Display:
Permalink :: 50 Comments :: Post a Comment


For a southern state (3.00 / 1)

I like the idea of Alabama. It's basically "neutral" to most national candidates and that would mean that we would start competing in the deep south for the first time in a long time. The other states that should be considered are Virginia and Missouri - both important states to capture for 2008. Warner might run, however, making Virginia less attractive (and same with the Arkansas-Clark/Clinton bias)

The idea of New Mexico as the first western state kind of sucks, because Bill Richardson might run. I like the idea of Colorado and/or Nevada up there though.

by KainIIIC on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 06:23:57 PM EST

Re: For a southern state (none / 0)

I think you are absolutely right.

The Dems need to jump into the deep end in the South. They are getting filtered reports of Dems on the national level. The local news is a different kettle of fish. I think the only reason that the truth came out in NOLA because it was a Democratic city and the local news was awsome... so the national news had to follow.

Six months of retail campaigning in the south still does not mean our message will get out if Dems once again run to the right... but it is a good start of them just being there. I think Dean and Sharpton were the only ones to fo to Mississippi in the primaries...

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 03:35:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For a southern state (none / 0)

Southern states are key to any win - esp. Florida,
and electoral rich states like Texas.

by turnerbroadcasting on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 09:58:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Florida is not really a southern state (none / 0)

The panhandle is, but the rest of the state is not.  Most of the rest of the south doesn't matter for the following reason: If our guy wins many southern states, he would have been ahead enough in other swing states (Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Ohio, Florida), that he wouldn't need any southern states to win.  Some of the borderline ones (Arkansas, North Carolina, Lousiana) might be useful, but for the most part, I favor a western strategy over a southern one.
by Geotpf on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:17:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For a southern state (none / 0)

I read a persuasive argument here on MyDD for starting with just one state: Missouri.  The writer put in all of the demographic and geographical data for an average state: percentage of African-Americans, Spanish-speaking citizens, the rural-urban divide, socio-economic level and spread, the amount of navigable waterfront (if you count the Missippi), the size, the amount of mountains.  Everything.  He averaged everything together and Missouri was dead-on average on every item.  It's even almost dead center of the 48 contiguous states.  Add to that the fact that for, what, a hundred years they have always voted for the winner.
He said that the advantage of having just one state go first helps less well-known candidates compete early on without having to have huge sums of money upfront.
If we want a grassroots-appealing candidate, if we really want to win, that seems like a winning strategy.  I realize that that will not make some people in Iowa and New Hampshire happy, but in the long run it would help us refine our message for the mainstream so we can be stronger and more persuasive everywhere else.
by prince myshkin on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 06:43:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Login
Username:

Password: