If Democrats look away from Dixie, winning White House may be tough

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/nation/7354865.htm

PHILADELPHIA - (KRT) - Fearing that their next presidential nominee could bomb in Dixie, many Democrats are hinting that it might be smart for the party to virtually write off the Deep South and pursue victory elsewhere.

Officially, Democrats declare that they will compete with President Bush everywhere in the nation. But, privately, there is serious concern that their nominee will lose every state of the Old Confederacy, with the possible exception of Florida - a scenario that seems especially likely if they choose Howard Dean, the antiwar Vermont Yankee who, as governor, signed a bill legalizing gay civil unions.

A Dixie strategy has always seemed essential; no Democrat has ever been elected president without winning at least a few Southern states. But, faced with Bush's strong popularity in that GOP-trending region, Democratic operatives seem willing to entertain a strategy that would defy history: assembling an Electoral College majority from states in the Northeast, Midwest, Southwest and on the West Coast. After all, their 2000 nominee, Al Gore, almost pulled it off.

Many Democrats seem tempted by the idea. On a radio show last week, Democratic candidate John Kerry said that, yes, it was important to compete in the South, but he pointed out that Gore, who was shut out in Dixie, still would have won his race if tiny New Hampshire had not backed Bush - the sole state in the Northeast to do so. Dean's campaign manager has made the same argument.
<snip>
Good analysis here.

[Racenut20]

1. So what is Dean's plan

Which states does he think he can win to add up to an electorial majority?

[0rganism]

7. He has to get Gore's plus either AZ or OH, would be my guess

After the census, NH alone won't do the trick.

Arizona may well be ripe for the plucking, and a strong southwest campaign is necessary to reel in NM (which was dead even in 2000).

On the other hand, Ohio could do just as well, and borders PA which is a must-win state.

If a Democrat wants to win a southern state, Louisiana is the best bet. Georgia is way gone, and Florida requires extreme measures at this point. Arkansas or Tennessee could perhaps be salvaged with some help from their more famous native sons.

[TedinAZ]

14. Arizona isn't "Ripe"

It's republican everywhere but the Phoenixmetro area, and, as a state that shares a border with Mexico, and the problems associated therewith, it's going to get even more republican.

Then again, I'm no expert, just another citizen.

[Hawkeye-X]

15. Actually

Tucson has turned Democratic. It helped elect Janet Napiltano - I know - I used to live there, and saw strong Democratic values everywhere.

This is two key areas that could help deliver Arizona to a Dem candidate.

Hawkeye-X

[0rganism]

28. Reasons for Arizona

1) recently elected a Democratic governor
2) relatively large elderly population, who may be righteously pissed at the Medicare shenanigans
3) urban population trending Dem
4) significant Hispanic minority

There are many states which vote Democratic because of urban voters only. Also, half the states which border Mexico are voting in Democrats. The legal Mexican immigrants and their descendents are going to be voting Democratic.

[bluestateguy]

2. BAD strategy. bad article

It assumes that only Dean will be the nominee. Surely, if Edwards, Lieberman or Clark were nominated the South would be in play. Gore may have been swept in the South, but he made Bush earn it. He didn't just hand it to him on a silver platter. Bush had to earn Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee, and he had to fight to make Florida close enough to steal. That was still the right move on Gore's part because it diverted Bush's campaign resources to the SOuth and reduced the resources that otherwise would have been poured into Democratic leaning states, nearly all of which Gore ended up winning. Writing off the south allows the Bush Team to spend gobs of money and make many more campaign stops in places where he narrowly lost time, like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Maine, New Mexico, Oregon and possibly even Michigan, Pennslyvania or California. Bush would not have to win all or even most of those states, but our candidate would, giving our side much less breathing space. We'd be on the defensive from Day One. This is a horrible move and I really hope the Dean campaign reconsiders. They should contest Florida vigorously and then pick 2 of the following states to contest: Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas and Louisiana.

[Zynx]

4. How would Lieberman play well in the South?

He's from CT, he has a fairly liberal voting record, and he is a weak campaigner. How does he win?

[trogdor]

17. Fortunately for us...

...we have several southern candidates from which to choose, if not for the top spot, definitely the bottom one. My prediction is Dean/Clark, but Dean/Edwards or Clark/Dean would work too.

I kinda prefer Dean/Edwards because I think Clark's talent is better utilized as Secretary of Defense. Leaking out this last part might seal the deal. Another advantage of putting Edwards in the #2 slot is, while I don't think he's ready for prime time, by 2012 he will be. I like Edwards a lot, but I don't think this is his year.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. The key to winning Dixie

is to hammer home at those ideals that are dear to Southerners but are being threatened by the Bush Administration. One is Bush's treatment of the military. I live in Arkansas, and I can stop any freeper in his tracks by simply mentioning all the bills that have axed benefits to veterans, have hurt military families, etc. I've done this time and again, starting back in March when most anti-war letters to the editor were met by cries of "go back to Iraq, traitor!" I have noticed that even in the not-liberal Harrison (AR) Times, they have been critical of Bush's treatment of soldiers. This from a paper that editorialized that we peace demonstrators should be 'reigned in' by the authorities!

The more Guardsmen and Reservists who are called away from families for agonizingly long times, the more resentment builds, especially in this part of the country. Start with this issue. Then go on to issues like outsourcing of jobs overseas, pollution of the environment (which means something to hunters and fishermen if explained in their terms), and the raw deal for seniors in the recent Medicare bill, and you can win quite a few places in the South.

[mbperrin]

12. It is exactly the same here in

West Texas! People are very upset about Bush* treatment of their sons and daughters and the potential closing of a vet hospital near here!

