Ed Kilgore of the DLC revisits the issues of the Democratic future in the South. He finds some reason for encouragement:
Over a month ago I did a long, complicated post on prospects for some sort of Democratic comeback in the South, and probably lost a lot of readers halfway through with a "three-wave" theory and a tangent on the need for two-way biracial coalitions (an ensuing exchange with Armando of DailyKos got even further down into the weeds).
So thanks to Ruy Teixeira of Donkey Rising for doing a post yesterday that zeroed in on the biggest sign for Southern Democratic hope on the toughest landscape, the presidential level: a set of statistics I cited but buried in too much prose.
In 1996, Clinton split the southern vote, 46-46, with Bob Dole. One of the keys to his strong performance was this: he actually carried southern white moderates by 46-44.
In 2004, however, Kerry got beaten by 15 points in the south (57-42). So where have all the southern white moderates gone?
In a sense, nowhere. The ideological profile of the southern electorate has barely changed since 1996: it was 17 percent liberal/44 percent moderate/39 conserative then; it is 17 percent liberal/43 percent moderate/40 percent conservative now. And among whites, the ideological profile was 15 percent liberal/43 percent moderate/43 percent conservative in 1996; it is 14 percent liberal/41 percent moderate/45 percent conservative now.
So, what happened? Why did we lose those voters?
Kilgore sez well - nuthin' on the why. So I'm guessing here. Let me posit 2 reasons - (1) Clinton was not on the ballot. For some reason, people love to gloss that over. Now Kilgore seems a good guy to me, but too often he falls into the DLC habit of assuming that Clinton the politician had nothing to do with voting patterns - rather it was those great DLC ideas that turned the trick. He doesn't say so here, but, it seems that his optimism springs from that type of analysis. (2) Kerry was not a great sell in the South. I think that this problem is not given proper weight. Kerry, as a Mass liberal, simply had a problem in the South. And he just was destined to. But I'm not sure that any one else would have done much better. Most of the South was out of play for Clinton.
Update [2005-2-25 17:33:16 by Armando]: HProf points out my brain lock - the most important difference between 1996 and 2004 was the reemergence of national security as the single most important Presidential issue.
More on the flip.
Kilgore does make some good points however in discussing the prospects for 2006:
The odds of making serious gains among Southern white moderates--and also of cutting modestly into the massive GOP margins among conservatives--are even better in non-presidential-year state races, like those coming up in 2006. Already, two strong potential Democratic gubernatorial candidates in the Deep South are focused on winning by swaying suburban moderate voters. Alabama Lieutenant Governor Lucy Baxley could benefit from a cultural-issues split between backers of incumbent Governor Bob Riley and his likely primary opponent, Ten-Commandments-toting former Judge Roy Moore. And Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox cites her ability to win key Atlanta suburban counties in 2002 as a major credential in her bid to topple incumbent Gov. Sonny Perdue.
I think this is pretty consistent with a Dean idea, and one I have talked about as being particularly important for the South - the decentralization of the Democratic Party. Sterling Newberry at BOP also wrote some very good stuff on the regionalization of Dem message -even where positions are the virtually the same. So this sounds good to me too.
Kilgore concludes:
Just goes to show: sometimes the regional stereotypes can be misleading. Given all the talk in national Dem circles about the need to appeal to NASCAR-obsessed, pickup-truck driving rural Bubbas, it would be especially rich to see two women take over state houses by winning suburban moderates.
This is perhaps the most intriguing part of Kilgore's post. And I certainly want to here more of Kilgore's thoughts on how Dems appeal to that voter. That type of voter is the key to Dem fortunes in the South. And it seems to me that Kilgore is not describing a "values" voter.
A question for Ed, what does that type of voter think about the Kansas AG trying to violate the confidentiality of women's medical records? How does THAT issue play to the Southern female suburban moderate voter?