AHC: better luck for southern and blue dog Dems

samcster94

Banned
With a POD after 1994, what can save the Democrats in the South? My goal here is for the Dems to occasionally win in some states even if it gives than a Manchin-ish candidates. This also applies to people who are not in Southern states, but in places like the Dakotas that are very conservative. Bonus points if the Dems hold more state legislatures.
 
Keep Gephardt, or replace him with another pro-labor, Middle America party leader.

Once the fat cat/Wall Street types took over the party, there was no reason for the former D base to remain loyal. I'm not a Chase or Citigroup or Aetna executive, so I received no economic benefit from the bailout. I just got a share of the bill.

Slightly earlier POD: Clinton changes his mind on NAFTA. Without NAFTA, we might or might not reduce the decline of our manufacturing base, but the Dems aren't associated with free trade and thus aren't seen as sellouts.

But it really wasn't until the 2009-10 corporate welfare free for all that the Democrats were obliterated in the South. At the beginning of 2009, the Democrats held a slight majority in both houses of the Mississippi Legislature and 3 of the 4 US House seats.
 
With a POD after 1994, what can save the Democrats in the South? My goal here is for the Dems to occasionally win in some states even if it gives than a Manchin-ish candidates. This also applies to people who are not in Southern states, but in places like the Dakotas that are very conservative. Bonus points if the Dems hold more state legislatures.

Arguably what you are asking for here already occurs, in that you get guys like Manchin who you mentioned or Doug Jones on occasion. As an aside, I'm a bit confused at what the Dakotas have to do with Southerners?
 

samcster94

Banned
Arguably what you are asking for here already occurs, in that you get guys like Manchin who you mentioned or Doug Jones on occasion. As an aside, I'm a bit confused at what the Dakotas have to do with Southerners?
The conservative states in the rural Midwest and inner West have lopsided demographics but occasionally elected a conservative Dem to the Senate(Montana does this).
 

samcster94

Banned
Keep Gephardt, or replace him with another pro-labor, Middle America party leader.

Once the fat cat/Wall Street types took over the party, there was no reason for the former D base to remain loyal. I'm not a Chase or Citigroup or Aetna executive, so I received no economic benefit from the bailout. I just got a share of the bill.

Slightly earlier POD: Clinton changes his mind on NAFTA. Without NAFTA, we might or might not reduce the decline of our manufacturing base, but the Dems aren't associated with free trade and thus aren't seen as sellouts.

But it really wasn't until the 2009-10 corporate welfare free for all that the Democrats were obliterated in the South. At the beginning of 2009, the Democrats held a slight majority in both houses of the Mississippi Legislature and 3 of the 4 US House seats.
Good points. Having Gore win in 2000 would definitely change the decline notably.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Keep Gephardt, or replace him with another pro-labor, Middle America party leader.

Once the fat cat/Wall Street types took over the party, there was no reason for the former D base to remain loyal. I'm not a Chase or Citigroup or Aetna executive, so I received no economic benefit from the bailout. I just got a share of the bill.

Slightly earlier POD: Clinton changes his mind on NAFTA. Without NAFTA, we might or might not reduce the decline of our manufacturing base, but the Dems aren't associated with free trade and thus aren't seen as sellouts.

But it really wasn't until the 2009-10 corporate welfare free for all that the Democrats were obliterated in the South. At the beginning of 2009, the Democrats held a slight majority in both houses of the Mississippi Legislature and 3 of the 4 US House seats.
no, what obliterated the democrats in the south was obamacare, both the republicans and the democrats signed on for TARP so it was pretty hard to blame one side. That being said, even holding onto to the south at the house level 2006-2010 was a kind of anomaly produced by the unpopularity of the Iraq war and the bush presidency. The real point when the democrats lost the south at the house level was 1994 and Gingrich's contract with america promising to push back against big government.
 
It was a combination of older white Democratic voters in the South dying and younger white voters voting Republican along with African-American politicians agreeing to gerrymandered districts that increased African-American representation at the expense of white Democratic representation.
As an example there is Trent Lott who onced worked for Sen. John Stenis a Democrat, but Lott ran as an Republican.
As for the gerrymandering, a district would be created for an African-American seat at the expense of two or three seats that white Democrats would have held, the higher percentage of white voters in a district makes it very likely that it will go Republican and with low turn out primary elections the most conservative candidate is the probable winner.
As older white Democratic politicians retired, younger white Republican politicians replaced them.
 
no, what obliterated the democrats in the south was obamacare, both the republicans and the democrats signed on for TARP so it was pretty hard to blame one side. That being said, even holding onto to the south at the house level 2006-2010 was a kind of anomaly produced by the unpopularity of the Iraq war and the bush presidency. The real point when the democrats lost the south at the house level was 1994 and Gingrich's contract with america promising to push back against big government.

I might have been projecting my bias (as a very disgruntled former Democrat) into my analysis there.

Democrats also scored a number of victories in the late 1990s.
 

Ian_W

Banned
With a POD after 1994, what can save the Democrats in the South? My goal here is for the Dems to occasionally win in some states even if it gives than a Manchin-ish candidates. This also applies to people who are not in Southern states, but in places like the Dakotas that are very conservative. Bonus points if the Dems hold more state legislatures.

The thing is, the old corrupt Democratic machine of the Dixiecrats did just fine.

They merely changed their label as far as national politics goes.
 

RousseauX

Donor
I might have been projecting my bias (as a very disgruntled former Democrat) into my analysis there.

Democrats also scored a number of victories in the late 1990s.
the late 1990s victory was because the republicans overreached in trying to impeach clinton in 1997 over reasons the electorate thought was dumb and because the democrats under bill clinton shifted to the right in implementing welfare reform to match the mood of the white working class
 

RousseauX

Donor
I said this before, how would President Gore change things?
On the long run? Not much: al gore failed to win his home state of tennesse. The 2000 electoral map is the "basic" blue/red map for the 2000-2010s, the democrats hold the two coasts + a portion of the upper midwest while the republicans hold the south and every other region in the country.

The basic reason why the blue dogs died has to do with very long term economic and demographic trends and changing up some samish presidents won't do that much
 
Environmental signaling derailed the national party in Kentucky and West Virginia, two states where Clinton had no problems in the 90s. So get rid of that part of the platform, and you probably have a better shot there.

Cool it on the social issues. For one thing, just poll current Southern Democrats on these issues (a majority of these voters are African American) and you will see that there is true dissonance between the party in Washington and its voters, to a degree much larger than that of the Republicans even. It was not a winning issue, and Bush really made hay of it in 2000 and 2004 in places like Tennessee, Louisiana, and Arkansas, states that went for Clinton in the 90s.

I think these issues, however, are fundamental to the liberal technocratic West Wing fandom crowd who've run the Democratic Party at an institutional level really since Clinton went away, so its going to be tough.

So, yeah, that should help. A more protectionist trade platform should help in places like Missouri and Louisiana, as well.
 

samcster94

Banned
On the long run? Not much: al gore failed to win his home state of tennesse. The 2000 electoral map is the "basic" blue/red map for the 2000-2010s, the democrats hold the two coasts + a portion of the upper midwest while the republicans hold the south and every other region in the country.

The basic reason why the blue dogs died has to do with very long term economic and demographic trends and changing up some samish presidents won't do that much
Also, wouldn't a President Gore victory(to simplify things, let's say it is a VERY narrow electoral victory due to a flip in NH), hurt the Dems in 02(regardless of a 9/11 expy)?
 
After 1994, it's really hard. It's not like the Democratic party in southern states wasn't trying to retain its clout. However, there are individual races where you could have the Democrat perform stronger (Harold Ford in 2006, Bruce Lundford in 2008) and maybe build the perception that the party is still able to win an occasional seat in the south. If Obama somehow lost the 2008 election, you'd also avoid them getting run out of statehouses for good like they did IOTL. That being said, even if it was a scandal free Edwards, or other southerner, at the top of the ticket, it would be challenging for him to win much more than Obama did in the south.
 
You need abortion to not be a litmus test for high office for the Democratic Party, and you keep the Catholic wing as a significant force. This is more of an issue with boots on the ground than elites.

Alternately, you get the right to also shift pro-choice leaving both parties in a situation similar to the U.K. or Canada in terms of being similar in consensus. In fact in the UK often as not your evangelicals are Labour not Tory.

On the economic side, NAFTA's support and China in the WTO by Clinton really killed the blue dogs. Go the other way and you could easily still have a rust belt bloc and one that has natural growth potential in the south as factories move to the sun belt.
 
Last edited:

samcster94

Banned
You need abortion to not be a litmus test for high office for the Democratic Party, and you keep the Catholic wing as a significant force. This is more of an issue with boots on the ground than elites.

Alternately, you get the right to also shift pro-choice leaving both parties in a situation similar to the U.K. or Canada in terms of being similar in consensus. In fact in the UK often as not your evangelicals are Labour not Tory.

On the economic side, NAFTA's support and China in the WTO by Clinton really killed the blue dogs. Go the other way and you could easily still have a rust belt bloc and one that has natural growth potential in the south as factories move to the sun belt.
I think one trick might be the Reps running a really bad candidate and screw up with a landslide defeat. Imagine Steve Forbes in '96 or something.
 
1994 is SO LATE! Momentum for the shift has been building for decades and I really don't think you can stop it just by moving the Democrats to the center. (Not to mention the implications of where the left goes at that point and whether the Democrats can remain a viable party.)

So what I think you really need to do, post-1994, is have the GOP do something to derail their appeal with Southern and/or Midwestern voters. I can't think of why they would abandon ruralism (i.e. support for agriculture subsidies) but that would go a long way. It's kind of impossible to imagine the circumstances of a party split circa 1994, but something that dramatic would do the trick.

You know what would probably work? A real, active, Tom Clancy-level threat against the US. Crazies take over in Russia, actual ground troops in bulk are needed, Gingrich plays politics rather than kowtowing to national defense needs, Clinton regains the fealty of Southerners and Midwesterners for another generation.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Also, wouldn't a President Gore victory(to simplify things, let's say it is a VERY narrow electoral victory due to a flip in NH), hurt the Dems in 02(regardless of a 9/11 expy)?
Why?

9/11 helped the imcumbent, 2002 was one of only 3 times the president's party gained seats in the house during the midterms (since 1932) I think, so as long as Gore doesn't horribly bungle it it helps democrats a bit, not enough to reverse long term trends though
 
Top