The Democrats Need a Non-Southern Strategy

And these sour grapes:

Gerrymandering exacerbates the problem. American University professor David Lublin has chronicled the Republicans' use of redistricting to pack black voters into Democratic districts in order to elect Republicans elsewhere. Here's proof that Democratic voters are too condensed: Despite besting Bush in the popular vote, Gore carried only 196 congressional districts while Bush took 239, according to calculations by Democratic data guru Mark Gersh.


However, the essay does have positive notes, such as the progress in the southwest.

pulls out of the south entirely, or even largely, then senate seats will fall in NC, SC, Ga, and Fl. Four seats is too much to give up.

Have Dem Presidential candidates ever helped us that much in the South? Perhaps the DNC could focus resources on the South but the Presidential nominee should shift SW.

If Bush wins SC by 52-48% we're asking Ms. Tannenbaum to convince 6% of the Bush voters to vote for her too.

If Bush wins SC by 55-45%, we're asking her to convince 11% of Bush voters to vote for her too.

If Bush wins by 60-40%, we're asking her to convince 18% of Bush voters to vote for her too.

At some point, the crossover demands become too much for anyone. What's the magic number? It's different for each candidate and even each state, but there's a number there somewhere.

Also, the other problem is turnout.

If the papers say Bush will win 60-40, and there is little evidence of a campaign in your area, it is natural that many presumptive Democratic voters will stay home thinking what's the use. The problem is compounded because the groups most likely to vote Democratic are the people who are poorest and least educated, and therefore less likely to vote even under the best of circumstances.

But you're right. If there is a complete blowout it's hard to reverse the current.

For some reason Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad of ND do it all the time.

Don't you agree that Bowles can probably keep Edwards' seat in the dem column with some moderate party support?

But I'm not sure that a Presidential campaign focusing its resources in the South would help.

The DNC should focus money on this race (since Bowles has a good shot), but I think as far as electoral math is concerned, the nominee's resources would be better spent in the Southwest.

On all that and would add midwest to electoral options.

But you want a glimmer of hope for NC in the presidential race (remember, I said glimmer). Look at this: http://www.fundrace.org/moneymap.php?cand=RepVDem&zoom=County

We're just courting the wrong Southerners. We will never win back the sons of the confederacy, true. However, we can win the Evangelicals (not the fundamentalists or the christian recontstructionists, mind you)

But generally on the right track. We should still compete in states like Louisiana and Arkansas. I even think that the demographic changes in South Carolina and North Carolina, coupled with the economic performance of the Bush Administration in those states may make them competitive. But I generally agree that we are trying to "recreate the New Deal Coalition," which is a mistake.

I've said for some time that Arizona, Nevada, Montana and Colorado are in play. Maybe even a couple of others.

So is New Hampshire, Ohio and Missouri.

We should have won West Virginia last time. That was just stupid campaigning on Gore's part.

So if you add up all those numbers we get an additional 95 electoral votes that were won by Bush that we should definitely go after.

We have potential good candidates (if they run) and the GOP doesn't.

- Florida, Alex Penalas (Mayor - Dade County). I don't care what you say, a Cuban Democrat will always win in Florida. Mathematics.

- Georgia (two potentials) one, Max Cleland. Former Senator. He lost because of low Democratic turnout in Georgia nothing else. Two, former Governor Roy Barnes. He was actually very popular and lost for the same reason as Cleland.

- North Carolina, Ernst Bowels. Or however you spell it. He currently has a double-digit lead in the polls.

- South Carolina, former Governor (what's his name). He lost for the same reason as in Georgia.

I think the biggest mistake the GOP made were defeating these people in the 2002 elections. Who knows, maybe there will be a bright side to their losing. If they run. They win. Period.

For now the south is lost to us. The south has been solid for a long time. The phrase, "The Solid South" once meant a block of votes that were Democratic as a given. In my early adulthood, there were no Republican officeholders at any level, in my state. We can not continue to write off that much of the nation, and their concerns and hope to be anything but a long term minority party.

