Posted by: seanmalstrom | February 11, 2016

Email: Southern Strategy

Do you think Bernie Sanders can appeal to the southerners who would have been Dixiecrats in a different time? I’d guess that Trump’s presence would block people from making that switch, but I thought I’d ask a thoughtful Texan such as yourself.


I had to look up the term ‘dixiecrat’ because I had no idea what you mean. Here is what I found:

Dixiecrats are segregationists who returned to the Democratic Party in 1948. The party did not run local or state candidates, and after the 1948 election its leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party.

That was seventy years ago! Where are these Dixiecrats? I’ve never seen them before.

Perhaps you are referring to this definition: The term “Dixiecrat” is sometimes used by Northern Democrats to refer to conservative Southern Democrats from the 1940s to the 1990s, regardless of where they stood in 1948.

What is a conservative Democrat? Many people do not realize this but Texas has only been state-wide Republican since 2000… not that long. The term is not useful.

Here is a better way of looking at it. The New Deal Coalition has been broken up after the last re-alignment (let’s say 1980). These so-called Reagan Democrats are Unaligned Voters or ‘independents’. In 1994 with the Gingrich House takeover, those came from such Unaligned Voters. These voters aren’t owned by a party. In 2006, they voted Democratic because their Republican representatives weren’t doing what they wanted. In 2010, they threw out their Democrat representatives because they sure as heck didn’t like what they were doing. After 2014, they have no political vehicle. Democrats do the opposite of what they want and Republicans say they will do things and then never do it. This is where the Trump phenomenon is coming from. They finally found a political vehicle. They are willing to take a chance on Trump rather than, say, Cruz because it is awfully strange for a Junior Senator to run for president. Whether or not Cruz is a naturalized citizen doesn’t matter, people still do not like the idea of an American president being born in Canada. Cruz also keeps voting for the wrong trade deals, has failed to have anyone follow him as a leader in the Senate, etc.

Follow the progress of the Unaligned (as I would call 1980 on the Re-Alignment of Non-Alignment). Mondale suffers a devastating 49 state loss in 1984 in part because he promised to raise taxes. A young Bill Clinton correctly surmised that, nationally, one cannot run socialist and get elected in the US. Bill Clinton certainly didn’t campaign that way. But his governing brought upon the Republican House and Senate of 1995 (significant since it was 40 years since Congress was Republican). In 2000 and 2004, you have essentially ties. But Al Gore and Kerry certainly didn’t run socialist. In 2006, the Unaligned switched to Democrat to punish Republicans. In 2008, Obama campaigned on tax cuts, growing the economy, etc. Similar to Bill Clinton, the congressional races have been brutal for the Democrat party.

These Unaligned voters are saying, “Why did Reagan get more done with a Democratic House and Senate than George W. Bush did with a Republican House and Senate?” It’s a good question. The Republicans campaign that they will do what these Unaligned Voters want, but then they do not do it.

In American electoral history, there are times when the people get sick of parties picks and choose the most vulgarian person and say HERE! WE’RE THE PEOPLE. WE CHOOSE THIS GUY. An Andrew Jackson, a Teddy Roosevelt, a really colorful personality that the ‘sophisticated’ despise and hate. We’re seeing that partly here.

There are also times when a single issue dominates everything else. In 1860, a two termed congressman named Lincoln became president solely based on opposing slavery. The Democratic Party was founded by Van Buren to protect slavery. The Whigs would campaign anti-slavery, but there was too much money and profit from slavery. This is how the Whigs blew up.

The defining issue of today is immigration. This includes illegal immigration, H1B Visas, corporations moving to foreign lands, corporations holding money overseas, and even terrorism. It is this single issue, alone, that catapulted a celebrity real-estate tycoon as frontrunner for the Republican primary. They don’t care if Trump performs abortions in the White House. The issue of immigration is erupting and destroying the current political landscape.

Remember Eric Cantor? He was the House Majority Leader until a primary removed him from office. The reason? Immigration. The House was also just hours away from amnesty. These leadership guys do not lose their elections. But he did. This scared the hell out of Washington.

What is Sanders’s position on immigration? He is not for guest workers, but he is for, and has voted for, amnesty. This means Sanders has zero chance in hell in getting this type of Unaligned Voter.

What is going on in the Republican primary at the moment is unprecedented and unimaginable. Forget the term ‘conservative’. What has ‘conservatives’ done for the Unaligned Voters? Nothing. Cruz went with Glenn Back to the border to hand out soccer balls to illegal immigrants. This is why ‘very conservative’ people are dumping Cruz for Trump. Jeb Bush, married to a Mexican wife, speaks Spanish and says to welcome the migrants as ‘an act of love’. Despite a quarter of a billion dollars, Jeb Bush has ZERO traction with the Republican electorate. Did Democrats ever wonder why George W. Bush’s poll numbers go so low or why they got the House and Senate in 2006? George W. Bush was for amnesty.

Remember when Trump skipped the Fox debate? Fox is for open borders. The vice president of Fox is a Saudi prince. You are witnessing conservatives totally turn against Fox.

As I write this, I am seeing Republicans/conservatives literally throw Rush Limbaugh under the bus along with the other talk show host crowds (levin, etc.). Guys like Limbaugh are trying to push Cruz or Rubio on his vast audience, and the audience is realizing it. They now see Rush as part of the problem. They see Rush as part of the establishment.

To give an idea of the scope of what is happening, the massive amount of votes Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire is about the same amount of votes that Trump beat the $2 challenger (Kasich) in New Hampshire. If polls are anywhere close to actualizing in votes, with Trump ahead in double digits in most states especially the important ones, the Republican nomination will be wrapped up by Super Tuesday.

The Democratic Primary is interesting with Hillary Clinton doing her horrible campaigning and trying to force her way by using super-delegates. However, I think most of the support for Sanders is more that he is not Hillary Clinton.

Meanwhile, words fail to describe what is going on in the Republican Primary. You’d have to go back to 1980 to see such high octane politics, and even then, what is going on now is simply unreal. I’ve never seen anything like it in my lifetime.

I expect it to come down to Sanders versus Trump.


What I’m finding amusing is that there is ‘over-analysis’ going on especially concerning Trump. Scott Adams, the Dilbert comic maker, keeps saying that Trump is doing ‘master persuader’ stuff like ‘kill shots’ with words and all. This is all very silly. Look at this video for how ridiculous it gets. Effective salesmanship is going to emerge from businessmen as well as successful politicians. The story telling, for example, was largely popularized by Reagan (but is the narrator of the video old enough to even understand that? No.) The reason why terms like ‘low energy person’ stick to Jeb Bush is because it is true. Jeb Bush actually asks, “Please clap,” at the end of some speeches.

Is Trump doing well in the primary because of ‘master persuader’ skills or ‘superman showsmanship’? Is Sanders doing well because he is a ‘master persuader’ and doing ‘superman showsmanship’? Why can’t we admit that they are resonating well because they are saying things their voters want?

You know why analysts leap to the conclusion of ‘superman persuasion’ skills for the politician in question? It is because they have a low view of people. People, to them, are sheep. Such an analyst does not like people. People are to be controlled, to be manipulated, never to be embraced or loved. The people are clay and the politician is the potter who shapes the clay. Why not entertain the idea that people get what they want and that people do hold the power? It is the people who shape our politicians, not the other way around.



%d bloggers like this: