Reply #71: ok

[TexasPatriot]

for number 1, a lot of what i talk about in texas goes for a lot of the southern urban growth centers - like Atlanta. The math changes a lot when you get into the Mississippi's of the world - and those are tough nuts at this point - and that's where the idea that the south can be lumped into a bucket breaks down. Reston has almost NOTHING to do with what Reston looked like in 78. Florida has undergone massive demographic changes in the same period. We really have to get into a lot of little specifics to make the conversation valuable.

96 was interesting - again he won without a mandate and couldnt effect the sort of change that would have made the dem core happy. In a way, i blame them for not voting for him. Remember, Clinton faced a pub congress, he had to live in conflict every day. Honestly, by 96 - there were some in the dem party that thought things were sittin pretty, and with unions on the decline they thought they could carve out a party right in the middle and marginalize the pubs. Might have worked... but, well, then we got the mess.

Carter in 80... man, i dont know if FDR could have won against Reagan in 80. That one was just going to be ugly.

Gore. The Gore campaign screwed up, and only Gore's running back into key states and the end and breaking ranks with some of his advisors and almost pulled it off (or pulled it off depending on which SCOTUS opinion you read). The pub core was already energized, and Gore ran a centrist campaign that didnt get the dem core excited to vote for him. They stayed home. Even then as things got close down to the wire, enough made a protest vote by not voting, or voting for nader, that he was quashed. He should have run left rather than center. I said it then - (at the time, my online screaming confined to the f*#&edcompany boards - which were remarkably political) - but it didnt matter. Today we see the obverse - our base is enraged already. There are already so many people that hate * the SOB, you're not going to convert any more. Gore had the best economy in the century to run on - and he ran a bland 'i agree with him' campaign (excepting for the few exasperated debate sighs that he caught so much crap for). Like i said - Gore's problem was simply that there were more angry anti-clinton pubs in the south than his meager turnout could offset. We enrage the pubs who are currently somewhat lulled at our peril.

4 - suburbs. The issue is that the suburbs are rife with fear. 9-11 scared the crap out of em - which is why they voted in droves for pubs when Bush in the offyear congressional election played the fear card. Clark represents a candidate they will feel a lot more comfortable with - so whereas they may not vote FOR him, they wont necessarily get up and vote against him. Clark has a positive campaign, he's running with crossover appeal without the anger. There's no energy to excite the pubs against him - and in the non-suburbs he'll bring people to the polls others will have trouble exciting. There's a big dem GOTV advantage and pub GOTV disadvantage when you play Clark.