Sunday Discussion Group

October 7, 2007

What, if anything, are Democrats to do about Bubba?

Bubba, of course, is the name strategists Steve Jarding and Dave “Mudcat” Saunders gave to the white male vote in the U.S., sometimes referred to as “NASCAR dads.” Bubba hasn’t voted Democratic for about a generation (or two), and with 2008 plans in the works, some are wondering whether the party can get him back. Others see Bubba moving further to the right and say, “Good riddance.”

Taking up the prior this week was David Paul Kuhn, author of “The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma,” who believes white men, about 36% of the electorate, “matter most.”

Over the past two generations, said former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, “there was a morphing of the Democratic Party from a sense of a common good or a common commitment to each other as fellow citizens to being an advocate for groups. And I think that Democrats were advocates for every other group except for white males.”

The problem with this approach is that it leaves virtually no margin for error. To win national elections, Democrats need to win nearly all of the African-American vote, a substantial majority of Hispanics and at least come close to winning half of white women. (Democrats have not actually commanded a majority of white women since 1964.) […]

It is, after all, the white working man who once was the backbone of the Roosevelt coalition. America has changed since. But Democrats’ need to compete for white men’s votes has not.

In 2000, white men backed Bush over Gore by 27 points. In 2004, they backed Bush over Kerry by 26. Kuhn argues that the Dem would have won easily if they had narrowed “the white male gap to even the low 20s instead of the mid-20s.”

And then there’s my friend Tom Schaller, who believes Bubba is gone, he’s not coming back, and Dems can do just fine without him.

[C]entrist Democrats continue to urge the party to find new ways to lure white male voters back into the fold. Bill Galston, former domestic policy advisor to Bill Clinton and one of Washington’s sharpest analysts, is a proponent of a Democratic reinvestment in white male voters. “Today, white males form about 39 percent of the electorate,” Galston wrote in Blueprint, the monthly magazine of the Democratic Leadership Council, in the summer following the 2000 election. “The Republican margin of 20 to 25 percentage points among white males thus translates into an edge of between 8 percent and 10 percent of the entire electorate. By comparison, African-Americans form 10 percent of the electorate, and the Democrats’ 80-point margin in this group translates into an eight-percent edge in the electorate as a whole. Republican strength among white men more than offsets Democrats’ dominance of the African-American vote.”

That’s one way to look at it. But Galston’s own math reveals an obvious alternative view, namely, that Democrats are able to neutralize their white male voter problem with votes from African-Americans — even though the latter group is only about one-third the size of the former. While Galston was right in 2000 about the “more than offsets” effect of white male votes relative to black votes, by 2004 the share of all votes cast by white men had shrunk by 3 percent while the share cast by African-American voters has increased by 2 percent; today, the black vote fully compensates for the Democrats’ deficit among white men.

The real story, however, is that the white male share of the electorate continues to decline. In 1976, Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford while garnering what by today’s standards would be an eye-popping 47 percent of the white male vote. But in 1976, according to Abramowitz’s math, white non-Hispanic males were 39 percent of the American electorate. (Abramowitz’s figures, based on numbers from American National Election Studies, are slightly lower than those produced by exit polling, which may oversample white males.) The white male share of the electorate, which had fallen seven percentage points between 1952 and 1976, then stayed roughly constant for 20 years, but after 1996 began dropping again. It fell to 36 percent in 2000 and 33.1 percent in 2004, and it is still falling.

The remainder of the electorate, meanwhile, is composed of white women, among whom Democrats are competitive, and other minority groups that lean Democratic. Kerry won Hispanics, Asian-Americans and Native Americans by margins of at least 20 points in 2004, and all are growing as a share of the total electorate.

So should Democrats really be all that worried about Bubba? After snubbing him during primary season, should they revert to form during the general election, and begin their familiar, unrequited quest for his affections? Republican pollster Whit Ayres has a clear preference. “I would dearly love for the Democrats to spend millions of dollars trying to persuade NASCAR fans to vote for the Democrats,” Ayres chirped last summer. “They tend to be disproportionately southern, disproportionately white and disproportionately male, which pretty well defines the core of the Republican Party.” In other words, it’s a waste of time and resources for the Democrats to pursue them — a classic sucker’s bet.

So, what do you think? Do Dems really need Bubba?

What, if anything, are Democrats to do about Bubba?

Give him a plug of chawin’ tobaccy.

  • If appealing to Bubba means running racist campaigns based on fear mongering then no the Democrats will do just fine without Bubba. What is left out is that the Republicans lost both of the last two presidential elections based on the vote and relied on fraud and voter suppression to eke out victories. This country is no longer the sole playpen of white males and candidates will need to appeal to a broader cross section of the electorate. In practice the Democrats need to practice Dean’s 50 state strategy and set up and support grass root support in the Bubba Belt. Better voter education and disgust with the immoral Republican leadership will turn a few contests in the next cycle.

  • What’s not clear is what Kuhn or Galston think Democrats can or should do to go after Bubba. Surely, whether Bubba should be wooed depends entirely on that?

  • Do Dems really need Bubba?

    Not if it means the Dems have to be Repubs. If the Bubs fundementally disagree with the Dems, then there is no reason to want them. If the Bubs can be convinced to vote for the Dems, fine, start convincing. But if the Dems have to become the Bubs at the cost of all other voters, then the Dems are as stupid and spineless as we accuse them of being and they deserve to lose.

    Of course, if the Dems keep coming up with condescending names for groups they want to attract, they are going to have a hard time getting them.

  • Analytical thinking skills are what’s missing from the bubbas of today. The grownup bubbas are gone but their children, if educated properly in the fields of problem-solving, skepticism, empathy and a strong historical context, can grow up someday to actually become productive citizens and worthwhile voters. Education is everything! Ignorance has been imposed because idiots are both useful and easily used. People have to be trained to vote with their minds. The bubbas of tomorrow will use their first names and the revolution will be holo-blogged!

  • Dems don’t need or want Bubba, but this is asking the wrong question. The terms “Bubba” and “NASCAR Dads” are NOT synonymous with “white males.” I would like to see how the white male vote breaks down by region.

    “Bubba” and “NASCAR Dads” are euphemisms for socially conservative white males with a racist bent, and these are found in larger numbers in the Southern states where NASCAR’s popularity is second only to football. The Democrats should let them go. Good riddance.

    White males who don’t have those emotional hangups will be open to the reality-based Democratic message: health care insurance for their kids, health care insurance for themselves, affordable prescription drugs, job opportunities, good schools, on and on.

    Let’s not ignore white males. Let’s campaign at them hard. Bubba should hear us, but he won’t vote with us. But a lot of his neighbors will.

  • Okie hit on a key point:

    The terms “Bubba” and “NASCAR Dads” are NOT synonymous with “white males.”

    The “true Bubba” vote is much smaller.

    Dems should (1) go for the votes that are more easily obtained with fewer resources and less compromises — we are gaining strength among women and Hispanics as the Rethugs move farther right and kill more of our sons and daughters in Iraq while making immigration hatred their sole domestic policy initiative; and (2) not go after Bubba per se, but rather peel off small groups of less-Bubba-ish white males. Educated, professional white males in the NW or SW, for example, likely have little in common likely have little in common with a bunch of toothless 19-yr old high-school drop out inbreds in Alabama with a Confederate flag and a gun rack in the back of their rusty old Ford pick-up truck, and a small noose hanging from the trailer hitch.

    It is also likely that some of the Bubba vote – while not coming to the Dems – will be less motivated to turn out for the R’s. Neither JulieAnnie nor Mittens is a classic Bubba. The party has badly let down its base in many ways, and the rural areas have been hit hardest by the war and the corporatist policies.

    So I think that if we keep our focus on Dean’s 50-state plan, keep pushing things like SCHIP that greatly move the soccer moms, continue to push the Mountain West and South West with their independent streak, woo minorities and make the right pitches to white male laborers in the heartland, rust belt and south, and make the environmental, health care, and “intellect over fundy-ism” pitch to educated men in the urban NW and SW, we are in great shape numerically in 2008.

  • I think a large portion of the non-evangelical white male vote is made up of libertarian-types (who really consider themselves independents) who only vote for the Republicants because they believe their fairy tale that if govt goes away, we all get to do whatever we want (“can i be a cowboy?” -“Of course you can, with real pistols!” – “Hooray!”). After the last 12 disasterous years of Republicant rule, I think some of them might consider voting Dem if the candidates speak directly to their concerns, pointing out that: Dems do not want big govt, but effective govt., to counter-balance the enormous power of corporations and wealthy individuals, and only the Dems are really interested in the well-being of the American worker, civil liberties (see Terri Schiavo), and fiscal responsibility (see…well, take your pick). And, oh yeah, you can keep your guns…

  • I’m one of those “Bubbas.” I’ve been “chawing tobaccy” for 20 years now, paid my way through undergrad as an outfitter by guiding people duck hunting and saltwater fishing. I own 21 different shotguns, 34 rods and reels, a ’73 Bronco, a bass boat and a center console. I’m third generation union, and spent 2 years after high school working at the very same refineries my great grandfather, my grandfathers, and my father did.

    This “Bubba” also has a degree in philosophy (summa cum laude), a Master’s degree in theology from Duke, and a law degree. All of which were earned and paid for by your’s truly.

    I think it’s safe to say that what’s missing from the above “analysis” is YOU sumbitches taking and judging folks individually rather than as a group.

    Essentially, the bias and prejudices you all come to the table with when it comes to “Bubba” are no different than those that the Rethugs comes to the table with when it comes to minorities. The assumptions you all make about the rural poor are stereotypically degrading, and you’re doing it based on the economic circumstances of us “Bubbas,” which, essentially, is nothing but a form of bigotry in and of itself.

    Everyone of the posts above carry an air of hautiness, that you all are better than I am culturally, politically, knowledge-wise and economically.

    That, my friends, is very, very wrong. This country was built on the backs of people like myself that makes your lifestyle and paradigm what it is today.

    And yet….fuck Bubba. Good riddance.

    Screw you bigots, too.

    Oh….btw….I’m also a third generation Democrat.

  • “In 2000, white men backed Bush over Gore by 27 points. In 2004, they backed Bush over Kerry by 26. Kuhn argues that the Dem would have won easily if they had narrowed “the white male gap to even the low 20s instead of the mid-20s.””

    I think these numbers might be a bit misleading. True, overall across the nation the white male vote might have backed Bush by 26+ points. BUT I would be more interested in seeing these numbers broken down by regions of the US. I have a very strong feeling, as others above have noted, that in the ‘deep South’ white men may have voted in favor of Bush by something like by 50 points, whereas in the northeast and parts of the midwest and the far west the difference might have been much smaller. I have no doubt that Dems should ignore the true Bubbas of the south (and anywhere else for that matter) of this country. But as to white men in other parts of the country, the answer is not that easy, and it may well be in the Dems best interests continue to woo white men like they woo all voters, and Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy very well might help in targeting the right white men.

  • Who is Bubba? I give you Paul Krugman on the topic.

    Bubba Isn’t Who You Think

    Since I’ve just published an op-ed about the enduring influence of race on Southern voting, I’m sure to be accused of being a typical Northeastern snob talking about poor white trash who don’t know what’s good for them. So I thought I’d mention an important point about Southern white voting that didn’t fit in 800 words: namely, the poor whites are not the issue.

    In fact, if you look at voting behavior, low-income whites in the South are not very different from low-income whites in the rest of the country. You can see this both in Larry Bartels’s “What’s the matter with What’s the Matter With Kansas?” (pdf), Figure 3, and in a comprehensive study of red state-blue state differences by Gelman et al (pdf). It’s relatively high-income Southern whites who are very, very Republican. Can I get away with saying that rich white trash are the problem? Probably not.

    What this reflects, in turn, is the odd fact that income levels seem to matter much more for voting in the South. Contrary to what you may have read, the old-fashioned notion that rich people vote Republican, while poorer people vote Democratic, is as true as ever – in fact, more true than it was a generation ago. But in rich states like New Jersey or Connecticut, the relationship is weak; even the very well off tend to be only slightly more Republican than working-class voters. In the poorer South, however, the relationship is very strong indeed.

    This is why it’s true both that rich voters tend to be Republican, and that rich states tend to be Democratic.

    Gelman et al have a nice way of putting this:

    If we had to pick a “typical Republican voter,” he or she would be an upper-income resident of a poor state, and the “typical Democratic voter” would conversely be a lower-income resident of a rich state. But these are more subtle concepts, not directly readable off the red-blue map—and, in any case, we would argue that given the diversity among supporters of either party, choosing typical members is misleading.

    Bubba ain’t white trash. Well, perhaps in taste.

    This Krugman blog post is a follow up to one of his op-ed pieces in which he discusses the GOP and racism. His bottomline is that Democrats are unlikely to pick up the Bubba vote, but that GOP xenophobia will cedes the growing Hispanic vote to the Democrats.

    What are Democrats to do while they wait to harvest the Hispanic vote? Don’t go after the Bubba vote. That would require too much pandering and compromise of principle. Rather the best strategy, as I have indicated in the past, is to try to get Bubba to stay home on election day. I am not suggesting anything illegal, after all I’m not a Republican, but rather I am suggesting that we convince Bubba that all politicians are our to screw him and there is no use voting.

