The Power of Citizen Journalism
Post News ($)»     Post Blog»     Upload Image»     Groups»     Events»     Alerts»     How do I ...»
Email Print Share

Email this article

Recipient email:
Your email:
optional
Message:
optional

article imageThe Potential Fall of Obama's South

Posted Jul 1, 2008 by  Mr Garibaldi in Politics | 4 comments | 215 views
Next in Politics
Related News
Advertising
There is a lull that has hit in the political battlefield, that time between the end of the primary season and the end of the convention season. The lead candidates take the time to refocus on funding and winning votes, in some cases, votes based in myth.
During this lull period, Obama's campaign handlers are making the classic mistake made by so many Democratic campaigns in recent history; over-estimating the Southern black vote.

In the Post-Civil War South, the Democratic party was a strong entity, unified and making a firm block against the Republicans because of Abraham Lincoln. While it is true that there are a great number of those old-school yellow dog Democrats around (a term given because the saying goes "I'll vote for a yellow dog on the street before I'll vote for a damned Yankee Republican), the mindset of the South has changed, drastically, in the past few decades. Today, there are more "red states" than "blue" in the south.

Yet and still, there are myths that are still held about the Southern vote that even more experienced politicians fall prey to. A candidate with no experience is what we call "easy pickin's" for laying a trap by using these very myths against his campaign.

Two pervasive and persistent myths about racial voting in the modern South are behind the notion that Mr. Obama might win in places like Georgia, North Carolina and Mississippi.

The first myth is that African-American turnout in the South is low. Black voters are actually well represented in the Southern electorate: In the 11 states of the former Confederacy, African-Americans were 17.9 percent of the age-eligible population and 17.9 percent of actual voters in 2004, analysis of Census Bureau data shows.

And when socioeconomic status is held constant, black voters go to the polls at higher rates than white voters in the South. In other words, a 40-year-old African-American plumber making $60,000 a year is, on average, more likely to vote than a white man of similar background.

The second myth is that Democratic presidential candidates fare better in Southern states that have large numbers of African-Americans. In fact, the reverse is true, because the more blacks there are in a Southern state, the more likely the white voters are to vote Republican.


Democrats counted heavily on Mississippi in the 2004 election cycle, with Kerry losing to Bush by 20 full points, and Georgia and North Carolina by only slightly less leads. A look at the map here shows the breakdown, by state, of those states carrying Bush, and those carrying Kerry.

Virginia is perhaps the only true hope Obama has for the former Confederate states.

The demographic makeup of the electorate in Virginia is unlike that of any other state in the South. The black population in Virginia is, as a percentage, among the lowest in the region. And during the last two decades, the state has also experienced a huge influx of upscale non-Southerners, who have taken over the Washington suburbs of northern Virginia. (Florida is a perennial target for similar reasons. With a relatively small black population, a big Hispanic voting bloc and a large contingent of relocated retirees from the North, it is the least Southern of the Southern states.)


This doesn't apply to the rest of the South, however. A large part of the stratagem employed in Southern campaigning by Democrats relies heavily on the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which led to a large number of blacks to register to vote in the South, but subsequently led to a marked increase in the number of white voters registering and voting as Republicans. In other words, an exponential increase in black voter turnout in the majority of Southern states can be expected, historically, to be met by a counterbalance of an exponential increase in white voters in the same areas.

Along with this, Obama is having problems garnering white Democrat votes in other states, such as Ohio and South Dakota.

Since the end of the Civil War, there has been a saying among Southerners: "The South will rise again." It doesn't appear, however, to be likely that it will be rising for Obama.
article:256813:11::0
3 subscribers
Subscribe To This Thread[?] :
  • avatar Posted Jul 1, 2008 by  Nikki W (karateblossom)
    #1
    :o)
  • avatar Posted Jul 1, 2008 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #2
    Since the end of the Civil War, there has been a saying among Southerners: "The South will rise again." It doesn't appear, however, to be likely that it will be rising for Obama.


    LOL!
  • redhawk Posted Jul 1, 2008 by  redhawk
    #3
    @ Debra Myers (skyangel)
    LOL!

    Hope SO again! =:0)
  • redhawk Posted Jul 2, 2008 by  redhawk
    #4
    >I case some our good ole Southern voters have not seen this!!


