Why are we worried about the South?

Lots of people here are talking about how we need to pick a candidate who will win a couple of Southern states. I don't understand why that is.

I think the first thing we need to remember is that we did, in fact, win Florida last time. There were 10,000 votes for Gore mysteriously changed by a computer in one county, not to mention the pregnant chads etc. I don't think that anyone can argue with that fact. So, either we can really win Florida again, or the Repubs will cheat there again so it doesn't matter who we nominate.

Furthermore, we can pick up other states without winning southern ones. Ohio and West Virginia stand out immediately. We could also take NH or AZ. Furthermore, we will probably win all the same states as last time, as polling reports show all the closely won Gore states moving more solidly into our column.

With all this in mind, please tell me why we need to worry so much about the South. I think we can win without any new southern states on our side.

vote against Bush. Plus, in plenty of places, like MS, we still use paper ballots. We have to pick a nominee that can win in all 50 states not just the ones we won last time. We need a candidate that can deliever a landslide.

but the rule of thumb seems to be those outside the South are more willing to vote for a Southerner than Southerners are for a non-southerner...hence the appeal of a Southern candidate.

In other words, Edwards is more electable in the North than Kerry in the South. At least that's the theory.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Southerners voted for lots of non-Southerners. Ronald Reagan springs to mind. George Bush 1, Richard Nixon. It's the politics, they don't like liberals. But they overlooked that in the case of JC (ethnic pride, I think) and WJC. They are not willing to cut a New England liberal that much slack. Prejudice? Maybe so, but that's the way it seems to be.

They wouldn't be impressed with Bush's values -- greed -- if they realized what was up.

There's no reason Dems should be losing the south. Also, aren't 55% of all the EVs you need to win election in the South?

Do well in the south and you worry less about having to win everywhere else.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

No matter what we do, the repugs will have more money than us.

During the election, nobody spends money in states where they are going to win/lose no matter what e.g. Texas for Repugs, California for Dems.

We need to put as many states as possible in play so the Repugs have to stretch their resources. If we can't compete in the South, Bush can spend all his money in Ohio and Florida, and if he wins those we lose.

The more states we can compete in, the harder we make it for Bush and the better our chances are.

did you know they just did their own hetero marriage law? does that sound like friendly turf for us in general or dean in particular?

and if we don't have a candidate with some sort of coattails to work for them it is quite likely all five will go to the darkside scum that is the present day Republican party.

It'll be all but impossible to win all five but we have to do what we can.

The White House is not the whole game. Remember how Bill Clinton spent most of his administration blocking the lunacy of the Gingrichites? If you think that was bad, consider the prospect of Bush with a filibuster-proof Senate.

Rgional differences in political trends etc are sometimes hard to grasp. I don't consider an urban male in Atlanta, originally from Alabama, all that different from myself, urban male in DC, originally from WI.

Regardless of that mindset, there are reasons for concern in the south:

There are a lot of older people in the south, and older people vote. The sun belt population has been rising A LOT, while solid D northern states like MA, NY etc. lost electoral votes. The only compensation for this has been California. Take a look at the historical electoral map, and the general trends of democratic voters, and you'll see why winning one or two states in the south is imperative.

We need to take the South because they are so racist and it is about half filled with people who are not and need this party. The Dem who did not want civil rights are not in this party any more and I have a feeling I know where they went. This is a great country and it needs us all to stay that way and it is really to bad if some one looks down their white nose at some one who skin is not that same color. I also fell that this religious stuff is scary. We do not ever want a church state, as they do not work well.They will take your freedom.

to be a majority party again, you have to be a national party.
If you think New Hampshire or West Viginia will be easy, why write
off the south? Virginia is changing, has a Dem gov, it's a possibility.
Sen Breaux said Clark or Lieberman can win Louisiana. They have a Dem gov & 2 Dem senators.
If you nominate clark, he can win Arkansas, his home state. I also think Tennessee is a possibility.
What about Edwards..he's a lot more Southern than Bush.
We shouldn't waste money in states that are impossible like Texas, Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, etc but we need to compete nationally.

No Democrat has EVER been elected without winning at least two southern states, and we've been running candidates for 208 years now.

The last Democratic ticket elected without a southerner ON the ticket was in 1948 with Truman (MO) and Barkley (KY), both from border states.

The last four presidential elections won by Democrats had a southerner heading the ticket.

Convinced?

FUCK NO I'm not convinced.

You just convinced me of the opposite.

We're chasing our tails further and further to reactionary right-wing positions when we tailor our strategy that way, and then we end up losing anyway to the truly reactionary right-wingers.

Fuck it. If we're going to lose, we might as well lose as the cosmoplitan party of pluralism.

I'm sure everyone remembers the "BUSH COUNTRY" image depicting all of the counties won by Bush in 2000.



It's not just the South, it's almost everywhere in rural USA.

The thing is, rural America has been devastated by this administration. I just recently visited my (soon to be fiance's) father in Hastings, Nebraska this past Christmas break. This is by all means rural america, and yet everyone had the same problems left unanswered by Bush. Her father just kept asking me, "what's wrong with this situation with insurance? Why can't small businesses get insurance?"

I just wanted to jump out and yell that the Bush administration has misled the American people domestically (and on the foreign front, but I wasn't going to bring up that can of worms with the future father-in-law)

We need a President that will reach out to rural America. Not just Southern America, but the rural Midwest, the rural South, all over the country. Merely gain a decent presence in rural America, and the republicans are left with their puny wealtiest 2% of the population (unfairly receiving a windfall, at the expense of working america, from the tax cuts), who live in Suburbia, and drive their Suburbans.

Other Northerners, URBAN Northerners even, have spoken well and truly to rural America--Grover Cleveland, FDR, JFK, Jay Rockefeller.

But it doesn't have to be an appeal to Tory Old South values. Talking "rural" or "farm" is not the same as talking "South."

I have looked at this map a lot and other maps they have made. They are very interesting but this one does not tell the real story to my way of thinking. I would love to see county by county percents listed but I do not know where to find it.It is like the 1st district of Maine. We had to wait to see if it went for Gore, and Bush could have got that vote as Maine splits its votes. So a lot of Northern Maine went Rep. which it has always been. Every town I have lived in in Maine has voted GOP. But the state went for Gore. I would love to see a better brake down but do not know where to find it.

It has gone Republican in six of the past ten elections, four of the past six. It is, at best, a Republican-leaning swing state.

Sure, we should go for Ohio and fight hard, but many people here act like it's a done deal. Far from it.

Other answers to your question:

1. Basic math. The South has almost 60% of the electoral votes needed to win. Conceding them all is like running a 100-yard dash in which your opponent gets a 60-yard head start. You can still win, but it's much harder.

2. The Congress. Make it clear that the party has "written off the South" and you can say goodbye to any realistic hope of taking back the Congress. The remaining Democrats we still have will be swept out and replaced with Gingrichites.

3. State legislatures. Most of the ones in the South are still controlled by Democrats. They're not as pure as many Democrats here would like, but they are Democrats nonetheless. Sweep them out, as would definitely happen if the national party publicly washed its hands of the South, and you will have an epidemic of Texas-style redistricting. Sound good?

4. Black people. Writing off the South means writing off the part of the country with the nation's largest black population. Mississippi and Alabama together have more black elected officials than the other 48 states combined, and the overwhelming majority are Democrats. Shall we just tell them to take a hike?

5. National vs. Regional Party. Do we really want to be the party of parts of the two coasts and a few enclaves in the upper midwest? Or would we rather be a national party? If we choose to be a regional party, then we are no longer the Democratic Party we all grew up with.

The argument that you have raised comes up frequently here at DU, and I have yet to see any good reason why those who bring it up always concentrate on the South. There are many states in the midwest and mountain regions that are every bit as heavily Republican as anything in the South, if not more, yet no one ever suggests cutting them loose. Frankly, given the references to rednecks and hillbillies that always pop up in these threads, I think it's generally more a matter of not liking the South than any real electoral calculus.

I think they are saying:

-- it is important to win OH.
-- conditions suggest that OH is winnable, such as

-- Gore barely lost it despite giving up and not spending much time there.
-- conditions there should be favoring the Democrats even more since that time.
-- the state voted for Clinton twice.

Had Gore focused more on it, it would have gone Dem in the last three elections. The recent past is a far more relevant piece of information than the more distant past.

According to the interactive map at John Edwards' site, the south has 127 electoral votes and the rest of the country, 407.

I have included the following states as "south":

Virginia
Kentucky
Tennessee
Arkansas
N Carolina
S Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Louisiana
Mississippi
Alabama

The Great Lakes States alone, plus Missouri and PA (sometimes included as "midwest"),
have 128.

Electoral Votes...

Texas part of the "South", and I agree with that. It has a different culture and identity, than do the states traditionally included, which I have included. Some consider it part of the Southwest; some instead consider it an area in and of itself, like California.

As a different point, do you really believe that the Dems. have a good chance of carrying Texas in the next election? It has gone Repug. in the last 7 elections.

and nominate presidential candidates who are palatable to the South....


Everything else is commentary....


