Across South, Democrats Risk Speaking Boldly and Alienating Rural White Voters (25south) (25south)

Jeez. What a ridiculous state of affairs when you are reluctant call racists racists. Way to not cower and tip toe around those who hold such abhorrent views. To stand up for truth and equality no matter what the cost is how nations remain great.

Is this what people in Mississippi really want, a politician who stoops so low as to claim that she is the victim after racist and totally insensitive comments about public hangings? And what is it about having to be fearful of offending rural Southern whites who see nothing wrong in joking about lynchings? Too bad we live in a country where the Confederacy and white supremacy loom so large in some areas. It’s frightening.

No. The Democrats don't just risk alienating rural working married straight Church going whites, they risk losing their soul and their legitimacy. For far too long Democrats have played racial and group politics, telling Blacks, Latinos, women, LGBTQ, and other groups that they are the victims of white working class married church going whites. That is false. The country is the victims of rich, elite urban, red and blue power brokers and corporate and activist leaders. White working class, married, church goers are being crushed by opioids, income inequality, and general disrespect and demonization. Only when Democrats understand and RESPECT these people can the country come together and heal. You only rise when you lift others up, not when you look down your liberal noses at hard working, straight, married, church going white people.

This article bothers me in that is suggests Democrats should care about conservatives. Republicans crow that line as the guy Trump they support burns bridges everywhere, divides everybody, mocks the handicapped, supporters dictators around the globe, etc. Please, get away from this nonsense argument that Democrats need to get people who regularly vote for Republicans to like them. Republicans don't do that. They run roughshod over everybody while in office and rarely talk about bipartisanship EXCEPT to avoid shame or blame for a mistake in poor policy they've made and likely developed the idea for, in the first place. Democrats need to listen to liberals, their base - the people who actually vote for them - and encourage others to who do not regularly vote to give them a shot... and when they get in office, ACTUALLY DELIVER ON THE THINGS THEY SAY THEY VALUE, instead of cowering and doing piecemeal stuff to appease those who don't vote for them ever and hate their guts. The GOP doesn't care if everyone likes them. They get in on their 50.1-51% win and act like it's a landslide... operating like they've got a mandate, scorched earth. They tell you how much they love Klan, Nazis, Confederates, etc., then act outraged if you say that doesn't deserve a vote. Stop fencesitting with racists; there's no doubt what they care about, they leave nothing to the imagination. Complaining about 'losing' voters Dems never had is done to confuse, waste time, and help the establishment.

There are many examples of the Democratic Party being unable to please all of its constituents at the same time. For example, unionized teachers and (particularly minority) parents are naturally on different sides of the fight for school vouchers. Jews and pro-Palestinian Moslems are on different sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Middle-class taxpayers and progressives who want increased entitlements are going to fight over tax hikes (the Party may like to claim that only the rich will pay more, but there never seems to be an end to demands for more entitlements, and ultimately those hit by tax hikes will end up including the middle class). This is in the nature of what the Democratic Party has become - a collection of have-nots and self-referenced victims. The Republicans have a much easier time of defining their philosophy of government - help business and otherwise get out of the way.

I once helped an African American farmer in Mississippi in his claim against the USDA for discriminatory lending. He told me that the USDA was staffed with whites who weren't opposed to people like him getting money, but only after they made sure the white farmers got everything they needed first. That's how it worked, even into the 90s. So no matter what he says, rural Mississippi voters will notice that Mike Espy is African American, and their allegiance to the tribe that promises them another generation of racial privilege is going to drown out any message he might have about protecting their interests in a way that doesn't actually subvert the interests of people who like him. Sometimes the simplest answer is actually the correct one, and the NYT's refusal to see race and racism as a (if not the) motivating factor for many white voters is looking more and more willful.

As disturbing as Ms Hyde-Smith’s apparent endorsement of lynching was, her support for voter suppression was even more direct. She has fully bought into the Republican strategy of making it difficult for blacks to vote. The War on Drugs will continue so long as it helps the white Republican law-and-order crowd tip their demographic disadvantage to their favor by disenfranchising as many black people as possible. Mississippi is a prime example.

If the Democrats want to reconnect with the rural working class they used to represent, they should rediscover pocketbook politics. That doesn't mean you pander to racism, etc. . It means that you go back to traditional Democratic politics that aimed at protecting and supporting the economic struggles of rural people. A strong symbolism of this turnaround would be to start supporting unions again. Even if there are people who dislike or distrust unions, when the Dems align themselves with unions, everyone knows which side they are on. That would be a change.

The runoff election for the Senate will hinge on Espy getting a minimum of the Democratic (and Black) vote that occured on Nov 6, along with at least 15% of the White vote. It must still be noted that having a viable Black candidate with a change to win the seat in Mississippi is monumental.

As a transplant from New England and living in Mississippi for the past 23 years, the contrast in selection of a candidate for public office could not be more different. It can really be baffling to northern folks looking from the outside. Mississippi selects its candidates based on conservative values and church affiliation rather than intelligence, character, economics, or qualifications for the position. Cindy Hyde-Smith was a Democrat who switched to the Republican Party in 2010. She recognized that 85% of the populace will vote Republican even if the other candidate is more qualified. Many will overlook Mrs. Hyde-Smith transgressions, hold their nose, and vote for her because she represents conservative values.

Come on, Mississippi. Two choices have been set before you, and the right one should be pretty obvious. You can opt for "hangin' words," and KKK outfits, and other artifacts of the Old South, or you can step proudly into the 21st century. Lay all the awful stereotypes and cliches to rest, once and for all, and elect a senator you can be proud of. (No supporters are asking Mr. Espy to return their campaign money tonight; this, in itself, is very telling.) Come on, Mississippi. Yes, Mr. Trump is heading your way, planning to run yet another of his ridiculous hate rallies, featuring lies and "rev-'em-up" nonsense, on election eve. Be forewarned. Who do you really want to represent Mississippi today? Please vote for yourselves and your future. Vote for Mr. Espy.

"And who cares if these candidates lost rural counties? Why are these the only voters that count? Stacey Abrams and Beto O’Rourke may not have won, but Abrams had her race outright stolen by voter suppression (which also contributed to Gillum’s loss) and both way outperformed previous Democrats. Why is it that winning the cities and suburbs isn’t good enough for the media? Why is it that appealing to rural white conservatives is the only appropriate way Democrats can run a campaign?" - Erik Loomis http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/11/can-democrats-survive-without-winning-votes-white-alabama

There are important issues all agree on, starting with corruption: Ex. "Citizens United" that seems to define multinational megacorporations as "persons" entitled to billions in "free speech" political donations that have made a normal person's hundred or five hiundred dollar donation the equivalent of linty change found under a sofa cushion -- laughable. It is clear that the average people's measly donations are not responsible for driving the "cost" of campaigns into the near-billion range and the recipients, dem or rep, billions of dollars away from the average citizen's concerns. In the Gospels, Jesus points out that the poor woman giving her last cent is a better person than a rich man giving a pile of gold that is chump change to him. The GOP's leader literally gives a medal to the woman megamillionaire who gave them her chump change , not to the poor man in the South who gave til it hurt. Citizens United is about SUPERPACs which do NOT demand citizenship for donation -- unlike mere PACs. A green card immigrant can give thousands of times more than than a working class US citizen. The average republican and democrat find the idea of treating corporations as individual people insulting. And Democrats could come up with proposals for laws that would stop the outright buying of candidates, ex. that would require representatives and senators to daily reveaL HOW MANY HOURS that day they spent WITH CONSTITUents as compared to lobbyists and out-of-state rich people.

Many white people in the South still fight the Civil War in their minds. This includes well intentioned people. They'll tell you the civil war was about states rights, not slavery. Many people in the south still live in the 19th century. Decades layer over them but nothing has really changed in the heart of Dixie.

I know this may be a scoop to Mr. Martin, but LBJ realized when he passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that the Democratic Party had lost the South. It would be interesting to probe the stubbornness of racial attitudes, particularly in Mississippi, that compels 90% of the State's white population to now vote Republican, as the White Folks Party of the South is now called (prior to 1964 it was Democratic, but the Democrats could not bridge the divide in the party by liberals and Northern urban politicians depending on the Black vote with the maintenance of Jim Crow which the White South desired and apparently still demands. Mr. Martin's problem is that for some reason he considers White Voters more important than Black voters. In this he shares the same views and Senator Hyde-Smith and President Trump.

I see...Democrats, having just come from a disastrous 40 seat pickup in the House, are in danger of losing everything. Still. Again. Such inspired concern trolling...

Democratic candidates need to present a platform focused on economic issues from perspective of middle class and low income voters, rather than "identity politics" issues. And there are plenty of such economic issues: -- improving equality of opportunity (there was another NYT article that children with a low-level income background now have a better chance in China than in U.S.) -- improving competition in all areas, including among companies -- improving bargaining power of workers -- enforcing of E-Verify laws such that only people legally allowed to work in U.S. are legally employed -- emphasis on science and technology, albeit with strong checks and balances

NY Times: "Progressive Dems lose rural voters in South. Also, moderate Dems in Midwest lose them too. The party must run more moderate candidates."

Instead of describing running as a progressive as a losing strategy, might it have been worthwhile to point out that Gillum, Abrams and Beto, running as progressives, did far better and came far closer to winning in their states than any centrist Democrat in recent memory?

Not just in these Southern states, but throughout the country, the Democrats are losing a lot of potential supporters by their total silence on issues like immigration and border controls. In the recent midterms there was absolutely NOTHING from the Democrats on what their stance was about border controls, to challenge the Trumpian narrative. Surely the Democrats are not demanding "open borders without any controls," but you'd never know, given their mystifying silence on this important and legitimate concern among many in the electorate.

The mills of God have ground slowly for centuries in the South, but the process can't be reversed and the outcomes are making themselves plain. Even in these fortresses of retrogression the future is breaking through.

So now we have to worry about offending people who support public lynchings? It's more than 50 years since Phil Ochs told Mississippi to find another country to be part of and things don't seem to have improved very much.

In Georgia, a county like Athens-Clarke which tends to vote Democratic voted 70% for Abrams, while Kemp had about 70% in Oglethorpe and Oconee counties. Voter turnout was much higher than in 2014 (by about 1.3 million voters for Athens-Clarke). These are red states. It is incredible that there are runoffs for major positions. At the same time, there is a new Jim Crow mentality. Kemp purged almost 1.5 million voters in Georgia, with 500,000 purged in a single summer day in 2017. What would the black vote count have been without the massive voter suppression? The Republican senator in Mississippi has said openly racist things about enjoying public hangings and so forth, and she went to a segregationist school and sent her child to one. That is Jim Crow Redux. In Georgia, a black state senator who simply sat quietly with some peacefully protesting constituents in the State Capitol (who wanted votes counted) was arrested, strip searched and kept in jail for hours. She was immune to this kind of legal jeopardy and was at work under the Capitol dome. That is Jim Crow. Someone abused their power, either in law enforcement or among the white GOP politicians, and this woman was deliberately humiliated and mistreated. Two senators, one black and one white, both women. If the Old South rises again, then major corporations and Hollywood will look elsewhere. So will more educated, tolerant, and younger citizens.

One obvious answer to this conundrum is to expand the electorate STARTING NOW (my apologies for the caps), with the goal of getting every potential voter registered and sufficiently documented to overcome the coming Republican efforts to suppress the vote. Traditionally Dems have taken a low key, wait-till-election-year approach, with the results that we see. It's time to get very serious about this.

"..campaigns of Stacey Abrams in Georgia.... may have electrified black and progressive white voters.... had an equal and opposite effect as well: in rural county after rural county...performed worse than President Barack Obama did in 2012." I would argue that Trump brought out the attack dogs, that the 2012 race did not. And Stacey Abrams, one of the most eloquent speakers, addressed only Medicaid expansion, and that should have rang true with Republicans as well as Democrats. But it didn't, and the new Governor elect Kemp is keeping his campaign promise, no Medicaid expansion. Racism in Georgia is alive and well, and it will be years before we have a Democratic Governor, and only when metro Atlanta out populates rural Georgia.

What ever happened to the idea of fielding candidates who are attractive to the majority of the population, so that the candidate can win more easily and reasonably claim to represent most of the constituency? If the rural vote is so important, why aren't there candidates who focus on those needs and interests from a Democratic perspective? Leave race and gender aside. What about economics, as it really plays out on the ground, vs in Republican fairy tales? It seems like Mississippi is a prototypical place that a conservative Democrat would be the best candidate (from the left's perspective). It takes a long time for hearts and minds to change, if they ever do. So, racist it might be, but if the rural white vote is both required and racist, then fielding a black candidate might just be a bad idea. The right way to think about it might be that it's a "strategic" choice to field certain candidates. ("Practical" might be another appropriate word.) On this note, I remain surprised that Obama won (twice!), but his color helps to explain a lot of the push back he got from the other side. If Epsy were white, maybe he'd have won the main election outright. Since this year's election and the lost of Democratic seats, I am thinking what fools we Democrats have been to not be focusing on the Senate. The Republicans have known for decades that the Senate's judicial approval role makes it a more important chamber.

Why is insurance so expensive? Why are drugs so expensive? Has the medical industry been on a feeding frenzy? Did politicians set the table for this feast? And why all the confusion when it comes to our well being? Is it for the same reason that pickpockets like crowds? I'm sure that white southerners would be a receptive audience to a real discussion about health care. If the Democrats focus on this issue they will win a lot of votes.

It's one thing if the South and rural areas consistently vote for "three steps back and two steps forward", but why should they have the power to hold back the rest of the country? Why should they get to "take" more in federal and state tax dollars than they "give"? Why shouldn't blue states and urban areas give red states and rural areas the small government they they want? For example, given the choice between using scarce tax dollars to repair either a heavily traveled bridge in an urban area, versus a rarely used one in a rural area, I'm sure small government Republicans would agree that the heavily traveled blue bridge should get the repair. It's what you voted for.

“There’s a baseline percent of the white vote you have to get to win and you can’t get to it just through young and progressive excitement,” While there are some bigots and racists among them, they are very far from all that way. You can't paint them all that way, insult them in your campaign, and then expect to win. Polling of actual policy positions shows that they have many opinions in common with more Progressive politics. They all want medical care for their loved ones, they all want a decent job, they all want a fairer share of the wealth produced by their own labor. They all know they are conned and lied to, and they are all fed up. The secret of Trump's support is his (limited but real) ability to appeal to the sense of being fed up. Progressives appeal to that too. They can get those votes, and they should. They just can't be both on their high horse of judgment against those who might vote for them, and get those votes. It is a choice. So far, too many made the wrong choice. They got Outrage and donor dollars for it, but not votes.

Well the first inclination of people who are confronted with discouraging words is to withdraw or to take back the words. But that just avoids honestly working through serious disagreements. A century ago, all minorities in this country were in the minority. The majority were descends of Europeans and most of them of Protestant ones. Being in the majority in a democratic state meant that their views and preferences were represented in laws, practices, and policies. Soon, people who could be grouped in that majority will be a minority if still a huge proportion of the people. Their preferences and views will no longer dominate. That does not mean that they will be unfree but it does make them fear that they might be. So it’s a big issue that must be honestly addressed. Doing so will be embarrassing because of the prevalence of racial discrimination in our history. The majority discriminated against minorities. Now, it might be done to them. If so, the urge would be to protect themselves by any means available. So the wounds inflicted over centuries to racial minorities must be healed and the rules agreed to not perpetuate it firmly agreed, too. The discussion must go on across the country. The South should find it much less complicated an issue because the injustices were far less complicated when they occurred.

There is a quandary here, as pointed out in the article. If your goal is to make a point, you're shouting into the wind, but you can be as obnoxious and confrontational as you wish. It may be emotionally satisfying for the ideologues but it won't win any elections (except maybe in the Bronx). Some of the comments fail to appreciate that if your goal is to win, you can't do that if you go around offending a lot of people. Mr. Espy clearly wants to win. It is possible to be direct and clear without being offensive. Mr. Espy chose that road. Confrontation may be effective for the bigots and know-nothings who support Trump, his policies and his style. Espy cannot out-Trump Trump. He needs to be able to galvanize his followers and convince those who may be on the fence that he can be trusted. There are no easy answers in terms of tactics, but there are mistakes that should be avoided, providing your goal is to win. The in-your-face approach that may be gratifying for 5 minutes will lose in almost all constituencies. Persuasion and persuasiveness, which also may not work, are more likely to be more effective. Win or lose, if your goal is to win, you need to act like the person your constituents want in that position. If you don't care about winning, you can do what you want.

First off, the dems didn't lose four senate seats. They lost two with a very difficult map due to so many dem seats being contested versus only a few for the gop. They held off challenges in two states that trump took by over thirty points in 2016, and they knocked out republican incumbents in Arizona and Nevada. Additionally, they gained 38 seats in the house, including places like Kansas and Orange County, California and Texas. Perhaps Beto and friends were too progressive, but their narrow losses portend a bleak future for the vocal rural confederate minority in the south. Just wait.

As usual, the echo chamber of arrogant liberals refuses to accept that reasonable people can disagree. People who desire our immigrations laws be enforced; who believe deciding on a day-to-day basis what gender you are is silly; that the best way to stop race and sex discrimination is to stop discriminating based on race or sex; and that white males enjoy equal rights; are reasonable folks. As a white male who voted for Obama 2X, when liberal Democrats stop attacking me, I won’t be forced to support a jerk like Trump.

democrats should speak forcefully against trump and his brand anywhere and everywhere. most people will respond positively. the angry and the racist white voters are not within reach anyway. what they need is to be shamed and marginalized back under the rock from which they came.

I would submit, in many respects, President Obama's reflection(on which he was chastised) on the white rural voter in the south was essentially correct in which he stated that they wish to cling to their "guns and religion" and unfortunately, continued racist attitudes. I would suggest though that if there was one question to be asked of these voters, democrats should be very forthright in asking it: "You have been voting overwhelmingly Republican in this state for decades, yet, are you any further ahead and why does your state and other states in the south that continue to vote this way have among the poorest educated, lowest incomes and worst poverty levels in the country"? Unfortunately, if they can't or refuse to realize the reality of their situation then, perhaps they are a "lost cause". As has already been pointed out by many that states that continue to support the political and social ideology of an individual like Hyde-Smith, for the most part, result in businesses choosing not to locate to such areas which further puts these states at the "low end of the totem poll" economically for the foreseeable future.

Yes, many whites are feeling increasing uncomfortable with the number of non-whites in America. To suggest that this is an issue confined to the rural South is naive; it was the driving force behind Trump's election. Banning the Muslims and building the wall are multi-faceted , but the bottom line is that these initiatives keep non-whites out of the country. This isn't limited to the US, either; it has led to a rising tide of right wing politics in Western Europe. Most people resist change, and this is a big, though inevitable, one.

Does Mr. Martin know anything about the South? Does he realize that the Mississippi GOP of today were the lynchers and white citizen councils of yesteryear? Racism is so deep in Mississippi that it is deeper than the top soil in the Mississippi Delta. Those who murdered Emmett Till would still find a home in the hearts and minds of the white citizenry there today. You can't make up the racism found there.

“Mr. Espy was reckoning with a conundrum that Democrats face across the South” I wouldn’t consider accepting or ignoring bigotry a conundrum. There’s really no point to winning elections if you’re going to have to become your foe to win them. Voters are more turned off by insincerity and cynicism. If dems oppose racism they should say it strongly and then move on to other platform issues. You can’t make a campaign out of just your opponent being terrible. That’s how Hillary Clinton lost an election. Instead acknowledge your opponents vices and then articulate what you actually have to offer the voting populace.

The tenor of this story is all wrong. Instead of asking how the Democrats can best appeal to the racists we should be asking how we can combat the racism that drives rural white people to vote for Republicans despite the fact that Republicans betray their interests time after time.

The Dems don't risk much in these regions because they Don't Win resorting to a "Democrat In Name Only" platform either. Hello? The Dems lost most of the south decades ago. They need to lead the South out of the dark ages, by example for now if nothing else. With the base of conservative evangelicals leading voters to more depraved positions with each passing day, Dems should take heed --- if you want to win so badly you're willing to sell your soul like they do, change parties and join them.

I find it curious that Jonathan Martin would claim that Democrats are attempting "to snatch a Senate seat," as if it rightfully belongs to the Republican Party, as if Democrats are thieves committing electoral larceny. No, Mr Martin, Democrats are campaigning on their principles, proudly supporting women and minorities across the nation, exposing the GOP as the party of white supremacy. And it's working. Only the Republican Party's voter suppression schemes are temporarily holding back the tide of decency and tolerance. Democrats won fair and square congressional seats across the old Confederacy, from Virginia to Georgia to Texas. It is the Republicans who, through Jim Crow voter suppression who are "snatching" seats.

More insightful take might be - that across the south Democratic appeals to urban and suburban progressives almost elected two African American governors and ousted a conservative Republican Senator. Headline - “Progressive Southern Voters Gaining on Entrenched Rural Conservatives”. There is zero indication that appealing to rural conservatives would have done anything, except maybe not motivate to vote the record number of voters who decided to vote.

Let's be clear. The underlying problem is not with the D party. The problem is that too many white voters in southern states (see GA, FLA for examples) are OK with electing racist-backed GOP candidates. Hyde-Smith knows that a sincere apology for her reprehensible remarks would cost her a net loss of votes.

Something the Media has not reported on is that this Senate race should not even be occurring. State Senator Chris McDaniel was poised to unseat Thad Cochran in 2014 when former Governor Haley Barbour and other Establishment types decided to pay Democrats to vote in the GOP primary run-off which helped Cochran just barely edge out a run-off win over McDaniel. One of the criticisms of McDaniel at the time was that he would “embarrass” Mississippi, but what Barbour and his ilk actually wanted was to have Cochran in charge of appropriations. Now, instead of having a solid GOP Senate vote in McDaniels, Mike Epsy has a legitimate chance to win the seat for the Democrats and Cindy Hyde-Smith (who’d been a life-long Democrat until 2010) has repeatedly embarrassed Mississippi.

I want my elected officials to be true to themselves. They shouldn't require handlers. I'm dubious about the value of speechwriters, for that matter. I'd like to think that capable political leaders are capable of speaking for themselves, from the heart.

Jeez, it's more than just one stupid comment about public hanging. Ms. Hyde-Smith is actually considered to be Senate-worthy? Every clip I've seen of her screams runner-up for PTA president, not United States Senate. Whatever is the opposite of confident, competent, charismatic, leader. That. The Southern bar is obviously pretty low.

And they risk alienating the progressive mainstream future if they dont

I'm curious why the Times felt this particular approach was the one to focus on. Why not: "Across South, Voter Suppression Costs Democrats Two Statehouses and a Senate Seat"? or "Across Orange County, Republican Strongholds Repudiate Trump"? or " Across Nation, Appeals to Racism Cost Republicans House Control"? The Times always chooses to dissect failings and disputes in the Democratic party, while generally portraying Republicans as a monolithic entity that liberals should listen to and empathize with. It's this approach that led you guys to do approximately 143,578 stories on Hillary's e-mails while generally failing utterly to look into Trump's business deals, his history of tax evasion and graft, and his associations with unsavory international partners. Do better.