By now we've all heard the reasons Democrats have lost elections for the past four decades.  Frames.  Memes.  Defined by opponents.  Attack ads.  Political capitulations.  Weak on defense.  And crime.  And the voters are stupid.  Oh, and the media are biased.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that all of the above are the politics of mass distraction.  The real reason Democrats lost elections for the past four decades?  Just three:

Racism.  Sexism.  Organization.

Please join me over the fold....

I have not supported a Republican candidate since John Lindsay ran for Mayor of New York. By support I don't only mean vote or campaign for, I mean even have a modicum of regard for. And I am not referring only to candidates for whom I was eligible to vote, I am referring to all Republican politicians of whom I am or was aware for at least the last thirty years, with the possible exception of a few tortured souls who are still Republicans only out of a foolish sense of loyalty to a party that has long since abandoned the principles for which they originally joined it. My real problem with Republican politicians of the last thirty or more years is the way they derive their power and that they do it knowingly. To borrow a recent phrase of McCain's and modify it slightly, they would rather divide a nation than lose an election.  

So, this is the legacy you want, John McCain?

You did not start the race division between the Republican and Democratic Parties, but you are feeding it generously.  We can most likely find its birth in the moments after Lyndon Johnson had addressed Congress, advocating for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and uttering three words that transformed the political divide for the next 43 years.

He looked out at his colleagues and the nation and said, "We shall overcome." [ LBJ video ]

Mike Barnicle on MSNBC is dumbfounded today. He didn't see any of the racial subtext in the Britney Spears and Paris Hilton ad. Why, he asks, would John McCain want to woo crazy racist voters who would vote for him anyway? He should look in the mirror for his answer.

I'm sitting here listening to "Katrina" -- Dr. Michael White's brilliant jazz dirge -- and pondering the McCain campaign's accusation that Barack Obama introduced race into the campaign with a "negative, abhorrent, nasty, vicious comment." (Obama said Republicans would try to scare voters by questioning his patriotism and "funny name" and by pointing out he doesn't "look like those other presidents on those dollar bills.")

"We know what kind of campaign [Republicans are] going to run. They’re going to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced, and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’"

Barack Obama

"Kerry with a tan."

Just what in the heck is going on at Fox News with that "terrorist fist bump" and  "baby mama" crapola?

Just how racially divisive can one "news" channel be? After all, back in 2005, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman publicly stated "It's not healthy for the country for our political parties to be so racially polarized,", and went on to apologize for their past political tactic known as the "Southern Strategy".

But then again FoxNews isn't the GOP. Or are they?

This is the first of a four part series about where Obama should compete and how well he does in each area of the country (South, Midwest, West, Other).
The South
One of Obama's best regions to pick off states is the south because of McCain's weakness among social conservatives who are the majority of republicans in many of these states, and large african american populations. I doubt Obama sweeps the south, but I could see him winning 4 or 5 southern states. In many of the states, the black population is larger than the number of votes that Bush got in 04. I think Obama has a shot at winning every southern state with a black population more than 30% or a large number of liberal whites or college kids.

The south has a lot of republican corruption (esp. Florida) and Obama should get people to stand at the polling places and make sure there's no suppression of the vote for every voting precinct in the south, and Obama should work on registering black voters and young voters throughout the south.

If you haven't read it yet, check out George Packer's essay in this week's New Yorker magazine titled "The Fall of Conservativism."  It is an obituary and a chilling history lesson well worth reading in its entirety.

But what I want to highlight is a section on the work of a young political strategist named Patrick Buchanan in advising Richard Nixon.  Of course, we all know about "the southern strategy" and "the silent majority," but it is quite revealing to read the original and specific language that was used to launch these initiatives, especially when the author is still enjoying a seat at the table, still deploying a powerful megaphone to do EXACTLY what is indicated in the title of his 1971 memorandum:  "Dividing the Democrats."  Follow me below the jump for the full quote:

The Southern Strategy worked well for the right wing for years. Used effectively to divide our society it's now been honed to rob votes from the Democratic presidential candidate in a more subtle fashion than before. Derived from the same class of society that formed the KKK, and used to the same political end, the question is whether or not the "new IMPROVED Southern Strategy" can work as effectively as the original.

Only time will tell how well it'll work. And whether or not they'll openly admit it, the same cadre's reverting to the same type of  whisper campaign which they used against John McCain in 2000. After all, it works better at attracting one class of folks to support them far better than their policies. At the same time, it also suppresses the votes of another segment of our society.

Although the Republican party openly admitted to using racial tactics when they apologized for what they termed was their "Southern Strategy", the apology was little more than a political ploy. Who can forget when well-heeled oil execs supported then-Texas governor Bush, financing their massive push poll and leaflet-drop campaign?

The Republican Party is doomed, and they know it.

This is from the political blog, Last Kaul.

I'm every bit as sensitive to racism as the next liberal who grew up in the suburbs and attended a Big-10 university.  By which I mean, I've rarely seen it in person and pretty much never had it practiced upon my person.  I am, however, aware that it exists in America.  To argue otherwise would be the height of folly.  It would be like claiming we never landed on the moon and citing as proof the fact that I wasn't there as an eyewitness.  It would be analogous to insisting global warming was a Green Party scare tactic, evidenced by this past week's unusually cool temperatures in my hometown of New York City.  It would be a non-starter.

Now, by no means am I national political strategist. However, I have some strong feelings on why we should focus on the South this fall. I think that we failed miserably in the last two by writing off a lot of these states. I am particularly pushing Vivian Figures running for U.S. Senate from Alabama and ask that you help me meet my goal today of $2,000. For what we have done for some others in different regions, I really think that this is important and I will share my reasoning.

http://www.actblue.com/...

I'll start pushing a Georgia candidate if you can help me with Figures in Alabama.

Both Obama and Hillary missed an opportunity when they went on Fox News only to be questioned about Rev. Wright.  They could have turned it around to a discussion of Republican politician's, right wing talk radio, and even Fox News own far more  extensive and virulent history of racist remarks and actions.

Corn is the one thing America can produce cheaper than Mexico can.  Illegal immigration exploded in the wake of NAFTA, and corn is largely to blame for our immigration problem.  Mexicans eat a lot of corn, and they used to support a lot of maize farmers.  NAFTA changed that.  A Democratic response to NAFTA can energize unions, appeal to Latino voters concerned about loved ones across the border by promising to improve the Mexican economy.

Southwestern moderates view McCain favorably on immigration, but not his party base.  By going on the offensive with immigration in IN and NC Dems can attack the Republican base in new swing states, build bridges between unions and Latinos, and frame the immigration debate for the fall.

Lanny Davis' loathing screed has already been documented here and elsewhere, so I won't go into the details. I'd rather discuss the mocking that it is getting elsewhere.

Racism in the campaign--racists attach Obama over, well, not much of anything.