The news today that Florida Senator Bob Graham will not seek reelection in 2004 is probably a fatal blow to Democratic hopes to regain control of the Senate.

Graham's retirement is added to that of Senators John Edwards, Zell Miller and Ernest Hollings. Though the GOP may not win all four open seats, they sure have a good chance to do so and increase their majority from the present 51 to 48 split.

The Nation ran a story last month about how Democrats have lost the South to the Republicans, and this seems to lend creedence to that notion.

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning in the South anymore and why have they lost ground so dramatically to the GOP?

Any chance? Well, sure. I don't think the South will ever be the "solid South" it was in the unlamented days of the Dixiecrats. There is no question, however, that the Republican Party (particularly on the national level) has a strong advantage in this region, and will continue to do so for some years.

Why? Let's take a look at history first. The devastating tragedy of institutionalized segregation was the mortar that held together the bricks that built a wall around the South during the first half of the Twentieth Century. The Reconstruction Era, with its imposed Republican governments treating the states of the former Confederacy as conquered territories, was also a factor. It's no surprise that there was great bitterness against the Republican Party for decades to come.

With the dawning of the Civil Rights Movement, the Democratic Party cracks into the liberal Northerners and the conservative Southerners. (By the way, throughout this entire discussion, I am greatly simplifying.) Oldsters like me can remember when Dixiecrats like Wallace and Maddox held the attention of the nation, instead of being irrelevant, somewhat pitiable figures. When institutionalized segregation winds up on the ashheap of history, the Dixiecrats fade into insignificance. Because of the Civil Rights Movement, the Democratic Party wins the loyalty of many African-American voters. On the other hand, many cultural conservatives (a very important factor in the American South; mostly, but not entirely, white) turn to the Republican Party. This movement just seems to be getting stronger and stronger in this region, as issues such as gay rights and public school prayer take over the headlines in local newspapers. One cannot emphasize strongly enough the influence of conservative Protestantism in this region.

So what hope does the Democratic Party have in the South? Only very moderate Democrats seem to have any chance of winning big.

hey did you guys here about the stupid president elect-hopeful who *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off a bunch of Southerners including me with his whole Flag comment? he really screwed up your (democratic) hopes for the South. He should

well,...... I live in the South,........Hell I Live In Lynchburg Virginia! You can't get any Southern than that!

Most of us are Conservative or even Severe Right wingests(Is that correct?) but their are democrats down here to. Living here in Lynchburg, surrounded by The Moral Majority & Liberty University of Rev. Jerry Fallwell and others like him, I would think the same thing about "Southern Democrats", there out there, just got to walk quietly and turn over a few rocks!

Sorry, I just had to laugh! But even so, the democrats down here are scarce because they bring nothing new to the table and some of the past proposals that I have seen, makes it hard to even consider if they're relavent or not. It hard eather way! We are abit behind the times down here to, but we like that way!




"Their little surprise around each corner, but nothing Dangerous!"---Willy Wonka

Since the mid's 60's the republicans have whittled away the number of democrats in the south by using a strategy of race.

The "Solid South" will never be a reality again. The question really becomes when those former democrats, current republicans who are conservative on social/family values realize they being led by the nose towards a policy of tax cuts and deficit spending designed to literally break the social safety net of social security, medicare and medicaid?

Howard Dean was right when he said that in order to win the presidency he had to appeal just as much to southerner's with rebel flag stickers on the back of their pickups. Blue Dog democrats are dead and gone, replaced mostly sheep who are herded along on socially conservative issues, while having the wool pulled over their eyes on fiscal policy.

Dean's comment about the guys with the Confederate flags on their trucks was deliberately misconstrued, first by the other Democratic Presidential hopefuls (especially by Al Sharpton) who hoped to gain an edge by taking Dean to task on it; then gleefully picked up by the Republicans who hope to head the Dean juggernaut off at the pass (pardon the cliches--that sure sounded like a pundit). But it's the truth.

It was Dean's clumsy attempt to reach out to voters who might be feeling otherwise disenfranchised. He was trying to say that these guys are part of the country, too. It didn't help him or the Democratic party when he was dressed down by his own colleagues. At some point these men (and one woman) will be expected to close ranks and endorse one candidate and one running mate. Nice job, Dems!

I have to concur what what Victoria Silverwolf has already written--it is a fair assessment of the situation.

I believe the Republicans are so popular in the south,because of the religious right. Individuals such as Rev. Falwell and Pat Robertson have sold the southerns a bill of goods, that isn't worth the paper it is written on.

The majority of Christians in the south are wonderful and beautiful people who are honestly sincere in their beliefs. But the pompous and holier than thou,Rev. Falwell has poisoned so many Christians hearts and soul,by the venom that spouts out of his month. I have personally spoken to some Christians and asked them why they think a certain way. Their reply is : Rev. Falwell said that and that. I feel for these people only getting one side of the BIG story. They aren't getting the whole story.

If the majority are ok in your eyes, then just how did the religious right take the south away from the dems?

You can't have it both way popeye.

The more I read about this subject, the less obvious the answers become.

First, I think the South was married to the D's until about 1948 because of Lincoln and what happened with the Civil War.

When Truman decided to include a platform on black civil rights in his '48 campaign, the South started to split, with the Dixiecrats battling for their own segregationist candidates. Although the Dixiecrats went away, the underlying reasoning -- integration and black rights -- wouldn't go away.

LBJ really brought the whole civil rights thing to a head in the South, increasing the anger at the D's. Nixon's '68 campaign appealed to these angry voters, starting the shift of voters over to the R's. The D's insistence on civil rights, affirmative action, etc., helped further drive these folks away.

Here in Georgia, most of the D's now live in the cities and the R's have everything else. From what I've seen, this division exists across the South. The further away from the cities you get, the more hard-core conservative the voter. This is a simplification, but it's more accurate than not.

As a D, how do you appeal to both the city folks and the country folks? I think that some of the discussions about how to appeal across those lines is right: make it less about race and more about economics. The problem is that too many D's feel like they need to talk more about Dr. King than talking about bringing money into rural areas for everyone.

The problem with the Southern Democrat model is that the state parties are controlled by extreme liberals. If a moderate were to run, he would not have the support of his state party. When he gets to Washington, her will be out of sync with the national party and will wind up voting like Ralph Hall or Charlie Stenholm from Texas (with the Republicans).

I am sick and tired of the idea that all I have to choose from is a bunch of candidates who depend on the extreme right.

I am not pro-choice, but neither am I an absolute pro-lifer. I come closer to fitting with moderate republicans.

I do not agree with the welfare-state model, but neither do I believe that government has no responsibility to social issues.

I believe that responsible commerce means neither punitive protectionism nor does it mean absolute disregard to the American wage earner.

I believe that political rhetoric on both sides of church and state has too much input. Religious groups seek too much power in public (morality) policy and secular groups fight too hard to insure a complete absence or public religious display. ( I once heard a Hindu prayer before a HS football game and I was neither shocked nor offended.

I believe that voters have no idea what their representatives at the state. local, or even congressional levels stand for or even vote for. I believe that it has ceased being a "Government of the people" but instead has become a government of "The people who pay"

I believe that we notice the president who affects us the least on a daily basis (domestically) and that we notice the school board and county commissioners who affected us the most.

Basically to answer the initial question: Because a true "Southern Democrat" cannot exist because he is too conservative to get the support needed for the nomination.

The religious right took the south when they discovered they could use Christianity to blind people. I am a Christian - my faith is deeply rooted - and thats why I could never vote for a Republican (on the national level at any rate - and often on the state level too) - because for my money, the republican agenda (minus the supposed stamp of approval by the "christians") has nothing to do with my faith. But, really, the question of how Christianity has been used (manipulated even) to steal the south from the dems can be a whole separate topic of debate.

The problem facing so many democrats running in local/state elections is the people do not realize that on a day to day basis, the decisions made by the local council or possibly school board and even by the county dog catcher have more effect on one's life. Even in the national arena, as for the major moral debates raging (ie, abortion, gay marriage, "family values", etc) - these really have little effect on the day to day lives of most people. Its the more important issues of budget, environment, health care/medicare/social security that will have impact on an individual life. But, since politics is very confusing and quite time consuming to find out enough info to make truly informed decisions - most people pick a few "easy" issues to gauge the ability of any given candidate. So, when it comes time for election, and there is a local council election - many people in the south look at the party and see dem and think "immoral, non-christian" and turn to the republican which they associate with "moral, christian", even though the local councilman/woman would really have little to do with major party politics.

If dems really want to reclaim at least some of the south - the state/local dems need to start an educational campaign that shows people how the "big ticket" issues are really of minimal importance in their campaigns and point out what issues do matter at the lower levels... but, once again, any sort of campaign based on the premise of educating people is probably doomed to failure because it calls on people to spend more than a moment of brain power on something as *unimportant* as who will be on the local council, or who will be deciding local court cases.