Davis/Sparks sacrificial lambs?

Interesting thoughts. (0.00 / 0)

I agree that 2010 is likely to be the high water mark for the Alabama GOP for some time to come.

"Every black in Huntsville can vote against [Griffith] and he can still win the primary."  Very possibly.  But he can't win the general without the black vote in Madison County.  And he could lose them in an ugly primary.

Jim Folsom is no spring chicken.  Do you seriously think he's going to be energetic enough to run for governor in 2014?

For the reasons you cited -- retirements, deaths, corruption -- I don't think the ADP can successfully pin a legislative bloodbath on Davis.  They can't do much about the deaths, but they can lean on the retirement prone to stick it out for one more cycle  because open seats are where the GOP will have the best chance, and they can cut loose the ethically challenged folks, pass some significant reforms next session and neutralize that issue.  If someone is bound and determined to retire, they should consider that their state and party need them now,  and 2012 or 2014 is plenty soon to retire.  Heck, maybe by then it will be so much fun in Montgomery they'll want to stay.

I agree the status quo isn't warm to Davis and they don't seem to be rallying behind Sparks either, but if the state party really wants Davis to lose to some kind of white candidate in June they're absolutely, positively playing with fire. Black voters are the most loyal Democratic voters, bar none.  The idea that Democratic officials would root against a candidate because of race is extremely insulting, and not just to black voters. 

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 23:12:01 PM CST

Folsom (0.00 / 0)

Folsom is younger than Siegelman and would still be younger in 2014 than James was in 1998. Not to mention Shelby is 75 right now and apparently still is surprisingly vigorous and young looking,

 But the thing with Davis, and this is why I think he can't win statewide, is because his shift in voting record is such bullshit. Now, his pro-corporate, anti-union stances? He's been voting that way since 2003. It's why unions don't like him. But this sudden conversion to being a pro-lifer and being against gun control? That's all only happened since he decided to run for governor.

Other than gay issues (and admittedly the 7th is homophobic so he's in step with his district there) Davis consistently voted as a cultural issue liberal for the better part of his early service. In fact, one of the losers in 2002 when he won was the NRA considering that Hilliard usually voted how the NRA wanted him to. Davis played himself off as a New Democrat and all of the sudden has decided he wants to play Blue Dog now that he runs for governor

 That will bite him in the ass in any fall campaign. No way around it. Any halfway decent opposition research team will be able to comb Davis's record and pull up his pro-choice and pro-gun control votes from prior to 2006. It'll sink his ass and given that the industrial unions are going to be very cool to coming out and actually voting for him it just is another reason I think he has no chance

And you're right about the importance of black voters to the party but the thing is, Davis's strategy seems to be a direct copy of the Obama 2008 strategy. Dazzle white voters with how new, fresh and "moderate" you are and expect black voters to fall in line because of the color of their skin. It worked for Obama but I doubt it will work for Davis and you must also remember, Davis represents a direct threat to the state's black power structure. If he wins that means their usefulness is done because he brings in a new paradigm. It's why they'll fight to prevent it tooth and nail.

Governor Artur Davis in 2011 means Hank Sanders, Richard Arrington, Earl Hilliard, Joe Reed and all of those people are obsolete. Given that he's differing with the AEA on a key policy issue if he wins the primary it means that their influence is not what it was. The Joe Reeds and Paul Hubberts of the world are not going to hand over what they have without a fight and Reed has already proven he's willing to have a Democratic loss in order to prove a political point (Tyson)

It would be one thing if Davis had been like Sanford Bishop. Voting socially conservative while voting as a Democrat on bread and butter issue. The problem is Davis spent several terms voting as an anti-gay social liberal who sided with the Republicans on many economic votes and decided in 2008 that he wanted to play social conservative to try and get white votes. Davis is now voting to the right of many classic pro-labor Blue Dogs. It will bite him in the ass next year and I have to agree with Redeye, I don't see black voters falling in line for him and I think he'll have a real problem carrying black voters (and he'll need 70% or more to win the primary)

---

by: jacool @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 01:04:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Pathetic (0.00 / 0)

You are definatley not watching the polls and to be honest a defeatist.  Most Dems in this state ae scared of their own shadow.  Being Dennis Kucinich will not get you elected in Alabama.  The reality is Davis is the only Dem that CAN win statewide.  Folsom will be lucky to survie in 2010 and Sparks, well I don't even need to go there. 