If the R's can control the state houses of Massachussetts, New York, and California I would think the Dems can learn how to compete at a national level in the south...

with you that it would be much better if the Dems could be more of a "national party." But I think that will take a lot of resources of time and $ that I don't know if we will have this year.

I am just disputing the factual part of what was said earlier about the electoral votes and likelihood of winning there vs. elsewhere. I am also proposing that there ARE good strategic reasons to focus resources in the next year in certain places, rather than an anti-south bias or dislike. I do believe some people are biased against southerners or hold stereotypes but I don't think that's the driver on this particular question.

And also, John Edwards has been my #1 candidate since May, for lots of reasons, including that I think he'll do better in some Southern states than will other candidates.

There are five open senate seats in the south-NC, SC, GA, FL, and LA....


Put Dr. Dean on top of the ticket and we lose all five.....

I didn't say 60% of the total electoral votes. I said "almost 60% of the electoral votes needed to win."

And most people do consider Texas electorally Southern. Look at its voting patterns and tell me otherwise. I know that the tourism commercials say that Texas is "a whole other country," but that's not what we're talking about here.

7 elections, including those when Clinton and Gore were the nominees.

Even in the two Clinton elections, more of the Southern states went to Repugs than to Clinton.

Don't believe me? See

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/

My last three posts I think describe why people at DU are concerned about the strategy of investing resources heavily in the south vs. other places, that it IS a real electoral calculus and not a question of not liking the South.

I live in Virginia.

as Gore. Things don't usually work out quite so neatly.

We still need on or two southern states to make it a done deal...

That's if we are in a close election.

If it's a blowout either way-- it hardly matters.

it took electoral votes away from the gore states and gave them to the bush states so even if we win all the gore states again, it won't be enough this time.

I want a national party that is broad-based and viable coast-to-coast and border-to-border, not one that is largely confined to the coasts and major metropolitan areas. I want a party that doesn't 'write off' states that represent 60% of the electoral votes neede to win the presidency. I want a party that represents divese interests from ALL areas who also share a common bond of fundamental progressive values. I want a party that makes decisions at ALL level of government, from the courthouse to the White House. I want a party that will represent minorities and the poor, a disproportionate number of whom live in the South and to whom are party gives voice and support.

How many more reasons do you need?

is ignore them, blow them off, and concentrate on northern and western states, the GOP down south will continue to play into old North-South rivalries, claim that the Democrats really don't care about them, they're elitists, and so forth.

Who cares if we don't win states down there? Our best hope is to keep Bush on his heels, running around everywhere, spending money right and left, countering any attack we make. They will spend money like mad to keep us out of the South, even if the threat is small.

It's one their greatest talking points used to scare the hell out of progressives. "We can't win without the south!!" Followed by, the usual tripe about having to move to the right in order to win the south. Thus the Democratic Party's move away from abortion rights, affirmative action, gun control, etc.

It's the purest and smelliest BS but many fall for it.

So the impression I get is that the Democrats need to have a candidate that plays well in the South. That's ok with me to an extent, but I think that if we play into that mentality too much we'll become bound by the south. If the criteria for all our future Presidential candidates is that they be southern, that's not good either. I think we need to prove to the southerners that northerners and westerners can understand their views as well. People speak about how bad it would be to write off the south, but it would be equally bad or worse to let the south dictate the direction of our whole party. To follow this logic to its conclusion, we would have to disregard all the great Dem. politicians from the north, west and and midwest. That's not a plan either.


Lastly, people fear that Rove will paint Kerry as a New England elitist. First of all, wouldn't he then try to portray Dean the same way, and more importantly... WHAT IS ROVE AND WHERE IS HE FROM???

Exactly, he's an elitist from Massachusetts. Hopefully Kerry or Dean would call him out on that hypocrisy.

Is that a Democrat who runs strong in the South is likely to run strong elsewhere. Just look at Bill Clinton -- he was able to win in the South -- AND the Northeast, the Midwest, the West, etc. The fact is that nominating a candidate who is competitive against Bush in the South doesn't involve any real tradeoffs.

If you think winning New Hampshire, Arizona, Ohio or West Virginia is going to be substantially easier than winning in the South, think again. Culturally, Ohio and West Virginia aren't that far from the South. And New Hampshire and Arizona have been more reliably Republican over the years than many Southern states.

Besides, if we write off the South, as you are inclined to do, we make Bush's job so much easier. If he can take the South for granted, then he only needs to pick off one or two large industrial states.

There's also the fact that a lot of Southern Democratic senators are retiring this year. If the Democrats write off the South at the presidential level, it could make it more difficult to hold onto these Senate seats.