You know this business of letting the South be the focus of the party?

[madfloridian]

It is not going to work. I have been told here that I do not really live in the Deep South. I really do, since the area in which I live is one the most conservative parts of Florida, in between Tampa and Orlando. Churches abound, fundamentalism abounds, but guess what?

Reality abounds as well. The people in this area are questioning Jeb, George, the war, the rising medical care costs, the involvement of government in private affairs. They are ready for someone to speak clearly to them.

Yes, the GOP has a hold here. Now I see the issue coming up over and over that we have to fool us or cater to us by having a Southern candidate, preferably a religious one, who holds their views. We have a whole state of politicians like that here now. Our Democrats here now seemed totally shocked when we question their votes with the GOP. They have done it so long, it seems natural to them.

We could just try telling the truth and presenting our case. A candidate from anywhere could do that. Truth is not regional in nature. We need to be included in campaigning, but we do not need to the ones to whom it is geared. We have become so afraid of the other party's so-called hold on the South, that we are reacting rather than acting.

[Mr Rabble]

1. Well put.

Of course, having "one of your own" cant hurt, but I dont think its necessary either.

What all voters want is someone who can speak to "their" individual problems. This will only require that a democratic candidate do research- nothing more. If we tell the truth, and it gets heard on TV...its over and we win.

[acmejack]

2. Absolutely

People are not as thick as some would believe.

btw, Lakeland, Bartow?

[coloradodem2005]

3. Whatever.

I have been far less convinced that honest dialogue could change things since the outcome of the last election. Nobody wants to listen. They will just listen to their goddamn pastor or their goddamn news people talk down to them and then go along with all of it. Because they must be right. They buy right into the propaganda.

[madfloridian]

4. What honest dialogue during the election?

There wasn't any. There was a whole bunch of campaigning and being careful.

[coloradodem2005]

5. In a way that is what I am saying.

There has been a lot of rhetoric from both sides. And the media tells you what they want to tell you. Honest dialogue will never exist again.

[kevsand]

6. I think you're right that we don't need

to necessarily have someone from the south to win. As discussed in another thread, however, I do think we need someone who at least understands the south.

The types of voters that everyone usually associates with the south live nationwide. There are lots of them in the rural areas of Wisconsin and Illinois and Indiana and Michigan and Ohio, and none of them are usually considered southern states. We need to renew our relevance with the blue-collar and rural voters, and that means someone who understands them, which Kerry (and to a lesser extent Gore) clearly did not.

[Clark2008]

11. Or any red state.

Why is it that folks on DU seem to forget that there is a whole ton of mid-Western states who haven't voted for a Democrat in years and years, while most Southern states did go for Clinton in recent memory?

[w4rma]

7. You are exactly correct, imho, madfloridian. (nt)

[Lexingtonian]

8. I agree

The Right has to, and is, undoing itself in the South (as elsewhere). And it's far enough progressed now- though there's a quite a bit farther to go- that Democrats are fools to play along anymore.

I don't see an abrupt shift to pure and loud opposition as helpful (that's fine when you're a 15% minority), but a realization that simply holding one's ground and relying on the facts is a successful stance. Our Party should really behave as coequal, as the 45% parity group that it is. Yes, Republicans generally hold the benefit of the doubt with the 10% that don't feel enlisted with either side, but that is drifting our side's way and all the insecure behavior (whether dogmatic/loud or milquetoastish) we've been seeing has to stop.

[Nikki Stone 1]

9. Always enjoy reading your posts, madfloridian

BTW, I was talking to a moderate Republican relative of mine yesterday: she is pro-choice, wants no extreme means to keep her alive, etc. and was furious with the Terri Schiavo case. She votes on tax issues, which keeps her in the GOP camp, but I think she has finally seen how bad the party is getting in terms of this pseudo-religion of the radicals. If there are enough moderates like her, the 2008 election could be a very different one than we think.

[madfloridian]

13. Thanks for the compliment. People are waking up.

:hi:

[shance]

10. That's a great point.

Seems to me there has been much focus on the differences between regions and not enough focus on the similarities. I think as a result regions are assumed to be one dimensional and are stereotyped, which with any stereotype there is truth, but the labeling in an of itself leads to isolation versus more unification.

I hope at some point our Party and Americans in general can shift our perspective more towards how we are much more alike than we are different.

[madfloridian]

12. An incident from today to prove my point.

I have often on here talked of our 4 neighbors who had Support the War, Support Bush signs in their yard for a long time. They are very religious, very pious, and their church pumped them on for the war. May I say it was just like my church did, but we withdrew from ours.

Today one of them said that they were concerned at the president's interpretation of real Christianity. They still support him, but there is some thinking going on.

They are upset with the Social Security personal accounts, but they still support him. They still make that clear.

However, they are criticizing him. That is big for them. I don't think they really support him, they just can't admit they don't.