaustroll on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 03:04:46 PM PST

  •  White middle class (0+ / 0-)

    Back in the New Deal days, programs to help the working poor were popular.  But since Reagan, "poor" and "working class" means "not American".  Even the Democrats bought it.  Even the Dems insist that their best efforts at reversing the concentration of wealth and power are aimed at improving "the middle class", and are afraid to mention the wage-earners and powerless.

    Everybody has to be an entrepreneur in order to be considered an American.  The wage-earner is going to be squeezed and squeezed.  It's the only way we know how to reach the holy grail -- the balanced budget.

    •  today's latte liberals (0+ / 0-)

      It seems many a contemporary Democrat has adopted the same suck-up/kick-down "aspiration politics" that "the Gipper" made so popular back in the day. Any real notion of class consciousness, what used to be called solidarity has gone by the wayside.  It's not uncommon on this site, and others where boutique liberals congregate, to hear a lot of belittling, particularly of rural and poor so-called "trailer trash", "redneck", "white trash" et al. all on the cocksure assumption that they most certainly must be Republican, hence racist.

      There was a time when liberals had an understanding of and kinship with the likes of the Joad family from the fictional Grapes of Wrath. Nowdays? self righteous judgement is basically the best they have to offer.  

  •  White working class voters in the south (0+ / 0-)

    While I agree that this article has much merit, it overlooks an important point:  image.  Today's Democratic Party includes large numbers of left-wing fascists of the politically-coerced censorship crowd.  While this photograph shows LBJ signing the Civil Rights Act, and that definitely has hurt the Democratic image among southern, the dates mentioned are long after 1965.  With regards to Whites, many would like to 'return to the fold.'  However, the politically-coerced censorship crowd is as calcified, inflexible, and intolerant as the right wing.  In order to gain their approval, one has not only to agree with every premise, without exception, but must be stated in an 'acceptable' manner.  This 'we know what is best' arrogance, which precludes debate and stifles freedom of expression, forces people to choose between two egregious philosophies.

    Two examples of this are the attempt to force the public to accept radical Islam and defend terrorists, including forcing people to be exposed, officially, to proselytizing efforts by terrorist organizations such as CAIR; with consequences for dissenting.  Such blatant abuse of the First Amendment would have evoked howls of protest from the Democrats of the 1960s, but today must be accepted or the person is dismissed by the 'ruling elite' of the party.  Many of we, who are genuine liberals, are mortified by such attitudes, but are left with accepting them, or accepting the equally egregious right wing.  Many, such as I, are left with no voice in today's political discourse at all.  Others fall for the right's sound bites, which happen to be their forte.  Many people crave an option where free expression is welcome, and have not got one.

    Another example is enabling.  Democrats of the 1960s would revolt against prejudice to anybody.  Today's party only revolts against prejudice against protected minorities.  Those who are not among them, are not only fair game, but epithets are welcomed, and even lauded against anyone who attempts to give a fair shake to those not among the protected classes.

    In short, many White working men in the south could be brought back on board, but not to abandon right wing fascism for left wing fascism.

    •  It is difficult to take this comment seriously (0+ / 0-)

      as you appear to take certain things as given that are simply not so. To wit:

      In order to gain their approval, one has not only to agree with every premise, without exception, but must be stated in an 'acceptable' manner.
      and
      Two examples of this are the attempt to force the public to accept radical Islam and defend terrorists, including forcing people to be exposed, officially, to proselytizing efforts by terrorist organizations such as CAIR
      Regarding the first extract, I don't see people being hounded out of the Democratic Party as DINOs, in marked contrast to our opposition.

      Regarding the second, well...

      If you would be so good, please indicate any mainstream or even widespread Democratic defense of "radical Islam"--you did indicate there were large numbers of Democrats who do this, so this should not be especially difficult. As far as that goes, though, I recall having seen considerably more concern in the upper ranks of GOP leadership for the delicate sensibilities of Wahhabists than I ever have in the Democratic Party. John McCain is only the first to come to mind.

      Second, (and I realize by even pushing back on this I may be confirming you in your beliefs) there is no evidence that CAIR is, in fact, a terrorist organization. It has never been charged with any crime or given the terrorist group appellation by any branch of our government. Now, it is true that some years back, during the Bush years, federal investigators did put CAIR on a large list of hundreds of unindicted co-conspirators and/or joint venturers in the course of an investigation as to whether funding was being funneled to Hamas through the Holy Land Foundation. However, here is how the JTA (Jewish Telegraphic Agency, serving Jewish community news services worldwide, describes the outcome of an appeal of that decision.

      According to the appeals ruling, the government acknowledged that not sealing the list was an oversight, and further said that by titling the list with the double designation "co-conspirator/joint venturer" it was not necessarily ascribing involvement in criminal activity to the listed groups.

      "Joint venturers" suggests a weaker association than "unindicted co-conspirator," the appeals court noted. An entity qualifies as a joint venturer "merely by engaging in a joint plan — distinct from the criminal conspiracy charged — that was non-criminal in nature," the appeals court wrote. "Therefore, even if NAIT [North American Islamic Trust, another entity placed on that list--LVP] could have been accurately characterized as a joint venturer, that characterization does not carry an inherently criminal connotation."

      Solis’ ruling that the groups were unduly harmed by publication of the co-conspirator designation, along with the prosecution’s emphasis that some groups on the list were merely joint venturers, complicates arguments by some conservative and pro-Israel groups that the Council on American Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America have been tainted by the co-conspirator label.

      It takes more than that to make an organization clearly criminal and/or terrorist. Or at least in any free society it ought to.

      My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
      --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

      by leftist vegetarian patriot on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 04:19:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  As a White Southern Male (7+ / 0-)

    I am often included in some really absurd right wing political conversations, because it is assumed that all Southern Whites, especially males, are Republican.  I don't even publicly identify as a Liberal Democrat, because I've learned all too well what kind of response to expect (and it ain't Southern hospitality).  I just nod and go about my business as soon as I can.  Recently, on a visit, my step dad warned my mother in a restaurant "Don't say that too loud.  We're in Mississippi, you can't tell people you're a Democrat in Mississippi."

    I wasn't around in 1960's, but in the 70's and 80's as the South went more Republican, the "n word" was slowly replaced by the word "liberal" in the cultural lexicon.  Since it's not acceptable to be openly racist anymore, the former hatred of other races and religions was transferred to hatred of Democrats.  That's my theory:  Racism by Proxy.  Since non-white, non-Christians tend to vote Democratic, the Democratic Party has become a convenient catch-all for all the "other" people "they" don't like.  It allows people to say "I'm not racist, I just hate Democrats."  And they do.  Believe me, they do.

    And then there's the dictatorial Federal government that freed the slaves and then after more than a century of looking the other way interfered again and declared us all equal before the law.  

    I hope a generation will come in this region that can overcome the burdens that the South has heaped upon itself, but I'm not sure I'll live long enough to see it for myself.

    •  Racism by Proxy (0+ / 0-)

      I think you're right. I believe it was Atwater or one of those "strategists" who said that if they can shift public perception of the Democratic Party to being an entity that encourages "government handouts" to blacks, the Republicans will easily win the white Southern vote, and a lot of the North, as well.

      And they did. And they have.

      This isn't limited to just blacks. Southern congressmen like John Rankin used to be quite openly anti-Semitic. Since that is no longer acceptable, either, they now demonize "the liberal media." It used to be, "The Jewish-owned media."

      I don't expect the South to ever change. The decline in overt racism has been replaced by a spike in modified fundamentalism, where white bigots are now happy to join black bigots to fight a "common enemy," i.e. gays, atheists, liberals, anti-NRA people, etc.

      "Nationalism, religious bigotry and feudal loyalty are far more powerful forces than…sanity." —George Orwell, “Wells, Hitler and the World State” (1941)

      by Blood on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:44:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I believe that Lyndon Johnson predicted... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jyrki

    when he signed the voting rights act that the Democrats would lose the southern white vote for a generation.  He was a shrewd politician and, unfortunately, his prediction has come true.  I'm glad you pointed out in this diary that it was only the southern white vote that was lost.  I wonder if Johnson was prescient when he said one generation, or if he just couldn't predict further than that.  I hope it is the former!

    "There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end they always fail. Always." -Gandhi

    by Grandma Susie on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 03:36:46 PM PST

  •  Trumpet this to the winds (0+ / 0-)

    As they say, "This!"

  •  Thanks, Chris Bowers and Elisabeth Jacobs. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Blood

    As a 71 year old who grew up in the south and moved away in my 30's -- who has been politically aware and active since I was eighteen year old (before I could vote) - I have been telling people what I have seen happening in the southern working class for years, but I had no formal data to back it up.

    When every single southern relative and friend that I knew in the south moved from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party over the decades since the Civil Rights Act was enacted, it is clear as crystal to me.

    When every time the topic of civil rights comes up between us I get the deep chill from my old friends and family. They not only hate, they hate with all their heart and soul. And it's a religious hatred. God does not want black people mixing with white people. God is the one who put the curse on black people, and it's not the place of human beings to usurp his right to curse whomever he pleases.

    Those that are not religious, but believe in God, will simply say that it's how black people act that makes them feel that way. Always a ready excuse.

    Many of the more poor religious people will talk about how they know and love this black person or that one, but catch them in a more relaxed conversation and they make it plain they think most black people are inferior and are the cause of most of the country's problems.

    They would never be that open to non-friend or family except under anonymous names on the internet. Then some of them get unbelievably crude in how they talk about black people.

  •  What is Presidential vote share? (0+ / 0-)

    I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 04:33:07 PM PST

  •  Wait a minute--is "Presidential vote share" (0+ / 0-)

    the Democrats' share of the votes for President? Among, in this case, northern working-class whites?

    I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 04:34:25 PM PST

  •  Losing the White Working Class Vote (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skywriter

    Yes , in the South, no doubt that loss began with the Civil Rights Act. But its been a while since then and the Democratic Party has failed to win them back. I think you underestimate the common sense of Southerners. The Democratic Party itself has failed to put forth a short, understandable economic policy that would better their lives. So they have no incentive to change course.

  •  Bipartisan support? (0+ / 0-)

    Is that Barry Goldwater to the right of King and LBJ?

  •  For those old enough to remember (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stuart Heady, Lawrence

    The switching of the parties that happened in 1968 was horrifying. Families were literally torn apart by it, friends turned against friends, there were actual fist fights at neighborhood block parties.

    Here is the quote from Nixon's campaign manager ..

    "From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats"

    And THAT is why all racist states are republican today. The GOP has been fostering the racism to keep their party in power.

    •  Hubert Humphrey lost the election himself (0+ / 0-)

      He wanted to continue the deeply unpopular war in Southeast Asia, which was the reason young people turned on LBJ and then on Humphrey. Humphrey acted as though nothing was taking place in the streets.

      Humphrey, head of the Democratic Party and presumptive heir to LBJ, allowed Chicago cops to split the heads of young people protesting the war and racism during the Democratic Convention. That sealed his fate. Humphrey lost not only the white working class but all of the young people.  

      That all of this took place on national TV didn't help Humphrey one bit. He did it to himself with Chicago Mayor Daley's "help."

      •  I just came here to comment that it was Vietnam (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Foothills of Oblivion

        that created a huge split in the Democratic Party.  Humphrey and his labor union backers were not enlightened on the War.  Those who were right about the war didn't have the time of day for the labor movement by the time McGovern ran for President.

        I blame George Meany of the AFL/CIO for breaking up the Dems into 2 camps who didn't get along.  This rift allowed a slick talker like Reagan to slip right in.  And the labor movement suffers to this day because of Meany's stubbornness on the war.

        Congressional elections have consequences!

        by Cordyc on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:43:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Yes, I'm another one... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Foothills of Oblivion

    that thinks Alan Grayson or Elizabeth Warren should run for president instead of Hillary Clinton. I will never forget Bill Clinton's signing of NAFTA either. They are riding the same economic band wagon that the Neo-cons are riding. Not good for the American workers at all.

    If you like bicycles, check out the newest and coolest products at my site, "ZiggyboyBullet.com." You can also find my products at e-Bay under the name, "Ziggyboy." See all the products on my "See seller's other items" link.

    by JohnnieZ on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:50:28 PM PST

  •  Southern White Working Class Voters and Dems (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jyrki, Lawrence

    Finally, finally someone who analyzes voting pattens recognizes the reality here. I grew up in the South of the 1950s/60s (I'm white) and I heard many of my friends - working class or otherwise - say what a very good friend said to me in the mid 1960s: "I'm not a bigot, I'm a conservative."  He had, less than a year earlier, felt quite comfortable describing himself as a bigot,saying that "blacks" were less than we and did not merit the gains that the civil rights movement (he didn't call it that) was seeking.

  •  A lot of southern whites used to say, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jyrki, Lawrence

    and probably genuinely believed, "I'm not a racist, but I believe the races should be kept separate."

    You read that sentiment over and over again in interviews with southern whites in the '50s and '60s.

    Well, the Federal Gubmint starting in 1954 said that the South could no longer legally enforce segregation. And they said it again even more loudly in 1964, 1965, and 1968.

    That was probably the beginning of the New Confederacy and the "big government is tyrannical" meme. Which has in turn given us the New NRA, the Moral Majority, ALEC, Stand Your Ground, Climate Denial, Creationism in Schools, and the rest of the right wing horror show.

    "Nationalism, religious bigotry and feudal loyalty are far more powerful forces than…sanity." —George Orwell, “Wells, Hitler and the World State” (1941)

    by Blood on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:58:12 PM PST

  •  Very, very interesting. Thank you for this diary. (0+ / 0-)

    Hony soit qui mal e pense!

    by bobwilk on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 06:03:45 PM PST

  •  It was not the white middle class vote (0+ / 0-)

    It was the red neck bigots vote that they lost.

  •  Think about this..... (0+ / 0-)

    Owsley County, Kentucky is 99.22% white.
    95 % Republican. Yet it's  the poorest county in the United States. It has the highest rate  of SNAP Benefit usage in the nation.

    The poorest county in the United States of America is Republican.

    Racism and ignorance is like crack or meth in Appalachia. It's a hell of a drug. It'll make entire societies do things against their own interests.

