Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Its the southern states

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Momof1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 02:06 AM
Original message
Its the southern states
Ok, Flame me whatever. But isn't this whole primary & coming election about the southern states. We need to get the southern states in November. Which candidates do you feel can do that? I still haven't made up my mind. Leaning Clark and then Dean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ferg Donating Member (873 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 02:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. no, we don't need the southern states for 2004
Look at the electoral college.

We need two or more of: Arizona, Nevada, West Virginia, Ohio, New Hampshire, and to keep the Gore states.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. We may not need to win them
We need to be competitive in them so that Bush doesn't get to "mail in" his campaigning there. Gore was perceived to be competitive in a number of southern States, especially the ones that Clinton/Gore won in 1996. Bush poured a lot of his time and resources into a number of those Southern states to deprive Gore of them. If the Republicans can take those states for granted next time, they get to redirect all their resources Northward. A number of the States that Gore did win in 2000 were real squeakers. A few more visits by Bush to them might have swung them into his camp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. People say this a lot like it's a sure thing, but
those states are not a breeze for us to pick up.

Ohio, for example, has gone Republican in four of the past six elections, six out of the last ten. It's hardly a sure thing. New Hampshire also leans Republican, as does Arizona, though that is certainly changing.

And, as others have pointed out here, "writing off" big chunks of the country leaves Bush free to spend his hundreds of millions in the competitive states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ferg Donating Member (873 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 02:37 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. nailing down oregon, washington, minnesota
You could argue it's more important to solidify OR, WA, and MN.

Gore spent far too much time at the end on those states to deal with the Nader issue, when he could have spent time on West Virginia or New Hampshire.

This isn't about "writing off" anything.

The original post basically said: "The South is the most important part of the country. Everything must be subservient to competing in the South. We should choose our candidate purely on the basis of the South." (Exaggerated to clarify the point.)

That's completely silly. The argument of solidifying OR, WA, and MN is stronger than focusing on the South. Really, which Southern states would any candidate have a prayer in? (Other than a blowout situation, which is possible.)

The South is the least important issue in choosing a Democratic candidate. Almost any other issue you could name is more important than "which candidate will do better in the South."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. Several points here....
Edited on Sat Jan-17-04 03:01 AM by QC
I agree that most states in the South are out of reach for us. But people speak of "the South" as some kind of monolith, which is simply not the case. There are states we have a decent shot at, depending on the candidate, like Arkansas, Louisiana, and Florida. Should we simply ignore them?

You did not suggest "writing off the South," but lots of people here do--in fact, it seems that someone posts the idea every week or so and acts like no one ever thought of it before and it's the sure way to win. And, as I always post in those threads, that strategy means letting Bush concentrate almost his entire campaign on our states, and also means saying goodbye to any chance of regaining control of Congress. Not a smart move, unless our goal is to become a regional party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POed_Ex_Repub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 02:15 AM
Response to Original message
2. I don't see any reason to neglect any state..
Do you? :shrug: I say, we win every vote we can. Let's not just win, let's win by a landslide!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsw_81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 02:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. No, we should focus on states we can actually win
There are some political realities that many Democratic partisans just don't want to face. One such reality is that our presidential candidate will never, ever carry states like Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho or Texas. It just isn't going to happen in a million years unless Bush rapes a woman on live television or admits to a lifelong cocaine habit.

Remember, we need 270 electoral votes to win. A landslide victory would be nice, but we really need to concentrate on the states we can actually win. That's what Bush did in 2000, and even though he's an idiot, he almost won.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leilani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 03:07 AM
Response to Reply #14
21. I agree with you
that there are states the Dems will never win, & there are states the Repugs will never win.

But with the right candidate, more states are in play, & repugs must compete there.

States in play: West Va., Va, North Car, Fla, Tenn, Ark , New Mex, Ariz , Nev , Missouri, Ohio, Penn, Iowa, Oregon.

Maybe a few more: don't have a map in front of me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leilani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 03:09 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. I forgot
Louisiana, and Minnesota in play.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EXE619K Donating Member (717 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 02:18 AM
Response to Original message
3. My opinion.....
the south won't matter, the battle will be fought for the Mid-west and Ohio....with a few rust belt states.

I think the election will be for who gets more juice flowing. Energize the base and then some polarization.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hellhathnofury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 02:19 AM
Response to Original message
4. OHIOOOOOO!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EXE619K Donating Member (717 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. You mean....
"JoeinOhio"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hellhathnofury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. No Johio, that works to though.
I'm going to get alerted for these eventually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bitchkitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 02:25 AM
Response to Original message
8. Don't need them, but Dean just might
get a few.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rocinante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 02:25 AM
Response to Original message
9. I think
we should have a strategy for all the states. Imagine how different things would be if Gore had won Tennessee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EXE619K Donating Member (717 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. I feel that.....
My NORTHERN heritage is not being represented. As a matter of fact, the voters from the NORTH and their values have been ignored for far too long from the White House. How long has it been?

Oh gawd! Bush fundraiser on BBC Radio1....calling his campaign a "Grass-Roots" movement.....

Poppycock!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
not systems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 02:52 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. I agree.
Edited on Sat Jan-17-04 02:59 AM by ezmojason
You may be trolling but I am tired of the we must do whatever
it takes to please the south crowd also.

We should solidify the north and southwest then after winning
the election shutdown the southern military welfare state.

The government corporate welfare troff should run dry for
the south until they give up on the republicans.

Edited for a more mello tone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsw_81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 02:34 AM
Response to Original message
11. Frankly, we don't need any Southern states
I don't speak for the Dean campaign, but I think it's pretty obvious that we can beat Bush without the South. I've played with the various electoral college calculators on the net (including a really nice one at uselectionatlas.org), and all we need are the Gore states plus AZ and NV, or the Gore states plus FL (which he really won in 2000, but you saw what happened). If we can do that, we'll take the White House by a close but still clear margin without electoral voters from any Southern states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rocinante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 02:42 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. That may be true
but I'm afraid that would send a really bad message nationwide if we are perceived as ignoring any region of the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POed_Ex_Repub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. I'm with you...
I'm not willing to concede anything. The opposition sure isn't! Short term we want to win an election, but long term we want to grow and strengthen the party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsw_81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 02:55 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Why?
Did Bush campaign in New England last time? Did he spend any time in Hawaii? No. He knew he couldn't win in those places, so he spent virtually all of his time in the crucial swing states.

Remember, presidential politics isn't about making one region happy or making its citizens feel special, it's about winning 270 electoral votes. If you can't do that, your guy loses. It's that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rocinante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. I don't wish to argue
I stated that your treatment may be true. I think 2004 has a different dynamic than 2000. If the pundits pick up on the fact that Democrats are writing off the South or any other region that's a strategic mistake on our part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ferg Donating Member (873 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #15
23. How about the Mountain West?
Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas. We can't write them off, either.

Or the great plains states: Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska.

Why is it always "the South" that's the critical hopeless part of the country that the Democrats must spend every effort on?

If the argument really was "we can't ignore the South because can't ignore any part of the country", then those other Republican areas would be mentioned as often.

But they're not.

I'm all for making a play for whatever states might flip: CO, LA, VA, AR, FL, OH but I don't see why anyone thinks it's critical that the Democrats nominate someone who will play to the South.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rocinante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Well
If you're reply is for me I think I've already made it clear that I think that no region or state should be ignored. And where did I say that we should nominate someone who will 'play' to the South?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texasmom Donating Member (490 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #11
30. It's not just about the presidential election.
It's not just about taking the presidency. We have 5 (6?) Senate seats that we might very well lose if we don't run a strong national presidential campaign. That's not even bringing into the discussion the losses in Congress possible/probable if we don't run a strong campaign in the South. Thanks to Tom DeLay and friends, Texas is already poised to lose Democratic seats in Congress due to the redistricting. We can't afford to ignore the South in the presidential campaign, because it all trickles down to some extent.
Ignoring the South brings about two possible scenarios. We win the presidential in a squeaker, but we lose seats in both houses. (Not good for our new president's agenda)
Or...we lose the presidency, and bush* has a larger, or much larger, edge in congress and we lose the little bargaining power we had there. It's chilling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Thank you. We often forget about the Congress here.
And if the Clinton years should have taught us anything, it is the frustrations of holding the White House but not the Congress. Instead of moving us forward, Clinton spent about 90% of his time blocking the lunacy of the Gingrichites.

If we win the presidency but lose ground in the Congress, we can look forward to more of the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 03:32 AM
Response to Original message
25. What Are The Rest of Us? Chopped Liver??
How is it that only the South matters?
We aren't the United State of Texas, yet.

I sure hope you are wrong,
because if only the South matters, we're done for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleedingheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. I have to agree.
Plus southern states haven't impressed me in regard to labor and education issues... I really don't want the nation to adopt the southern standards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 03:32 AM
Response to Original message
26. So does that mean.....
Edited on Sat Jan-17-04 03:34 AM by Frenchie4Clark
that we just give 5 SOUTHERN senate seats to Bush?

I don't think so.....that strategy sounds like a nightmare!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 03:55 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. 6 actually
Bush can't lose in the Bible Belt,
Diebold will steal Georgia again for *,
and Jeb will steal Florida again for his brother.

What is left for us in the South?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 04:03 AM
Response to Original message
28. Duty, responsibility, integrity
That's all we need to win the south.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JCMach1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 04:36 AM
Response to Original message
29. I believe we have to take at least one southern state for the electoral
numbers to add up...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonRiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
33. Not only do we not need them, we shouldn't waste money on them.
Check out this article from Common Dreams by Norman Solomon. He outlines the folly of Democrats focusing on the South:

"Many pundits say President Bush is sitting pretty, but this year began with new poll data telling a very different story. A national Harris survey, completed on Jan. 1 for Time magazine and CNN, found that just 51 percent of respondents said they were "likely" to vote for Bush in November, compared to 46 percent "unlikely." When people were asked to "choose between Howard Dean, the Democrat, and George W. Bush, the Republican," the margin for Bush was only 51-43, and when the survey focused on "likely voters" the gap narrowed to 51-46.

While other polls have some different numbers, clearly the race for the White House could be quite close. But one of the obstacles to Democratic success is the pretense of having a chance to carry a bunch of Southern states. Actually, for a Democratic presidential campaign in 2004 -- in terms of money, travel time, rhetoric and espoused ideology -- Dixie is a sinkhole.

In 2000, the Bush-Cheney campaign swept all of the South, albeit with electoral thievery in Florida."

More here:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0112-11.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. That sounds very nice and easy, but how do you deal with the following?
(And yes, I have brought up these points before, but that's because the "let's write off the South" talking point pops up constantly.)

1. "Writing off the South" concedes to Bush, without even a fight, 60% of the electoral votes needed to get the nomination.

2. "Writing off the South" will allow Bush to spend his entire war chest in "our" states.

3. "Writing off the South" also means writing off any chance of regaining control of the Congress, and would very likely mean losing seats. If you think things are bad now, give Bush a filibuster-proof Senate and see what happens.

4. "The South" is not a monolith, nor is everyone here a Republican. We are competitive in some states, and even in Mississippi Gore got 41% of the vote and Democrats control the state legislature. We still have most state legislatures here, and losing them to the Republicans means an epidemic of Texas-style redistricting, thus making it even harder to keep some Congressional power.

But yeah, aside from all those things, the strategy you're proposing is not so bad, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonRiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. I just want to put our money where it is most effective.
There is certainly a great risk of a perfect storm taking place in the Senate and House. But with Georgia, Texas, and Florida under the vice grip of electronic voting and widespread Puke dirty tricks, I hold out NO hope for those three. Some Southern states are definitely in play though. Dems should strike like lasers there, working very fast and furiously then getting out to spend the most time with more viable states. Taking the (next to) worst possible scenario that Pukes get a clear majority in both House and Senate, we MUST take the presidency, or it will be worst case scenario x one million. My feeling is that Clark is more likely to win Southern states than the other candidates for a variety of reasons. That's one reason why I support the General.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. I definitely agree about putting money where it does the most good.
I certainly wouldn't put millions into Mississippi. But, I would try to have a meaningful presence in every state, if for no other reason than to avoid just conceding them to Bush.

And I think you're right about Clark offering an advantage in this part of the country. I can picture Congressional candidates campaigning with him instead of asking him to stay far away, as was the case with Dukakis and even Gore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
poskonig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
34. We're going to need $$$$ to win southern states.
Many candidates are crippled by public financing until July.

Kerry and Dean are not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
35. We can win without the southern states.
We came within a whisker of doing so in '00. We need to win the liberal and "moderate" states of the upper midwest where we have a chance. The south is a "lost cause" (to borrow one of the south's favorite terms. To win in the midwest we only have to focus on the issues that separate us from the 'puglies. To even have a chance in the south, we would have to become republicans.

Let's face it, the repugs have won the south with their very thinly veiled racism. We could only compete there by following the same sort of "southern strategy" they're so proud of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SangamonTaylor Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-17-04 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. Bush should have to earn Texas....
with the second most number of African-Americans in any state, and the second highest number of Latinos (following CA), and the obvious Austin factor. Texas has one of the fastest growth rates among minorities, and the Democratic party has benefitted immensely from the minority vote. If you leave Texas alone, I guarantee we'll start to lose the Latino vote (which is already happening).

One thing I really liked about Dean was that he recognized this and ran a few Dean ads in the Austin area during last August (if I remember correctly).

I don't think it's an issue of South v. rest of US....I think the Democratic nominee must address the urban v. rural problem that happened all over the country in the 2000 election. I know many people have seen the "Bush Country" map depicting 'counties won by Bush v. Gore'. Well, rural America should not be a safe haven for

The democratic nominee must be able to go into small communiuties and convince voters that the democratic party is the party of the middle class and that the republican party (over the last administration) has catered to the wealthiest of individuals. He must be demonstrate that he is 'looking out for the little guy.' Further, the nominee must be able to show rural area voters that he has the morals and ethics that are so important when voting for a president.

On the other hand, the nominee must be able reach out to urban areas and energize the minority vote.

Just my thoughts.

Disclaimer: I support John Edwards
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 31st 2024, 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC