Daily Kos

Underestimating The Southern White Male Vote

Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:15:16 PM PDT

Crossposted from MyDD with permission.

Okay,

I have heard some really enraging arguments about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama with respect to the Southern White Male Vote that I just don't buy. But, instead of respond calmly and logically, I let the emotions shaped and nurtured by my life time experience as an American Female and an American Black , rule the day. I have dismissed all arguments as retarded, racists, sexists, trollish, idiotic, generational stupidity, fear mongering, race baiting, jim crowism, dixiecratic, male chauvinist, white supremacists, stuck in the 50's......sigh........, old fartish, senseless, gender bias, bigotry, foolish, uncle tomish, sell-outish, ill-strategic, kkkish, republicanism, old southish, hickish, confederated and if I missed a few, I'm sure someone , I've angered will let me know.

In any event, I looked at the argument again and I thought about it. I think I can finally explain my opposition without name calling.

Argument 1.) Grow Up. White men from the south rule this nation and if you think we/they are going to relinquish that to a woman or a black man, then you are crazy. This nation is chock full of us/them and we/they will never let a black or a woman who have always been viewed beneath us/them run this/our nation. The last time we/they had a president who wasn't from the south, look what they/we did to him? Look what they/we did to his brother? What do you think they/we will do to the Black one? Why would YOU put a good man like Barack Obama through that? If you really support him, you won't send him out there in danger. We/They need a white man from the south. It's the only way we/they will win back the WHITE House

Answer 1.) Well, I do agree that there are many older and much fewer younger Americans out there in the south who still feel that way, I disagree that they have as much political power in America today than they did in the past...... even in the most recent past. The entire demographic and social attitude of this nation with respect to woman and minorities , has changed dramatically, and that has spilled over into the south and there are more women of voting age than their are men. There are also more white southern progressives who do not embrace your/their feelings than there are those who do. These, coupled with the growing Latino voting population and the awakening of a more active and energized Black Voting Block, presents a challenge to the idea that American power belongs to one race and one gender in one part of the nation. A long time ago, your/their argument would have been embraced out of fear, of course, but today, that argument only incites anger, not fear, in those new southerners who reject your/their logic to the point where we/they are "prepared" to "prove" your/their theory wrong at the polls.

Argument 2.) Look, I like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I think they would make great Presidents, but come on, the South will never vote for these two. It just won't happen. America is toooooooooo sexists and racist to allow that to happen. We need the SOUTH to win in 2008. Carter and Clinton are the only two Democrats in recent history who became President and it was because they were white men from the South. You cannot deny that. You just can't. So stop trying and start looking for a southern white male. We need to win darn it! I want to win. Don't you dare call me a racist or a bigot for stating the TRUTH. I'm just thinking strategically here. It's not fair, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know,......BUT such is life.

Answer2.) First of all, you are not speaking strategically. You are speaking hypothetically and you are basing your opinion on the past. Sure, Carter won in the 1970's. Let's see. What kind of people were old enough to vote back then? Since, the very youngest of the voting populace would have been born in the late 40's early 50's, I'm guessing we were dealing with a nation of people who's ideology was shaped by the 20's through the 60's. So we had people who grew up in a nation where the Old South Ideology as it pertained to women and minorities, had some serious clout and the nation as a whole, pretty much embraced it. People knew something was wrong , but it really didn't effect them all too much. It was the norm. It was all they knew. Folks didn't do much "talking" back then unless, of course, you were a .....white male. I mean, after all, this was an era where women "knew their place". Mrs. Beaver could have the crap beat out of her the night before by Mr. Beaver and she would still be up the next morning serving up a big breakfast while telling little Johnny, "Oh, Mommy hit her eye on the door. I'm so clumsy" . I don't need to tell you about the Minorities. We hear about that part of history every day. Bill Clinton's election actually was an election of change and not status quo as people did not vote for him because he was a white man from the South, but rather because he represented a brand new generation. His was an election of CHANGE and empowered by the Baby Boomer Generation. Both Carter and Clinton's Elections represented the sign of the times more than they did the fact that they were White Men from the South. At least, Clinton's was for sure. But I will say that it does the Carter and Clinton Legacy a great injustice to assert that they only won, or were effective because they were White men from the South as opposed to their plans and ideas for moving America forward.

Argument 3.) If Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is at the top of that ticket, Southern white men who don't usually vote , will be galvanized to come out in full force just to vote against them. Why bring this unnecessary drama upon ourselves? This is not a time to take risks. We need to get out of Iraq. We need to pass UHC. We need Unions. We have to send a white man from the South so that these southern white man will be appeased and not feel threatened by a woman or a black. Why oh why do we want to play russian roulette like this? Wait a few years until after a white male southern Democrat takes the White House and then we can play these little Social Victory games. Right now, we need to win and we must have a white man from the south in order to do that.

Answer 3.) I want to win as well and I don't think that the strategy you are proposing is the right one. First of all, it's obviously based on out-dated fear. I simply prefer hope. While some racists that live in the South who are not active voters may be galvanized by a woman or a black man on the ticket, I believe that they will be outnumbered by white southerners who are sick of the South being misrepresented. Here's why. Every single time I come across a news story about the Aryan Brotherhood or the Nazis or Ku Klux Klan coming out and demonstrating against Blacks , Jews, and their newest target: Latinos, it never fails that when I look at the footage and the photos what do I see? WHITE SOUTHERN PROTESTERS who shown up to their demonstrations with signs and loud speakers telling them that they don't speak for them. The racists groups are ALWAYS out numbered at a bare minimum, 8 to 1 and they always succeed at drowning out the voices of the racists groups. I have even seen some of them arrested for beating the crap out of the bigots. I don't believe that white southerners would risk going to jail for defending Blacks, Jews, Latinos and beating up bigots in their own race, if they were not also willing to vote for them. Do you? So, I embrace the logic of hope rather than fear because I have actual proof when it comes to this argument. If white racists are galvanized to vote against a black man or a woman because they are a black man or a woman, then there will be white southerners who will be counter-galvanized by that galvanization to show up at the polls and out vote those people. It would be a show down and good will trump evil as they have demonstrated when they protested .

Argument 4.) Exit Polling/ Pre-Election Polls: Look, people will say they will vote for a woman or a minority, but when they get in that booth all alone, they will dig deep inside their southern soul and ask " Do I want a woman or a black running things?" They will conclude "No" and they will vote for the White male even if they have to break with the Party and vote republican. Why, oh why do we want to shoot ourselves in the foot like this? We know this is going to happen and yet we are looking to the very two people who will destroy our party because one has a vagina and the other one has chocolate skin. Why try to change things now? Let's just focus on winning. Let us not try these social experiments. Let us send a white man from the South. It's a tried and tested strategy. If it ain't broke , don't fix it. Please, oh please don't do this. Don't do this to us!

Answer 4.) I reject that logic. First of all, you are looking at out-dated polling. Today, it has been proven time and time again , that Americans are far more truthful and accurate when they answer this question. Whether or not the woman or the minority won their election, the exit polling confirmed that people were honest when they stated that they would vote for the woman or a black . So, today , when over 70 percent of the American people say they would vote for a female and 85 % say they would vote for a Black man, they are telling the truth. The playing field is now more equal in that respect and the focus is more where it belongs [the actual candidate] and less where it does not belong [the race and gender of said candidate] I don't believe that people will get in that voting booth and say to themselves "Do I want a black or a woman running things?" I have a different idea of what will happen when those undecided southern voters get in that voting booth and again, I base this on the actions of southerners today and not Southerners in the past. They will get in that booth and ask themselves "Well, gee. I'm a white southern man and I'm still poor. I have this Black man or this woman in one party[Democrat] telling me they are going to make things fair for all of us and they have a record of doing just that, and I have a fellow white man from another party[Republican] who has been telling me this for years but I'm still poor. Hell, I'm voting Democrat"

Poll

Do YOU personally have a problem with the idea of a Black or Female President?

3%5 votes
93%132 votes
0%1 votes
2%3 votes

| 141 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: Southern White Men, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, 2008 Elections (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 58 comments

  •  Too many words (3+ / 0-)

    In 17 months, this will all be dust

    My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings
    Look on my works ye mighty & despair

  •  john edwards is a SOUTHERN WHITE MALE (8+ / 0-)

    like me, who has no problem with blacks OR women

  •  I want to see leadership (9+ / 0-)

    Not triangulation and equivocation.

    Hillary still doesn't get it on Iraq. She is the Democrats' corporate candidate. Her gender is not her problem. She has had a chance to lead and has not shown that she can do it.

    "It's the planet, stupid."

    by FishOutofWater on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:28:14 PM PDT

  •  It's a minor point, but... (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Jennifer Clare, Albatross, TomP

    It's Mrs. Cleaver, not Mrs. Beaver, the latter of which brings to mind a crude joke I once heard about the first pornographic line uttered on television.

    :)

  •  Personally, I say go all in (7+ / 0-)

    Put Hillary & Barack on the ticket, in whatever order, and break all those damned glass ceilings at once.

    It's about time.

    "Spoken like a true smartass."

    by ChiGirl88 on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:29:55 PM PDT

    •  While I like that idea in theory (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      cosbo, TomP, pointecoupeedemocrat

      I really just want the ticket that will push the most progressive proposals.

      Netroots Director for Oregon Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley. Kossacks Donate to Merkley Here!

      by sarahlane on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:35:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A progressive president (5+ / 0-)

        Still has to work with Congress to get their legislation passed.  So some of that extra-progressiveness (for lack of a better word) is going to end up getting blunted by virtue of the legislative process.

        All of our candidates are on pretty much the same page where it counts - ending the war, health care, the environment, etc - so any differences between them are simply a matter of degree.

        So given a choice between 3 candidates that have similar policies, my gut says let's make history.

        "Spoken like a true smartass."

        by ChiGirl88 on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:51:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I like this approach (0+ / 0-)

          however, Hillary is saying something different on the war compared to Edwards and Obama.

          White woman over 50 for OBAMA!! (Endorsed 6/07)

          by nolalily on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:58:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The biggest thing a real progressive can do (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Albatross, icebergslim

          is nominate really progressive judges, this is the silent deadly killer that the Right has put into play over the last decades, and I include Bill Clinton in this, his appointments were centrists at best and none too distinguished either.  With the passage (I hope) of the White House to Democrats and the continued and expanded majority in congress we are going to see a long rear-guard action by the dozens and dozens of federal judges and of course the SCOTUS that are in there for life.  Review the long war between Roosevelt and the SCOTUS as he tried to pull the country out of the last gilded age.

          The choice to "make history" is a frivolous one, whichever person occupies the presidency makes history.  Look at the idiot in there now.

          "I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson

          by NearlyNormal on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 08:14:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Some "history" is more historical than others (5+ / 0-)

            Come on, you don't think the first female or African American president wouldn't be a big deal? I think it would be a huge deal.  And it's not like these are just token candidates, both of them are qualified and I'd be happy to vote for either at the top of the ticket.

            As far as progressive judges go, I'd settle for "not cretin," which is what we'd be likely to get with another Republican president.  

            With the average age of most of the Supreme Court justices, it's imperative that the next president be a Democrat. I think any of our candidates, but especially the top 3, would do a great job with their judicial nominations.

            "Spoken like a true smartass."

            by ChiGirl88 on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 08:23:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm really not impressed with Hillary (0+ / 0-)

              so I'd just as soon history not be made with her and there is nothing that she has done that makes me think she'd be progressive.  Obama I'm still uncertain about but looks good as a candidate.  I think you should rethink your position about just not getting cretins.  Maybe its just that I've been in the criminal justice system while and watched it go to hell.

              "I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson

              by NearlyNormal on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 10:04:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I see Hillary (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            NearlyNormal

            as trying to appear centrist and not changing her routine if she gets elected to POTUS. I also think she'd nominate moderates like her husband did. OTOH, Edwards is for a Federal Freedom of Choice Act which would always protect a woman's right to choose no matter who is elected to SCOTUS. And, personally I just trust Edwards and Obama more on appointing more progressive judges.

            Netroots Director for Oregon Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley. Kossacks Donate to Merkley Here!

            by sarahlane on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 08:42:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I'm a little worried about Hillary (0+ / 0-)

          I haven't seen a UHC plan, or a plan to get out Iraq which doesn't leave openings for troops to stay, and she isn't for banning DRE voting machines which really bothers me. When I look at Edwards and Obama, I feel more secure that they'll push a bold agenda. Call me a concern troll, but I don't see it from Hillary.

          Netroots Director for Oregon Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley. Kossacks Donate to Merkley Here!

          by sarahlane on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 08:39:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  well Sarah , talk is cheap (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        jxg, DemocraticLuntz, cpresley

        When Edwards had the chance he voted conservatively.  Clinton's record is much more liberal.  But you continue to pretend she is less progressive.  It makes no sense.  Their policies on Iraq are the same.  Their policies on almost everything are the same.  But hers are backed up with votes and his is all talk at this point.

        •  edwards was NO conservative (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          sarahlane, pointecoupeedemocrat

          he was representing NC; for NC, his record is SOLID liberal

        •  Have you looked at all the bills (0+ / 0-)

          Edwards authored and co-sponsored? My guess is if you've looked at his legislation like I have you wouldn't just say he voted conservatively. He had a few conservative votes, but heck they all do. While Edwards was representing a red state he voted against the partial birth abortion ban five times. He voted to allow abortions on military bases, he voted to allow military women to have abortions overseas. He also was pushing a Federal Freedom of Choice Act. Does Hillary being from a blue state push for an act like Edwards supported while he was in the Senate that would protect a woman's right to choose no matter who gets elected to SCOTUS? Edwards representing red NC gets a lot more credit for these kinds of votes than Hillary does representing NY. I don't continue to pretend she's less progressive, I just haven't seen the boldness in her proposals that I have seen in Edwards proposals. Maybe she has come around and got off her "we need a paper trail" and joined Edwards in calling for a ban on DRE voting machines. I am hoping she'll unveil a good UHC program soon too because regardless of who gets the nod, I really want UHC.

          Netroots Director for Oregon Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley. Kossacks Donate to Merkley Here!

          by sarahlane on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 08:50:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  One more thing... (0+ / 0-)

          if you could help me out, I haven't been able to get a Hillary supporter to tell me if the Clinton/Byrd amendment left holes that allowed for combat or non-combat troops to stay in Iraq? You're right talk is cheap, and Hillary says "we're all for UHC", well....where is her plan? If she comes out with a great plan I will look at her differently, and that's good thing.

          Netroots Director for Oregon Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley. Kossacks Donate to Merkley Here!

          by sarahlane on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 08:53:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  glass ceilings also (0+ / 0-)

      exist along the axis of class.  somehow classism has disappeared from this discussion.  i also beleive richardson would shatter the ceiling if he were elected.

  •  The "southern white male" who wouldn't (4+ / 0-)

    vote for Hillary or Obama most likely wouldn't vote for any democratic candidate.  

    And this isn't necessarily a "southern white male" thing...there's people like this all over.  We could just as easily be talking about the "midwestern male" or the "western male" or the "rural male", etc.  Come to think of it, there are some females who are none too enlightened.

    •  i disagree (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Albatross

      unfortunately, some of us would vote for edwards NOT for hillary or obama; i would vote for the proverbial yellow dog as long as he has the DEM next to his name;BUT, people would be surprized at the "bubba" vote obama AND hillary will recieve IF romney is the repuke nominee

      •  That is an interesting take. (0+ / 0-)

        Is it the "one too many books" thing?

        •  not ONLY that(that is a factor) (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Jennifer Clare

          romney is "too perfect" for southerners; his flip-flopping is legendery; he could be literally gutted by comparison ads that show HE is the massachusetts liberal governor in the race

          •  So who do you think is the R candidate (0+ / 0-)

            that is the most competitive with the Democratic nominee this year? Do you think there is anyone who stands out on the Republican slate that would be an overwhelming challenge to the Democratic nominee? Or does who the Dem nominee ends up being factor into the calculus from where you are observing the lay of the land?

            Seems to me that all sorts of factors could come into play this go-around. I appreciate your sharing your thoughts!

            •  fred thompson (0+ / 0-)

              fred thompson(in my opinion)is the one who scares me the most; having said that, in my opinion, this race is ALL about the democrats;unless the democratic nominee screws it all up(which we have been known to do on many occasions) the next president will be either 1/hillary,2/edwards, or 3/obama

  •  great myth dunker (0+ / 0-)

    Thanks!

  •  I think your post is capricious (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    cosbo, kpardue, tjb22, gzodik

    You keep suggesting that the arguments being made against a women or black man being elected are because "Southern white males" will not vote for them.  This is not the true issue and entirely misses the point.  The south is just not competetive. John Edwards or BC or AG is not going to win in Al or Miss. Ain't gonna happen.  SWM voters don't really matter.  It's rural voters.  Farmers.Gun-owners.Church-goer's. It's in IOWA, OHIO, PA, MISSOURI, WV, etc.  That's where being a woman or black may be a hindrance because  they MAY be  Unfamiliar, foreign, or culturally unrecognizable.  I wouldn't say it's blatant racism or sexism, but a more subtle prejudice. These are not southern states, but culturally they have a large section of voters that may vote Dem if they are personally comfortable with them, but may be scared otherwise. You may not like it, but it's still true. You can't get out the message if they don't like the messanger.    

    just another liberal, anti-American, cutnrun combat veteran

    by Uncle Irish on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 08:19:10 PM PDT

    •  BUT (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      cosbo, LisainNYC

      they COULD win in VA,NC,FL,TN,etc.

      •  TRUE (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        cosbo

        in Fl,and poss TN., but NC?or VA? But If we were to win in the South, would we not also be likely to have already won in the Mid-west, etc?  Anyway, I like your optimism, though.  Maybe with dumb-ass Bush it could happen!  

        just another liberal, anti-American, cutnrun combat veteran

        by Uncle Irish on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 08:35:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Uncle Irish

          you are correct on your midwest assessment;in my view, the republicans are self-destructing ALL over the country(VA,MT,TX,KS,etc) with serious infighting that we can exploit;BUT, to fully exploit the breach, we MUST contest EVERYWHERE(50-state strategy)even GA,AL,UT,etc.; i still belive(even though many on this site disagree)that we owe a great deal of gratitude to harold ford jr. for making TN competitive last year,thereby, FORCING the gopers to defend frist's open seat by spending muli-millions that they had budgeted for OTHER seats thus bringing those other seats into play(VA,MT,MO,etc.)

    •  I'm glad you feel that way (0+ / 0-)

      Because that means, you feel the actual argument being rebutted is capricious as well as that is what the post is really about. Whether you care to admit it or not, this is the argument that is being floated around in the Blogosphere more ; not the one you stated. I understand yours. I reject the one in this post.

      "I don't believe in this can't do , won't do , won't even try style of politics , Yes We Can! ~ Barack Obama

      by KendraStone on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 11:14:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am (0+ / 0-)

        very new to the blogosphere, so I'll defer to your knowledge of such....and I understand and empathize with your distaste for small-minded people.  
        The fear and distrust that exists from them is not just for women and minorities, but also northeasterners and the well-educated(and well-spoken) among others.  There is a well documented,long line of anti-intellectualism and anti-elitism in American politics. It is my belief that at least partly because Southerners, fair or not, suffer from the perception of not being very bright, even the most brilliant of them seem more down to earth and can more easily connect with the anti-intellectual biased voters that pervades Rural America in places like Iowa,Middle Pa,etc. What are your thoughts on this?Would anyone disagree with this rationale?        

        just another liberal, anti-American, cutnrun combat veteran

        by Uncle Irish on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 11:49:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What she said. Recommended. n/t (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Jennifer Clare
  •  I agree? (0+ / 0-)

    I think.

    I think (hope) you're really saying "Southern White Male" is not a valid stereotype.

    But sometimes it sounds like you are subscribing to it yourself.

    I am a Southern White Male (Texas, over 65) myself.  I have never had a racist in my family (well, I'm not sure about all the in-laws).  If there are Republicans in my family, they keep quiet about it.

    When I moved to San Francisco, I had to work really hard to lose all my accent.  When asked where I'm from, I have to change the subject.  I have to be ashamed of my blood and my heroes.

    I'm kind of talking around the subject here, I guess.  When you draw a line by race, gender, etc., then everyone has to be on one side or the other, don't they?

    I did like your diary, but I had to work at it a little bit.

  •  Teh emotional blackmail! (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    pointecoupeedemocrat

    Avoid it.

    "It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08

    by Salo on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 10:10:41 PM PDT

  •  i am a southern (0+ / 0-)

    white male from one of the more liberal parishes in Louisiana.  I tend to vote for candidates whose policies dovetail with my priorities.  And while I have supported women and African-Americans who were running for office in the past, I do not believe I can support Clinton or Obama during the primary in 2008.  I reject arguments that rely on stereotypes when establishing the case for electability, but I do take polls seriously, and polls show Edwards leading nationally in all hypothetical matchups.  And some, if they need to, can chalk it up to racism or to whatever else they wish, but I prefer to see it as a result of his policies and his charisma.  

    But why is the prospect of election a Latino for the Presidency never discussed?  Why is everyone focused on women and African-Americans?  Bill Richardson is running, no?  Or do we ignore this simple fact in order to coerce what we are calling "southern white males" on this site to vote for candidates who may not share some of our positions?

Permalink | 58 comments