No Democrat ever won presidency without winning at least 5 southern states

I just wanted to throw that out.

Discuss.

Why Dean is beginning work on a strategy to appeal to Southerners.

:eyes:

I mean other than Florida? No, enough jokes. Seriously, did Gore win any southern states? Is it possible to get enough electoral votes without any southern states?

He won MD. Is that southern?

The closest states to southern states Gore won were: MD, IL, and NM.

TX, LA, AR, AL, MS, TN, VA, WV, NC, SC, GA, FL

You need 269 to win.

As Gore proved, if you don't win any of those states, there isn't much room for error. You have to win all your strongholds, and one of the swing states, all of which went Republican in 2000.

Why say 'other than Florida'? Is it not a southern state or something?

with alot of hard work: Florida, West Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana (especially if Blanco wins next week).

However, I don't think any Dem should rely on FL, and I think Blanco will lose LA.

So, with that, you'd have Dean winning by 24, which makes PA or any two states worth 12 EVs must wins (eg, MO plus any other state).

but Dean will get his behind handed to him by Bush in '04. This has all the makings of a Reagan Vs. DuKakis election. He's not gonna take any southern states and chimp boy is gonna walk in, act all smug, and act as if he just got a green light to attack the rest of the world.

Where if John Glenn had run against Reagan in the general election he had the numbers to beat him. Mondale won the primary though.

when that poll was taken. It wasn't until well into the primary season, and thus after Glenn was out of it, that Mondale fell behind.

Is he Mondale?
McGovern?
Zell Miller?
Dukakis?
Perot?

You've thrown them all out there lately. That spans from liberal to conservative. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Spoilsport. I meant that in a fun way... *sigh*

I can see that going on, Bush the father finished off Reagon. We do seem to ride these waves up and down. I mean I was born in '34 and look where this country has been since I was born.

It's insane to do that. And yet there are a lot of people who post here who want to do just that. Go figure.

an astrologer ... they actually give charts and historical references when they 'forcast'.

... really nothing is needed to make predictions other than one's own point of view .. hmmm

no opinion on this thread debate til I check the planets ;)

You can't tell me they don't write off Mass or DC. How many others? It may not be in the 160s but it still matters. Calculate the net total of EVs not contested to show what they really start with.

I would think that over half the voters in the deep South will go for Bush. But I am not so sure about FA, WV.and I am not so sure as more and more out siders move to the So for jobs it will stay the same. Isn't that why Fa is not really a So state?

Fa always follows Do Re and Mi.

:hi:

Let's just make Clark the nominee and win Arkansas and this time Florida...with overseas military votes! That would solve it!

Let's take the most progressive attitude we can on the domestic economic issues which Southerners care most about, we can promise them jobs and healthcare. We could tell them that universal healthcare is there if they want it, they just have to want it enough to go to the polls and vote Kucinich!

I think that's what they need to hear, the truth, not a formula, not a generalization about southern peoples, the truth. They can have whatever they want, they just have to vote for it. And if they want universal healthcare, they got it, just vote for it. And if they want our young people to stop dying for an illegal war, just vote for it, don't worry about 'power vacuums', just vote for someone who will END this illegal war.

You know, most people don't know this, but the Socialist party did very well in Appalachia until the 1950's because of the strong mining workers class. These people are ready again, I know because I'm here.

It starts when you click -> http://www.kucinich.us Changing the country takes effort, not just money.

(slightly overdone, in my opinion) desire for a "strong America" and give them Dean.

Dean's offering jobs and healthcare, without the burden of the need to convince the south that huge Pentagon cuts are a good thing...

shove it up Dean's illegal war compromise. Well, being in the south, I'll tell you that most southerners don't have much time to follow these specific issues, let alone the need for America to be "strong." Maybe you think Bush is representative of southern America, and Bush seems "strong", but he is Yale educated. The southerners I know work in factories that are making them work 12 hours shifts, two days on two days off, on temporary contract status, no benefits, and barely have time to be with their families let alone want America to seem "strong." These people need a voice: they need sensible working conditions and universal healthcare, and they need the labor market to be competitive because products bought in America are made in America, so that employers who offer shifts of 12 hours, two days on two days off don't get applicants! That the aforementioned intimidation tactics of workers are naturally offset by their opportunities in the community.

Sorry Mercutio, Dean=strong America doesn't slice the political butter.

with his Department of Peace and huge Pentagon cuts. Many percieve him to be "pro-peace" to the exclusion of our national security.

Dean doesn't have the same baggage in this regard, and I think this particular baggage will make a real difference in the South.

Just my opinion...the South will go with somebody who offers them jobs and healthcare AND who isn't percieved to be weak on defense.

Where do you live Mercky?

Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that Southerners are bearing the majority of the unemployment crisis in this country (Carter County, KY has an unemployment rate of 14%, that's the county over from mine) and that they desperately need job security and healthcare, UNIVERSAL healthcare. No, the southerners that "just want to be strong" will listen to Bush's rhetoric on being strong, and always have. Those aren't the southerners we need to bring about change in this country, we need the workers, the 12 hour shifters, the everyday southerner. I think, being a southerner, that given the choice between a sure chance at a job with full labor rights and universal health care, and seeming to have a secure America, they'll gamble and go with the Kucinich platform, we just have to get the media to show them what's on the table. If the media were fair and honest, and not interfering with our democracy because of fear Dennis Kucinich will destroy their monopoly (as he's said he'll do) on thought in this country, then it would have been over when DK gave his "Prayer for America" speech in March of 2002!

I live in Ohio, "Soundy". You're right, that's not the point.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the South's need for jobs and healthcare. I AM making the point that both Kucinich and Dean are offering these things (as are the other candidates). I DO believe, however, that how the candidate is percieved in relation to military strength WILL come into play with some swing voters and I think that Dean has less baggage in that regard.

