Jackson Free Press

Well, all, there weren't a lot of surprises Tuesday night, and a lot of our prayers about the state rising above the race game went unanswered ... for now. But I truly believe that this election is meant to challenge progressive Mississippians to do everything it takes to attract better candidates and increase the voter base. And that work doesn't start three years and six and a half months from now. It starts tomorrow. So buck up; we have hard, but satisfying work to do, and powerful coalitions to build. And it will be done.

Pay attention to the close splits in the governor's race and treasurer's race, especially. That's where you can see the hope.

Previous Commentsshow

As I kept saying to discouraged progressives last night, today is the day the real work begins. And the news is hopeful: notice that in those treasurer numbers, fewer than 50,000 votes separate Anderson and Reeves. In this state, that's a big something. Of course, it's not enough. White progressives kept saying to me last night that there were surprised that such a qualified man (Anderson) didn't win. I wasn't surprised. I think it's a race that shows that, well, race is still a huge issue in Mississippi. It's also a race that shows the importance of facing that fact squarely ... and then overcoming it. As for the governor's race, it's not as if Barbour and his nefarious race-pandering came in and swept two-thirds of the voters. I think there's hope there, too: I personally believe a more progressive candidate would have had a *better* chance at beating Barbour. You can't just keeping fighting over the same pool of conservative voters that's there. The parties have officially shifted: the GOP is the old Southern Democrat Party. Face it. We've got to start beating the bushes in all sorts of ways for new voters. And that starts today. And, frankly, I believe the Barbour-Tuck administration may make it easier to build a new voting bloc. So, no one despair. Frankly, the elections turned out exactly how I would have guessed, although I had believed the governor's race was too close to call. Every other race was predictable. Now, it's time to move forward. I'd also guess that there is some hopefulness in what some of the voting patterns showed. Philip, give us more conclusions as you draw them: How did Hinds County fare, for instance? The Delta? Did they turn out in greater numbers? (This is a double post; also on another blog.)

ladd

Nov 5 2003

Donna, I admire your enthusiasm. As for me, I'm spending a day banging my head against a wall. I'll move forward tomorrow. Those Wasabi Bloody Marys are sounding real good right about now.

Kate

Nov 5 2003

I didn't get to drink my favorite cabernet. Oh well, save it for a rainy day. Can we sulk for one day, Donna, and start working tomorrow? :-) Where do we start anyway? What to do?

Nia

Nov 5 2003

I, for one, am relatively satisfied with the candidates Mississippians selected last night. The only one that really disappoints me is the Hinds County DA race. Peterson has done next to nothing to help alleviate the crime problem in Hinds County, and I was looking forward to a fresh face in that office working to reduce crime. I was glad to see everyone speaking out on the internet for their sides in the larger campaigns. My site gathered over 45,000 individual visitors and many of the internet bulletin boards, including the JFP blog, have been quite busy with people passionate about their ideas and unafraid to share them with others. I think the Internet is going to be a new leveling force in politics. When everyone has an equally loud voice, better ideas win out. I hope all the candidates in the future recognize the power of this medium and learn to use it effectively. It's been fun everyone. I heard my first car ad on TV yesterday. I never thought I'd be happy to hear "Little Mort" offer me $100 if his deal wasn't the lowest REGARDLESS!

Mark

Nov 5 2003

How is it the DA's mandate to prevent crime? That doesn't make sense. The DA is supposed to focus on prosecuting those arrested and charged by the police. Prosecution doesn't deter crime. Never has, never will.

Nia

Nov 5 2003

Nia, part of it (as I understand it, and I could be wrong) is that the jails are way overcrowded, and some of that overcrowding is folks stuck waiting for their cases to be prosecuted. So, when things get too crowded, they end up letting a bunch of people out, since they haven't been tried and sentenced. Many people seem to think this is DA Patterson's fault. I have no idea what the actual truth is, since it seems like the truth on this one is fairly complex (as in, why it's taking so long to try things, how much is the fault of the judges and the actual courts, how much is really in control of the DA's office, etc.). My guess is that the DA's office is one link in a chain that has inefficiancies at all levels.

Kate

Nov 5 2003

Mark, being that you're the one doing the fake BarbaraBlackmon.com site, it comes as no surprise to me that your picks would be the opposite of mine. And you're certainly more victorious today, although I'd argue that it's a hollow victory that'll prove itself out, as it is doing with the Bush administration on a daily basis. Thank you, Nia, for pointing out what should be the obvious here, but that is so twisted up in the crime rhetoric that people miss it: The D.A.'s office isn't there to prevent crime, and you're absolutely right that prosecution doesn't prevent crime. Piles of "scentific data" (Bush's favorite phrase, when the glove fits his agenda) support that point, of course, but many people don't want to pay attention to facts that prove them wrong. And the crime bogeyman is such easy code for the political power games that people have long played here. Back in the '60s, white demagogues constantly warned of black crime to scare people into supporting segregation; the rhetoric has become slightly more subtle but hasn't changed much in actuality. Meantime, the only response seems to be "lock 'em up" or worse, and little in the way of actual prevention. The other interesting thing in Jackson, though, is that it seems that only black officials are supposed to prevent crime. Former D.A. Mike Peters had a huge case backlog and oversaw higher crime rates than today, but the rhetoric was much more subdued then. The former police chiefs presided over much higher crime rates. As did former mayors. If you've been following our crime coverage (which has largely consisted, so far, of calming the hysteria, so we can actually look at the situation intelligently) so far, you'll see that the rhetoric has been that crime is higher than ever here, blah, blah, when in fact it's among its all-time low levels. The crime that happens is bad, but what you can't get through people's heads is that over-reacting to it doesn't solve one thing or prevent one crime. It just feeds hysteria and politcal careers. It's terribly frustrating; we had months of hysterical media reports, and then a bunch of hand-wringing because people are leaving the city. Now some local businesses are closing because, they say, the perception of crime is so high. And, certainly, much of this is the media's fault, but not all of it. Citizens play a big role as well.

ladd

Nov 5 2003

MORE ... We Mississippians do like to aim our firearms directly at our big toes every chance we get. In the case of the D.A.'s race, we could have been saddled with a D.A. who's never tried a case and who overblew crime at every turn to try to scare people into voting for him. That doesn't strike me as a very holistic approach, and it certainly isn't healthy for the city. So I am mighty relieved that our endorsement on that one worked out. And Kate, I think you nailed it. It's a much bigger systemic problem that certainly involves judges and politics. We need to examine and repair the system, not feed certain parts of it.

ladd

Nov 5 2003

BTW, all, I did have my two golden margaritas last night, and they were lovely, I must say. OK, you can take a day off. But the work must continue ... and we're already doing it. Ideas? Let's see: conversation, critical thinking, questioning, exposure to ideas and outside media, investigating, making caring about people and communities cool again, crossing the tracks (whichever direction). Reaching out, especially to young people, people of color, Mississippians who don't vote or participate. Building community. Revitalizing the city. Laughing. Attending community events. Writing letters to the editor. Blogging. Mentoring (and not just to shop!). Volunteering. Buying ads in alternative papers. (Sorry: grin.) Passing the word. Looking people in the idea. Visiting different neighborhoods. Shopping local. Supporting actual free enterprise. Challenging the mainstream media. Donating to vital causes. Having fun. Defending our rights. Exercising our rights. Saying something. Speaking up. Following your dream. Challenging bigotry and hate every time you hear/see it. Reading about history. Discussing difficult topics. Ignoring negative folks and naysayers. If they miss the train, it's their loss. And we'll let 'em climb on board later. ;-) Y'all feel free to add other ideas. Donna

ladd

Nov 5 2003

BTW, there is a ton of scholarship out there about the costs of crime perception to communities; every time I hear some snarkily make fun of the police chief's warning about the media and crime perception, I try to remind myself that they are simply ignorant on this issue, and what's been done. (I wish they could simply find their way to Google, but there's conclusion-jumping is a favored pasttime here in the city, it seems.) The truth is, overblown crime "perception" makes it difficult to put well-rounded crime programs in place, get adequate resources, get the tax base solid -- and it contributes to overly punitive reactions that actually increase recidivism (such as adult sentencing of juveniles). There is so much information out there on this that is is embarassing to me as a journalist to see the other media outlets make fun of the "perception" issue. It's showing their silly and unprofessional side. The two major answers to reducing crime perception is 1) more intelligent media coverage and 2) more and easier access to crime data. It doesn't hurt if the public will educate itself on the issue as well. Here's a quick link about coverage of youth violence: http://www.racematters.org/youthcrimedeclinemediaopp.htm

ladd

Nov 5 2003

Donna, I called the Hinds Co. Election Commission regarding turnout. The lady I talked to said Hinds has 122,900 registered voters - 59,780 votes cast in the Governors' race and 58,703 in the Treasurers' race (155 of 166 precincts reporting). That's a 48 and 47 percent turnout respectively. Hinds is 61.1% Black and 37.0% Non-Hispanic/Latino White. Sources: http://www.co.hinds.ms.us/pgs/results/gen_election.asp http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/28/28049.html Hinds Co. Election Commission Ph. Call. Also, I went to the trouble to call the Leflore Co. (Greenwood) Election Commission, asking for the total number of registered voters and total number of ballots cast in the governors race. They said the affadavit absentee ballots should be counted by tomorrow. Let's wait and see.

Philip

Nov 5 2003

Now is not the time to get discouraged. Granted, the morning after election day found me in mourning over the Republican gubernatorial win, but liberal Mississippians cannot give up now. In fact, after this loss, we have into move into more immediate action. Many newspapers are predicting Barbourís win to be indicative of another Bush win in 2004. Though we are stuck with Barbour for the next few years, we donít have to re-elect Bush. But how can we prevent his reelection? One very integral tool is unfortunately, money. Barbour supporters managed to raise over 10 million dollarís for this weekís election. He credits this ground-breaking amount to a grassroots call for funds. Howard Dean is running a similar campaign. Like Barbour, he hopes to amass enough money by accepting donations even in small amounts. Allowing multiple contributions of 20 dollar bills has quickly built up his campaign funding. But surely money is not the only way to precipitate a much needed change in the US. Yeah, money does permit politicians to reach more voters, but this money is simply wasted without a change in ideals. Musgrove spent over 8 million dollars on his campaign, and for what? Politicians, and even more so citizens, have to start elsewhere. Groups need to convene in to begin changing things. Just as politicians are paying more attention to grassroots fund raising, we can begin grassroots activism. Let us take heed at the huge difference (10 million dollars worth) that small donations of money can make and react with similar donations of time and energy. It may be intimidating to start educating MS on important issues single-handedly, but it is possible. With Barbour moving into office, we have to begin acting now. The best way to start is by focusing on one goal. Through small networking, we can find other people with similar interests and enthusiasm. If enough energy is manifested into one goal, I have no doubt that we can achieve a lot. Now, how to do this? I suggest we start by outlining some goals and picking some to emphasize on for the beginning.

casey

Nov 5 2003

Donna, I don't care what the race is of the person in charge, I just want to see the backlog of cases that go un-prosecuted to be quickly handled. I want to see a police department that actually works to proactively prevent crime. I want a city government that provides them the tools to do so. The race of the individual responsible doesn't enter into it, and I object to your attempt to make it a race issue. I want criminals stopped, not black folks. I wasn't around in the '60's. I am here today. I worked downtown, for two years, at the Clarion-Ledger. In that time my car was broken into twice, one car was stolen, and I was assaulted walking to the office (right across from the police department and city hall). Nothing was done. There was nearly no investigation of the break-ins or the car theft (it turned up in the impound lot 6 mo later, completely trashed) and the guy who thought taking my wallet was a good idea was never prosecuted. I didn't "perceive" that, I witnessed it. I don't care who broke the criminal justice system in Jackson, but I do know that it is broken. That has to be fixed, and like it or not, the DA does play a big part in that. So far, she's not appeared to care. I don't think our goals are terribly different. We want Mississippi to be a better place. Where we disagree, however, seems to be on how to get there. Hopefully a little disagreement helps weed out our bad ideas. And you're right. I am the webmaster of BarbaraBlackmon.com. I had over 45,000 visitors in the time the website was up. I find that amazing. From my dorm room, I was able to let thousands of people know how I felt about a candidate. The power that the Internet gives each of us is staggering, and I encourage everyone to use it.

Mark

Nov 5 2003

Mark, I agree with you that the criminal-justice system needs to be fixed where it is broken, but putting a D.A. in there who has never tried a case is not going to fix it. Neither is overblowing what problems are where, or how much crime is happening, or where, or when. (You didn't mention when you worked at the Clarion-Ledger, for instance. Was that within the last two years? You say your assailant was "never" prosecuted; how long ago was that? I ask because many people, including the D.A. challenger, refer to old crimes when complaining about the current "leadership." That's not especially helpful.) No one said you "perceived" anything; you're doing that twisting thing that I talked about earlier that DOES NOT HELP SOLVE OR STOP OR PREVENT CRIME. It is the perception that crime is so out of control that is problem; no one is saying there aren't real crimes. That would be stupid. I don't care what the race of the person who is in charge is, either -- and I will criticize or compliment anyone, regardless of race -- but you're missing the point. The point is that a whole lot of people in (and near) Jackson are much more likely to criticize black leaders than white -- and are perfectly willing to play race politics. That is very different from what you are saying, and you just simplistically equate the two because that fits your theory. And just because you weren't around in the 1960s does not mean that some of the same types of race-pandering isn't going on today. Because it is. That can be painful to hear, but the truth often can be hard to hear. Fine on fixing the criminal-justice system; I'm with you. But that doesn't mean that an unqualified D.A. has to be brought in because everyone likes the way he looks -- which is what could have happened. And I'm not nearly as convinced as you are that the D.A. has "broken" the system; I've seen no evidence of that, although I've heard a lot of unsupported innuendo. And from what I've seen, there's at least one judge who plays at least as strong a role as the D.A. in the problem. It strikes me that people are too busy scapegoating that most of them, including the media, have no idea of what's really going on.

ladd

Nov 6 2003

MORE for Mark ... Congrats on your hits. For some reason, your stats page was linked out from ours for the last few days. I'd never seen that happen, but I did click on it inadvertently to see what the link was to and saw what your stats were a couple days ago. I agree with you that the Internet is very important, although as I've told you before I'm not a fan of taking people's domains to use against them. I think there are more honorable and straightforward ways to get our message out.

ladd

Nov 6 2003

Casey, I think you're right on with your grass-roots ideas. What issues do you think are most important for people to talk about? I believe you're a college student, right? What issues would resonate with students? What will they respond to?

ladd

Nov 6 2003

An interesting night - and I won't say I'm not pleased with most of the election results (as most of you would guess). I am disappointed by Gary's less than winning showing, though. Although we as Mississippians have gotten better about race issues in politics, I can't figure any other major reason for Gary's loss than his being black. Sure, he ran a poor campaign and was probably underfunded, but his qualifications are so much better than his opponents that race seems like the only rationale explanation for his loss. There are other factors- but I am sorry the better candidate - in this race - didn't win.

Fielding

Nov 6 2003

If Haley Barbour's campaign is any indication, then we haven't gotten better. Because he pandered for the racist vote, got it, and won.

Nia

Nov 6 2003

You state that as if that is the only reason why Haley won, Nia. There were plenty of reasons to vote for Haley - and I will state again that I don't believe Haley is racist. There were lots of blacks at his victory party - does that make them racists? Does a vote for Haley automatically make someone a racist? I would say again that your "race colored glasses" are blinding you to reality. And I will really try to make this the last post I make in reply to you. In my opinion, you have had little constructive to say to me and I have learned exactly nothing from your replies to me. You are welcome to your opinion of me and Republicans - I believe you are just as prejiduced against Republicans and whites as you say I have been in this political race and as narrow minded as you say Haley is - you are mistaken.

Fielding

Nov 6 2003

You state that pandering and racism is the only reason why Haley won, Nia. There were plenty of reasons to vote for Haley - and I will state again that I don't believe Haley is racist. There were lots of blacks at his victory party - does that make them racists? Does a vote for Haley automatically make someone a racist? I would say again that your "race colored glasses" are blinding you to reality. And I will really try to make this the last post I make in reply to you. In my opinion, you have had little constructive to say to me and I have learned exactly nothing from your replies to me. You are welcome to your opinion of me and Republicans - I believe you are just as prejiduced against Republicans and whites as you say I have been in this political race and as narrow minded as you say Haley is - you are mistaken.

Fielding

Nov 6 2003

Fielding, I don't understand your logic here. What did Nia say to you that's so offensive? You're the one defending Barbour's campaign here, which was blatantly racist; his choice. And you never answered my earlier questions about how Barbour's use of the rebel flag in this campaign is that different from Richard Barrett's. BARBOUR played the race card in this campaign, and in a defiant, dramatic way. He introduced race -- not me, or Nia, or anyone else. And the fact that a few blacks were on his stage with him, but sure not many at his party, doesn't mean a thing. Blacks can advocate policies that are racist to blacks -- and they can go along with race-pandering because they think they're going to get something from it for communities that are desperately in need, like in the Delta. Some, of course, even believe in GOP policies, but not many. And even those who believe in the GOP's conservative policies are going to have a hard time going along with the pandering to racists. Now, I'm off to a meeting for real.

ladd

Nov 6 2003

Whatever, Fielding. You painted yourself into a corner by defending the indefensible. You refuse to see Barbour for what he is: racist. It makes you uncomfortable to admit that because you identify with him. (Otherwise, why would you take my comments so personally?) I understand that even if you don't. And if you'd take off your rose-coloured glasses, you'd see it, too. Donna, don't expect an answer from Fielding because whenever his illogic and prejudices are laid plain and bare, he clams up and doesn't respond; or changes the subject; or says, "I'll get back to you on that," and then never does. Fielding never answered the discussion we were having on gays in the church and never answered the question about Barbour's racist remark that was overheard by a reporter. Facing the truth that hard for you, Fielding? It's ugly isn't it? I've suggested the same about Musgrove for his pandering to the racist vote. I've made worse comments about Al Sharpton; and he's black and a Democrat. You're not pitching a fit over that. How stupid do you look, Fielding?

Nia

Nov 6 2003

Barbour may or may not be racist (but I have a friend who's convinced he's sexist, which bugs me, as a woman, alot), but his campaign sure was. No one ever said a vote for Barbour makes anyone a racist - that's your interpretation of Nia's comment that he pandered to the racist vote and won. Personally, I found the Barbour campaign, especially in the last week, truly, deeply frightening. I am totally in their target demographic, and got hit with phone calls, mailers, and kids going door to door. I saw the absolute *explosion* of Barbour signs put up all over the city over the weekend - not signs in yards, but signs put up along the frontage road and other major streets. This was not *enthusiasm* for Barbour, as one political analyst stated on local news on tuesday night. This was clearly the work of his campaign - efficient and ruthless. I admire his campaigns skills, and given his background, I'd have been more surprised a poorly run campaign. But the last week I really felt stalked by a huge political machine, looking to play on any fears that I had - about race, about the economy, about kids running wild, whatever. It was not based on issues, it was based on fear mongering. And it was backed by a well funded, well oiled machine. A machine that does not have my best interests at heart.

Kate

Nov 6 2003

It has, in general, been a pleasure blogging here - but I have better things to do with my limited on-line time. I still do not see Haley's campaign activities as "blatantly racist." Let me see if I can answer some of your points prior to signing off here - 1. "And you never answered my earlier questions about how Barbour's use of the rebel flag in this campaign is that different from Richard Barrett's" - as I didn't see Richard Barret's campaign, it's hard for me to answer that - but liking the Mississippi state flag and wearing it on your lapel is not an overtly racist action. Haley should have actively repudiated his picture being posted on the CofCC web site - but he didn't put it up there - and as he pointed out, his picture was posted other places - for example, you have a picture of him on your site - does that constitute an endorsement? (I already know it doesn't) Haley will, as Governor, will do great things for the state of Mississippi. That fact has engendered support from many Mississippians, including many blacks. "And the fact that a few blacks were on his stage with him, but sure not many at his party, doesn't mean a thing." If you were at his victory party, I'm sorry I missed seeing you there - I was up toward the front - with plenty of black folks standing or sitting all around me. I will guess you weren't there, because there were plenty of blacks in attendence. Blacks can advocate policies that are racist to blacks -- and they can go along with race-pandering because they think they're going to get something from it for communities that are desperately in need, like in the Delta. Some, of course, even believe in GOP policies, but not many. And even those who believe in the GOP's conservative policies are going to have a hard time going along with the pandering to racists." As to personal motives for supporting candidates - any candidates - well, it is difficult to look into a person's heart to determine motivations. I can, however, state that my reasons for supporting Haley were not racist in any way. I cannot tell you what other's reasons were... And next to lastly, it isn't just Nia's comments on this topic that got me riled up. Nia's comments re my earlier posting on other threads have had all added up.

Fielding

Nov 6 2003

Lastly, I finally got a copy of your publication - very nicely done - and if I still lived in Jackson I feel sure I would enjoy it. Good luck to you and the JFP and I hope that your efforts at change are successful - in areas where we can agree.

Fielding

Nov 6 2003

ok- last post - just for Nia's snide and mean-spirited commentary - a. if I'm wearing rose colored glasses, it's because I have a generally positive outlook on life and want to believe the best of everyone - b. I don't believe that a man who doesn't follow the tenents of his religion deserves to be a leader within his religion - when you or anyone else wants to reinterpet the Bible or the Koran or any other religious document to suit your current worldview - it is you speaking and not that religion - I would welcome any sinner into the church in hopes that he/she would see the error of their ways and repent c. I would respectfully suggest you re-read that thread - I did answer that - and upon further reflection, I have doubts that Haley was accurately quoted - there is plenty of media bias to go around d. I will grant you that I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I'm not stupid - I have lots of people who respect - and pay for - my advice and they're getting their money's worth... I hope that you can get past your narrow-mindedness - but I'm not betting on it

Fielding

Nov 6 2003

If it's narrow-minded to point out destructive race-baiting--no matter who does it--then, yeah, I'm narrow-minded. And since you find my behavior so objectionable but make excuses for the likes of Barbour ("He was misquoted." Yeah, right!), what does that make you? Having a positive outlook on life, as I do, is not the same thing as refusing to see the darker side of it.

Nia

Nov 6 2003

Fielding, I hate to see you go because you've added a lot to this dialogue, and given many of us a way to respond to points that progressives seldom get to talk about in Mississippi. We're just painted with a broad "liberal" brush, or called "traitors," or assumed not to believe in free enterprise, or something equally as ugly. We're used to being talked about in this very nasty way these days. All that said, I don't think Nia should not have used the word "stupid" in her posting to you; I think that was rude, and I've probably been rude to you as well. And I apologize for that. At the same time, you've jumped to conclusions several times that she was calling you a racist, which I don't believe she's done, although she (and others) have challenged you on your acceptance of practices that many people believe are racist. That's not personal. The truth is, democracy and tough dialogue is not always rosy and polite. Your postings frustrate us, I think, because we so want Mississippi to move past all these race games, and then Barbour comes along and uses the flag (you forgot to mention the "Attacking Our Flag" TV ad, or all those mailers) in a way that just sets us back all over again. It literally gives me a stomach ache to see the state's voters used in such a way. And it's hard to hear you excuse that tactic as you do. I've said many times that I can't know whether someone is racist "in his heart," as people say -- but what matters is their actions. And Barbour's actions in this campaign were dispicable. You assure us that Barbour is going to be good for the state, but I don't recall a specific way that you've presented that he's going to be. There seems to be an assumption that a Republican with contacts in Washington -- many of whom are getting beat up now for incompetency and cheating; seen the latest Halliburton news? -- is going to do good things in the state. How do we know that? And how do we know that education isn't going to be the first thing he cuts as he tries to deal with the budget problems without raising taxes, or even coming close to considering progressive taxation?

ladd

Nov 6 2003

I do wish you would keep posting, and I encourage you not to take the postings too personally, as we all try hard not to do (I often have to sit on my hands at some things people say to me, and probably should more often ). These are diffficult topics, and they're going to touch nerves sometimes. But they are vital to talk about -- especially the race issues. We've too long avoided them, and they've just festered. Thanks to Mr. Barbour, they are widely back in the open right now, and I think we can take advantage of that fact to engage in some difficult dialogue. If you can, take a deep breath and stay with us. You, too, Nia. This is a very important opportunity for us all.

ladd

Nov 6 2003

I find it very disturbing that everyone brings up racism and sexism(now?) with Haley but few remember the destructive homophobic decisions enforced by Musgrove that decidedly hurt both gay families and children in need of adoption (there are plenty). They both pander to the religious right and the money they harbour... Honestly, they are both pigs and I'd rather have good ol' Arnold S. for Governor than the lot of them... To make things worse, all this talk about racism, homophobia, and sexism will obviously NOT enlighten the people of Mississippi in the timelines so many bloggers/readers want/need. Our "good ol' boy" Trent has made it obvious that the majority of Mississippians could care less about the affiliations and attitudes of our policy makers. If his bad press did not swing voters away, I seriously doubt a rebel flag or a racist affiliation would harm Barbour... It is not surprising at all! Progression is a slow thing to build. It is evident why the "flight" from Mississippi is such a popular, permanent vacation. Sadly, there seems to be no quick way to reduce the seats on that outbound "flight."

Knol Aust

Nov 6 2003

Knol, I'm not sure how pointing out problems with Haley means that we think Musgrove doesn't have his faults. As many of us have said on these blogs, Musgrove ain't no prize either. As for me, I don't think I'd wish the Governator on MS quite. While I applaud the fact that he diverges with many of republican brethren on issues of abortion rights and gay rights, I'm not sure he's going to be any good at actually governing. But, I'll be watching to see how it turns out... Progress is slow, but I would argue that "all this talk" is better than not talking at all. I've personally learned a whole lot from these blogs (which is why I'm so addicted).

Kate

Nov 6 2003

[Exhale.] Donna's right: It was very rude of me to suggest that Fielding is stupid. But it is infuriating to see the kind of behavior Barbour exhibited throughout the campaign excused away as if it were nothing. As that old saying goes, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Race-baiting IS a problem, and people who make excuses for it, or worse engage in it, are THE problem. Every time someone makes an excuse for that kind of destructive behavior, it's like telling the victim, "You imagined it. It didn't really happen. Forget about it. It doesn't mean anything." Well it does mean something; and it ain't good. It's hypocritical of Fielding to take me to task for my comments about race-baiting on both ends of the political spectrum and not be the least bit offended by the crap that Barbour spewed during his campaign. Donna's right about something else, too: This kind of "work" is trying for all involved. It's trying because people have spent too long making excuses for behavior like Barbour's and Sharpton's. But that's why it's SO important that we do it NOW. Putting it off only feeds everyone's frustrations. The tension only gets tighter.

Nia

Nov 6 2003

Nia, thanks for exhaling. Hopefully, Fielding will, too, and rejoin us. He can talk to me, and I'll talk to you. The point about real discussion being difficult is worth emphasizing. I, too, wear rose-colored glasses in the sense that I believe in the good in people, and I believe in positive approaches to fixing problems and so on. I also believe in tackling them; I'm a do-er. So often, people talk at each other, or don't even bother to do that. They just talk to people who agree with them in order to affirm what they already believe. That's clearly not good enough for any of us or, frankly, to preserve our precarious democratic experiment. It's easy to decide you believe something and then only surround youself with people who agree with you, so that you're never challenged. It's happened often on both ends of the spectrum, from communism to facism and in between, and that's where abuse and false prophets sprout up, repeating back to you what you want to easily believe even as they engage in nefarious (I'm using that word too much lately) goals. This thing we're attempting in America isn't easy -- as Bob Moses said on the anniversary of the Neshoba County murders this year, America is about struggle. And that struggle must be about calling people of whatever political bent out on accepting dogma too easily, and at least challenging them to explain their reasoning. I know that trying to explain my own logic has often shown me where it's faulty or misinformed. What's hard for me this week is to hear people now try to pretend that Barbour's race-pandering never happened. It's as if they're trying to throw it down that Orwellian memory-hole and pretend it wasn't real. How many times have we seen this selective memory at work in Mississippi? We Mississippians *have* to call it out, even if that makes people uncomfortable. If not, it'll never stop.

ladd

Nov 6 2003

And it is absolutely true that Nia is willing on this blog to call out absolutely anyone -- from Barbour to Sharpton -- whom she believes is doing this kind of race-pandering. That is admirable to me, even if she gets a little excessively pissy from time to time, especially with Fielding. But I happen to know Fielding (or I used to back in college) and I know Nia from the blog: I think it's amazing that they're even engaging in this conversation, even if they have some hurt feelings along the way. So I really do hope Fielding comes back, so we can keep learning from their dialogue. To Knol -- and welcome back; your voice has been missed -- it is very true that Musgrove hasn't enjoyed a place of honor on these blogs, either. But perhaps your voice will add another dimension. I think one person has mentioned Barbour's sexism; perhaps it is your role to bring in a perspective about homophobia? You're certainly welcome to do that, and the rest of us would likely benefit. We need many different voices represented here. Agreed that progression can be slow, and it has been in Mississippi. Certainly, I would argue (again) that Barbour's 54 percent is better than 66 or 77 percent going for his race-laden message, so maybe another brick or two has been laid. And it may well be that Trent's bad press might have cost Barbour some votes. We have no way of knowing. As you say, it takes time, but that's no reason to give up and take flight. Something is, indeed, going on here ...

ladd

Nov 6 2003

True, I am pissier (is that a word?) with Fielding than with others--because it's clear he knows better. He's smart enough and seems to be thoughtful enough to see through the bulls***. I challenge him because I believe he is capable of rising to it. I don't believe people are evil at heart (well, maybe a few), but I do believe people can learn hateful habits. Mississippi has a serious race problem. Its people--black and white--need to unlearn their bad habits. And it starts with admitting that there's a problem.

Nia

Nov 6 2003

Certainly, I agree that the Republican Party could be formidable if smart people like Fielding would reject race-pandering, and return to a willingness to reject the outright corporatization of America, which will probably bring the GOP down quicker than the race stuff (unfortunately) -- especially in times when it looks more and more like American soldiers are dying to bolster corporate profits. Certainly, the old Republican Party was admirable in many ways, and a future one that starts liking and respecting Americans, and actual free enterprise, again could be as well. If that ever does occur, the Dems are going to be in real trouble, especially if they don't stop trying to be fake Republicans, and start themselves rediscovering the populist, anti-corporate spirit. It's about people, stupid!

ladd

Nov 6 2003

How did this happen, Democrats morphing in to faux Republicans? When did this start? (Where's Philip with those stats?) Also, class is becoming bigger than race. And I would say that the issue of middle-class, two-parent-income-households-but-still-can't-afford-a-house poverty will ultimately bring down the GOP machine if it doesn't change. There's a great book, Power Politics by Arhundati Roi, that talks a lot about the corporatization of countries. The series of essays in the book focuses on India, but the same lessons apply here. One of the book's essays eerily foretells Enron's doom.

Nia

Nov 6 2003

Donna - college students (at least at millsaps) are difficult ones to get riled up these days. I know that most of the students here don't vote, but even more importantly they really have no feeling about a lot of issues. It's been discouraging to me for the last few years to be in such a passive atmosphere, but lately I'm seeing it as more of a blessing. It's a good chance to try to open more eyes. Right not, I'm in the process of trying to organize some college-aged kids into some sort of group with a grass-roots activism sort of focus. I know Dillon has become popular with a few Millsaps students, so I'm assuming they have some interest in community oriented things. One thing I'm particularly interested in is just communal efforts. My friend Jason and I have been working together to produce a zine (diy publication, basically) and starting up various clubs (book, movie, etc). Other than that, I'm not sure what sort of things would lure more college students into being more active. I definitely want to begin dissiminating education of all sorts, though, so any suggestions are welcome. things i know that kids at millsaps like: - beer - liquor - parties all we have to do is find out how to spike the alcohol with knowledge and we're good to go :)

casey

Nov 6 2003

and in reference to blacks voting for barbour: i've had similar debates with friends of mine about why some gay people vote for republicans. in my (albeit young) opinion, I really think a lot of it boils down to money. Bush may liken homosexuals to pedofiles or other awful things, but in the end - he's willing to give rich people a tax break. It's really sad to me how money can completely override morality, but it happens. As for Musgrove's homophobic comments, I agree. When faced with this "lesser of two evils" type ballot, though, that should be an even larger indication that change needs to occur outside of the big dogs. If the only people we have running are people linked to non-pc rants, we need to be working from the inside... of course people with better hearts aren't going to run all the time. Most people don't have the sort of money to compete with 10Mil Barbour, and they certainly can't carry out a great grass-roots funding call unless we work from the inside to change public mindset. / end rant

casey

Nov 6 2003

I can see why gay people vote for Republicans. What I can't figure out is why gay people vote for homophobic Republicans who either think gay people are genetic errors or that they're sinful heathens. I can also see why some black people vote for Republicans. But what I can't figure out is why some of them vote for neoNazi-elbow-rubbing Republicans.

Nia

Nov 6 2003

i cant understand why neonazi-elbow rubbing repubs still exist

casey

Nov 7 2003

That, too, is a puzzle.

Nia

Nov 7 2003

I know a gay Republican that claims the party as his own. When challenged, his response is that of most "good Christians" -- "It's how I grew up and what I identify with...." So, of course, being an antagonist, I challenged him. No shifting at all. He voted for Bush knowing the negatives and potential threats to the gay community and women's rights. Further, he listens to alot of conservative talk radio though I would never classify him as "conservative." Hell, more people would probably classify me as conservative before him! Actually, I know of more than a few gays that voted Republican this last round and will probably continue regardless of the 1984-ish consequences faced by their community. Even through heated debate, I've had no luck swaying their votes or discovering the dire need to vote a particular party (when it comes to the "pink vote"). I guess a Republican mentality is a hard thing to shake... Even for someone whose lifestyle and community is being threatened by it... Hope that made some sense... I should not be in front of my G4 this early without java. ;-)

Knol Aust

Nov 7 2003

To Casey: Well, I think the fact is that the Republican Party can't get (or, more impotantly, don't think they can get) a majority of voters in the country without two factors at play: (1) making deals with the devil to draw a large hard fundamentalist and/or racist vote and (2) a whole bunch of Americans staying home. I truly believe that the current GOP has gotten about all the new voters it can get without making major changes -- which isn't true for the Dem Party if they'd figure it out. There are certainly "moderate" Republicans, especially outside the South, who would prefer that the party cut off its nasty arm and become a more inclusive, nice party, but frankly I don't particularly respect them because they close their eyes and go along with the Southern Strategy just like everyone else. I had a huge argument with a Republican friend in New York City a couple years back about what he was going along with -- and he just didn't want to accept the deals that are being made by his party, especially down here in our neck of the woods. Although these deals are in the wide open if people will take off their blinders. And Southerners just go along with it, not realizing that it's the ultimate insult to us. As a region, we are so USED. In some ways, today's GOP faces a similar problem to today's Democratic Party: they want to fight for the votes that are already there, by any means necessary (although Dems usually don't go quite as far down the nasty road). This problem, though, is killing our political system and, I would argue, our democracy. I predict that whichever party gets the balls first to really talk to people again and try to incite new voters and dump the nasty weight will be the next strong party to dominate for a while. But they have to be willing to stop pandering to ugliness, and they have to be willing to court new voters. And they have to be willing to thumb their noses at out-of-control corporations. We have to have checks and balances! This means that the GOP in its current form and the New Democrats (DLC) all need to fall by the wayside IMHO. I initially had hope for them initially, but the New Democrats make me madder than the GOP -- they're not progressive moderates; they are fake Republicans -- but we're going to malk about that today on the "Confederacy of Dunces" blog (see: PoliticsBlog, front page).

ladd

Nov 7 2003

Right now, Howard Dean is one of the few candidates who is willing to step outside the box and talk directly to people. He's not perfect, and I don't believe in every one of his ideas, but he is a populist candidate who doesn't try fit neatly into the corporate party box. Whether or not we decide the vote for Dean (and I haven't, yet), this is the type of renegade candidates we need these days in order to take back the system and grow a new pool of voters, which is vital. And, Knol, I see your frustration over gay Republicans ignoring their own interests. But for many of them, I suspect, greed is a very powerful force just as for other people, right? Isn't the average income quite high in the gay community?

ladd

Nov 7 2003

Donna, I was actually thinking about that as I downed my morning juice. The gay folks I know are all in the low to mid income range. While they might make more than the average Mississippian (which isn't that much... isn't it like 19,000?), they still do not make enough to see the breaks often afforded and approved by the Republican party. That being said, many still vote Republican. Ironically, the ones I know that do make enough to get a break tend to lean towards the Democratic party and are very charity oriented. So, there is more to it than money, apparantly. It completely baffles me. It's like being gay and Southern Baptist while the SBC is going out of its way to ostracize the gay community using political power... It seems some people are simply TOO comfortable to change or are too scared to change -- gay or straight.

Knol Aust

Nov 7 2003

Donna, Were the gay people you talked to born or raised within a 4 hour drive of Jackson? If so, they may be conservative on economic, foreign policy, national defense, and perhaps even affirmative action issues (though I intuitively think a bit less of the latter) -- but liberal on gay-specific ones.

Philip

Nov 7 2003

I think you're right. And tradition runs strong in the South, even the traditions that don't help us a whole helluva lot. Frankly, I think those local gay Republicans are short-sighted economically as well: as Todd talks about in his coverage of the "Creative Class" concept, cities that remake themselves must be tolerant -- of young people, of people of various races and religions, and yes of alternative lifestyles. It always befuddles me: You'd think that more conservative southerners would condone gay marriage in order to cut back on promiscuity if nothing else. But I fully realize that it's one of the sins that are still considered a sin, unlike some of the others that have been let go out of convenience or whatever.

ladd

Nov 7 2003

i agree knol - being republican is a really hard thing to shake - esp. when guilt is so infused into it. I'm in no way anti-Christian, but it's a doctrine full of guilt and iminent punishment (provided you do the "wrong" thing). A lot of the gay people I know (myself included) have struggled with a sort of civil war within themselves over what they feel actually isn't wrong and what they're taught. in the end, i think voting republican / going to church is sometimes just easier because it appears to be more moral. that and people don't pay enough attention to what actually happens and momma and daddy say GW is a good boy.

casey

Nov 7 2003

As for letting go of tradition -- The Deep South (especially the small towns) is the photo negative of San Francisco - they worship it!! Often, they get suckered into the same sugar-sweet marketing of that tradition as many of us do - to the point where it almost has a cult-like hold on those people (I certainly was one of those in my youth). Even if they do disagree with the traditions, they may lie or water down their true feelings so that they don't get people p.o.'ed and themselves ostracized I think the Culture of Honor is the root of a big part of this fear. (see my 6:00-6:30 pm posts from Nov 6 for more http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=1945_0_9_0_C )

Philip

Nov 7 2003

Philip, I actually appreciate it when groups aren't monolithic in their views, and individuals are willing to look issues and decide for themselves outside their own self interests. (Imagine.) But I do get a little confused by members of the gay community going along with a party that holds them so in contempt and considers them biological errors and worse. That seems extreme to me. And as Knol is pointing out, many gays here aren't benefitted by the GOP top-down economic strategies. Plus, it's getting harder to see every day why anyone would support the administration's policies, even if they are more prone to support wars than others. You'd think few people would support wars waged in such an apparently floundering way, even if they believe it's for a good cause or for national defense. On that topic, did you hear that another American helicopter has been shot down? As for affirmative action, certainly I've known gays and lesbians who seem focused on their own rights more than others -- but this is the case for every group. And, again, groups that are discriminated against often are, or certainly should be, more sympathetic to the needs of other minorities. But there are arguments against affirmative action that I don't happen to agree with, but that certainly can convince some folks. Just meandering through my thoughts; I need another cup of coffee. G'mornin, BTW.

ladd

Nov 7 2003

Casey: "being republican is a really hard thing to shake - esp. when guilt is so infused into it." While I agree with this line, you could also say the same thing about any political ideology in which guilt is infused into it (Lord knows I've heard plenty of guilt-tripping left-leaning propaganda in my life!!). (The religion comments) I say something similar with regard to political parties. That's all I'm gonna say about it, since I don't intend to participate in any religion fights that may happen in here - let alone actually instigate one

Philip

Nov 7 2003

Also, Philip, I like your "Culture of Honor" entry. That is certainly a problem these days -- and we see it on these blogs. People are so afraid of offending others that they don't speak up. I think it also comes into play when, say, white people are afraid to attend "black" events out of being concerned about doing something wrong, rather than out of racism. I constantly say to people, "Just be afraid to mess up." It's worth it to LIVE life, reject fear and say what's on your mind. Talk about true freedom. I tell you, I never would have escaped my native cocoon, figuratively, or learned anything had I not been willing to mess up and look like an idiot. When I first left Neshoba County, I was so afraid of looking stupid, or offending someone that I would hold so much inside. Then when it came out, it exploded out in a way that did offend people because I was so angry by then. Now I consider fear my own worst enemy. It 's certainly the enemy of a free society. As you can tell from the blogs, I'm a huge believer in talking about difficult topics. Sure, we need to refrain from overt nastiness, and we need to be willing to apologize when we go too far -- but not going there at all is horrifying to me. Consider this an invitation to our silent mass of readers ... ;-D

ladd

Nov 7 2003

I've tried, unsuccessfully so far, to get my SO to post. He's content to lurk; he doesn't want to be called an "outside agitator." His take on the politics thread would be nice to share because his perspective is that of a former politician from Europe. I've been thinking about Philip's Culture of Honor post since he made it yesterday. That's another book I have to add to my reading list. I didn't know that violence rates among Southern whites were higher than other groups within the South. Interesting theory. I'm holding out hope for the Republican party. [Don't laugh!] I know an active cadre of gay people here in NY who "call themselves" Republicans. They actively work within the party to change the party line. Admirable, futile perhaps, but admirable. If I had a ton of cash to give 'em, they'd get every penny! I'd love to see the look on W's face, having to meet with them or their successors to curry favor!

Nia

Nov 7 2003

While we speculate racism, sexism and homophobia in our current political state, it humbles me to see that a city having a population of blacks totalling 1% just voted in a gay, black mayor. While it is in California, it is apparant something besides the "race card" won this election. Maybe our politicians should take note... Gay black man wins mayorís race -- MSNBC

Knol Aust

Nov 7 2003

Actually, Nia, I wouldn't call Bush himself all that homophobic, if at all. A lot of his religous right political supporters are though.

Philip

Nov 7 2003

I think the republican party is headed for a shake up in the next decade or so. One thing that struck me when I was in California last month, right before the recall vote, was that Schwarzenegger kept referring to himself as a 'conservative' - not a republican. Which made alot of sense to me, because I think he was trying to say what my brother once told me - he's a fiscal republican (in the older sense of the term republican, as in the party of fiscal responsibility and free enterprise, not the party of budget deficits, big government and corporate subsidy). But not a 'social' republican - as in, not part of the religious right, not looking to legislate morality. It seems to me (based only on my personal hope and experience) that there are alot of Republicans who would really like to get back to being the party of small government and fiscal responsibility, rather than being the party of the religious right. That being said, I think there are some people, not of the religious right, who nevertheless view the Republican Party as being more 'christian/moral/virtuous' than the Democrats/secularists. And so we get these examples of Gays supporting republican agendas, at the expense of their own rights and freedoms, and so forth. It's an attempt to identify with the party that loudly proclaims its religious values (even when it's not practicing them).

Kate

Nov 7 2003

Knol, thanks for the info on the gay black mayor. And Palm Springs, while in California, is not exactly a bastion of liberalism, so it's good news. The best since the confirmation of Bishop Robinson last week. And, I have to say, I love the newscasters that say he's the first 'openly' gay Bishop, implying that there have been other, closeted, gay Bishops.

Kate

Nov 7 2003

Philip: That's what I meant actually, about Bush. I wasn't saying that he's homophobic, but that it would curl his hair to have to meet with gay people to curry favor thus openly defying the religious right among his party. I agree, Kate. I think the Republican party is due for a shake-up. It is very telling that Arnold describes himself as a "conservative." He**, by his definition I'm a conservative. I'm very liberal on social issues (way left), but I do think we spend way too much. We can be a civil society without spending ourselves into debt for decades to come.

Nia

Nov 7 2003

While Bush has steered clear of appearing "homophobic" via actions, he certainly has stated he would amend the Constitution to make sure gays and lesbians can not marry if the bill came across his desk. Basically, I would call that type of statement an invitation for the legislators to get the bill moving. Homophobic or not, he certainly is giving special governmental rights to men and women that choose to bond and wants to make sure it stays that way. On the topic of homophobia, has everyone heard that the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) has declared war on "the homosexual agenda" and plans to make homosexuality a leading issue in the run for Presidency? I predict a very ugly scenario that might just rival our recent elections!

Knol Aust

Nov 7 2003

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Dick Cheney's daughter a lesbian?

Ex

Nov 7 2003

You are right about her lesbianism, Ex... That's what makes it all the more trivial to me. Actually during the run-offs, Cheney wanted little spotlight on that fact and generally refused to talk about it (fearing it could damage the campaign). Good "family values" at work. ;-)

Knol Aust

Nov 7 2003

There was a discussion of that strategy on another thread, Knol. The Republican party has stated as much also.

Nia

Nov 7 2003

I agree that leftist politics are also very infused with guilt. politics as a whole concentrate too much on guilt, probably, so that's why people tend to stay in one mindset. as for Bush not being homophobic - WHAT?!?! His classifications alone warrant a second look, but what's this about marriage week? He outright has called homosexuality a sin (which I'd like to debate with him) and really intends to make sure they don't have equal marriage rights. But you're right - I don't think he would ever beat a gay person up or participate in any direct slandering, but sometimes his actions hurt just as much. And I dont really think he's all that evil of a man. I think he's not the smartest guy ever and doesn't know how to run a country. As far as Cheney's daughter - from what I know, they basically made her resign as head of the gay republicans and begged her to be quiet about it. I'm not sure what the desired effect is, though, as I think it's a little strange that Dick Gephardt is parading his gay daughter as his love for homosexuals but simultaneously not interested in full gay rights. sigh

casey

Nov 7 2003

At first I was able to tolerate Democrats. When they elected Jimmy Carter in the '70s, they were objects of amusement. That was just silly. In the '80s they did nothing. In the '90s when they perpetrated the biggest fraud in history in the form of electing the uberliar Clinton, I began to find them annoying. But now, with the rank hatred they display for our President, I am beginning to find Democrats extremely distasteful. I think the recent elections reflect a lot of people like me. Democrats better wake up. Looks like they are planning the suicide of their party by nominating the evil other half of the disgusting Clinton duo. Then, I'm sure I'll just find them laughable.

Tom Petty

Nov 7 2003

You know, TP, you're the one that's laughable. Where to begin? Carter is anything but silly, and I'd be more than happy to have him in office again. He's shown more intelligence and humanity than any other president in the last 30 years. Uberliar Clinton, as the biggest fraud in history? Not even close. Republicans gave us Nixon, gave us Reagan/Oliver North and the Iran/Contra deals. And now we've got Bush screaming about WMDs, except for when he's backpedalling. And I can't even figure out who you're referring to as the 'evil other half' that we're nominating. I guess you mean Hillary Clinton, but, in case you haven't noticed, she's not running for President. And you know, I don't really hate Bush. I kind of pity him, for being such an idiot, and in so far over his head. The only statement I agree with is that the Democrats better wake up. I think the Democratic party has alot of problems it needs to overcome. Just a whole lot more palatable ones than those faced by the republicans.

Kate

Nov 7 2003

I think that was a flame, Kate. But you've obviously got your firefighting gear on because now there's just smoke.

Nia

Nov 7 2003

Nah, that wasn't a flame. That was just Tom Petty auditioning for Ann Coulter's job -- trying to outclass the master, er, mistress. ;-D Nice firefighting, though, Kate.

ladd

Nov 7 2003

I couldn't decide whether to post this under Confederate Dunces or this Blog... ;-) Hinds election commission throws out all ballots in Forest Hill precinct Hinds County residents who voted Tuesday at Forest Hill United Methodist Church will not have their ballots counted. The poll manager, Frank McGowan, and precinct workers decided to key in votes written on as many as 546 paper ballots on the voting machines, members of the Hinds County Elections Commission said. Poll workers, however, are not allowed to re-cast ballots for voters, the commission said.

Knol Aust

Nov 7 2003

One more thing about the Treasurer election. I went to the trouble of determining roughly where the white vote for Andeson was strongest (NOT professionally, I warn you. I am NOWHERE NEAR a professional statistician despite my interest in stats!) Let's say that in my simplistic way that I concluded that NE Miss is the center of white support for Anderson despite it being a largely Barbour area, not to mention the whitest area of the state. BTW, even in all but my worst case scenarios, Lafayette still showed a sizable white vote.

Philip

Nov 10 2003

Has Anderson said anything since the election about why he think he lost?

Nia

Nov 10 2003

Not that I'm aware of. Anyone else? Remind me, Philip, about Lafayette County's party/candidate breakdowns. I'm sorry if you've said it already. I'm on deadline and don't have time to re-read the blogs.

ladd

Nov 10 2003

Donna, As of Nov 5 at 2:30 p.m., the results are as follows for Lafayette Co. Musgrove: 4,716 ; Barbour: 6,172 ; Others: 149 (Barbour with 55.9%) Anderson: 5,477 ; Reeves: 5,013 ; Dilworth 141 (Anderson with 51.5%) FYI: Lafayette is 71% White

Philip

Nov 10 2003

Philip: That's kind of surprising that Oxford voted so heavily for Anderson. What about Lee, Clay, Lowndes, and Monroe counties (in the Golden Trianlge)?

Nia

Nov 10 2003

BTW, can I compliment all the regulars on taking a much-deserved blogging break this weekend. Were we intellectually fried after all that election-related debate, or what!? Happy Monday, all. Glad to see everyone rested and perky again. ;-)

ladd

Nov 10 2003

Intellectually fried, emotionally exhausted, all of the above. I thought I'd have to do a lot of catching up on weekend posts. Not. You commented somewhere about us doing "political therapy." I think that's a good description of what we did over the past couple of weeks. Not sure if we had a breakthrough or a breakdown--or what that makes me!--but I hope we're the better for it. :-)

Nia

Nov 10 2003

Nia The raw figures are right here http://www.clarionledger.com/news/election2003/index.html Lee went fairly heavily for Reeves, Lowndes went for him too, though with much less a margin. Anderson took Clay handily, Monroe by less of a margin. As for the % of white vote that went for Anderson, I really hesitate to say with certainty because with my method, the higher the Black population, the less accurate it gets. I only trust my method with "super-white" counties (like Tishomingo and Alcorn). However, I will hazzard a guess that it's not uncommon to run across White votes for Anderson in the GT (not the majority, but a pretty noticable minority). If you want something more definite, I can give it to you, but accept a VERY wide margin of error if you do.

Philip

Nov 10 2003

Thanks, Philip. I'm just curious about the numbers, curious why those counties tended toward Anderson and Musgrove. I'm wondering if it's because those counties have very active Democratic grass roots organizers. Race may be less of a factor--negatively or positively. I'm thinking it may be because the people in these counties are more civically engaged. You think?

Nia

Nov 10 2003

Nia: Philip: That's kind of surprising that Oxford voted so heavily for Anderson. It's not that much of a surprise. He's from Byhalia in neighboring Marshall County and is an Ole Miss alum.

Ex

Nov 10 2003

I didn't know he was from Byhalia or that he was an Ole Miss alum. Why do you think the GT counties favored him though?

Nia

Nov 10 2003

My initial off hand observation-- I'd say the reason why Anderson did better in the northern part of the state is regionalism. Since Anderson is from north Mississippi, he was considered a local candidate.

Ex

Nov 10 2003

Ex, Thanks for that bit of info. I'd say that explains a large part of it. On the other hand (and I'm going out on a limb by saying this) he did a little better among whites in the south end of the state than in the central part (Reeves' home). On the other hand, imagine how wide the margin would have been if this campaign took place 20 years ago!!

Philip

Nov 10 2003