Clark pulls Arkansas and likely brings Louisiana (Really strong base of support here -- the state party has Clark08 bumperstickers for christsakes!). But with just Arkansas that 261. Clark then just has to flip one from the following list :
Ohio (20) Lousiana (9) Colorado (9)
I'd argue that a Clark-Warner ticket would bring the following states as well :
New Mexico (5) Florida (27) Iowa (7) Virginia (13) West Virginia (5)
Adding LA and OH that's a pretty powerful ticket -- 362 electorals?
NC voted Republican since 1988 AR voted Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Gore narrowly lost AR in 2000. AR,FL,and VA are the only three Southern States Kerry(D) a Northeastern Liberal did well in.
IA and NM voted Democratic during the last 3 or 4 out of 5 Presidential elections.
Clinton winning Arkansas means nothing. It was his home state. Edwards and Bayh are the only candidates I question whether can win their home state. It is definately the only way they are in play. Warner wins Virginia, and at this point would beat Allen in Virginia. Clark probably wins Arkansas, although if he faces Huckabee, then he may very well lose.
But that STILL doesn't mean that a centrist pulls the state. Kerry did better in AR, FL and VA, but I don't exactly call his performance good in those states. If you feel that Allen is going to be the GOP nominee, why don't you think he would do well in the south when in the last two elections a conservative Republican has won all the southern states and most of them in 1996. Your argument works both ways.
But you brought up that NC hadn't voted Democrat since 1988. Lets look at the southern states since 1968 (The last 10 Elections)...
Florida - 1976, 1996 Georgia - 1976, 1980, 1992 Alabama - 1976 Louisiana - 1976, 1992, 1996 Mississippi - 1976 Texas - 1968, 1976 North Carolina - 1976 South Carolina - 1976 Tennessee - 1976, 1992, 1996 Arkansas - 1976, 1992, 1996 Virginia -
So in the last two elections, no southern state has gone Democrat, although some have been very close. The most any state has voted Democratic in the last 10 elections is 3. Virginia didn't vote for a democrat in that entire time. In fact the times when a majority went Democratic, yes the candidate was southern, but he also faced an EXTREMELY unpopular incumbent president. In the last 10 cycles, no southern state has officially gone for a Dem (Florida being the disputed exception) except if the Dem was both southern and either an incumbent or facing an extremely unpopular incumbent president, with the exception of Texas and Nixon. In fact, my bet is that Clinton would have been the only incumbent to win a southern state had Carter not been from Georgia.
So do I think the south is a lost cause? Hell no. I agree with Dean that the Dems need to go after the red neck vote as well as the liberal elite vote and the moderate vote. All I am showing is that winning any southern state will take work and is not a given based on geography... with the exception of the home state although even then that isn't guarenteed... although Gore had been out of Tennessee for 8 years. In other words pick a guy based on his policies, not on what state he is from.
CLinton and Carter. And understand why Carter really won.
Richard Nixon.
If the Dems want to win in 08, then they better run the 1976 election again.
Warner, on the other hand, has a great chance in a number of states, obviously Virginia is the most notable.
As for the opinion by other posters that location has no relevance, I respectfully disagree. Although ideology and leadership are more important qualities in a candidate than where you're from, location certainty does matter.
Bill Clinton was successful for a number of reasons. Living in Arkansas, and thus appealling to a wide range of moderate conservatices, put him at a distinct advantage. He forced Bush to protect his own supposed turf rather than the other way around.
Location does matter. From an electoral point of view, Warner would be one tough candidate to beat.