Dean only has less 'baggage' because he accepts the media's point of view that this war is just and winnable, and wasn't illegal to being with. We must pull out, and I think that Southerners are ready for that, just like the rest of the nation. This 'protect stupid America with lies' strategy is doomed for failure, those are Republican tactics, not Democrat. We are strong because we are right.

You know that he began this race being very outspoken against the war in Iraq (when it enjoyed 70% support from the public). You know that he has always said that this war was unjust and entering into it was a huge mistake. You know that his version of a successful outcome here is to involve international troops and gradually engineer an American exit.

Are we even talking about the same person? Dean believes none of the things you've stated.

Now he's touting an out-of-date 'plan' that reads more like a wish list.

"Oil for Food program should be transformed into an Oil for Recovery program"? Earth to Howard: it's already scheduled to end on November 21.

here in Portland,Oregon it is a solid 8%+ unemployment(with alot not counted that have given up) with over 2000 homeless adult living on the streets(that is a class A misdemoner--$500 fine or x days in jail) uncounted in most surveys. As well, if we don't pass a tax-increase--most schools will close earlier this year with more cuts for next year.

Think back people, Health Insurance ...Is the issue that got Bill Clinton elected...there are many republicans out there, I would say more that democrats that want health care.

We can win the election by winning NH, WV, AZ, NV, and maybe one or two moderate southern states like AR or LA. We should also focus on Ohio, but our focus should be on shoring up our support among Western states because they are closer to coming into the fold.

what, 22 electoral votes? one of the top states (besides florida) that dems have a chance at. for a while i've been wondering about ohio... maybe some kucinich peeps could give us some insight!!

for us to not seriously pursue Ohio's electoral votes. Gore lost it by 4% (nader got 2%), and he totally pulled out of it three weeks before Election Day to focus more on Florida. Ohio is DEFINITELY within our reach.

Gore states = 260EVs
New Hampshire 4EVs
Arkansas = 6EVs
Ohio = 22EVs
Nevada = 5EVs
West Virginia = 5EVs
Arizona = 10EVs

That's where I think we need to focus on. Those states. Wrap-up as many as the Gore states as we can as early as possible, and concentrate on about 10 states for the final two months. George Soros will be helping with GOTV in the 17 crucial ones.

And by the way.. it's not illegal to "leak" fake polling results showing the race really close in certain Southern states. This could entice Bush to spend money and time there, instead of in certain other states. Florida, Tennessee, Virginia, and Louisiana come to mind..

Ohio is a CRITICAL state for the Dems to win. Gore could have won Ohio, he had plenty of help from at least one of our current candidates...

From http://kucinich.us/electable.htm:

Kucinich has been a winner in a swing district in the swing state of Ohio. And Ohio has 20 electoral votes. It is the state that is key to national victory; only two candidates in the 20th century won the presidency without carrying Ohio.

Al Gore lost Ohio in 2000 despite the Herculean efforts of Kucinich, as vividly described by journalist James Ridgeway in an article written days before the election: "Kucinich is a shoo-in, but hauling Gore along will be a daunting task. Shuttling back and forth from Washington, Kucinich has put together an old-fashioned canvassing operation throughout Cleveland and its suburbs that is one of the largest such efforts in the nation. By election day, 400 to 500 people will be on the streets...

"Day after day, members of the laborers, electricians, plumbers, and steelworkers unions crowd into Kucinich's tiny office on Lorain Avenue, piling signs into the backs of cars and pickups before hitting the neighborhoods. The general approach is for volunteers to use Kucinich's name to get a foot in the door, then ask for support for a Democratic judge before uttering the vice president's name."

Kucinich's best efforts couldn't win Ohio for Gore in 2000, but Kucinich can win Ohio himself if he is the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate. And in presidential politics, as Bush-strategist Karl Rove knows well: As Ohio goes, so goes the nation.

just a bonus question for whoever gets it right...:shrug:

I will take wrong answers from three different posters before I give the right answer!

I counted 9 Republicans who won without 5 Southern States.
Licoln (none in his second term, of course)
Hayes
Garfield
Harrison
McKinley
T. Roosevelt
Taft
Harding
Coolidge
Hoover


None in modern times (post WWII) have won without at least 5 Southern states.

proving that you can win in the electoral college without 5 southern states. after all...TR did well enough.

Times have changed...maybe depending on the south for our victories is not such a logical strategy in this century. Remember...Gore a moderate son of the south won the popular vote nationwide, but lost in every southern state!

Hello?

Al Smith was hurt by bigotry against Catholics in much of the south.

we'll have to make history in 2004 then.

I don't know if this thread was directed at any particular candidate(s), but I hate to break it to you folks. We won't win 5 Southern states next year no matter who our nominee is. Jesus Christ himself could be our nominee, and we'd still lose Georgia, Texas, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia, and South Carolina. That leaves as mere possibilities North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas and Louisiana. Count them- that's only 4 Southern states that are within reach of any of our people.

What *could* change that? Turnout. If we get extremely high turnout rates of minority voters, people who until now have not participated, and the Dem base, we can make it a battle. But turnout is our only weapon in the South, nomatter who the nominee is.

And despite the fact that I am a Southerner myself, I am so tired of the fixation on this region that some people have. We have a MUCH better chance of taking some of the Midwestern and Western states back than we do in the South. While we shouldn't ignore the South and should work on turnout down here, we should focus most of our efforts where they can make the most difference.

There is a first time for everything and the electoral map shows any dem can win without the south (not even FLA) if they pick up AZ, or Gore states plus NH, or any thing outside the South that went for Bush.

People keep starting threats like this without acknowledging the possibility I describe.