    The 1% will take their votes, but the 1 % consider these people human garbage. And those poor souls who continue to vote for them don't even realize it. They think, "Hey, we look like them, so we must BE like them!"
    Well, that's simply not the case. I can only sum up what they fail to realize in a quick anecdote: A couple of years ago, I attended an Occupy Rally in Washington DC, and a curly-headed young white man stood on the stage and said to the crowd, "To them, we're all ni**ers now!" People gasped, but once they thought about it, they got the message. Southerners like the residents of Owsley County will never get the message.

    I don't know if that's the saddest result of the Southern Strategy, because there are a LOT of them.  But it's gotta be in the top 5.

  •  Incredible photo. Didn't realize Dr. King was (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lawrence

    there with LBJ when the bill was signed!

    That's true dynamite for a political blog like this.

  •  Denigrating working people (0+ / 0-)

    Working class people of ALL COLORS in this country are under attack. To make such wild over generalizations based on race might well massage individual egos here, but it also plays right into the hands of the Plutocrats. It's a politics I have no use for. I've never voted for a Republican in my life, but do you really believe that the prime motivation of any and everyone who may have voted for a Republican candidate since 1964 is racist? That's what this implies and it's quite a stretch.  

    Between now and Nov. it's quite possible Obama will complete the heavy lifting on a new "NAFTA on steroids" corporate "free trade" deal, and plans are apparently in the works for a "good faith compromise" to begin the eventual long haul gutting of SS. Who knows how many more "compromises" we have in store. Working class people should be chomping at the bit to line up to vote for all that? And it only gets better! I see Democratic mastermind Larry Summers recently has "bravely" gone public in urging that the rich need to pay less in taxes, while the poor and working class need to pay more. Here's hoping that Hillary finds time between six-figure speeches before the Goldman Sachs crowd to snag this public servant as an advisor for '16.

    Get over yourselves Democrats. Maybe racism isn't the sole reason working people are abandoning you, maybe it's because you suck.
     

  •  My favorite diary ever! (0+ / 0-)

    I was waiting for someone to say this for a long time.
    People, read the numbers, they're telling the naked truth, ugly as it is.

  •  52 years of no improvement (0+ / 0-)
    Among non-southern whites without college degrees, it has declined by one percentage point. That’s it. Fourteen elections, 52 years, one percentage point.
    The way I'm reading that is that for 52 years Democrats haven't done anything to substantially improve the vote among non-southern whites without college degrees.

    Why should policies that fail to grow the Democratic coalition outside the south grow it in the south?

    We need some new ideas.

    We need new ideas to grow everywhere- not just among Southern whites.

    As a life long white southern liberal, I find myself becoming progressively less and less enamored with the current spineless, duplicitous and right leaning Democratic positions.

    We now embrace spying on Americans, killing Americans without trials, right-wing ideas on healthcare, education, the military industrial complex, the environment, Social Security, etc.

  •  Bigots, Nazis, and the KKK (0+ / 0-)

    Howdy from Texas where a candidate for governor of this back ass state kissed up to a Nazi sympathizer and a probable member of the KKK: One Ted Nugent.

    When a CNN reporter tried to nail the candidate on why he buddied up to a thing that called our president some racist, Nazi-based words, he started to knock Wendy Davis, the woman who is running against him.

    The Repuke party candidate once said that Wendy Davis was "not smart enough to be governor."  Hmm...Senator Davis graduated with HONORS from Harvard Law School while the Repuke candidate graduated from a lesser known law school with NO honors.

    As was once said on the Monty Python show, Intercourse Abbott and his Nazi friend.

  •  Blame (0+ / 0-)

    lies with the Democratic leadership which itself is very conservative and short sighted. Ever since Reagan beat Carter the party leadership have tried to be Republican lite. That wont work and never had a chance. That plan has no vision. Currently the Blue Dog Democrats conservative also, wreck progressive and liberal plans by voting with Republicans. They too, have no vision. If the Dems want the south back get rid of the conservadems.

    •  More gutsy populists might help (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lawrence

      and I'm in favor of more and better Democrats, in general, whatever the region. But just purging people, in search of purity, and with no credible replacements, is too close to the Tea Party formula for my taste. It's also a losing formula outside of safe districts. For example, the ACA, as imperfect as it is, is a huge step forward for this country. And one we can build on. You just flat out don't get major legislation like that passed unless you have a near-supermajority of votes.
      There were some barely-Dems who held the whole legislation hostage for corporatist concessions but, in the end, we needed every last Democratic vote. Even the most "centrist" Republicans were determined to see the legislation fail, in its entirely. (e.g. what if Mary Landrieu is your only chance of electing a (D) in Louisiana?) Or, to connect this to the initial post, maybe LBJ could pick off some more socially liberal Republicans in the mid-60s. But good luck getting even the few remaining moderate Republicans to buck their party on economic/inequality issues.

  •  I thought that was obvious. (0+ / 0-)

    But then I'm a white, bleeding heart liberal northerner who lived in the South for thirteen years and moved back up north again.

    The Democrats have been losing me, however.  

    When a Democratic President cozied up to Wall Street, killed Glass-Steagal and deregulated financial derivatives.

    When the next Democratic President repeatedly tried to push through Social Security cuts in the aftermath of the worst economic depression in almost ninety years, and he's poised to do so again.

    When he widened a senseless war that he said he would bring to a close.

    When he supported an unconstitutional surveillance state.

    When he prioritized budget cuts over employment gains after the worst economic crash of almost 90 years, and didn't do anything proactive to create jobs since his too-small stimulus at the beginning of his first term.

    When he didn't force the banks to lower interest rates or write off bad debt  for struggling homeowners, though the banks themselves were bailed out by $14 Trillion after perpetrating the largest financial fraud in history.

    When he persecuted whistle blowers, while those who committed atrocities went free.

    When members of the "Progressive Caucus" voted to cut food stamp funding.

    When Dianne Feinstein called Edward Snowden a traitor.

    Rest assured, I haven't become a Republican, but I no longer support, volunteer or vote for corrupt Democrats, either.

  •  i wonder if it's not just racial antipathy, but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lawrence

    also a more general cultural shift between the parties. There was a time when many Republicans not only comprised a "the coastal elite" in the view of many Southern Democrats, but were also associated more generally with a degree of social liberalism, cosmopolitan-internationalism, etc. Obviously, the Civil Rights Act, massive resistance to desegregation, etc created a huge opportunity for Republicans to make inroads. It took awhile, as being a (D) was still part of regional and family tradition, patronage networks, etc. The growth of the national conservative movement, with heavily-funded and cynically targeted infrastructure and propaganda, created an alternative for these reactionary, culturally-threatened voters to flock to. And one with a simpl(istic) but seemingly coherent, pseudo-intellectual template, that these voters could plug their biases, fears and resentments into. The first "Dittoheads" I ever met (1991) were from the Deep South.  

    I'm a left-liberal populist, myself, from the Midwest, with roots in Scots-Irish Appalachia. If you can get past the cover photos, which include Ronald Reagan and John Wayne, the often dry-as-dust military history, etc, I recommend Jim Webb's "Born Fighting", primarily because of its insights into Scots-Irish and Appalachian-Southern regional individualism. The aforementioned conservative template may have fit these regions particularly well, not only because of attitudes toward "the other", but also because of a deep, historical suspicion toward central governments. When the cultural shifts happened, too -- not just civil rights, but feminism, environmentalism, identity politics/pride, abortion, the New Left etc., many of these voters may have felt marooned in a party suddenly in conflict with their stubborn/backwards cultural traditionalism. Sometimes it's simply racism, and sometimes it's also what I like to think of as the Kenny Powers Philosophy: Don't Tell Me What to Do!

    Finally, the South has changed a lot in recent decades -- lots of northern transplants, black and white, etc. But to the extent that some of the white folks who have relocated to the Sunbelt are displaced blue collar workers leaving Rustbelt cities, well, they might have been union guys, but think about suburban Detroit (home of the Reagan Democrats Stan Greenberg studied). I grew up around there. Talk about "white-flight" and racial paranoia!

  •  Racism is profoundly deepset (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lawrence

    There is really nothing more profound and powerful in the American body politick than racism.  There is no point in sugar coating this.  

    LBJ was astute.  He pointed out to Bill Moyers, his aide, that when the civil rights legislation passed, the Democratic Party lost the South for a generation.  

    Then along came folks like Karl Rove who figured out how to marry up special interest billionaires who wanted to get away from environmental and labor regulation with evangelicals who were chagrined with the entire range of progressive reforms of the 1960s - especially civil rights, the sexual revolution and women's liberation.  Back then, the masters of manipulation thought they could control the forces they set loose.  

    But racism is a deeply abiding shock to the system that still resonates powerfully.  Couple that with the full spectrum of negative agendas and you have the Republican Party eaten by this kitten that grew up to be a tiger.

    This photo really needs to be brought out every now and then and people need to remember.  This moment is still reverberating 50 years later.  LBJ had his flaws, but here is did something great with courage and boldness.  

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 10:57:25 PM PST

  •  A specific coalition of Democrats (0+ / 0-)

    RE "The dominating Democratic coalitions of the past were based not only on organized labor and economic populism, but also significantly on Jim Crow and American apartheid."

    And what Democratic coalition was based on the latter? Why, the conservative one, of course. Segregation wasn't an issue of party; it was an issue of ideology.

    Debating with a conservative is like cleaning up your dog's vomit: It is an inevitable consequence of your association, he isn't much help, and it makes very clear the fact that he will swallow anything.

    by David Franks on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 11:10:54 PM PST

  •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

    The current generation of white working class was very young when this photo was taken.  And yes, there was resentment among the working class whites who were adults at the time, but most of those people are now dead or dying.

    No, the moment the current generation of white working class male voters was lost to Democrats was when Affirmative Action went into effect.   Up until then, the vast majority of young white male Boomers had supported equal rights.  I only knew of a few students in my white Texas high school who didn't believe in the equal rights movement and those few were pretty much outcast hoodlums nobody liked.  Unlike some of our parents, we supported the movement wholeheartedly.

    But when AA went into effect right when we were all in college, young white males suddenly found they were denied college admission or jobs just because they were white.  Most of them felt betrayed by the movement they had supported.  They saw themselves being punished for something their ancestors and parents had done, when they themselves had supported and believed in the movement.  

    That, my friends, is where the current white male Boomer resentment began.  I watched it happen firsthand to all the guys I knew and dated.  As a woman, I was shielded from the effects personally, but all those guys who felt the movement they supported betrayed them became today's angry, frustrated old white Boomer Republicans.

    Now, don't get me wrong.  AA worked.  I have no doubt of that.  It did exactly what it was supposed to do.  However, it did so at the primary expense of the generation of young white males that had initially supported the equal rights movement.  I always believed a phase in, beginning with kindergarten and moving up with that age group through the schools and then into the workplace would have quashed the most of the negative backlash, but the leadership wanted it all now, and this horrible political situation is one of the downsides we got as a result.

    I just hope that when the young people take over, they'll find a way to reconcile the two sides and stop this ridiculous fight between human beings.  DNA has proved once and for all that we're all family.  We need to start acting like it.

    •  You cannot rewrite history (0+ / 0-)

      Sorry but AA did not cause the racism and bigotry that was implemented when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Bill. I am from Texas and the decent Democrats lost the South when Johnson signed that bill. Remember when Wallace said segregation now and forever after the Civil Rights Bill was pass and started to be enforced. Wallace ran on this platform and the South voted for him and more than likely from your post your parents voted for him as well.

    •  Agree in part. In California, the Bakke case... (0+ / 0-)

      ...made a lot of headlines over "quotas" in college admissions... just in time to influence the vote on the Prop-13 "tax revolt".

      But I'd say that ruthless GOP exploitation of the issue inflated public perceptions way beyond any actual harm done to college applicants.

      The meme is still alive today. But now it's "admissions of illegal immigrants kept my kid from being accepted at Cal State!"... and it's still bushlit.

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing
      he was never reasoned into” - Jonathan Swift

      by jjohnjj on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 06:00:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just say no to DINOs (0+ / 0-)

    EXPOSING the falsehood of third way democrats, many of whom are DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) it is not necessary to embrace the austerity economics and class warfare of the extreme right wing gop tea-baggers to win an election and govern. However, it IS necessary to have Bold Progressive, Populist Democratic candidates who not only have the courage to explain why the opposition's policies are bad for America, for the 99% ( see my earlier post The real face of conservatism ( It should scare you!) 16FEB14 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/... ) these candidates must have the courage to promote, defend, and govern in the best interest of the American people, not the rich and corporate America who have bought politicians of the left and right.

  •  Racism by any other name is STILL Racism (0+ / 0-)

    Thank you for clear-eyed truth-telling.  Racism denial and obfuscation is successful PRECISELY because we refuse to call it out!

  •  Voter education is woefully inadequate (0+ / 0-)

    I am a working white female with a degree and own an LLC. My income is also low due to the market and I am unable to obtain health care due to the obstructionists in Congress and in my state of Ohio. My situation is perilous, like millions of other working Americans. Our IQ's are just fine, thank you.

    Voters show up for presidential elections at 50%. Fewer show up for any other election. Americans seem to feel that they should not have to bother with facts about candidates or voting at all. Privileged Americans take this system for granted and bitch about how much trouble it is to do anything regarding civic duties.

    Neither party makes much of an effort to educate voters whatsoever. Both parties are wealthy white male in "leadership" and it shows in the assumptions made and in the candidates handed down to voters from On High. Voters have no say in selecting candidates and we are expected to serve the interests of party leaders--white males elected for their positions in these parties by each other.

    Due to attitudes and assumptions made by the white male leadership (which is not leadership at all) voters have been shut out of the electoral process. Unless voters are educated about their roles in this national government, they will continue to give up on participation and spend time complaining instead.

    The ludicrous assumption that somehow those southern-white-people-who-are-inferior are unable to comprehend facts speaks volumes about the arrogant assumptions made by those-who-know-all. I am fed up with the nonsensical idea that some Americans are simply born inferior to those who condescend to them.

    Because a white female with children works at a Walmart does not mean she is inferior or unintelligent. It means she works because she has to (as do males) and because there are no other jobs in her area. She may have been denied access to any chance for higher ed due to her poverty and the usual misogyny present in all white male assumptions.  She is likely more capable and more intelligent than any candidate for office in her home state. She has no choices and will likely remain in poverty no matter who is elected. She may feel that her voice is never heard and may assume that voting is not an issue for her.

    In this economy of games from white male GOP criminals and obstruction to job creation, do we ever comprehend that many millions of Americans have given up on a future and don't need to read that they are somehow inferior due to geography and a lack of inherited wealth? These assumptions are nonsense.

    It is time for the very superior among us to find out about reality: anyone can be ignorant and make ridiculous assumptions about others. This article is a great example of that.

    I have repeatedly seen the usual assumption that somehow, people in southern states are all uneducated and inferior. Reality says otherwise. There are ignorant people all over this country. Education is sorely lacking and obviously some of us have never met "working class" people. Having worked for 40 years, I have met and worked with "working class" people. I have not found that they were unaware and have not found that they were unable to learn. The white male leadership in both parties never talks to them at all, much less to us inferior white working females. Where are the superior individuals when it comes to voter ed? Nowhere.

    Until the day we all learn that a hierarchy of white male privilege and inherited wealth does not serve the best interests of this country, we will continue to see the assumptions I have read on this site. Geography and a lack of inherited wealth and a lack of opportunity does not create an inferior human being. Despair and poverty remove hope and a future for millions of Americans. I suggest that those of us who give a damn about a future get up off of our comfortable couches and get busy working for improvement in poverty stricken areas in which despair and apathy rule. How many Kos readers ever bother working in their own local areas to bring change?

  •  racists now are the base of the GOP (0+ / 0-)

    and that is why they love to race bait so that they can convince the racists that they are with them but have to be politically correct and not openly declare their racism or they will scare away their sane and sensible GOP fringe. It is just a matter of using the proper focus group tested code words.

  •  Or, to put it simply, (0+ / 0-)

    today's Republican Party is the spiritual (and often actual) heirs of the Dixiecrats. The idea of throwing a few scraps to poor whites to convince them they aren't in the same boat as poor blacks has a very long history in this country (going back at least into the 18th century, if not earlier). Racism remains a powerful tool, but it is increasingly one of the few tools they have left.
    I must object to some of the religion bashing going on here, though. My own view is that God created a world sufficiently abundant for all of us, but our selfishness and failure to share is the real problem. All that I am and all that I have are gifts from God, and not the result of my striving or deserving. This notion that I am somehow "entitled" to my wealth because I "earned" it is preposterous, especially in those cases where that wealth was inherited. Our entitlement problem does not arise from the lower levels of the 99%, but among a majority of the 1% who fail to appreciate the breaks and luck that helped them to the pinnacles of economic power. If there is class warfare in this country, the rich have been winning.

  •  Democrats have a long way to go! (0+ / 0-)

    "every effort must be made to get the Democratic Party to become a serious advocate of pro-working class economic policies. On that front, we have a long way to go."

    If the Democrats expect to remain a viable political party, they better align themselves with the working class quick, or be abandoned.
    The American working class, or middle class, has suffered too much already, and have had very little representation so far.
    No taxation without representation!!!

  •  We have to try (0+ / 0-)

    We have to try to engage white-skinned, blue collared southerners on issues other than race.

    The shut-down of hospital facilities because of anti-ACA pols and minimum-wage increases are two.

  •  *sigh* does it really need to be said? (0+ / 0-)

    we need to vote what is right or wrong, good or bad and stop being mired in the crap of black and white.
    The stand your ground law application is a good litmus, the only way stand your ground works for a black person is if they are standing a white persons ground...

  •  Step#1 to Democrats gaining back White Southerners (0+ / 0-)

    STOP TALKING ABOUT GUN CONTROL YOU DUMB NAIVE SELF-SABOTAGING MOTHERFUCKERS

  •  dont yas get it? (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    smileycreek

    it is not about dems versus repigs. they are ALL part of the haves. we are the working class have nots or have-less now that they have fiqured out how to separate us from our hard earned dollars. OIL. biggest way to separate you from your savings. over time how much MORE are we giving to corporate pigs (the 1%)? the bushes control way too much as does the koch brothers,etc. we must find a way to fight these greedy pigs! i say take it to the streets. but let us be smart enough to turn the guns on the ones that would try to force the working class down this "road to chaos". they are hoping that we,again as always, do their dirty work for them. what i mean is to not turn on EACH OTHER. turn on the ones who have PUT US HERE

    •  HR'd for calls to violence. (0+ / 0-)
      let us be smart enough to turn the guns on the ones that would try to force the working class down this "road to chaos".
      That's a bannable offense here.

      Rick Perry doesn't think there should be a minimum wage
      and Ted Nugent doesn't think there should be a minimum age. Merica
      ---> @LOLGOP

      by smileycreek on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 09:34:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

deminva, Mark Sumner, bink, Davis X Machina, Thumb, fladem, Angie in WA State, Joe Bob, Sylv, nota bene, TXdem, dwellscho, PLS, CJB, PrahaPartizan, fcvaguy, Chi, Phoenix Woman, LouisMartin, Odysseus, decisivemoment, ferg, copymark, Jackson L Haveck, Trendar, Subterranean, glitterscale, bob in ny, misscee, Geenius at Wrok, kaleidescope, tiponeill, Susan Gardner, Emerson, karlpk, dengre, annalivia, Debby, Shockwave, wu ming, SanJoseLady, Jay C, Vico, eeff, LeftHandedMan, Cambridgemac, red moon dog, sidhra, rasbobbo, concernedamerican, bronte17, missLotus, sponson, jem6x, samdiener, roses, Frederick Clarkson, greenomanic, Nate Roberts, swizzle, Berkeley Fred, aitchdee, Quege, khughes1963, TexDem, NYC Sophia, brainwave, Lawrence, texasmom, HeyMikey, defluxion10, salinas, riverlover, Dood Abides, Brian82, walkshills, econlibVA, zerelda, Curt Matlock, mungley, Hillbilly Dem, solesse413, Josiah Bartlett, Sybil Liberty, J Orygun, oortdust, sawgrass727, Gowrie Gal, Recovering Southern Baptist, bloomer 101, Simian, radarlady, TexasTom, HudsonValleyMark, basquebob, Laurence Lewis, FutureNow, boofdah, eru, majcmb1, Pam from Calif, LABobsterofAnaheim, komogo, skyounkin, kaliope, spunhard, Savvy813, Blu Gal in DE, Hannibal, peacestpete, xaxnar, Jim R, MadGeorgiaDem, BachFan, golem, Kingsmeg, profundo, Kimball Cross, Yellow Canary, aggieric, arlene, raincrow, kck, global citizen, StrayCat, Lashe, philipmerrill, twigg, gpoutney, Libby Shaw, MarciaJ720, ER Doc, hlsmlane, onionjim, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, BB10, kurt, Ian Reifowitz, kurious, bartcopfan, Temmoku, Aaa T Tudeattack, cpresley, tegrat, ammasdarling, john07801, Loudoun County Dem, blue armadillo, camlbacker, Uh just working honey, devis1, gailwax, EdSF, puakev, LillithMc, Mary Mike, tbirchard, Cofcos, mommyof3, sfbob, FischFry, HCKAD, bobswern, millwood, leonard145b, JML9999, Assaf, Ralphdog, TomP, gizmo59, olo, seriously70, Amor Y Risa, mconvente, misterwade, JeffW, amyzex, 6412093, OleHippieChick, mamamedusa, Youffraita, Tchrldy, dadadata, elwior, Sharon Wraight, Its any one guess, mikeconwell, Lujane, tofumagoo, RandomNonviolence, hwmnbn, smartdemmg, Jeff Y, ashowboat, get the red out, gas28man, BYw, pelagicray, JBL55, maggiejean, Sun dog, prettygirlxoxoxo, Bule Betawi, artmartin, WhizKid331, rudewarrior, divineorder, LinSea, don mikulecky, janmtairy, mkor7, Jyrki, zizi, MooseHB, Denise Oliver Velez, winkk, Tzimisce, lu3, sfarkash, astral66, boatwright, nocynicism, Railfan, FogCityJohn, stegro, gramofsam1, David Harris Gershon, Aramis Wyler, Crabby Abbey, mookins, appledown, leftist vegetarian patriot, NM Ray, shyewoods, pixxer, Lady Libertine, ItsSimpleSimon, dlemex, DeanObama, USHomeopath, Loose Fur, soaglow, stevenaxelrod, Michael Langenmayr, Onomastic, Front Toward Enemy, DrJohnB, implicate order, BlueJessamine, UtahLibrul, FarWestGirl, mikejay611, CoExistNow, Alice Olson, PorridgeGun, sethtriggs, thomask, ShowMeMoBlue, Grandma Susie, worldlotus, myrmecia gulosa, blue aardvark, Chitown Kev, nyer11Oak, RuthT2A, No one gets out alive, DawnN, livingthedream, James Allen, IndieGuy, a2nite, Columba, mapamp, belinda ridgewood, OllieGarkey, New Minas, wxorknot, jnww, sweatyb, rat racer, ItsaMathJoke, Glen The Plumber, George3, Adam AZ, Australian2, Foothills of Oblivion, lordpet8, nomandates, jusjtim35, countwebb, Linda1961, BroadBlogs, poopdogcomedy, SanFernandoValleyMom, goodpractice, HedwigKos, aresea, ORswede, howabout, Homer177, northerntier, bob152, duhban, bobwilk, Rich Lyles, richardvjohnson, Tronsix2, Dodgerdog1, eagleray, pierre9045, luerwulf, Wanderer1961, old mule, Tony Situ, David Franks, Fire Monkey, gnothis, thanatokephaloides, SSGCedar, Lisztman, LilPeach, agiftagain, LiberalLoner, IsaacKuo, solublefish, writeofwinter, slinkie, kfunk937, Shawn87, Jaxtom, numble

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site