    PS Aren’t you all glad that Times Select is dead!

  • -‘Sweet Home Alabama’ ringtone

    -start to ‘get it’

    -Hick Summit ’07- Featuring a patriotic production design: Miniature WTC Towers cardboard-cutout backdrop; American flag on flagpole on the stage; candidates show up wearin’ ‘plain people’ clothes; spitoon on-stage for the guests and audience to use; event moderated by ‘one of us’; ‘This Is Our Country’ theme song.

    -Get the endorsement of Larry the cable guy

    -protect 2d Amendment

    -be able to discuss Christian Identity Movement

    -Hillary: ‘Tammy Fay’ makeup; dress like an ex-stripper from Texas; get nails done (ya know- get ’em done proper-like).

    -‘Christian’ event w/ CBN moderators

    -visit Creation Science museum

    -get ‘er done

  • You’re not going to win the support of a racist by fighting for racial justice. Supporting gay rights won’t get you the homophobe vote. Working to get our kids better educations won’t impress the anti-intellectual bunch. We are what we are and we should be proud of it. Fuck the rednecks.

  • Bubba ain’t white trash. Well, perhaps in taste.

    Yeah, I know. I only have to scan the Krugman excerpt to get what he’s getting at, because I’ve definitely noticed it myself before. More than the working class people, these are the shiftless and ambitious among the lower-classses, the cynical ones who wanted to become middle-managers to push other people around and so they wouldn’t have to move their own asses; the ones who are most likely to look down on people who do honest work with their hands for a living; and the sons and daughters of these grifters. They like to play hick and pretend they’re really country and talk tough, but they’re all enjoying they’re perfect air conditioning in their McMansions in the middle of their perfect lawns, and always ready to lend an opinion when it’s time to do some real work with your hands, just not ready to actually do it. It’s no wonder their advice actually isn’t that good.

  • Oh…btw…I forgot to add that I posted the previous message and this message from the secretary’s office (the secretary happens to be my wife) of the Anabaptist church we belong to.

    That would make me one of those nasty, evil “evangelicals.”

    As if you all even knew what that means to begin with. You don’t know the first thing about me and my church, but by all means, bash away. Bash away at the only church in a 100 mile radius that started an HIV/AIDS ministry that made it possible for the gay community to worship with us. Knock the hell out of the only evangelical church that started Habitat for Humanity here in rural East Texas. Bash the shit of the church that gets more hatemail than any other church in Texas b/c we very publically came out against this war.

    Please….have it, won’t you? Now’s your opportunity to use those prejudices and biases to their fullest extent. Go for it!

    “Oh, Darren, we don’t mean YOU. You’re obviously different than ‘them’.”

    The hell you don’t. And no, I’m not.

    Steve, you’re a better man than this….serving this question and post up does nothing but reinforce the very habits and practices of stereotyping in ourselves that we rightly decry in others.

    I guess there’s a method to it in that it gives me the opportunity to swing the mirror around 180 degs.

  • All that said, I’m not saying ‘F the red states’, and I know that there are people who are country who are good people, and I’m sure some visits to red states and rural areas will ‘count’ with moderates who live there.

  • as rege notes, citing Krugman, in the South the ‘Bubbas’ ain’t really the poor. They tend to be middle to upper class whites, who always, always think/claim that they are the victims and are being unfairly treated, no matter what, and it is these folks who then do all they can to mislead/confuse the lesser off whites on political issues.

  • What’s not clear is what Kuhn or Galston think Democrats can or should do to go after Bubba. Surely, whether Bubba should be wooed depends entirely on that?

    Exactly right, sarabeth. Democrats need to focus on what they stand for; these linked articles skirt too closely to the Republicans’ 51% strategy. If Democratic policies aren’t appealing to some part of the population, then the answer isn’t to change the policies but to explain why they’re the right thing. For example, among African Americans voting for Democrats, there’s a large percentage of evangelicals, of social conservatives, of other groups that may disagree with some Democratic positions. But on the balance, they understand the big picture and support Democrats anyway. If Democrats could convince people, for example, that progressive economic policies are more important than, say, anti-gay or anti-abortion legislation, they might make headway with more white men.

  • “If Democrats could convince people, for example, that progressive economic policies are more important than, say, anti-gay or anti-abortion legislation, they might make headway with more white men.”

    That really is the trick right there. If Dems could successfully get this message out, they very well might make more headway. It takes and will take time and effort though to overcome decades of at times darn near brainwashing of segments of our society. Again, one reason why I believe Dean’s 50 state strategy is very important–prior to this (at least in the last 20 years or so) there was only one message being delivered to parts of our country, and it wasn’t the Dem message as Dems pretty much gave up in these parts, leaving certain segments hostage to the false propoganda of the far right. If you only hear one message over and over again, without contradiction, you will soon think that what you hear, no matter how misleading, false, deceptive, is the truth. If Dems can show both the personal and collective benefits of progressive economics to these segments then they have a chance of swaying measurable numbers of these segments.

  • Do Dems really need Bubba?

    Maybe “bubba”, a rather amorphous label, means those white males who are basically patriarchal, some primitively so. They tend to be clustered in the Bible belt, or any place where they learn patriarchal values. The Biblical writer Paul spoke to patriarchy by noting that as God is the head of man and must be obeyed by men, so man is the head of woman and must be obeyed by women. This is a very important factor in Bubba’s self-esteem, whether he is educated or not. Bubba also often bases his racism on Biblical proclamations that even slaves can be happy if they are God-fearing or God-loving. And to Bubba, “slave” means Black.

    That means there’s a hierarchy or almost a class system in Bubba’s world, usually accepted as the way God intended things to be by the religious and as the “right way to live” by the non-religious Bubba. To maintain equilibrium and self-respect, Bubba must never allow those in this system who are beneath him to gain ascendency. That means roughly women and minorities must never be in positions of authority over them. Nor should anyone who supports such an outrageous principle receive any respect, personally or politically.

    This is one sketch of who Bubba is, and Bubba’s politics can be surmised from who he is. There are other sketches, but these characteristics are probably the most outstanding ones.

    My doubts about a happy marriage between Bubba and the Democrats are based on whether Bubba can accept the traditional Democratic values of equality. I get real nervous when today’s Democrats start talking about “reaching out” to rightwing fundamentalist religionists and now Bubba. They’ve done this kind of “reaching out” to Republicans and have ended up endorsing most of Bush’s agenda that is supported by Republicans. The Democrats have tainted themselves this way.

    If Democrats give up Bubba as he is today, can Bubba’s values change in the future? Perhaps, if fundamentalist religion decays and dissipates. Those values are taught from the pulpit and then are passed through the generations at home. Maybe someday religion will operate in the background, where it belongs, and politics will once again focus on what is beneficial to America.

    Why not just accept the principle that no set of political values can please everybody and let the cards fall where they may? The Democrats should stay strong and firm with their values and stop the hell triangulating. It’s a silly dream to think any political party can appeal to everyone.

  • I guess you all are ignoring Darren, maybe because it’s hard to respond to someone who turns the whole Bubba thing on its head…but I think that the point he makes, and the lesson to be taken from his comments, is that Democrats need to be finding community in their values, and not assuming that where one lives or what one likes to do for fun equates to any one political party or world view. This constant adjusting and fine-tuning of positions and values is pure pandering, which ends up pleasing no one; each demographic that gets the treatment is quite aware of the pandering the next group gets – all serial pandering does is have people wondering exactly what it is the candidate and the party actually believe in.

    I think we should be thinking about every single American who is eligible to vote. I think we should be thinking about ways to make every eligible American understand that voting is a responsibility we all have for the privilege of living in a free and democratic society. We should be thinking about more people voting, not allowing others to devise new and more restrictive laws to suppress the rights of people to vote.

    It may be naive of me, but I believe we live in a better society when more people are engaged in the process, and it doesn’t matter that some of those people will be people who do not agree with my views. I’m not afraid – and neither should these candidates for office or the parties they represent – of more voices joining the discussion; I’m worried about more voices being silenced.

    I think, really, that we have to worry more about people – consultants and advisors and pundits – who are willing to reduce us all to demographics, and are advising the candidates to either write us off or consider us in the bag. I’m sick of all the layers that get in between the candidates and the people, and those who get in between the people and the process.

  • “If Democrats give up Bubba as he is today, can Bubba’s values change in the future? Perhaps, if fundamentalist religion decays and dissipates. Those values are taught from the pulpit and then are passed through the generations at home. Maybe someday religion will operate in the background, where it belongs, and politics will once again focus on what is beneficial to America.”

    Agreed, in most aspects. But more than requiring fundamentalist religion to decay and dissipate, if Dems attain both the White House and Congress in 2008, and their policies create strong economic benefits for this demographic, then that itself can start changes in values, especially if the Dems step up their efforts in certain regions to let these folks know exactly who is responsible for their improved standing.

    These Bush/Conservative years have pretty much sucked arse. The public, even a large chunk of the “Bubbas,” knows this. If the Dems can take charge and produce the goods without appearing preachy they stand a good chance of changing the political discourse and direction of this country for a very long time to come. We are seeing signs of this already, at the federal and the state level. But Dems need to continue investing, both in the progressive policies that have gotten them this far and in the message.

  • Just to make it clear, all my comments above #17 are jokes, they’re supposed to be light-hearted, and I don’t really hate bubbas. Jokes make life bearable and we have to poke fun at people sometimes just for fun. If you’re going to make fun of people, you have to expect to be the butt of other peoples’ jokes sometimes, and if hicks are going to make fun of blacks, northerners, and Catholics, I don’t think they need to jump to conclusions and hate my guts because I make a few hick jokes.

  • These Bush/Conservative years have pretty much sucked arse. The public, even a large chunk of the “Bubbas,” knows this.

    I think our generic Bubba has even more on his plate than the general disgust most of America feels about Bush’s regime. The disgust may not be for the same reasons. Bush made promises to rightwing fundamentalist religionists who really believe America must become a theocracy and are working for that. Jerry Falwell was one of them. Bush gave them “faith-based initiatives”, which brought them in unprecedented numbers close to government with grants and programs. But then Bush slammed the door in their faces — while those programs still exist to some degree, they’ve become pretty impotent and are certainly ignored by the administration.

    Anne’s comments about pandering are very apt. When you “reach out” to a segment of the population, such as rightwing fundamentalist religionists, it may be pandering, but it isn’t really inconsequential — a politician has to give something to further their agenda in order to get their support.

    I think many posters are correct about one thing. In order to win support, Democrats must emphasize what they intend to do that is good for all Americans, not pander to subgroups in hopes of getting their votes. Votes achieved by pandering are very costly and result in a loss of integrity in government.

  • Anne, I think you are in large part correct, and I do want to respond to Darren (it just took a while until I had a block of time to do so). So Darren, I will assume you aren’t just here doing a little indignancy trolling and really want a discussion.

    Yes, we are engaging in stereotyping, something progressives normally claim is abhorrent. So here is my defense. Two main thoughts that interact.

    (1) The reality of politics. You argue that we should judge each individual on their own merits, which is certainly true in interpersonal, or even policy matters. But what Carpetbagger’s post was about is politics. And even the best funded candidate simply cannot afford (even if there truly were a way) to analyze each individual and campaign uniquely to each individual. Campaigns have no choice but to “stereotype;” the most you can hope for is that they do so at a fairly granular level – something beyond “white good, non-white bad.” You seem to say both that you are not like the stereotype, but yet you are “one of them.” The fact that there is a “them” to identify with largely proves my point — while we are all individuals, to a political targeter we are also various groups: ideological, religious, race, gender, geographic, income, job, etc. You are a third-generation Democrat, and seem to suggest if Dems didn’t slander “your kind” we might get your vote. But even the best microtargeting can’t find you, the individual, in a meaningful way. We need to find a block that is a useful size for directing campaign resources toward – a city, a zip code, a census tract. Give us reason to believe there are another 100 homes as attainable as you as potential Democratic voters and now there is something we can latch onto, a reason to try and reach out. And that brings us nicely to. . .

    (2) There is some basis for the stereotype – and its use. You claim to be open-minded and well-educated, so surely you wouldn’t not argue that Lee Atwater and Karl Rove made a very concious effort to create this wedge between progressives and the southern white male religous outdoorsman. And surely you don’t (can’t, really) deny the political effectiveness of things like the purely racial ad that turned the tide in the Helms-Gantt senate race in North Carolina. You claim to take offense at the idea that southern voters are racists, but explain the Helms-Gantt race (and the huge polling success of the “my job was given to a black man” ad) without racism? Do you deny that the south polls much stronger for Bush and do you understand how that may offend the sensibilities of the rest of the country? You claim to be a pro-gay, pro-homeless, HIV-supportive Evangelical, but do you see how other more visible evangelicals have tried to force their very anti-gay, “HIV is God’s revenge,” de-fund housing programs so the rich get tax-breaks views into the political process? These are why labels like “evangelical” and “southern white male” get our backs up.

    If you are serious, vote Democratic to preserve the viability of the outdoors and the wildlife habitats you claim to love. Vote Democratic to help the homeless you claim to care about. If you are really serious, work to reform your own groups – reclaim evangelism as the progressive teaching of Jesus, not the pro-assassination ranting of Pat Robertson. Drive out the remnants of racial intolerance that still show strongly in the south in jobs, justice and at the ballot box (including through voter suppression). I suspect progressives would have a more open mind about the southern white male if we saw more of an effort to shake the stereotype through action, not just indignation on a blog.

    Give us a reason and some hope that you can be part of the coalition without requiring us to become Republican; politics responds to numbers.

  • Darren (#10 and #16), I think that I understand what you are saying, but I think you are misunderstanding how we (most of us anyway) are using the term “Bubba.” Brother, you ain’t Bubba! You’re not racist or homophobic, you believe in social justice, and your actions match your beliefs. You even vote Democratic! What made you think that Bubba is every guy from the South who goes to church and likes to hunt, fish, and chew tobacco?

    Bubba is the guy who sends hate mail to your church. He’s the guy who attends all those other churches within 100 miles of you who thinks that you and you your Anabaptist church friends are apostate and hell-bound. He’s a Rush Limbaugh dittohead. He might have spent some time in college, even a fine college like Duke, but he never thought about anything very deeply. He’s middle class, except when he’s poor or wealthy.

    We aren’t picking on Southerners here, Darren, or the poorly educated, or the religious, or denigrating people because of their hobbies. Bubbas live in every state and can be found in every church and synagogue in the country. Some of them fish, some play chess. Some Bubbas listen to country music, some listen to rock, some listen to opera. I prefer country and rock myself.

    Being a Bubba (in the context of this discussion) is a state of mind. It’s clear to me that it isn’t the state of your mind, but I’ll bet you know quite a few Bubbas in your own Texas neighborhood. I sure as hell do, because I live in the heart of Bubba country up north of the Red River. (Boomer Sooner, by the way!)

    The purpose of this discussion is to brainstorm about how to get more white males to vote Democratic, with the understanding that some of them, many of them, aren’t gonna do it. Any suggestions?

  • Great comment, zeitgeist…

    At least once a day, I find myself wishing we could sit the candidates down and make them read a week’s worth of posts and comments here –

  • When you say “Bubba,” are we talking about all white male voters or are we talking about the God, guns and guts faction specificaly? Because not only are those not the same thing, I tend not to think the completely unreachable portion of white males who currently tend to vote Republican is probably not even as large as all that. I mean sure, you’re simply never going to reach someone who takes an extreme position on a single issue or two, to the exclusion of all others, if you disagree with them even a little on their pet peeve(s). But such people are actually pretty rare — they may make a lot of noise but they’re fairly small in numbers. Most people care about a lot of different things to a greater or lesser extent. The trick is to learn how to find common ground with people you disagree with on some issues. And no, that doesn’t mean trying to distance yourself from your own core values (wouldn’t work anyway).

    White males make up about a third of the US population in general though, so even a small, incremental gain in the Democrat’s share could make a pretty big difference. Shaving off another 3% of the non-hispanic white male vote nationwide would translate into a 2% relative gain at the polls (1% more for Democrats, 1% less for Republicans). That would have won the last two presidential elections for Democrats and probably at least 10 more House seats in 2006. By comparison, Democrats would need to increase their share of either the total black or Hispanic vote by 7-10% to accomplish the same thing and those are demographics where Democrats already have the lion’s share, so the potential for large gains is probably smaller.

  • I meant to quote from my first post (#6), in case you missed it.

    “Bubba” and “NASCAR Dads” are euphemisms for socially conservative white males with a racist bent, and these are found in larger numbers in the Southern states where NASCAR’s popularity is second only to football. The Democrats should let them go. Good riddance.

  • Darren, you’re obviously not the typical redneck that so many of us have come to know and despise. They’re racist, they’re homophobic, and they vote overwhelmingly for the Republicans, who play the racist homophobe cards all the time. Please don’t act like these people don’t exist in overwhelming numbers in certain states. I live in one of those states. Bubba is very real.

    You tell me what I should say about that group of people. Since the mere act of grouping anyone with anyone else (as you have also done) is by definition going to be wrong in some respect, there’s no way to make 100% accurate statements about any group. But there they are, and here we are, in a democracy where understanding how groups of people think is important if you want to stay in power.

    So the question remains, and you’ve shed zero light on it. How should the Democratic party address the “Bubba” voter? Should they adjust their pitch, or should they remain true to principles that the AVERAGE Bubba holds anathema?

    You’ve taken great offense at some of the statements made, but to me it looks more like someone who sees animosity where there really isn’t any. The Democrats here aren’t saying “Fuck Bubba” as in “We’re going to fuck Bubba over”, they’re saying “Bubba (in general) doesn’t support equal rights for gays, blacks, or women, and until he does, fuck him, as in we don’t need to change our message to get his vote.”

    Now obviously not all Bubbas are bad people. But the vast majority of them keep voting for Republicans. To me it sounds like you want to be proud of your Bubba-ness, but your fellow Bubbas make that hard. I sympathize with you.

    We routinely speak ill of many groups here (primarily Republicans), and we do that in the same overgeneralizing, almost abusive way that yours is currently getting. It happens. Please realize that the average Bubba makes this type of “abuse” inevitable with his continuing idiotic support for the Republican party.

  • Darren, I will admit that I don’t know as much about the Anabaptists as I should (considering my disdain for any evangelical or xtian sect), but that shouldn’t stop you from proclaiming your belief. I was raised in the Rocky Mountain west, in the so-called “Equality State” of Wyoming. I understand and appreciate most of your points. My extended family tends to be very conservative, but I always think that my vote to oppose them will mean something. Some day, I’ll tell you how my mother outed me to my extended family without my permission. Hubby loved it, since he was there at the time.

  • OkieFromMuskogee (#6) has it right, but that’s already been done. The white males he speaks of are working class union members, who (mostly) “get it” about who’s screwing who and what to do about it.

    Darren (#10) is also right, and in fact his story proves the point I want to make here. I can personally think of several things he and I would likely disagree on, but I don’t see any of those as being something substantial, more matters of personal taste. On the big issues we all need to worry about, guys like him and Hollywierd Liberals like me are singing from the same line on the same page of the hymnal. Darren is also right about the Anabaptists, who are the old-style evangelicals who held out for a First Amendment separation of church and state; he could have included the Pentecostals, who have never been racists, in fact having had mixed-race congregations throughout their history from the very beginning.

    Past that, I think Schaller is right, from my own observations of the beast. Working class non-union white males, most of whom are dumb as a damn post and you couldn’t get anything into their rock heads with power drills and dynamite. They are the living breathing example of every joke about dumb white boys I’ve ever heard, and it embarasses me deeply that I share anything in common with them, much less my favorite hobby (which internationally attracts a far different crowd).