One point you made that made sense, thankfully Arrington, Reed and the other relics will be irrelevent when Davis wins.  That will only make the party and segments of the black community stronger.  Their plantation politics will be exposed and rejected staewide. 

As an African American that spends the majority of my time asking AA's their positions on political issues, Davis will get more than enoough black support to win.  This talk about him not getting AA support is ridiculous.  Are they angry about healthcare, sure some are but there is time to reslove that and they certainly see nothing in Sparks.

---

by: Takenoprisoners @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 07:44:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

40% of Alabamians voted to keep the interracial marriage ban (0.00 / 0)

Not to mention that if you do the analysis of voting returns from that election, keeping in mind that 23% of black voters also voted to keep it you come up with returns that suggest that between 50-60% of whites voted to repeal with 40-50% voting to keep. Davis needs 40% of the white vote statewide to win like any Democratic candidate but the problem is the area that he has to win is also the area where support for keeping the ban was the strongest among whites

The following are Democratic (as determined by general state level voting and which primary draws more voters) counties where people voted to keep it in the constitution: Cherokee, Choctaw, Clay, Cleburne, Coosa, DeKalb, Escambia, Fayette, Franklin, Jackson, Lamar, Lawrence, Marion, Pickens, Randolph, Walker and Washington. When you also analyze the returns in North Alabama outside of Madison you find that the white community pretty much split on the vote with it being very close in counties like Lauderdale.

 And if you think Ron Sparks is Dennis Kucinich then you must know very little about the campaign. When Alabama voters define "conservative or liberal" they always do it through the lens of wedge issues. So far, Sparks has done nothing with wedge issues that can be brought back against him so he can come back and say he's pro-life, anti-gun control and all the rest because there have been no votes that could come back to haunt him on the matter. Davis can't. He has those votes in his record from 03-07 and the GOP will dredge them up, especially considering his rightward turn is only in the last year

 The problem with Davis is that he'll lose many rural white voters in a general, no way around it, and I don't think he has ability to make up for that deficit in urban areas. I just don't. Especially not when the Republicans are probably going to have Bradley Byrne as nominee who is the archetype of the moderate urban/suburban Alabama Republican.

 The Alabama Democratic Party is not an urban white party. It is a party of urban blacks, rural blacks, rural whites, union members and trial lawyers. Unions hate Davis for his anti-union voting record. Many rural whites will vote against him for his color. The rural black counties are most under the sway of the black political organizations who see Davis as a threat and when it comes out that Davis has opposed some key CBC initiatives it won't help him

And to compare 2010 to 2008 is just idiotic and anyone with a bargain basement understanding of Alabama politics can tell you why. I'll illustrate it with these two examples in Mobile and Washington County.

 

 2006 Primary in Mobile County: 68% of voters voted in the Republican Primary (roughly equal to the number of white voters) while 31% voted in the Democratic Primary

2006 Primary in Washington County: 97% of voters voted in the Democratic Primary, 3% (or 157 people total) voted in the Republican primary

 2006 Results for Lt. Governor in Mobile County: Strange 53%, Folsom 47%

2006 Results for Lt. Governor in Washington County: Folsom 59%, Strange 39%

2008 Primary in Mobile County: 55% of voters voted in the Democratic Primary, 45% in the Republican Primary (in large part, black turnout played a role in that but still, whites did vote Democratic which is something they hadn't done in 2006)

2008 Primary in Washington County: 55% in Democratic, 45% in Republican.

2008 Presidential in Mobile: McCain 54%, Obama 45%

2008 Presidential in Washington: McCain 64%, Obama 34%

 

Now, we have established a few things here. One of the most glaring things that should come up is that presidential primary voter turnout looked a lot like how a normal election that is 50/50 statewide would look. However, at state primary time, Washington skewed majorly Democratic and Mobile skewed majorly Republican. Why?

 Well, right now there is only one Democratic countywide officeholder in Mobile County and he is a holdover from when the county's offices and legislative delegation were in Democratic hands. Therefore, in order for someone's vote to matter in Mobile County in a local election they have to vote in the Republican Primary. That means that the white urban progressives/liberals who Davis is counting on to help bolster him won't be showing in 2010. They'll be voting in Republican primaries for state legislature and sheriff.

 By the same token in Washington County, virtually no Republicans will vote in the Republican primary because it is simply not possible at this time for any Republican to be elected in Washington County and so, as always, local races will be decided in the Democratic Primary.

 I think you were unaware of that when you made your 2008 comment. The 2010 primaries, like all Alabama primaries this last decade will see many urban and suburban white Democrats (who Davis would need) opting Republican for local races and will see many rural white Republicans (who will be predisposed to being anti-Davis/anti-Obama) voting in the Democratic primaries for the same reason. Davis will have to do extremely well with black voters in order to overcome the rural white advantage Sparks will have.

 And as one final note. The reason I included the Lt. Governor's race is because it was a race that split 50-49 and because it also highlighted an important point. Strange won urban Alabama. Folsom won rural Alabama. Strange was an urban moderate candidate. So is Byrne. Byrne will overperform in urban areas as Strange did and so the only way that this overperformance can be compensated for is by overperforming in rural areas on our side. I believe that Sparks can with his background and image can. I believe that Davis simply can't.

 

---

by: jacool @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 12:02:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment... (0.00 / 0)

but last I heard, Sanders is going to be retiring after 2010, so when this legislative session, at least Sanders' legislative powers are gone, I am not sure what kind of political sway he will continue to have once he's no longer in charge of the purse strings like he once was.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with your assessment that Obama's strategy was necessarily a "moderate" one though.  There was definately a message of change,  and while we're on paradigms, I think that it goes without saying that after 8 years of disasterous Bush/Republican policies, things were ripe for a shift.

While I personally have a problem with a Sanford Bishop type Dem, I think that would have been more palatable than the tricks Davis has been pulling as of late in selling out his constituents. 

I recognize that while the 7th CD is a Democratic district, it is, unfortunately, a socially conservative Democratic district.  My whole argument and consternation with Davis was regarding his actions on Health Care reform.  Why else would Davis vote against his consitutents wishes and excuse it by parroting all the Republican talking points against the bill, other than the fact he is trying to frame himself in a better light for conservative white voters ahead of the gubernatorial election.

Maybe someone can help me here, how much sway do the state AFL-CIO and the locals have here in the state?  As an educator I am well aware of the role that AEA plays, but I don't really include them as a traditional "union" as they are not affliated with the AFL-CIO.  

 

9.13, 4.82, Just left of Gandhi.

---

by: archangelsk @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 08:03:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

BTW (0.00 / 0)

my post above was an agreement w/ jacool and not w/ takenoprisoners.  We need to be careful around here in agreeing or disagreeing with each others stances.  Calling someones views "pathetic" is counterproductive to the larger argument and only gets you labeled as a bully around here.

9.13, 4.82, Just left of Gandhi.

---

by: archangelsk @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 08:09:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Unions (0.00 / 0)

This is the most unionized state in the South. Historically unions were very strong on the coast and in North Alabama and they remain strong in North Alabama. It is virtually impossible to win any Democratic primary if unions are not with you and interestingly enough, the contiuning Republican drift of the state has coincided rather remarkably with union membership.

 Unions are a major factor in any Democratic primary in Alabama with union members probably anywhere between 15-30% of the vote in any primary. The AEA itself has over 100,000 members so if you consider that they all vote and that, outside of the cities, they'll all be in the Democratic primary you can see how much power they have. Or to put it another way, Paul Hubbert was able to make himself Democratic nominee in 1990 and almost dethroned Folsom in 1994 solely on the power of the AEA. That should tell you how influential they are.

---

by: jacool @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 12:14:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Typo (0.00 / 0)

That should say that Republican drift has coincided with union membership dropping. Which it indeed has.

---

by: jacool @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 12:15:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Davis' voting record (0.00 / 0)

Looking at the voting record, I'm not seeing the rightward shift you reference since Davis started running for governor.  He's always been pretty moderate

On reproductive choice, he was voting in favor of partial birth aborton bans back in 2003.  Ditto on guns.  He voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2003 and the Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill in 2005.

As for unions not liking him, I looked at his labor voting record and it looks pretty good.  Plus he's voted for EFCA -- that's a big deal to labor -- and was just endorsed by a big CWA local.  I'm not seeing the evidence that unions don't like Davis.