Yes, we are making gains in the new southwest, but remember - the Reps can read polls too. They will do everything they can to be competitive there too. Almost all Latinos are Roman Catholic and socially conservative on abortion and gay rights. Also, there is racial tension between the Lations & Blacks. Sorry, but that is an unpleasant fact. Look for the Reps to use those.

Gerrymandering. Sorry. I can't get upset over that. It is a very old practice and both sides use it when they are in power.

I we can manage Nevada and Arizona, and the repugs keep everything else they too, including Florida, we can beat Bush. One thing... If we get Nevada and New Hampshire, there is a tie...

I dunno why, but I have a gut feeling that NV is going to be blue. The trick is picking up another state. I think Florida will go blue, but I don't trust Jebbo... so I have been figuring without it...

New Hampshire and West Virginia definitely. That's 10 electoral votes.

AZ, NV, OH, probably (we have a real good shot here). 41 electoral votes.

CO, FL, LA, MO, MT, AR possibly. 80 electoral votes here.

So if we play our cards right we can win as many as 395 to 400 electoral votes. Probably won't, but can - if we're smart.

I can't think of any that are definite. But PA is growing sour on Bush. Maybe NM. But that state keeps trending Democrat.

What else?

I think the battleground states in 2004 will be:

PA
NM
AZ
NV
OH
CO
FL
LA
MO
MT
AR

You'll notice the majority of these were carried by Bush.

Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Oregon and New Mexico all by just a percent or two.

I'm concerned though if we have somone like Dean, it could make it harder to win these battleground states.

And he is the only candidate I feel that I can promote somewhat successfully on Libertarian-leaning pro-gun boards.

I think the weakest argument Clark supporters make is that "Dean can't win." There is simply no proof of that. You put up one poll showing Clark doing better, then another one comes out showing Dean doing better. Most show them both within the margin of Bush.

That argument is destroying the Clark candidacy. Just as it did the Kerry candidacy. Because if your only argument for the nomination is that "my guy does better than yours against Bush," your candidacy falls apart when he doesn't do better.

'The heartland' is not happy with BushCo; I live here, and I hear it every day--- even from Republicans. The recession hadn't hit the Midwest in November 2000, so several states (MO & OH, e.g.) went for the likeable guy who was perceived as being strong on defense and other 'conservative issues. Now the Midwest is hurting: industrial jobs falling by the wayside, commodity prices depressed, farm foreclosures hitting new highs, etc., and there seethes just beneath the sufrace a deep discontent.

We can work with that, folks; IL pulled a 'trifecta' in 2002, reversing national trends: they turned to the Democrats and gave them control overe the legislative, executive and judicial branches of state government--- a feat that had not occured in almost 2 generations.

Let's roll up our sleeves and get to work in the Midwest.

as I point out every time the subject comes up here (which seems to be every day or two) is that if we write off any part of the country, that means Bush gets to spend his entire $200,000,000 and the bulk of his time in "our" states.

Think of the damage a pile of money like that can do.

Instead of dreaming up elaborate scenarios in which we can pick up 271 electoral votes, we need to be thinking in terms of how we can utterly defeat Bush and Bushism.

We need for people of the future to remember him the way generations before them remembered Herbert Hoover, so that there will not be even any thought of running another Bush for any public office above coroner.

But we shouldn't ignore the areas we may or will win just to keep southern democrats, like Zell Miller - who then turn on us, happy either.

We have to approach the whole country. And choose which states we will do well in. Not just generalize by region in this country.

We can compete.

If we nominate Mr,'s Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, or Lieberman we might as well write off the south.....

By the way , someone said a Cuban Democrat wins in Florida because it's a function of math... That's if he's not running against a Cuban Republican... If Mel Martinez runs in Florida I give him the nod...

If the economy can be spun as recovering and Iraq doesn't totally disintegrate Bush will carry every state of the Old Confederacy and the R's will pick up Senate seats in NC, SC, GA, and FL....

The party's in ruins... At least in most of the south....

except they need to pick some southern states off to win and I think the dems will do ok elsewhere IMO.