The point is that nominating someone who appears to be a member of the "Northeastern" (or even "Coastal") Elite really hurts in many (most) parts of the country. The alternatives for candidate origin aren't just Southern, but Midwestern, Southwestern, Mountain, etc.
We want to win Ohio. I have relatives in Ohio. My in-laws, in Cincinatti, just couldn't stand Kerry -- rich, over-educated, Eastern and therefore certainly fake. Even worse: contemptuous of them. Some held their nose and voted for him only because they hated Bush. Some voted for Bush because they hated Kerry.
These are not "born again" folks; I am talking about non-Church-going, urban dwelling, reasonable school teachers and the like.
Given a good altenative (which perhaps we didn't have this time) let's avoid obvious members of the Northeastern elite next time.
But this is completely untrue. We gained absolutely everywhere besides the south, as I showed. I fail to see how Kerry hurt us at all in any area except the south.
We gained absolutely everywhere besides the south, as I showed. I fail to see how Kerry hurt us at all in any area except the south.
Well, I think there are a few logical fallacies in this statement that bear examination. First of all, the Partisan Index talks about all candidates and not just the president. In order to establish the case that this index is or is not covariant with the provenance of the candidate, you'd have to look at all of the candidates being assayed in each of the states in question, not just at the presidential candidate. Clearly, John Kerry lost IA and NM this time, while Al Gore won them, so you cannot argue that a Northeasterner did better than a Southerner in those states. in fact, Kerry himself lost ground as compared to AL Gore in 31 states, including the entire south except Virginia, and the battlegrounds of PA, MI, MO, NM, AZ, FL, and IA. He also lost in the blue states RI, MD, MA(ouch!), NJ, NY, CA, CT, DE, IL, and HI. He gained in the battlegrounds of CO, NV, OH, OR, and WI. Personally, I think his gains in NV and CO have more to do with demographic changes in those states than anything else. Rich urbanites from places like Los Angeles are flooding into the scenic mountain areas of CO and the Glitter Gulch of Las Vegas. I would bet Kerry's 5% gain in Montana has something to do with that as well.
So actually, in those states where his losses are at variance with overall gains by the Dems (NC, VA, NM, IA, PA, MI) I think that there is a good argumant that his provenance hurt him relative to the mostly indigenous Democrats who constitute the index. There are also several cases where Kerry seems to have lost more ground relative to Gore than the Democrats did overall. As far as I can tell, there are no states where Kerry outperformed the Democrats as a whole, so clearly he was not the optimal democratic candidate.
Obviously, a lot of this depends on what frame of reference is being used.
I'm not saying Kerry was the ideal candidate, but he certainly did not seem to hurt us in many areas. Outside of the south, this election wnet pretty darn well for us. Inside, it went poorly.
Compared to Gore, Kerry won NH and lost IA and NM, which looks like a regional effect to me. Nader was a big factor in the 2000 IA and NM victories, so Bush did much better in absolute terms in those states this time.
The "partisan index" wins us no states. The Repubs could win the Presidency by 20% and yet the partisan index could show a bunch of states trending "relatively" Dem.
I am originally from Ohio. If Kerry had been from IL (or the South) instead of MA, I really think he would have won Ohio and be President-elect today.
