Rickey Cole puts his finger on exactly the right thing: "I'm gonna talk to him about something else." The question the article never quite answers is what that something else actually is.
It isn't guns or abortion or identity — those are the fault lines that have been deliberately exploited to keep working people from noticing they share the same kitchen table problems. A white farmer in lily-white Mississippi and a Black family in Memphis both pay premiums they can't afford and face a tax code engineered to extract from them, while corporations pay nothing. That's not a culture war issue. That's arithmetic.
And the tax argument has to go deeper than "make millionaires pay more." Billionaires are billionaires because their corporations pay them in stock and appreciation rather than income — wealth that never shows up on a W-2. The personal income tax fight is a distraction from where the money actually sits. Close the corporate loopholes, end the step-up in basis that wipes out capital gains at death, tax loans against appreciated assets as income. That's where the revenue is.
Trump won non-Republicans and non-voters not with a plan, but with a hint at an idea that might maybe lower prices. Democrats need to out-promise AND out-deliver on exactly that — lower prices, specifically healthcare and taxes simultaneously, structured so working families feel it in their actual paycheck.
Jeff Yarbro's line is the one worth building on: "the coalition that brought the Democratic party to its high-water mark was one built on an alliance between rural folks and African Americans and liberals who saw their common interest." That common interest isn't abortion or guns. It's the both-ends squeeze on the household budget.
That's what the Burned at Both Ends — B@BE — framework is built around. burnedatbothends.org. The message that resonates across that coalition already exists. The party just hasn't picked it up yet.
We, the voters, just want to vote for people who have common sense and can talk to us without talking down to us. I’ve never voted for a Republican, but I also see very few democrats who are particularly appealing to my North Florida neighbors. And you know, I’m beginning to understand why that is.
Mississippian by birth and living here currently after years in a blue area. But since I know these people (whites who vote for Republicans), I have a profoundly pessimistic take on this.
Namely, I don't think they CAN be gotten. I don't believe that these people will ever, ever, EVER vote for a Democrat, even if that Democrat were indistinguishable from a current Republican. And even if the Republican running against said hypothetical far-right Democrat were more liberal on all the issues than the Democrat. I believe that these people will vote Republican come hell or high water.
I used to not think so. But seeing them in the Trump era has changed my mind. The error that I believe professional Dem strategists are making is to assume that they are logical thinkers, in that their votes follow downwind of the policy views that they already hold. That their votes and partisan affiliation are emergent from their existing policy opinions. I no longer believe that's the case. I think that the causality goes in reverse: They ARE Republicans, that's their identity, and whatever a Republican believes is what they believe. It's the Trump cult ("whatever Trump says is what I support") writ large.
Why they are like this, I can't say. Probably decades of social and religious conditioning to believe what their chosen authority figures tell them, would be my best guess. They're basically the good Party members out of 1984. This is the authoritarian, follow-the-leader personality type, obviously, and the history of the South explains why there are so many more of them here than anywhere else.
I probably sound like a broken record in the comments, but I think the solution is a national gerrymandering ban, passed by Congress and signed by a Democratic president. And obviously that can't happen until at least 2029.
A couple of things: take a look at the South Carolina legislative proposal on abortion. I can’t keep up with the latest, but each one is worst than the last. We are losing practitioners in droves. It’s not just about what I or you or any individual woman or girl does with her body, it’s about health care and sound medicine and medical decisions. No political party should be squishy on that.
Second, take a look at the White House approved map for South Carolina. Set race aside for a moment. A big ask, but let’s do that. Nearly every city is divided under this map, with district lines bisecting communities. What, pray tell, does that accomplish?
And, of course, overseas and absentee ballots have been sent and some returned. Changing the date of the congressional primary would mean adding a primary and possible runoff to the election calendar and having to notify voters of new districts and the dates. And this is just for one state.
There is a simple playing field that Democrats can play on where they can truly change election outcomes without worrying about what kinds of games the Republicans play. It's a field that Dems have lost in their reliance on 2008 strategies. It's the field of the Americans of Voting Age Population (VAP) who-do-not-vote. It is the largest "voting block" at about 100 million Americans. If Dems could shave off just 10 to 15 million of that block, they can win every national election. And, in theory, this is what "democracy" should be about...............getting people to the polls. It should be the central focus of the Dem Party. Instead, the Dem party, right now, is not about finding new voters; it's about making sure the Registered Dems get to the polls. This would be a simple, fundamental, and successful change to Dem strategy.
Total U.S. Population (2024 est.) 341,800,000
Total U.S. Voting Age Population (VAP) 260,000,000
Maybe there is a silver lining around this if it forces the Dems to broaden their message, organizing and presence, and remembering that distributing urban votes into more districts will make them marginally more Democratic. If we are in a wave election where there are +/-15% swings going on, that could help put more districts into play.
If the debate is over what the Democrats should do to expand their base in southern states, what is missing from this article are the political ramifications of the Republican dog having caught the car.
For example, the success of Republican efforts to outlaw various forms of abortion has alienated even some fairly conservative voters. That brings me to wonder: In this brave new era would a Democratic candidate who espouses a bog-standard "pro-life" stance meet the moment as well as one who called out the tangible impacts of Republican extremism? After all, pro-abortion measures have done exceptionally well in even red states.
All that said, economic populism could help to knit together a bi-racial coalition. The sheer radicalness of the Big Ugly Bill -- such as the gutting of rural healthcare to give the rich a tax break -- could be pointed to as proof that the Republicans aren't looking out for the interests of the little guy.
This is not to suggest that Democratic candidates may not need to shift their style. However, the idea that simply becoming Republican lite strikes me as a recipe for failure.
Unfortunately Gerrymandering is now probably a two way street going forward....polarization and a war without guns....I don't have a real problem with what Laurel is proposing, just another way of doing compromises to get stuff done, which has for the most part gone the way of the Dodo bird.
What exactly would be the difference between between a "lily-white" Mississippi Republican and a "lily-white" Mississippi Democrat who doesn't talk about civil rights (whether for women, black people, Muslims, undocumented people, or lgbtq people)?
The answer to Republican corruption and moral bankruptcy isn't to see if we can't peel away some of the racist vote.
I'm in south Tennessee and thought Chaz Molder had a really good chance at defeating odious Andy Ogles. So of course they redrew that district. I'm now in a district with Memphis, which is four hours away. I've lived here for 25 years and when I moved here it was a pretty purple state. My rep was a blue dog dem. I didn't agree with him on everything (he was super pro life) but he was a good and responsive representative. He got voted out in 2010 with the Tea Party wave. Since then democrats have shown zero interest in winning in rural areas and I'm not optimistic they can get their shit together enough to build a lasting winning coalition even if they manage to win big this year and 28. I'm really despondent about the VRA and what the SC ruling means for the South and our democracy. I haven't been this depressed about the state of things since election night 2024.
Bernie Sanders and AOC populism will reach rural voters the same way it reaches everybody else. It is the only way forward for the Democratic Party and it’s time that the plutocrats recognize that.
Here’s what I don’t get. If a lot of conservatives are mad at Trump-and they are-then why would they be enthusiastic about voting for people who have embraced and enabled his policies? And if Republican candidates don’t run on Trump’s policies and actions, then what WILL they run on?
Immigration? Sure, a lot of conservatives like the inhumane way that Trump has handled it. But when you are paying nearly $5 a gallon for gas, immigration doesn’t seem so important. Prices were higher than we liked, but not all prices. We didn’t have tariffs. We weren’t in a war. The debt wasn’t as high-and neither were electricity prices. We had a functioning CDC. We had allies. So what will Republicans run on?
Rickey Cole puts his finger on exactly the right thing: "I'm gonna talk to him about something else." The question the article never quite answers is what that something else actually is.
It isn't guns or abortion or identity — those are the fault lines that have been deliberately exploited to keep working people from noticing they share the same kitchen table problems. A white farmer in lily-white Mississippi and a Black family in Memphis both pay premiums they can't afford and face a tax code engineered to extract from them, while corporations pay nothing. That's not a culture war issue. That's arithmetic.
And the tax argument has to go deeper than "make millionaires pay more." Billionaires are billionaires because their corporations pay them in stock and appreciation rather than income — wealth that never shows up on a W-2. The personal income tax fight is a distraction from where the money actually sits. Close the corporate loopholes, end the step-up in basis that wipes out capital gains at death, tax loans against appreciated assets as income. That's where the revenue is.
Trump won non-Republicans and non-voters not with a plan, but with a hint at an idea that might maybe lower prices. Democrats need to out-promise AND out-deliver on exactly that — lower prices, specifically healthcare and taxes simultaneously, structured so working families feel it in their actual paycheck.
Jeff Yarbro's line is the one worth building on: "the coalition that brought the Democratic party to its high-water mark was one built on an alliance between rural folks and African Americans and liberals who saw their common interest." That common interest isn't abortion or guns. It's the both-ends squeeze on the household budget.
That's what the Burned at Both Ends — B@BE — framework is built around. burnedatbothends.org. The message that resonates across that coalition already exists. The party just hasn't picked it up yet.
We, the voters, just want to vote for people who have common sense and can talk to us without talking down to us. I’ve never voted for a Republican, but I also see very few democrats who are particularly appealing to my North Florida neighbors. And you know, I’m beginning to understand why that is.
Mississippian by birth and living here currently after years in a blue area. But since I know these people (whites who vote for Republicans), I have a profoundly pessimistic take on this.
Namely, I don't think they CAN be gotten. I don't believe that these people will ever, ever, EVER vote for a Democrat, even if that Democrat were indistinguishable from a current Republican. And even if the Republican running against said hypothetical far-right Democrat were more liberal on all the issues than the Democrat. I believe that these people will vote Republican come hell or high water.
I used to not think so. But seeing them in the Trump era has changed my mind. The error that I believe professional Dem strategists are making is to assume that they are logical thinkers, in that their votes follow downwind of the policy views that they already hold. That their votes and partisan affiliation are emergent from their existing policy opinions. I no longer believe that's the case. I think that the causality goes in reverse: They ARE Republicans, that's their identity, and whatever a Republican believes is what they believe. It's the Trump cult ("whatever Trump says is what I support") writ large.
Why they are like this, I can't say. Probably decades of social and religious conditioning to believe what their chosen authority figures tell them, would be my best guess. They're basically the good Party members out of 1984. This is the authoritarian, follow-the-leader personality type, obviously, and the history of the South explains why there are so many more of them here than anywhere else.
I probably sound like a broken record in the comments, but I think the solution is a national gerrymandering ban, passed by Congress and signed by a Democratic president. And obviously that can't happen until at least 2029.
A couple of things: take a look at the South Carolina legislative proposal on abortion. I can’t keep up with the latest, but each one is worst than the last. We are losing practitioners in droves. It’s not just about what I or you or any individual woman or girl does with her body, it’s about health care and sound medicine and medical decisions. No political party should be squishy on that.
Second, take a look at the White House approved map for South Carolina. Set race aside for a moment. A big ask, but let’s do that. Nearly every city is divided under this map, with district lines bisecting communities. What, pray tell, does that accomplish?
And, of course, overseas and absentee ballots have been sent and some returned. Changing the date of the congressional primary would mean adding a primary and possible runoff to the election calendar and having to notify voters of new districts and the dates. And this is just for one state.
Southern Democrats have been pretty damn conservative all along You are suggesting we become even more so? Then what do we win? A meaningless victory?
There is a simple playing field that Democrats can play on where they can truly change election outcomes without worrying about what kinds of games the Republicans play. It's a field that Dems have lost in their reliance on 2008 strategies. It's the field of the Americans of Voting Age Population (VAP) who-do-not-vote. It is the largest "voting block" at about 100 million Americans. If Dems could shave off just 10 to 15 million of that block, they can win every national election. And, in theory, this is what "democracy" should be about...............getting people to the polls. It should be the central focus of the Dem Party. Instead, the Dem party, right now, is not about finding new voters; it's about making sure the Registered Dems get to the polls. This would be a simple, fundamental, and successful change to Dem strategy.
Total U.S. Population (2024 est.) 341,800,000
Total U.S. Voting Age Population (VAP) 260,000,000
Republican Presidential Votes (Trump) 77,302,580 30%
Democratic Presidential Votes (Harris) 75,017,613 29%
All Other Presidential Votes Combined 2,918,109 1%
Total Votes Cast 155,238,302 60%
Voting Age Population That Did Not Vote 104,761,698 40%
https://heatherdelaneyreese.substack.com/p/this-is-what-collapse-looks-like-551?r=1metx&utm_medium=ios
Heather lays out the stakes here. It couldn’t be more clear —and also, being against reproductive rights for women is in no way “pro- life.”
We must fight back by organizing to get ever single Afro-American of voting age to VOTE!!!!!!
Maybe there is a silver lining around this if it forces the Dems to broaden their message, organizing and presence, and remembering that distributing urban votes into more districts will make them marginally more Democratic. If we are in a wave election where there are +/-15% swings going on, that could help put more districts into play.
If the debate is over what the Democrats should do to expand their base in southern states, what is missing from this article are the political ramifications of the Republican dog having caught the car.
For example, the success of Republican efforts to outlaw various forms of abortion has alienated even some fairly conservative voters. That brings me to wonder: In this brave new era would a Democratic candidate who espouses a bog-standard "pro-life" stance meet the moment as well as one who called out the tangible impacts of Republican extremism? After all, pro-abortion measures have done exceptionally well in even red states.
All that said, economic populism could help to knit together a bi-racial coalition. The sheer radicalness of the Big Ugly Bill -- such as the gutting of rural healthcare to give the rich a tax break -- could be pointed to as proof that the Republicans aren't looking out for the interests of the little guy.
This is not to suggest that Democratic candidates may not need to shift their style. However, the idea that simply becoming Republican lite strikes me as a recipe for failure.
Unfortunately Gerrymandering is now probably a two way street going forward....polarization and a war without guns....I don't have a real problem with what Laurel is proposing, just another way of doing compromises to get stuff done, which has for the most part gone the way of the Dodo bird.
What exactly would be the difference between between a "lily-white" Mississippi Republican and a "lily-white" Mississippi Democrat who doesn't talk about civil rights (whether for women, black people, Muslims, undocumented people, or lgbtq people)?
The answer to Republican corruption and moral bankruptcy isn't to see if we can't peel away some of the racist vote.
I'm in south Tennessee and thought Chaz Molder had a really good chance at defeating odious Andy Ogles. So of course they redrew that district. I'm now in a district with Memphis, which is four hours away. I've lived here for 25 years and when I moved here it was a pretty purple state. My rep was a blue dog dem. I didn't agree with him on everything (he was super pro life) but he was a good and responsive representative. He got voted out in 2010 with the Tea Party wave. Since then democrats have shown zero interest in winning in rural areas and I'm not optimistic they can get their shit together enough to build a lasting winning coalition even if they manage to win big this year and 28. I'm really despondent about the VRA and what the SC ruling means for the South and our democracy. I haven't been this depressed about the state of things since election night 2024.
Bernie Sanders and AOC populism will reach rural voters the same way it reaches everybody else. It is the only way forward for the Democratic Party and it’s time that the plutocrats recognize that.
Here’s what I don’t get. If a lot of conservatives are mad at Trump-and they are-then why would they be enthusiastic about voting for people who have embraced and enabled his policies? And if Republican candidates don’t run on Trump’s policies and actions, then what WILL they run on?
Immigration? Sure, a lot of conservatives like the inhumane way that Trump has handled it. But when you are paying nearly $5 a gallon for gas, immigration doesn’t seem so important. Prices were higher than we liked, but not all prices. We didn’t have tariffs. We weren’t in a war. The debt wasn’t as high-and neither were electricity prices. We had a functioning CDC. We had allies. So what will Republicans run on?
So is it the take that we need to
support Democratic candidates
that support gun rights and are
anti abortion to win in the South?
There are few other issues.
Unbelievable.