Conversations with Two Pols

[DKW 86 7,440]

Yes, this last week I interviewed two pols in N AL. Both locals.

The Democrat was a lifelong Dem with long Dem bloodlines. His family has a long history of political service.

The Republican is new to politics but has worked on several national and statewide elections across the country.

Results:

The Democrat: I asked him about "Yellow Dogs" in his party and the Power of the AL Democrats. He was very knowledgeable and confident in his answers. He said that the Yellow Dogs make up ONLY about 20% of the voting public in AL. "They were a lot stronger, but now we cant count on them as much anymore." He described the "Yellow Dogs" in two basic terms: senior, less educated, whites and blacks. I would add that he is from a "rural county" that has a lot of commuters too. His county and the state he would describe as "solidly in Democratic control for a while longer but that the Republicans were making head way." In counties like Shelby, Montgomery, Baldwin, Madison, and Morgan he said the Democrats were not fairing well and did not see them changing that for a long while. He addressed the Democrats' needs as being able to make the economic case to the people. Jobs and pocket book were the essentials to winning the races. "People dont care about national issues at this level. Here in Alabama, we are basically alike on those issues (whether Democrat or Republican, my words) they want to know what you are doing for them and what you will do for them."

The Dem came from a long line of Democratic Party elected office holders. He also said that the country was very evenly divided and would stay that way. "That is why the national parties concentrate so much on issues today. You must have a position on EVERY issue and be the first one out with it. You must pay close attention to every nuance, every day."

The Republican: Ran for for his first local election last year. Got more party support than the Democrat (the Dem got no funds and little help). He raised good money for the position he was running for but it was no surprise he lost. He lives in a rural county. He said many folks told him to his face he was a good guy (he is a deacon in his church) but that they would not vote for him because he was a Republican. Who told him that? Primarily older, less educated whites, whether successful or not.

He still saw the power of the Democrats in the state and local election due to the "Yellow Dog Factor." His outlook was upbeat tho because he saw the Democratic base dying off. Here in Alabama and in CA and in OH where he worked in 2004 election cycle. He saw the trust factor gaining traction in the South because people realized that nationally the Republicans were with who they agreed. He saw Republican control of the state houses as a matter of time only.

He also saw the narrowly, evenly divided electorate and was a little put off at how vicious it was getting. He did not like the tone of the elections but saw it as the last stand of a dying party for the Democrats. He just wished it would move on faster.

The Republican also said he was misquoted in local papers and said he thought he was never given a fair shake by the papers.

Conclusion: They both saw the narrow division and wanted it to be less vitriolic. I however see it for what it is, almost ideal. The narrower the division the better the debate should be between the two parties overall. It hasnt happened yet, but hopefully will. The Dem wondered if there would be a third party to come out soon and really turn the whole thing around. He almost wanted it. I do not think this guy really supports the DNC positions on almost any issue. He is very close to most of us politically. He was by far the more eye opening candidate to talk to. I had over looked that Democrats are not all un-educated, welfare recipients and Communists (only slightly exagerating here, lol).

I see the political future of this country in overall ideal terms in the division. A near 50-50 split with the moderates deciding the real winners and losers is likely a good thing. The Right or Left unchecked is a bad deal for us all. The question is in the outcome. Will the "Yellow Dog" Factor die off? Certainly it will, not competely, but it will become less of an issue. As Blacks become more and more middle class and the older whites die off, I see the inevitable shift coming toward the GOP.

I also see the country tiring of the extremely stressful diatribes. I see the moderates taking over again eventually. Mrs Clinton is running to the center even now. The Dem said you must have your base energized to win and therefore you must have then turnout. They were critical to win in an evenly divided race.

The real fulcramatic point here is to energize the base in the primaries and to run to the center in the general election. I see the future as some extention of that old model. Either turning out your base will be the only thing you care about, ala Dean and Gingrich, or being the winner of the moderate vote will get you the win.

The "Yellow Dog Factor" I guess I tipped my hand earlier in the week by talking so much about them. The REALLY interesting factoid here is in the details of what the Democrat said. The general premise was that the parties are evenly divided. Let's say for the argument that they are 45-45 and that the moderates make up 10%. Concentrate on the Democrat 45% for a second. If the Democrat was right and that the "Yellow Dog Factor" was anywhere near 20% of the electorate, that is almost half of the Democratic Base here in AL!!!!