It looks to me as if he's been voting like a moderate pretty much ever since he got to Congress.  That's disappointing if you're a liberal and it may put him solidly on the conservative side of the Dems in Congress, but when you compare him to recent governors of Alabama, or the current field, he looks pretty damned progressive.  And consistent in his positions.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 13:12:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

When Davis debated Luther Strange (proxy prez debate at BSC)... (0.00 / 0)

He clearly stated that he agreed with Barack Obama that he was "pro-life," but he believes that "life begins at birth."  That is a perfectly fine position to take.  I happen to disagree but I respect the clearness of that position.  If someone believes a fetus does not constitute life until the point of birth, then it would only be logical for them to oppose restrictions on abortion.  And yet Artur Davis has not done that over the past six years.  He has hedged his bets, voting for the Stupak Amendment, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, and Interstate Notification Acts while also voting to continue funding for Planned Parenthood, against the continuation of the "Mexico City policy," for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and several others.

If those votes came from a politician who has stated that he views abortion as a complicated issue without easy answers, I could understand.  But when the politician who made those votes explicitly said he believed that life begins at birth, I have a difficult time believing the either that statement or those votes were sincere unless he pulled a Mitt Romney and had some sort of conversion on the issue.  And that's who Artur Davis reminds me of more than anyone else in the political arena.  He looks great, sounds great, has an incredible resume, can raise money hand over fist, and has all the right movers and shakers supporting him.  But, when you get right down to it, the only things he stands for - and the only people he's loyal to - are the ones who can help him win his next election.

---

by: bluebearcat @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 14:17:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I want consistently Democrat (0.00 / 0)

It is not reassuring to know that when Davis says he will not vote with his fellow Democrats, we can count on that.

Prior to the primary, have we given up on moving these guys to the Left? Sparks is trying, win or lose. Does Davis think he has it in the bag, no matter what he does or how irrelevant he feels the Left Wing is?

Is this as good as it gets?

---

by: yellowdog @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 14:25:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Party Line (0.00 / 0)

I think you definitely have a finger on the pulse of the party thinking, particularly among the Hubbert crowd.  However, many of us believe that they will be wrong come election day.  The Davis folks don't need the state party old guard and they know it.  Let the ADP focus on keeping the House and Senate (no small task in itself and mooncat's suggestions would go a long way to helping the Dems cause).

Artur Davis understands the dynamics of what he is working against.  He knows that he cannot depend on Obama supporters to win this election, but let's also not forget that Obama's approval rating, even in Alabama, is still in the 40's.  He knows the areas of the state he will have to work for votes and will outperform Obama in those areas.  He has an extremely competent and professional campaign team who knows how to work a state.  Sparks, meanwhile, barely has a campaign, much less a professional team.

Davis will use his ties to Obama to stay in the money race with the eventual Republican nominee, but more importantly, he will spend that money on things that will win votes in this election, not just doing things the way they have always been done.  I have no doubt Davis can be competitive, whether or not he can win is a question no one can answer.

---

by: Kristopher @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 08:22:15 AM CST

Have to disagree on some points... (0.00 / 0)

First and foremost, Folsom didn't run because he saw the polling data that showed Davis running away with the primary and beating every Repub in the general.  

Second, Ron Sparks' black endorsements will have no bearing in the race.  Alabama went decidedly for Obama in the 08 primary - despite the fact that Reed, Arrington, ADC, etc etc backed Hillary.  

Finally, I think you're giving the Party too much credit.  Remember this is the Party that doesn't even have committee's in every county... 

---

by: BigBass @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 08:55:00 AM CST

I have not lived in Alabama forever and a lot of state political history outside of Folsom and Wallace escapes me. (0.00 / 0)

However, my impression of the democratic party establishment in  this state is piss poor. They seem slow to respond and gun shy about taking a stand. They are reactionary instead of exhibiting leadership. If Davis is running without their blessing, endorsement and support, then I don't think that is a negative, it is actually a plus. My impression is that they have so much baggage they could drag down any half decent candidate.

Happy to be corrected here!

---

by: melmel @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 10:43:50 AM CST

A plausible scenario (0.00 / 0)

'Dancing' Delay and his mentor Gingrich used redistricting to nail down Republican strongholds all over the country, assuring a minority party some measure of continuation. All politics is local, and the Party in charge during census redistricting demonstrates one aspect of how local affects all else.

This cycle, local legislative elections should be the focus of the ADP. Their recent pointless, non-existent, and in Mobile disruptive actions do not bode well for our confidence in the ADP. In my opinion, they rolled over on State seats that with a ittle mobilization could still be Democratic. 

In this scenario, the Democratic candidates for Governor are on their own.

Davis may have sources for campaign financing at national levels and from local liberal elites.