Keep talking up the real damage to real people who really lay their real asses on the line!

[izzie]

5. Dixie may still be in its kill -anything- that -move -stage so will go GOP

It may have to get worse before this country turns around and people wake up that a war culture is so out of style and not what they really want. The reat of the world knews they do not like a war like USA already. And the rest in the world that has some brains, is putting its money into educations for it pop. We increase the DOD money as if we were not spending enough and cut Pell Grants. We will pay in the long run or such sillness.

[dusty64]

6. Blah, blah, blah.

More media defeatist crap. While Democrats can win the WH without the south, they probably could never win back Congress without it. I think several states there should be contested, but I certainly hope they do NOT pin their whole strategy on it. It feels like another media attempt to get the Dems to continue their failed "rethug lite" campaigns which have failed so horribly so far.

[0007]

8. I find this an interesting projection -

This is like pissing on my oatmeal, LOL!!
At this point I like Dean, but will support whom ever is nominated.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

10. I must disagree with Illinois voting for * if Dean is the...

nomminee. Illinois is now a Democratic State that will vote for the Democrat by at least 10 points.

[0007]

11. There are quite a few I disagree with!

[Jerseycoa]

13. Link?

Where is this from? I'd like to look at the site. Thank you.

[HFishbine]

29. Make your own

Thanks to John Edwards, you can run through your own electoral strategies with this interactive map: http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/

[Hawkeye-X]

16. The Bush v Dean map is SO wrong

it isn't even funny. Dean is expected to be something like a 38-45 state Dean sweep, with a few exceptions...

Hawkeye-X

[markus]

23. A map with those kinds of colors should come with traces

I think who ever created those maps was definitely tripping.

Pawlenty is pretty much destroying the GOP in outstate MN with his draconian budgets.

Do they really think that Dean will lose MN and FL, for starters?

[0rganism]

27. How does Dean lose Pennsylvania?

I see I'm not alone in having my doubts. I agree that Clark would have a better chance in Arkansas and Arizona, tho.

[RDANGELO]

9. The next race will be won or lost in the Midwest,Pennsylvania and

Florida.

[LizW]

18. I don't want to see this happen

Yes, I'm biased, being from the south, but I don't want to see the south written off, even if it is mathematically possible to win without it. I think the Dem nominee has to have enough money to fight EVERYWHERE and to force Bush to campaign EVERYWHERE. If we don't make Bush spend his millions everywhere, we may lose states we think are safe. We can't afford to write off even corrupt Florida. Florida has to be close enough that Jeb and the BFEE have to go to great lengths to steal it. We absolutely cannot let the theft happen quietly.

This one's for all the marbles. I'm nervous that the Dean campaign is even talking about this strategy.

[lancdem]

20. Maybe this is intentional disinformation by the Dean campaign

to make the Repubs think tbey're writing off the South? Just speculating.

[Jacobin]

19. STUPID article

Louisiana just elected Dem governor, rejecting Smirk's hand picked choice.

Louisiana re-elected Landrieu as senator, who distanced herself from Smirky.

I guarantee the map will not all be red in the south in 2004. Maybe they need to worry more about the west and midwest.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

21. I didn't like it either, but it brings up points that should be considered

even though they are uncomfortable.

[sleipnir]

25. I've said it before, Screw the South, the Midwest will decide 2004

The South goes where ever it damn well pleases, you can't dictate policy and politics to southerners. Why even try? Just let them do their own thing. The real battle and the Presidency will be fought from Ohio to Nebraska and everything between. That's were we will win or lose, based on a few states in the Midwest. As Dems, that's where we should focus our attention. We can't win much of the south, but we can win MANY Midwest States.

As Will Pitt said in another thread, don't waste money on Florida, well I say "Don't waste any money on the South."

This isn't Southerner bashing, just reality that you can't force feed politics to the South. At worst we'll lose every state in the South (very likely) at best we'll win 1 or 2. Not worth the money that could win us multiple states north of the Mason-Dixon line.

[jiacinto]

26. Will Pitt is wrong here

Okay--try to win without the South. That means no room for error. It means winning all of these states

Ohio
New Hampshire
West Virginia

It also means winning at least one of these

Nevada
Arizona
Colorado

And it also means holding on to all the blue states.

In a word it means zero room for error. A bad idea.

[markus]

22. This graph is telling

Merle Black, a Georgia political analyst, said: "(Howard) Dean was trying to say that lower-class Southern whites and blacks should be voting together on economic issues, but, by throwing the Confederate flag into it, he showed his lack of touch for Southern politics. It made him look culturally distant from the region."

I think for Dean to win he'd have to have an *enthusiastic* Edwards on his ticket. And Edwards would have to work himself to death to shore up Florida, and try to grab 1-2 others.

I still think the key to the south is to do somethign radical: repudiate race-based affirmative action in favor of economic, income-based affirmative action.

It would sure as hell piss off some Middle Class blacks who's children would benefit from AA programs they don't really need, but it has real potential to both defuse the "they're just for minorities" tag, and begin to unite working class southerns on economic issues.

The GOP has used race to divide the South, just as generations of southerners have used it to prevent the working class blacks and whites from uniting in common cause. Hell, I believe that's the main reason that MLK was shot: he had begun to deliver a message as much about economics as race, and that was dangerous to the southern elites.

[jiacinto]

24. Again this is a stupid strategy

Winning without one southern state requires perfection--everything, and I do mean everythin--has to go our way.

[dArKeR]

30. The way to win is forget about the South, don't go there, don't spend a

dime there. Way waste your time and energy when you'll never win any electoral votes anyway? Only go to the states that you'll win and are border.

Am I clueless or what!