    Bush's Third Term
    > July 2, 2008; Page A12
    >
    >
    > We're beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so
    > vigorously against the prospect of "George Bush's third term." Maybe
    > he's worried that someone will notice that he's the candidate who's
    > running for it.
    >
    > Most Presidential candidates adapt their message after they win their
    > party nomination, but Mr. Obama isn't merely "running to the center."
    > He's fleeing from many of his primary positions so markedly and so
    > rapidly that he's embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush's
    > policy.Who would have thought that a Democrat would rehabilitate the
    > much-maligned Bush agenda?
    >
    >
    > Getty Images
    >
    > Take the surveillance of foreign terrorists. Last October, while
    > runningwith the Democratic pack, the Illinois Senator vowed to
    > "support a
    > filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for
    > telecommunications companies" that assisted in such
    > eavesdropping after
    > 9/11. As recently as February, still running as the liberal favorite
    > against Hillary Clinton, he was one of 29 Democrats who voted against
    > allowing a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee reform of
    > surveillance rules even to come to the floor.
    >
    > Two weeks ago, however, the House passed a bill that is
    > essentially the
    > same as that Senate version, and Mr. Obama now says he supports it.
    > Apparently legal immunity for the telcos is vital for U.S. national
    > security, just as Mr. Bush has claimed. Apparently, too, the
    > legislationisn't an attempt by Dick Cheney to gut the
    > Constitution. Perhaps it is
    > dawning on Mr. Obama that, if he does become President, he'll be
    > responsible for preventing any new terrorist attack. So now he's happy
    > to throw the New York Times under the bus.
    >
    > Next up for Mr. Obama's political blessing will be Mr. Bush's Iraq
    > policy. Only weeks ago, the Democrat was calling for an
    > immediate and
    > rapid U.S. withdrawal. When General David Petraeus first
    > testified about
    > the surge in September 2007, Mr. Obama was dismissive and
    > skeptical. But
    > with the surge having worked wonders in Iraq, this week Mr.
    > Obama went
    > out of his way to defend General Petraeus against MoveOn.org's attacks
    > in 2007 that he was "General Betray Us." Perhaps he had a late
    > epiphany.
    > Look for Mr. Obama to use his forthcoming visit to Iraq as an
    > excuse to
    > drop those withdrawal plans faster than he can say Jeremiah
    > Wright "was
    > not the person that I met 20 years ago." The Senator will learn -
    > as
    > John McCain has been saying - that withdrawal would squander the gains
    > from the surge, set back Iraqi political progress, and weaken
    > America'sstrategic position against Iran. Our guess is that
    > he'll spin this
    > switcheroo as some kind of conditional commitment, saying he'll
    > stay in
    > Iraq as long as Iraqis are making progress on political
    > reconciliation,and so on. As things improve in Iraq, this would
    > be Mr. Bush's policy
    > too.
    >
    > Mr. Obama has also made ostentatious leaps toward Mr. Bush on domestic
    > issues. While he once bid for labor support by pledging a unilateral
    > rewrite of Nafta, the Democrat now says he favors free trade as
    > long as
    > it works for "everybody." His economic aide, Austan Goolsbee,
    > has been
    > liberated from the five-month purdah he endured for telling Canadians
    > that Mr. Obama's protectionism was merely campaign rhetoric. Now that
    > Mr. Obama is in a general election, he can't scare the business
    > community too much.
    >
    > Back in the day, the first-term Senator also voted against the Supreme
    > Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But last
    > week he
    > agreed with their majority opinion in the Heller gun rights
    > case, and
    > with their dissent against the liberal majority's ruling to ban the
    > death penalty for rape. Mr. Obama seems to appreciate that getting
    > pegged as a cultural lefty is deadly for national Democrats - at least
    > until November.
    >
    > This week the great Democratic hope even endorsed spending more
    > money on
    > faith-based charities. Apparently, this core plank of Mr. Bush's
    > "compassionate conservatism" is not the assault on church-state
    > separation that the ACLU and liberals have long claimed. And
    > yesterday,Mr. Obama's campaign unveiled an ad asserting his
    > support for welfare
    > reform that "slashed the rolls by 80 percent." Never mind that
    > Mr. Obama
    > has declared multiple times that he opposed the landmark 1996 welfare
    > reform.
    >
    >
    > * * *
    >
    >
    > All of which prompts a couple of thoughts. The first is that Mr. Obama
    > doesn't seem to think American political sentiment has moved as
    > far left
    > as most of the media claim. Another is that the next President,
    > whetherDemocrat or Republican, is going to embrace much of Mr.
    > Bush's foreign
    > and antiterror policy whether he admits it or not. Think Eisenhower
    > endorsing Truman's Cold War architecture.
    >
    > Most important is the matter of Mr. Obama's political character -
    > and
    > how honest he is being about what he truly believes. His voting record
    > in the Senate and in Illinois, as well as his primary positions, would
    > make him the most liberal Presidential candidate since George McGovern
    > in 1972. But he clearly doesn't want voters to believe that in
    > November.He's still the Obama Americans don't know.
    >

Add a Comment

You have to Login or Register to comment


Email:
Password:
Remember meForgot password?