Sparks has leaned toward Progressive populism, a truly grassroots approach. He has come up with a base of financial support from gambling interests-maybe-a source of State revenue that requires only political opportunity to fire off private financing and job creation now in the most economically depressed areas of the State.

Sparks has spent most of his time since announcing his candidacy interacting with The Black Belt (you don't have to drive his car to know where he goes everyday-he tweets and facebooks), and has cultivated relationships with local politicians, farmers, timber interests and other Ag and Industry here and now. He has always been a proponent of what is best for Alabamians first.

As far as politically astute, Sparks has relentlessly gone after recognition as an alternative to Davis in the only area of the State where anyone has ever cast a vote for Davis. Sparks has already been a winner everywhere else. Paying attention to the folks who may be wondering who represents them and their interests may be an example of common-sense political intuition with no underlying motivations and calculations other than to recognize and respond to the needs and wants of a constituency that doesn't seem to get much from its elected representatives. Sparks is saying 'I got your back.'

A strong and winning Democratic candidate for Governor wouldn't hurt the down-ticket. The ADP wouldn't have to throw money after a candidate who found his own money. The ADP, if they really have a plan, could then focus on countering the Republican attack machine and concentrate on giving a Democratic Governor a Democratic Legislaure. 

 

---

by: yellowdog @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 11:26:38 AM CST

what does this mean yellowdog? (4.00 / 1)

local liberal elites.

 It sounds like something we would hear from the republicans. Maybe I am a local liberal elite. I definitely qualify as local and liberal. I have a good job and a nice house so does that make me elite? I love a good populist candidate, but segregating democrats into "elite" and "not elite" sounds like typical class warfare that should be restricted to the Sarah Palins of this world and shunned by all democrats.

---

by: melmel @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 11:34:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Would you prefer... (0.00 / 0)

'wealthier socially-liberal Democratic financial benefactors'?

I am only speaking to the campaign financing, which some judge as the most important aspect of political success. 

However, I will add that Republicans use the rhetoric of class-warfare to create fear and sustain the status quo.

Democrats know it is a war!   

 

---

by: yellowdog @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 12:35:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I would prefer not deriding democrats with the same words that republicans use. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: melmel @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 13:46:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's all about (0.00 / 0)

The ground game, local, and platform issues. Yeah, the Alabama Republican Party will have some major talking points in 2010 against the Democrats, but what will be their message exactly?  If it is an "Obama is all bad" mantra they are in for a big surprise.  They are thinking way to simplistic because some whites are becoming more attentive to overt racial tagline campaigns.  Especially, whites in counties with more than 25% non-white population. 

The Democrats will lose a few seats, but I don't see a huge Republican turnover in the State Legislature anymore than I do in Congress.  This is going to be about individual candidates and how they campaign to their districts.  In other words, people have to be on their Ps & Qs while dotting their Is & crossing their Ts.

BTW, according to UAB statistics professor and state pollster Larry Powell, the demographics are rapidly shifting in Alabama where more blacks (particularly middle-class blacks) are moving to the urban areas of Birmingham and Huntsville from out-of-state, so 2010 is a toss-up, but 2014 will be game for sure.  This state is becoming more diverse and economically mobile among blacks and whites, so the Old Guard blacks will lose power one way or another in the next 5 years. 

"It is what it is."

---

by: kayman @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 18:07:35 PM CST

Economic mobility? (0.00 / 0)

Have you seen any of the economic data that shows us as having one of the 10 worst unemployment rates in America or the prediction that say we'll be one of the last states pulling out of the abyss?

 

If what you say is true and a bunch of wealthier, more educated blacks move into Huntsville and Birmingham that's only going to exacerbate the racial problems because of a very common belief among white workers in Alabama concerning black workers and a certain governmental policy that will only become worse once demagogues are able to convince the laid off that they were laid off because.....

 The history of Alabama shows that when Alabamians are under the gun and under pressure they never respond to the better parts of their nature and are more than willing to listen to demagogues and are more than willing to demonize a scapegoat as a way to feel better about themselves.

---

by: jacool @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 20:44:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah, I have (4.00 / 1)

That still doesn't change the fact that those groups of people are moving to Alabama.  People are going to move where ever their jobs take them regardless of the recession.  I also heard that it will be about 2013, but that doesn't stop people from coming here for a job when they are recruited to the state by their employer.

