Its the southern states

[Momof1]

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.

[ferg]

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.

[Tom Rinaldo]

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.

[QC]

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.

[ferg]

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."

[QC]

19. Several points here....

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.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

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!

[jsw_81]

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.

[Leilani]

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.

[Leilani]

22. I forgot

Louisiana, and Minnesota in play.

[EXE619K]

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.

[hellhathnofury]

4. OHIOOOOOO!

[EXE619K]

5. You mean....

"JoeinOhio"?

[hellhathnofury]

7. No Johio, that works to though.

I'm going to get alerted for these eventually.

[bitchkitty]

8. Don't need them, but Dean just might

get a few.

[Rocinante]

9. I think

we should have a strategy for all the states. Imagine how different things would be if Gore had won Tennessee.

[EXE619K]

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!

[not systems]

17. I agree.

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.

[jsw_81]

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.

[Rocinante]

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.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

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.

[jsw_81]

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.

[Rocinante]

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.

[ferg]

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.

[Rocinante]

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?

[texasmom]

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.

[QC]

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.

[AndyTiedye]

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.

[bleedingheart]

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.

[FrenchieCat]

26. So does that mean.....

that we just give 5 SOUTHERN senate seats to Bush?

I don't think so.....that strategy sounds like a nightmare!

[AndyTiedye]

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?

[sandnsea]

28. Duty, responsibility, integrity

That's all we need to win the south.

[JCMach1]

29. I believe we have to take at least one southern state for the electoral

numbers to add up...

[MoonRiver]

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

[QC]

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.

[MoonRiver]

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.

[QC]

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.

[poskonig]

34. We're going to need $$$$ to win southern states.

Many candidates are crippled by public financing until July.

Kerry and Dean are not.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

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.

[SangamonTaylor]

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