    If you’re asking whether we waste time on these guys, I say no. Forget them, they’re long gone. If you’re talking about your non-southern union member and educated technical type, go for it – most of them already “get it” and the ones who haven’t yet are open to logical arguments.

    The truth is, the Republicans are giving up the Latino vote (not showing up at the UniVision debate really roiled things among my Latino friends’ families, I have been told, and more than a few lifelong Latino Republicans are planning to change their party of choice next year), being “too busy” to go to the Morgan State debate hosted by Tavis Smiley. We have everyone who isn’t a dumb “bubba” – let the Republicans keep him, it’s all they have left.

  • Racer X, OkieFromMuskogie:

    I think that you are missing Darren’s point. As I take it, Darren finds the the whole “Bubba” characterization offensive. It lumps a group of people together based upon cultural stereotypes and then the writes them off as racist hicks. Isn’t that a form of bigotry? It it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

  • No, I’m not trolling (I’ve posted here many times before). And yes, you are talking about me.

    You all have a very symplistic image of what “Bubba” is, and I’m telling you he doesn’t exist. You all would be astounded at the number of men in my area that have very populist views and are sympathetic to most, if not all, of the Democratic party platform.

    The problem we have is you who willing say “fuck ’em.” You all make it impossible for the people to pull the trigger even though they’ve got it marked in. They may be simplistic, they may pray over dinner, they may chew tobacco, and they may live off the land. But that doesn’t mean that you all have to disrespect them simply because of that.

    I’ll put it to you this way: most of the people I know cannot stand the Republican party because it’s too damned mean and hypocritical and they would gladly vote Democrat if only they were assured they would not be ridiculed because they take their faith seriously or whatever. I’m running for a state office in ’08, and I cannot tell you how many times the people in my district have told me that. And their faith is the last thing that makes them vote R. They know the Rs have it wrong on faith issues, but at least they take it seriously. And whether you know it or not, the rural poor take matters of faith very seriously b/c it’s the only way out of their poverty….even if it’s in the next life. The wrongs will be made right, so to speak.

    The amount of ridicule on this thread alone creates an enormous roadblock for Democrats over all. No one is saying that you have to take their issues and adopt them. Read carefully: they…we…don’t have any issues per se and in large part they refuse to be a part of the Republican platform and they will gladly adopt ours of the Rs.

    You’re chastising them b/c of a fundamental belief and their situation in life, something they were born into, something they cannot help being any more than someone’s race.

    That is wrong.

    YOU try breaking free from the grapple of rural poverty. I’m one of the very, very fortunate few, and I refuse to leave my people behind b/c they are my people. And I will take up their fight every, single time.

    It’s a matter of respect and pride, nothing more.

    Show some respect.

  • Darren

    A question about this:

    they would gladly vote Democrat if only they were assured they would not be ridiculed because they take their faith seriously

    Why do they bring it up? Furthermore, why don’t more Christians clearly define who they are? Many of those who detest what Bush has done haven’t publically separated themselves from those who applaud it, those dominionists who want to make America a theocracy.

    There have been a few exceptions. The Sojourners’ people certainly have rejected Bush’s agenda and they’re evangelistic. Some of the other Protestant denominations have rejected Bush’s agenda in statements to the press.

    But nobody who primarily identifies him/herself as Christians that I’ve seen has come out loud and strong against the Dominionists/Reconstructionists.

    I’m sorry, but you can’t have it both ways: you either reject the evil arm of Dominionist/Reconstruction Christianity and DON’T claim to be “of them”, or you don’t reject it and get to sit in the same pot with them.

    I think Christianity is facing a crisis just because of this. It wasn’t created by true Christians but it IS something that now taints them by association that they need to deal with. Jesus did as much with the religious liars and hypocrites of his day — he condemned them. It seems to me that his followers would be willing to do as much today. Then when you speak, you won’t be tarred with the same brush as those who believe in “justifiable homicide” for doctors who perform abortions, for instance, or those who say that homosexuals and adulterers should be executed. This is what I call the evil arm of Christianity, though I don’t even think it’s Christian at all.

    I’m glad you’ve stood up for what you believe. I guess I don’t understand why you’d stand up for those who would see your church’s spirit destroyed and call them by the same name as what you bear.

    It’s the same thing I see the Democrats doing with the Republican agenda. More cooperation with than separation from it. That’s why so many people think they’re the same.

  • When I read the first sentence of this post I first thought this might have something to do with Bill “Bubba” Clinton. Then I realized this was another Rovian micro-targeting term that’s meant to divide the electorate into conquorable and unconquorable zones: it’s creating a friends list and an enemies list.

    We’ll always have factions of people in this nation that will be opposed to other political factions. That’s the nature of democracy. To write off segments of our population and say f- ’em is exactly what Rove and Atwater want us to do. And we should quit doing that.

    Instead lets realize that Americans have common problems to be dealt with like healthcare, security, a working economy and government that should be trying to make sure that bridges won’t collapse underneath you when you’re trying to get to work. Folks may differ on how to work with problems, but we all have them and that’s what the Dems should be focused on.

    How many would have thought Bill Clinton was one of these horrible “bubbas” if we didn’t know him and heard he had a southern accent and came from Arkansas? Quit with the denigrating labels and realize every voter can be reached if issues are framed as impacting us all rather than microtargeting the facets of each debate that serve to divide us.

  • I think it’s kind of insulting for people to assume that being a Democrat means one doesn’t take his or her faith seriously.

    The key there is the word “faith.”

    Key because one does not have to be a member of an organized religious denomination to have faith, to know right from wrong, to know that lifting people up lifts us all up. One doesn’t have to attend a church to be involved in and volunteer for organizations that minister to the less fortunate.

    So, if I were you, what I would say to your Republican friends who fear being ridiculed for their faith is “look at me, and stop listening to the Republican noise machine that paints Democrats as godless heathens.”

    Face it, we’re branded in some way no matter where we live. Californians are kooks; those in the Northeast are snobs. If you live in the Midwest, you must be a hayseed. Rust Belt? – the dreaded “union worker.”

    The truth is that the Republicans have been using – and I mean that in the worst possible way – faith as a way to maintain a hold on far too many people. I’m always amazed that this still works, given the plethora of scandal and corruption that exists within the GOP at all levels, not to mention the policies that nearly always come down on the side of big money and corporations at the expense of those who most need help.

    That you have a bone to pick with the advisors and consultants who want to put us all in little boxes is understandable – I don’t think any of us like it. But when do you call bullshit on the assumption by the GOP that they own faith? That they get to define what Democrats are and what they stand for?

  • I get the sense that what the members of this stereotype–and let’s not kid ourselves that it’s anything but a stereotype; you can’t reduce human beings to generalities and wind up as anything but a soul-shriveled abomination like Karl Rove or Mark Penn–value, is authenticity. They didn’t hate John Kerry because of his views; they hated him because he seemed fake. They supported Bill Clinton, at least relative to his Democratic successors, because he was comfortable in his own skin and didn’t come off as packaged or pandering. He didn’t seem to threaten them or, perhaps more important per Darren’s posts, look down on them.

    Style points would seem to count big-time here. Can Lady Triangula pull them in? I doubt it, because she’s been Liberal Enemy #1 for so long, but then again she was First Lady of Arkansas and neutralized the somewhat similar sentiment in upstate NY. Obama? He’s sincere and can speak the language of faith. Edwards? I’ve heard he’s the son of a… darn, I can’t quite remember 😉

    The truth is that the Democrats probably won’t get “Bubba” back at the presidential level unless and until they nominate a Brian Schweitzer or Jim Webb type. But they can cut into the margin–not by pandering or posing in hunting fatigues, but by advancing a vision of the common good that honors the best principles these folks cherish: family, community, country, and respecting faith within its proper sphere.

  • Divisive tactics, dividing the country up into political groups, little boxes that all must be wrapped differently. Are the Dems to change their message to generate more votes…NO.
    Are Dems to cater to particular voting groups because they have numbers of voters…NO.

    One can love guns, hunting and fishing, but be against war and hate NASCAR or what many of us in the area call the circle jerk. We can ride Harleys without being part of a gang etc.. The Dems shouldn’t target groups and then go after their vote by compromise. They should work from the power of attraction.

    What needs to be done is to make the message clearer and stronger. We don’t have to manipulate voting groups to get their vote. We need to make the message understandable at a group’s level. Most of the “NASCAR” group doesn’t read anything much past headlines, they hear sound bites and don’t need lectures, but they understand tactics. They understand the things that are to their advantage to know, that give them an edge. Things they can howl at the moon when they’ve a mind to.

    Democrats are what this group claims they want so it is really just a matter of educating them past the mis information of republicans and the cowardly centrist democrats like Feinstein, Rham Emmanuelle, and yes…Pelosi and others…This group understands impeachment but not the public promise not to impeachment. They understand taking a stand, of at least trying, not throwing in the towel saying we can do nothing until we get another president.

    This group is more like democratic progressives…with a sense of loyalty. They voted republican saying, “They’re bad alright, but at least they’re my bad”. They don’t have any respect for chickenshits but they can understand strength of belief. Dems must re-educate by delivering the message in the language of the common man, stated with conviction and strength. This group already believes like progressive democrats, they just don’t know that’s what it is called. Dems will win the presidency in ‘08 by default. Whomever wins the democratic nomination will be the next president thanks to the horrors of the Bush administration. If we ever get the lost emails released along with the other incriminating information the WH is hiding, republicans would be run out of office easily in ‘08. For once Dems should select their president without compromising to “electability”, Their message should be direct and clear because they can avoid many of the campaign tricks in this particular election being confident that their progressive agenda will win the WH in ‘08.

    Loyal Bushies are the low life insane groupies of the lynch mob that should sicken both parties. If you like Cheney or support him in any way then you are one of the lost souls in America. That group is on the way out and can not go far enough or leave quick enough to my satisfaction.

  • “I’ll put it to you this way: most of the people I know cannot stand the Republican party because it’s too damned mean and hypocritical and they would gladly vote Democrat if only they were assured they would not be ridiculed because they take their faith seriously or whatever. I’m running for a state office in ‘08, and I cannot tell you how many times the people in my district have told me that. And their faith is the last thing that makes them vote R. ”

    So you say you feel people here are stereotyping the rural poor, but you find it okay to stereotype all Democrats as people who ridicule those of faith. I find that deeply offensive. I’m a liberal democrat and a Christian, and I’m not ridiculed by fellow democrats.

    If the Bubbas are going to believe that the democrats will ridicule their faith just because the Bill O’Reillys and the Rush Limbaughs and the Pat Robertson tell them and contrary to actual reality, you can’t really blame us for thinking they’re dumb. I mean, come on, many of our currently elected democrats are sincerely and deeply religous.

  • Swan,

    The more you post on this or any thread, the more apparent it becomes that you are a juvenile imbecile who doesn’t realize he’s a juvenile imbecile. If your “jokes” were actually funny, it might not matter that they’re so offensive. Oh, and that intuitive grasp of the American cultural landscape that you seem so proud of? Well, it’s about as deep and nuanced as my thumbnail. You cannot grasp the kind of situational complexity that Darren’s posts gesture toward. Go play with kids your own age.

  • Does anyone want to run the numbers again after subtracting Utah?

    Try to score Bubba in purple congressional districts where the proportion of whitey is high.
    Put a dent in their numbers in those places and really make the GOP sweat.

    We’re one gun rights platform away from sweeping the west (‘cept Utah, natch)

  • So, what do you think? Do Dems really need Bubba? — CB

    Perhaps we don’t *need* him; perhaps we can win without Bubba — and without his wife and without his adult children — especially this cycle, when the country is fed up with Bush and the neocons. But the real question is this: do we *want* to continue marginalising Bubba, and “whistling past Dixie”? Are we happy with the country always divided almost precisely down the middle, 49-51%? Rove was. But it seems to me that it’s a recipe for never getting anything *done*.

    As others have said, many Bubbas can be persuaded without compromising our own principles; just show him we *have* them, instead of selling them, piecemeal, to a multitude of special interest groups. There are many things we have in common; let’s concentrate on those, instead of drawing our skirts, fastidiously, because someone drives a pick-up truck with a gun rack, goes to church every Sunday and is missing a couple of front teeth. As Darren pointed out, the church — and its promise of a better future, if only after death — is often the one last hope of the poor. Most Bubbas — at least in my area (small town/rural southern Virginia — hunt for food, not for sport. And those teeth could be fixed, if he could afford health insurance. We need to convince Bubba that we’re better at fixing his problems (which we are), not tell him he’s fat and ugly and stupid to boot. Telling Bubba “I’m better than you are” is *not* the way to win his heart or his vote.

    Besides… You never know what’s in Bubba’s heart, until you’ve met him. There was the Bubba, at a stoplight — in a rusty pick-up, with a gun rack, the fish symbol and a “some village in Texas is missing its idiot” bumper sticker. There was the Bubba — missing teeth an’all — who works at the recycling center and who wanted to know where I got my donkey with “had enough?” on it; he wanted one for his truck (I told him where the Dem headquarters were located). There was the Bubba — local accent so strong you could hang an axe on it — who comes to spray the house for insects and who literally lit up, when he saw my Webb button; “you voted for him too???” There are a lot of Bubbas who could fool you at first sight…

    I’m an adopted Southerner — came to VA, from Poland, 34+ yrs ago — but I get really pissed off with people like Schaller, who look at a few charts, see a film or two set in the South (by equally ignorant non-Southerners) and opine that all of the South can be thrown on a scrap heap. I’d suggest that he take a trip down the stairs of his ivory tower; the exercise might be beneficial to his health.

    Just one more thing and I’ll stop venting, “honest Injun” 🙂

    Regarding religion, esp. at the leadership, rather than follower, level. I’m an atheist myself but I’ve been spending a bit of time volunteering for a local preacher, retired (don’t remember which denomination, sorry; they’re all one to me ), who’s running (as a Dem) for VA Senate. There are “Christians” and then there are (true) Christians; the trick is being able to tell the difference, instead of dumping them all into one laundry basket of grievances. The main difference between the two — so far as I see it — is that the first pay lip service and the second *do*

  • Darren said:

    ”You all make it impossible for the people to pull the trigger even though they’ve got it marked in. They may be simplistic, they may pray over dinner, they may chew tobacco, and they may live off the land. But that doesn’t mean that you all have to disrespect them simply because of that.”

    I’m getting kind of a sense of righteous persecution here. It’s too bad that “Bubba” and “Redneck” get used to broadly paint a large chunk of the country but there is a significant contingent in the Southeast that has strong desire to hold on to a previous time in this country when the Stars and Bars flew proudly and outsiders were welcome to keep themselves to themselves and if possible just stay the hell out.

    Nobody here has criticized those who pray unless those praying want to bring that prayer into every nook and cranny of their fellow American’s lives along with their preferred, (god given!), rules to live by. You’re tarring us with just as nonexistent a brush as you are accusing us of doing.

    Chewing tobacco. Each to their own but chewers ought to pay more for health insurance.

    Living off the land? Any individual who isn’t affiliated with a large agricorporation that is feeding him/herself and/or making a living from farming is smart, hard working and deserves respect on multiple levels. Are the folks who organize and play at Farm-Aid Republicans? I don’t know about all of them but it’s a fairly progressive undertaking. I don’t believe the participants look down on “simple” people who are “living off the land”. The point is to recognize the difficulties, accomplishments and importance of those who farm. Not high on RepubCo’s agenda.

    Are you for or against propping up the ten commandments in every courthouse or schoolhouse? Whatever you want to call those folks who do, they’re not going to bring much to the Democratic party. So why pursue them?

    What about The “War”? Is there a hell or high water commitment on your part or that of your fellow “bubbas” to keep it going because Faux News tells you that you should want that? The Democratic Party has no use for folks that do and isn’t going to get their vote no matter what.

    If you say that you’re carrying on a generations long heritage of being a Democrat than I don’t know why you’re needing so much stroking. How are your unions doing these days? How about the environment where you hunt and fish?

    You accuse us of haughtiness Darren but I’m getting a scent of martyrdom from your end.

    There are some great comments up above. And the number and quality of comments indicates that Mr. CB opened an interesting can of worms. Whatever you want to call the population who are going to undermine and thwart and disagree with the agenda of the Democratic Party, we won’t sway them nor will we benefit from having them inside pissing around rather than outside trying to,piss in.

    If Dems create a strong, supportive message for those hard working folks who might be able to use a union or some health care and some decent education for their kids and clean air to breath and a car that is clean and gets respectable gas mileage along with nobody being tortured for our “security” and billions going to rebuild the infrastructure of America and to better protect the borders and coastal waters of this country while rebuilding the military rather than going to line the pockets of thieving corporate mercenaries and “service” providers….well, we don’t need the votes of folks who aren’t for those things. And just as important as that message is the iron clad bottom line of needing honest elections. With both of those things in place, we can win elections.

    Who needs the terms “Bubba” or “Redneck” to discuss these issues? I call em Republicans or misguided non-voters and we know how flexible they are and how likely they are to vote our way and even more important, to think our way. Not very.

  • If you ask me (and you are asking me, admit it), we gotta stop talking down to the South like every single person who doesn’t live within an hour from the Oceans are all Hee Haw characters come to life. But we have to acknolwedge there’s a mindset among many republicans that is just plain wrong. If the Dems really want the “Bubba” vote, they have to hammer THAT point home. Don’t endorse a candidate on the left so much as malign those on the right, and then say, “everything you’ve been taught is true, over the past few decades, is wrong. It hurts America. It hurts you, financially and spiritually. Reject it.”

    If we can get enough right-leaning mods and non-diehard Repubs to understand that the Republican Party is the party of disaster, that they’re sacrificing the good of the public for the profit of the already-rich, if we can get them understand the party played them for chumps and will continue to do so, like a wife that really believes THIS is the last time her husband will drink himself into an ass-whipping frenzy, THEN we can really start getting whittling away the Bubba vote from the GOP.

  • The arrogance that has infected the Democratic Party is costing them a lot more than Bubba. It’s costing the Dems their most loyal support.

    I was a Dem for 30 years, until this year when I declared myself to be independent. I am a middle-aged, liberal, educated, urban-dwelling, pro-abortion feminist and the Democratic Party no longer speaks to or for me. If they want my vote, they’ll have to do a lot better than Hillary Clinton as party candidate. So far only John Edwards has consistently spoken of the real issue: We need to get the hell out of Iraq and spend our money on national health care and education. We need to be working on closing the gap between haves and have-nots in this country, while there is still a chance to do so.

    Rich people are avoiding the real issue.They may think that they’re protecting their earnings and inheritance, but what kind of world do they expect to inhabit? When the rest of the nation is poor and homeless and hungry, where will rich people hide?

  • I just glanced through The Neglected Voter in Borders today. I was hoping to see if anyone else had read it, but it doesn’t seem like it.

    Among other things, Kuhn says that the Democrats are too busy listening to the anti-war leftist base, and thus unable to appeal to the moderates among the white males.

    He says that economic populism never won an election (cf Wm Jennings Bryan).

    He has his prescriptions for appealing to neglected white males. First is to get out from under the thumb of Foreign Oil (good!) by funding the Appolo Alliance (yes!) and giving a big FU to Big Oil. (uhhhhh….)

    He says you’ll really win Bubba the disaffected white male voter if you promise to “reform” affirmative action. Kuhn doesn’t say anything about how minority voters would react; must not be important.

    He also says we shouldn’t raise taxes on the rich; instead, we should give tax cuts to everyone BUT the rich. They’ll never see that coming!

    I find it hard to choose which of these is least likely. The one point of Kuhn’s I agree with is that the next Democratic nominee should be a fighter. No more gentility, a la Dukakis and Kerry. Next time go for the jugular.

    As I said this was just based on reading a few chapters, especially the last. If anyone has a different take I’d be interested in hearing it.

    • Comments are closed.