Also if you are paying attention to politics of other Southern states that with increasing black and educated populations that it also enables the cities to get better represetation to the contrary to the traditional Old Guard politicos.  It also makes the states more competitve politically overall regardless of how slow to change some rural, predominately white areas react.  Alabama has its uniques dynamics, but its very patterns of inhibtition to "change" is really no different than what you will see in portions of the Deep South like Georgia outside of Metro Atlanta, South Carolina, or even North Carolina.  It's the same script, but different cast.

"It is what it is."

---

by: kayman @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 10:08:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

one key difference (4.00 / 1)

All of those states register their voters by party. Alabama doesn't. And an interesting that you reference two states where Republicans took the legislature and where both parties are currently under transition. I'll touch upon that later.

 But the thing is. All Alabama politics will remain dependent upon having no voter registration and by choice primaries and neither party wants to get rid of them because the Republicans were only able to become competitive because of them and because neither party knows what would happen with by registration primaries and would prefer to avoid them.

---

by: jacool @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 15:30:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Opposition is not monolithic (0.00 / 0)

I know quite a few Democrats, including some within the ADP, who would very much like party registration and by registration primaries.  I darned sure would.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 15:32:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As would I... (0.00 / 0)

...that was a bit of a head scratcher my first primary here and my Republican in-laws were voting in the Democratic one.  Something just aint kosher when you have fox in the hen house telling you what eggs are the best.

9.13, 4.82, Just left of Gandhi.

---

by: archangelsk @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 18:03:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Voter disenfranchisement (0.00 / 0)

The reason we are not allowed to register by party is because of past history when the closed primary was the method by which black voters were excluded from the process.

 I happen to support the open primary process for that primary reason. Right now in Alabama, it is very true that in most counties in the state, if you don't choose the primary of the party that controls the county you are disenfranchised in local races. In a closed primary system, you wouldn't have that option. If you registered as a Republican in Macon County you'd be automatically disenfrachised. You'd have no voice and no vote in who you got to vote for as sheriff and other offices which might actually have more meaning in your day to day life than who the governor is.

 Simply put, I'm not willing to allow that kind of voter disenfranchisement to happen. The differences between '06 and presidential primary turnout ratios were an expression of the obvious but they were also an expression of democracy in the state. Closed primaries would have the effect of disenfranchising voters.

 

 In particular, closed primaries would ensure that a number of majority white counties in the black belt would simply transition to the Republican Party (I'm thinking Choctaw, Russell, Coosa, Chambers among others) because in a primary where everyone registered by party, the Democratic primaries would immediately become black primaries and that would in effect push the remaining white Democrats into the Republican fold where they would vote Republican just to maintain white control of the county (and I especially can say that this would happen in Choctaw County, which is a classic example of a Black Belt county where the Democratic control is built on black voters but where racial tension remains very high (as the racial marriage ban repeal vote pretty much went along racial lines in Choctaw)

Republicans electoral dynamics would benefit from closed primaries but many in the party oppose it precisely because it would make Republican primaries more rural and more socially conservative and that would hurt Republican strength among the moderates in metro areas on which their strength is now dependent and well, most of the state leadership consist of urban, BCA oriented Republicans just as the state's Democratic leadership is primarily rural and Blue Dog oriented.

 

Now I oppose it simply because of disenfrachisement. If for whatever reason I end up living in Shelby County I want to be able to vote in the primary that will elect local officials and still have a vote in the presidential primary of my choice rather than having to choose through registration 

 

---

by: jacool @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 13:39:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The racial dynamics are not quite as simple as you make them out to be... (4.00 / 1)

No one can pretend that race will not play a factor in this primary and in the general election but I firmly believe that both sides are overstating its importance.  I think Artur Davis is afraid of being labeled a black liberal and is overcompensating by moving too far to the right on bread-and-butter Democratic issues.  I think Ron Sparks and the folks backing him were overconfident for a long time because they wrongly believed that white Alabama voters would not be willing to vote for a black man.  This racial aspect of this in the 21st century is a heck of a lot more complicated than most are willing to admit.  Davis does not have the connotations of "foreign-ness" that hurt Obama so much in this state. My concerns with Artur Davis have nothing to do with his race; they have to do with him turning his back on the teachers and the working class Alabamians whose votes he will need to win election to the governor's mansion.

---

by: bluebearcat @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 10:43:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I enjoy reading how (0.00 / 0)

so many show disdain for race-based political strategies while also trying to figure out how to exploit their race base.  Kudos!

---

by: mrwidglet @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 21:17:21 PM CST