MyDD :: Evolving Partisan Strength, Part Four and Conclusion

Evolving Partisan Strength, Part Four and Conclusion

by Chris Bowers, Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 11:51:40 PM EST

Note: The partisan index does not measure which party carried what state. Read this for an explanation. All maps are of the partisan index, not the actual vote.--Chris
Read Part One: The South
Read Part Two, The North
Read Part Three, The West

Many have asked what the Partisan Index is useful for, especially when viewed in isolation without its equally important counterpart, the national popular vote. I suppose after the first three part of this series, that finally deserves an explanation. This explanation ties directly into why the McGovern campaign was so groundbreaking for the Democratic Party, and why in the aftermath of the 2004 election is still remains so controversial. Never the less, I feel we have no choice but to follow it.

Three Cheers for George McGovern!

I believe that partisan index can reveal the underlying strengths and weaknesses an electoral coalition that can be obscured by the specific vote totals in a given state in a given year. For example, while Reagan won New York in 1984, as he in fact won forty-nine states, the strong pro-DNC partisan index in New York showed that it was still a weak state for Republicans. When, over the next five cycles, the Democratic nominee came much closer to the Republican nominee in the popular vote, that weakness was revealed in the form of five consecutive blowout losses in New York for the Republican nominee. In fact, despite Reagan's nationwide success, the partisan index still showed Republicans to be weak throughout the northeast, and that the problem was growing worse. That also was better revealed when Democratic nominees started receiving a higher percentage of the national popular vote than they did in the 1980's.

Also, as I hoped I showed convincingly in the first part of this series, the partisan index also demonstrates a chronic weakness for Democrats in the south. Over the last five cycles when a southern Democrat was the nominee, the Democratic position in the southern partisan index became progressively weaker in each of the cycles. Not only has the pro-Republican contemporary nature of the south in relation to the rest of the nation not been alleviated by the continued presence of southern Democrats on the national ticket, the region is actually still becoming more and more pro-Republican as time goes by. We all know the problem for Democrats in the south is bad. The partisan index shows that the position is actually catastrophic, and consistently growing even worse.

Similarly, while McGovern lost big in almost every state in 1972, the partisan indices from that year were the first to reveal the modern Democratic coalition. Yes, McGovern lost in the South as he lost pretty much everywhere, but he really got clocked in the south, much worse than he did in the rest of the nation. Only in West Virginia, Texas and Kentucky did McGovern do better than an RNC +14 partisan index anywhere in the south. In fact, it was the first time in decades, if not ever, that the south was a Republican region in the partisan index--and it was heavily Republican. Still further, it was at least not until 2000, and arguably not until 2004, that another candidate performed as poorly in the South in the partisan index as McGovern. In both cycles, for the first times since McGovern, all fifteen southern states had a pro-Republican index. Just look at these similarity among these three maps:

Southern Partisan Index, 1972

Southern Partisan Index, 2000

Southern Partisan Index, 2004

On the other hand, McGovern did exceptionally well in the North. In fact, it was not until 1996 that another Democratic candidate performed as well in the north in the partisan index. It was not until 2004 that a candidate performed better. Again, look at the similarity among these three maps:

Northern Partisan Index, 1972

Northern Partisan Index, 1996

Northern Partisan Index, 2004

In both the north and the south, McGovern forecasted the post-New Deal future of the Democratic coalition almost exactly. His northern maps and southern maps look completely different from Carter's, but they look almost exactly like our current maps.

Most importantly, that brings us to the West. In the West, McGovern performed exceptionally well for a Democrat of his time. He performed more than ten points better than Humphrey in Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon and South Dakota. He also improved on Humphrey in Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, Nevada and Washington. From 1976-2000, only Dukakis ever came close to McGovern's performance in the Western partisan index. Only Kerry was able to equal it. Here are Kerry and McGovern's Western Partisan Index maps:

Western Partisan Index, 1972

Western Partisan Index, 2004

Now, compare these Western Partisan Index maps to the ones produced under southern Democratic nominees (see the third post in this series). The difference is clear--Kerry and McGovern both did much, much better. Simply put, it is my contention that McGovern's campaign first revealed the possible shape of a post-New Deal, truly liberal Democratic coalition, by bringing together the North with most of the West. This is the overall partisan index map that is now coming into focus:

National Partisan Index, 1972

National Partisan Index, 2004

Compared to 1976
:

Two paths have diverged in the woods, and the nation has walked down the McGovern path, rather than the Carter path. There is no turning back now.

Conclusion

Interestingly, if one were to look at the Dukakis partisan index map of the West, it would look a lot more like the McGovern and Kerry maps of the West than it would the Carter or Clinton maps of the West (see part three of this series for more on this). While it would be premature for me to draw the conclusion based on these maps that non-southern Democrats do much better in the West than southern Democrats, I do at least have a theory as to why it seems to be the case. It has to do with comparing, broadly defined, the two basic strategies employed by Democratic nominees since 1968. If you will forgive me for sounding like David Brooks for a moment, I call them the McGovern strategy and the Carter strategy. I should note that these two strategies define more how Democrats act in a given cycle when nominating a president than how their nominees act.

On the one hand, we can follow the Carter strategy, and attempt to win through centrism and regional appeal. However, as I argued in my first post of this series, this can no longer work, because regional appeal no longer applies in the south, only ideological appeal does. Thus, in order to win in the south, we must nominate not a regionally moderate, but an actual, honest to God conservative from anywhere in the country. Without running a conservative, this plan is dead.
However, the main drawback to this is not just wasted energy in trying to determine which southerner is the most electable and can best appeal to the region when no one except for conservatives probably can, but that if you run a campaign based on appealing to a particular region, you become disconnected from other regions of the country. Specifically, if you run a campaign designed to appeal to the south through a candidate that shares southern regional characteristics, you seem to have a very difficult time connecting to all of the various regions of the West. Overtly trying to appeal to one region of the country can easily cause resentment in others.
On the other hand, we can follow the McGovern strategy. This involves accepting that our gains in the North, just as much as our losses in the south, are based upon ideology more than anything else. Northerners have largely rejected conservatism, while southerners have welcomed it. As much as I am interested in fighting a war against conservatism itself, even I admit that there really is not much we can do about this in either the short term or even the medium term (the long term, at least ten years from now, is a different story). If we accept this, we can see that the West is not nearly as conservative a region as the South, as I wrote in the third part of this series. McGovern revealed potential underlying strength for Democrats in literally every single Western state except for Utah. In 2004, Kerry revealed much the same thing.
However, I believe that it is only by running a nationwide ideological campaign, rather than one designed to appeal to a particular region, that we can continue to release our potential strength in the more or less post-regional (or at least highly diverse) West. Considering that over 90% of Democrats do not self-identify as conservative, this campaign will almost certainly caused us to get clocked everywhere in the conservative South except Florida (and, to a lesser extent, Virginia and Missouri as well). That is a key clarification I would like to make. I am not saying that we abandon the South, but I am suggesting a strategy that I fully expect will cause us to get destroyed in the South. I would like to be proven wrong, but I do not expect to be (then again, I've said that before).

Because of ideology, I do not think we can still compete in the South in Presidential elections unless we run a conservative. If we drop ideology, and try to win on regional appeal and characteristics unique to the candidate in question, I do not think we can win in the diverse regions of the West. Since I have absolutely no desire to drop my liberal / progressive ideology--or drop what is at least a moderate compromise--in order to win an election, I choose the strategy that will probably seal our electoral doom in the South in Presidential elections for at least two decades. Then again, I'm pretty sure that door has been closing on its own for several decades anyway.

In the 1970's the Carter strategy was clearly the better way to go. Forgetting the partisan index, just look at what happened in actual national vote to McGovern in 1972 and Mondale in 1984. They were beaten so badly nationally, the gains they made in the partisan index were almost invisible. Even in 1992, following the 1988 debacle, it was still pretty clear that the Carter strategy was the better way to go. As a high school senior, I voted for Jerry Brown in the 1992 New York State primary. However, I was not sad at all when it became clear--largely as a result of his win in New York--that Clinton would be the nominee. I even prayed that he would select Al Gore, because I believed the two of them gave us our best chance to win. Needless to say, 1992 was a very happy year for me.

Now, in 2004, not only is it no longer clear that the Carter strategy would give us a better chance to win, looking at the partisan index in the South I am pretty darn certain that the McGovern plan gives us a chance to win. Further, apart from the collapse of Democratic fortunes in the South, from 37.52% in 1972, to 40.56% in 1984, to 45.65% in 1988, and now to 48.13% in 2004, we are coming closer to a national majority every time we employ the McGovern strategy. This time, we hit 252 electoral votes, and came within inches of many more. Quite frankly, I feel we either follow a once successful, but now obsolete strategy, or we continue to build the McGovern coalition to the point of majority manifestation, which is now within our grasp.

. We can still nominate a southerner, but not in the hope that the very southern-ness of that person will somehow make them more likely to compete in the south. It won't. Further, unless we nominate either Mark Warner of Virginia or one of the two Florida Senators, I do not believe that there are any non-conservative Democrats from the south who have a better chance of flipping even one more southern state than a non-conservative Democrat from any other part of the country.

McGovern's campaign was not just about being liberal, of course. It was also about embracing the grassroots. That is something we are also coming to accept, although there is still a struggle. Whenever I read about the DNC movement to stop Dean, "move to the center," or try to perform some other well worn and gradually less effective trick to stay in power, I deeply fear for our future. When I see blogs and diaries on blogs exploding with polls about which two southern governors we need on the ticket in 2008 in order to have any chance of winning, I deeply fear for the future of our party. The worst thing we could do is to abandon this journey--which in truth was started by Eugene McCarthy in the 1968 primaries--even though after four decades we are almost there. Our new majority coalition awaits us. We need to run the national campaign that will allow us to seize it.

Tags: Demographics (all tags)

Permalink :: 51 Comments :: Post a Comment

I like this reasoning a lot (none / 0)

But what states would adopting a more national strategy flip? Colorado? Nevada? Arizona? I think an ideological campaign would resonate very well in the north Midwest, wher strong moral tones about social responsibility have their proper home. If we didn't have to worry about Wisconsin and Minnesota flipping every cycle, I think things would be much happier already.

"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams

by Valatan on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 12:27:09 AM EST

Re: I like this reasoning a lot (none / 0)

Those and more. I think we can put Oregon away before long (its actually at +6.9 DNC now, so its already pretty close). New Mexico, and even Montana also come to mind.

by Chris Bowers on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 01:24:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I like this reasoning a lot (none / 0)

Wow, good work Chris. You make a compelling case. The partisan index does have a way of showing the underlying trends and potential beneath the raw "who won this time" returns.

I think Valatan raises a very important point, though. It's not good that Wisconsin and Minnesota are so close and waivering, given that they each have 10 electoral votes. Plus, I'd point out that we lost ground in Michigan (17 EV) and Iowa (7 EV) this time, and though we gained in Ohio (20 EV), it wasn't by enough to win there. All told, there are 64 electoral votes in those Midwestern battleground states.

By contrast, the only red states in the West we could realistically flip are Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, worth a total of only 29 electoral votes. Improving our vote totals in the already-blue West Coast or Northeast states won't help us in the Electoral College.

Bottom line, I agree that the South (other than Florida and maybe Missouri) is a lost cause, and that there's a potential for gains in the Southwest. However, the real battleground for the presidency is going to be the Midwest/Great Lakes states for some time to come, and winning there will have to be our first priority.

by Horq on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 02:39:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I like this reasoning a lot (none / 0)

I agree with your analysis. Holding he Upper Midwest will still be critical at least through 2020 unless some kind of major realignment occurs. Still, though the Southwest is not as large as the Great Lakes region, it is rapidly gaining population and the Great Lakes are rapidly losing population. This map says it all. As you can see the SW (incl. UT & TX) added 6 EVs while the Great Lakes lost 7 EVs. That's a net switch of 13 which is the current electoral value of Virginia. Unfortunately the other gains were in the conservative Southeast and losses were in NY & CT.

Also, the West Coast hasn't always been so blue. For the second half of the 20th century it was usually a pretty swingy region, usually voting for the winner but tilting even a little Republican. It's easy for me to get into that sort of thinking too being that the first election I can really remember is 1996. The political environment of the country used to be a lot different than the one I've always known (a red state/blue state Maxon-Dixon divide). It's very good news that we seem to have shored up California and made OR & WA out of reach in a close race. This means we can spend our time and money elsewhere in the future. California especially is expected to continue to grow faster than the rest of the country which means more electoral votes and more congressional seats.

On random errata: I just want to point out that we actually gained in the partisan index in IA, WI, MI, MN, and OH even where Kerry got a lower percentage than Gore. Remember, Gore won the popular vote, Kerry lost by 3%.

by asearchforreason on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 03:04:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I like this reasoning a lot (none / 0)

Re: errata: My bad, I got my partisan indexes, raw margins and color maps confused. We did gain in the partisan index in Iowa and Michigan, even though we lost in raw margin there.

We are down in Minnesota, however, compared to 1996 and the 1970's and 80's, even though we did better than in 2000 there. Also, the fact that we won Wisconsin by less than half a percent (raw margin) in the last two elections makes me nervous.

by Horq on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 12:06:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Some notes on "home state advantage" (none / 0)

Great series. I love this long term strategy stuff...

Anyway, my initial thoughts are that I agree with you that the "pick a southern nominee to get his state" strategy which may have worked at one time, is not enough anymore. The last southerner to carry his home state was Clinton in 1996 (well, they carried TN as well). Gore failed to carry TN in 2000. Edwards failed to carry or even make NC close. It seems the "home state" factor gives a small bounce, but it seems to be less and less in the south over time.

Let's see if this hypothesis holds under closer scrutiny...I began preparing a chart to show what sort of partisan index bounces one might expect from the home state of a candidate. I stopped though because the trends were becoming very obvious. Former Senators and Congressmen (Dole, Kemp, Quayle, Edwards, Gore, Kerry, Ferraro, Mondale) seem to have little effect on their home states. In fact, as VP candidates, many of these candidates' tickets showed negative bounces in their home states from what the partisan index was expected to be if there were no candidate from that state. Interestingly, the only recent VP Congressman who has noticeably helped his ticket in his home state has been Cheney. Only at the top of the ticket do Congressmen & Senators have any effect and even then it is small (~5%). Meanwhile, popular home state governors seem to enjoy large boosts in their share of the partisan index. Clinton enjoyed a 10-20% boost in AR in 1992 & 96. Shrub got a large boost in Texas as well (it's difficult to determine just how large because TX's partisan index has been influenced by many national candidates in every election since 1980). Reagan managed a more modest 5-10% but he had been out of the Governor's office for some time.

Thus, my new thesis is that even today, despite the ideological voting pattern that is emerging, a popular governor at the top of the D ticket will pick up somewhere between 5-15% in the partisan index depending on how recently he served. Assuming this is correct and we have a close race in the popular vote: Warner makes VA lean D, Easley makes NC a tossup, Richardson puts NM firmly in the D column, Napolitano makes AZ a tossup, Rendell secures PA, Vilsack secures IA. In my opinion, I think we should look hard at these folks as potential candidates. I plead with you Dems, do not nominate another ho-hum Senator for president, and do not pick a VP to appeal to his home state, rather pick a VP who will bring some needed qualities to the ticket, reinforce the ticket's message, etc.

by asearchforreason on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 01:22:01 AM EST

Re: Some notes on "home state advantage" (none / 0)

I think you are onto something, but I also think the number of elections someone one plays an important factor. Clinton won, what, six terms as Arkansas governor? People there were very used to voting for him.

by Chris Bowers on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 01:26:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some notes on "home state advantage" (none / 0)

This is surprising to me. I've had the theory that Bob Graham as VP candidate could have carried Florida, both because of his popularity and because of his qualifications as a member of the senate select committee on intelligence.

by fwiffo on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 09:59:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some notes on "home state advantage" (none / 0)

Well, Graham was the Governor of Florida for a time but it was a while ago. No prediction is ever perfect but I think Graham may have added a couple of percent in Florida. Possibly not enough to win there and I don't think he would have helped a lot nationally; then again, did Edwards? I think the real problem in Florida right now is the Jeb/Dubya combo. Once they are gone, we should have a better chance in the state.

by asearchforreason on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 12:47:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some notes on "home state advantage" (none / 0)

I looked at this too, and the thing that I think that emerges is where that particular state has been recently. For Edwards, NC was R 13.2 in '00 and R 9.9 in '04. He had a small impact, but with no real consequences. Other candidates from states that are strong for the opposing candidate have little, no or negative impact.

There is a line somewhere around +10 - +12, approximately. When a state is under this line, a candidate, either VP or Pres can maybe take the state from strong to leaning, or leaning R to leaning D. Gore did this with TN, which was strong R in 88 and 04, but leaning R in the 3 races he was in.

Mondale took a state that was leaning D in 80(+5.8) to strong D(+18.4) in 84. States where the Partisan Index already favors the candidate, the candidate usually strengthens or foritfies the position. Besides Mondale, this is true for Quayle and Dole. Ferraro took NY from D 7.1 to D 10.2 as well.

So the thing that I am taking from this is that you can't indiscriminately nominate someone from VP from some region or state and expect it to have a big impact. It has to be targeted at a state which is a) has a partisian index no higher than +10 - +12 and b) is trending dem or shows signs of doing that.

For the south the biggest impact might be VA, FLA, ARK, and MO. Virginia has been trending dem since 1988.

88 12.8
92 9.9
96 10.5
00 8.5
04 5.5

So Republican strength seems to be weakening in VA, and a candidate from there might seriously put the state in play. (Not that I am suggesting Warner - this is just an example).

-jeff

by j pratt on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 02:17:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some notes on "home state advantage" (none / 0)

As for NC, I think Edwards had even less effect than it appears. I think at least a couple of points can be attributed to the fact that demographics are changing in NC and making it more competitive for us.

Tennessee is difficult to analyze because it has swung back and forth so much on the chart. It was very Dem in 1976 & 80, a little Dem in 84, very R in 1988, a little R in 1992, lean R in 1996 & 2000, very R in 2004. It's tough to attribute it to either Gore or Clinton (a fellow southerner...TN seemed to like Carter as well). Clearly Gore didn't do a whole lot at the top of the ticket in 2000. He made up maybe 5 points.

Your point about Mondale is a good example of how the VP nominee hardly does anything for the ticket. In 1980, as VP Mondale did significantly less for MN than he did at the top of the ticket.

by asearchforreason on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 07:23:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some notes on "home state advantage" (none / 0)

Especially given that short list of Southern states trending Dem (VA, FLA, ARK, and MO), why haven't I read anywhere here that Clark is the ideal candidate? I really think he may have won it this time around.

I'd rather see a Clark/Dean ticket in 2008, but a Clark/Warner might take VA. Clark alone should bring AR, MO and FL.

by Arkansas Vermont on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 06:45:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some notes on "home state advantage" (none / 0)

I thought Clark did fairly well for a maiden political voyage. Like so many, I wanted him to swoop in and take the nomination by storm, and was disappointed when he stalled. He sharpened his political skills this fall as a Kerry spokesman, and I'm sure he would improve with time. Will his military credentials trump his lack of elected office? The hate machine began to undercut his service record when it appeared he might have a chance to win the nomination. Does that stick? Can he run for anything in the near future? No room for him in the Arkansas senate, maybe a governor's race?

by xpat on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 09:46:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This could actually broaden our base (3.00 / 1)

As I've read your posts I've been wondering if the tradeoff of trying to appeal to southern voters actually loses votes in other parts of the country. The obvious drawback of attempting to appeal to southern conservatives is that national Democrats are forced to water down their core beliefs, and run as Republican-lites. That's a big part of the reason they are perceived as wishy washy flip floppers.

Whoever runs absolutely must develop and present to the voters a consistent and partisan meme that stands for something. I'm not even sure it's as important exactly what the party stands for as it is that the party stands for something. I've said before that I thought Clinton could have won both of his elections even if he had run on a Kucinich platform.

Letting go of the myth that a Democrat can win even a single southern state may accomplish that goal. Give the mid-west and western voters a strong kitchen table economic program and a few well chosen social issues and stand by that platform. We might be surprised by how many voters would return to the Democratic party if it decided to go back to its roots and represent middle-class and working class people instead of corporations.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 01:28:37 AM EST

Re: This could actually broaden our base (none / 0)

That sounds about right to me. The "Montana Miracle" of 2004, rather than the Southern Strategy, might show us a path toward the future...

by Chris Bowers on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 01:43:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This could actually broaden our base (none / 0)

I definitely think the Montana experience points to a very important path forward. In a broad sense, what Schweitzer did was to shift the narrative from government=oppressor to rapacious corporations=oppressor. By doing this he managed to meld the individual hunter ethos with the collective action environmental ethos. It's been a goal among some for a couple of election cycles, but I think he showed how to do it. That would make CO into a much more doable state. It could turn AZ into a toss-up, push NV blue, and generally turn the Mountain West into an effective counter to the Plains. The Northeast already counters the South. The Pacific West is all ours. So, if we hit Ohio, rebound among Hispanics and take FL, turn VA into a battleground . . . then we'll be cooking with gas.

It's close. Really close. A strong nominee, some good message work for the next four years, and 2008 could be the beginning of a new electoral era.

by BriVT on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 09:38:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This could actually broaden our base (none / 0)

Forgetting about winning the south can be such a liberating experience for the Party. We will be free to advocate policies that have northern, coastal and western appeal. Universal health care, for example.

by rusrivman on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 08:27:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You just hit the nail... (none / 0)

You are 100% correct. My just is centress and chides me for faith in my sligtly left ot center beieves while decring of the "looneys on the right, he belives the truth is alsway somewhere in the middle. But what he said to tday was very interesting. We don't have a two party system we have a 1 1/2 party system. At least the Rebups have a plan, direction and policies. They maybe the wrong polices, and we maybe going in the wrong direction, but that is better that not have any policies or any direction other than saying they are wrong. People want what they precieve to be leadership even if it is in the wrong direction (at least they thied something) instead we give them fumbling around changing our stance and looking clueless. How many dems voted for the patroit act and now think it was wrong, how many voted to invade Iraq, and now are againt it. We as a party need to take a stand an say now, when Bush wants to up end the tax code we need to put forth a big fat no, same with invading any other counties, or anything else we are apposed to. Then and only then can we stand on our princable and right or wrong people will know what we stand for.

We do that combind with good canidates and start framing the message on our terms, we might win a few election.

by likesun on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 01:55:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This could actually broaden our base (none / 0)

I agree with your comments about directino of the platform, and focusing on western states.

However, I still buy into the myth that we can win one southern state. AK and MO are pretty weak holdings by republican southern standerds. FL and VA have shown a definite pattern where republican strength has weakened.

Targeting these states along with the West will a)give campaigns some additional flexibilty, b)make it easier to take back congress by keeping democratic activism in those areas c) force republicans to defend their home turf.

-jeff

by j pratt on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 02:32:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

emerging democratic majority (3.00 / 1)

this sounds pretty similar to ruy teixeira's emerging democratic majority--the mcgovern coalition will grow strong enough to give the democrats a majority. i hope you're right.

by rufustfyrfly on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 01:37:50 AM EST

First Great Lakes, then Southwest, then new South (3.00 / 1)

As has been mentioned, first we solidify the Great Lakes (not counting Indiana, that really doesn't even belong in that group). Ohio is coming our way. We need to hold Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and take back Iowa...and there's an electoral majority already.

Then we move to the Southwest. New Mexico will easily come back, and Colorado and Nevada are rapidly trending our way. Arizona will be a lot of work, however.

We'll never take the deep South. Not even Clinton at the height of his popularity could run through the deep South states. However, Virginia (and later on, North Carolina) are slowly moving our way. And of course there is Florida. We need to address the Hispanic population directly. They are the future of our coalition there and across the Southwest.

I really don't think a national Democrat ticket has much chance across Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Dakotas, etc, at least not for a long time. Luckily there aren't too many votes there.

by Skaje on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 05:16:33 AM EST

Re: First Great Lakes, then Southwest, then new So (none / 0)

The problem with the Great Lakes... Ohio's economy is the worst in the nation - the pick-up in the partisan index there probably reflects that more than an actual shift in ideology. Michigan isn't far behind in the jobs picture; we should have won by a couple more points. Unions in Michigan, Ohio, etc. are becoming less relevent every day. The population drop in the region doesn't bode well for us either.

I guess I'm a bit pessimistic, but all these states are going to be on the bubble for some time to come.

by fwiffo on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 09:53:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First Great Lakes, then Southwest, then new So (none / 0)

Ohio just needs a strong Democratic state level party. 2006 will be a huge year for this. They need to get a candidate to win the governor's mansion and then Ohio will be on a Blue streak.

Rigtht now, the Ohio house, senate, and governor's mansion are all controlled by Republicans. You get a Democratic Governor, and then there will be lots of excitiment as the Hous & Senate butt up against the governonr.

It would be good for Dems in Ohio.

SquareState.net - Colorado Politics

by pacified on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 10:48:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

On the right track (3.00 / 2)

You've made the case that nominating a southerner is unlikely to be a winning strategy, and that the next presidential campaign shouldn't give priority to "southern issues".

What I wonder is whether we've neglected the suburban vote, by not talking to suburban issues. It would be interesting to see an analysis like yours done for urban, suburban, exurban, and rural counties or precincts.

I'm wondering whether it might be a more effective strategy to build an urban/suburban coalition around issues that haven't gotten much air time this year, such as water, the environment, higher education, and small business.

As we improve our strength down-ticket we can make a lot of progress on these more localized issues. It's where our grassroots organizing is strongest.

by pdt on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 10:33:43 AM EST

Re: On the right track (3.00 / 1)

I agree, with a twist. Gallup's post-election analysis showed that in 2004 married people voted for bush by a 60/40 margin, while single people voted for Kerry by an exact opposite 60/40 margin.

While this Marriage Gap is nothing new, I can't help but think we're missing out on a trove of potential votes by failing to consciously target married people. If Democrats are being seen as the Single Party and Republicans as the Married Party, that goes a long way toward explaining which "values" we are perceived as not serving -- and they're not necessarily religious values.

So, I would suggest that the defining difference between urbans and suburbans/exurbans is that urbans tend to be single and suburbans/exurbans tend to be married, and that the coalition we need to try to build might best be one of suburban/exurban married folks.

by Irfo on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 12:22:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Marrieds (3.00 / 1)

I've noticed in my suburban area that the marriage gap seems related to the children gap, and the latter may be stronger. Maybe because children motivate people to go to church more? And then church-goers have been led to believe they're supposed to vote for conservatives. Maybe this implies a couple of things we should do, such as offering an optimistic vision for our children, and providing activities and services for families with children.

by pdt on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 12:52:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Marrieds (3.00 / 1)

I agree. There's no logical reason why marriage would make people more conservative, but there are logical reasons why parenthood would. The "marriage gap" is probably just a statistical stand-in for the parenthood gap.

I doubt the parenthood gap is based on church attendance, though. I think it has more to do with parents' natural desires to protect their children, which the GOP exploits with fears of porn, drugs, and now terrorism.

Clinton-style Democrats try to narrow the parenthood gap by acceding to the GOP's censorship and drug war agenda, but also by adding a fear of their own: guns and violence.

My gut instinct is that accomodating demands for censorship and ever-harsher drug laws probably costs us more among the - mostly young - childless vote than it gains us among parents, while calls for stronger gun regulation do the reverse, so I advocate less of the former and more of the latter. But I haven't seen any statistics which might confirm my gut.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!

by Mathwiz on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 02:46:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Marrieds (none / 0)

I disagree with this analysis. The "marriage" gap has to do with

a) conservative "family values" rhetoric
b) increased church attendance
c) protection of children (as you mention).

We are not going to out- family values the conservatives and giving up on free speach is bad policy and a direction I wouldn't go in. I don't think it will gain any significant votes. Gun control was a battle we lost, and has its own electoral costs in the west, which I think is where we should pursue votes.

Winning the marriage vote is probably impractical. We should focus on cutting down the margin from 60/40 to maybe 55/45. We can do this with an increased emphasis on education reform. Bush's 'No Child Left Behind', as flawed and underfunded as it is, improved peoples perception of Republicans handling of education.

If there is a compromise, it should be over school vouchers with the condition that vouchers are only for suburban schools. Most voucher proponents are suburban parents who want to get their kids into more presitigous private schools on the cheap. This would shut them up while minimazing damage to the better funded suburban public schools, make the democrats look like problem solvers, and allow us to focus on addressing more serious problems in urban public schools without the conservative voucher gang getting in the way.

-jeff

by j pratt on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 03:26:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Marrieds (none / 0)

yowzer. the number of typos in my post probably disqualifies me from commenting on the education system.

-jeff

by j pratt on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 03:29:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Marrieds (3.00 / 2)

I think the children/growth gap is one we can close on a bit.

As a small business owner, I strongly agree that we need to engage small businesses, who see large businesses with deeper pockets buy the lawyers, lobbyists and regulatory influence they need to keep main street (and innovation) down.

The common theme here is growth: growth for children and families, growth in our international competitive edge through education, growth in innovation and small business, and similar themes we can weave into the longstanding frontier mythology of the West. (This could even help in a prairie state or two, given the regions old progressive roots, which srurvive still, a d differentiate prairie conservatives from southern ones)

All of those seem like winning, coalition building themes to me, along with our traditional focus on work, civil rights (values), and environmental protection. We need to steal only one theme from the other side to make this complete (and we can do it with credibility): responsible, limited government (including fiscal and regulatory responsibility to ensure a level playing field).

by Pachacutec on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 04:35:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Marrieds (none / 0)

I fully agree that the "Marriage Gap" is primarily a parenthood gap, although there may also be an aspect that conservatives are more likely to get married in the first place, because they believe more in the instititution (and also so they can finally have sex), while liberals just go ahead and "live in sin."

As for what to do about the gap, I think the answer is in language and framing more than than it is in changing policies. We can easily tie our existing positions on the economy, the environment, foreign policy and probably many other issues all back to a central theme of "protecting our children's future." Since the recent election showed that a candidate's "feel" is more important that anything he's done or says he'll do, I don't think we need to believe or act differently, we just need to talk about our positions in this kind of re-focused, more cohesive manner.

by Irfo on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 03:30:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The pitfall in this analysis... (none / 0)

...is that it puts too much importance on the "Partisan Index." If I understand it correctly, since the PI is based on the state's vote differential compared to the overall national vote differential, what it really predicts is how a state would "break" assuming a dead-even popular vote nationwide.

Based on that, a case can be made that ignoring the South and concentrating on joining the West to the already-present Northeast bloc can produce an winning electoral vote margin assuming, once again, a dead-even popular vote nationwide.

But then, the question becomes "can a Democratic candidate finish at least dead-even in the popular vote if they get wiped out in the South?" Because it seems to me that a PI-reliant analysis of the situation winds up chasing its own tail -- since, for the PI to predict victory, our candidate needs (at least) 50% of the national popular vote, and that is almost impossible to get if we keep losing the Southern (and Great Plains) states by 10%-25% each.

In fact, that's what we saw happen this month. We turned our back on the South, nominated a Northeastern candidate who appealed to the West, and ran an ideological rather than regional campaign. And we lost the popular vote by 3%. If you can only pull 48% nationwide, the PI will do you little good.

I'm wondering about a combination ideological/regional campaign. What if the Democrats were to run a progressive populist from the West rather than the Northeast? I think part of what has killed the Democrats in several ideological campaigns is not merely that they ran a non-Southern candidate, but that they ran what might be called an "Old North" candidate. Like it or not, the wounds of the Civil War (or, for the sake of the deep-red states, the "War of Northern Aggression") have never really healed, and I think there's a deep-seated reluctance for Southern voters to consider a candidate from one of the former Union ("yankee") states that might not be present if the candidate is from a part of the country that really didn't have a dog in the fight of the Late Unpleasantness.

Of course, the problem there would lie in finding a progressive populist from the West who could be a suitable candidate. Even living in the Pacific Northwest, I must admit I'm drawing a blank on that.

by JDWalley on Wed Nov 24, 2004 at 05:13:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What do you think is the effect of the media ... (3.00 / 1)

..on this analysis? Let's face it, the supposedly "liberal" media allowed a war-hero to be smeared by a deserter, while refusing to call the administration on its pile of lies.

I agree with the strategy of not trying to "out-conservative" the Republicans, but I think we cannot ignore the necessity of taking back the media by creating our own think tanks, media darlings, and propoganda machines, because, unfortunately, that is what the voting public responds to as a whole.

Getting the message out that poverty is immoral, taking civil liberties is immoral, freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion, and that capitalism is a game best played with rules and referees is very important too.

I'm not saying we can't walk and chew gum at the same time, just that we can't ignore the importance of message delivery in a media-driven climate that is often times more about hype than substance.

Thoughts?

by drdigi420 on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 10:34:43 AM EST

Re: Effect of the media (none / 0)

I thought the ticket explained the immorality of no health care, job loss...pretty effectively. The problem was that the voters weren't listening. When you're dealing with religion, faith...it's next to impossible to change hard held beliefs. Kerry was just flapping his lips. Rove did a superb job of locating and targeting the people who already bought into their message.

Appx. 60% of eligible voters turned out. I would guess nearly every faith based potential voter was identified and contacted. That leaves 40% out there who didn't vote. Why? Instead of trying to "sell ourselves" better, perhaps, we should commit to the grunt work of locating these people, finding out who they are and what makes them tick. I know that is easier said than done, however, it may prove more fruitful in the long run.

by xpat on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 11:12:43 AM EST

wow. (none / 0)

this is a truly beautiful series -- i actually created an account here just to tell you that (i've been lurking previous to this).

i've been thinking along these same lines for a while now, though more on a gut level rather than with the intellectual vigor you've supplied to the situation.

one nitpicky thing: i would differentiate the west into smaller regions, specifically the coastal states, the mountain states, & the southwest. the cultures & populations of each of these sub-regions is quite different & a targetted approach that takes into account the concerns of the people living in each sub-region would, i think, lead to greater electoral success. that said, i can well see that your main concern was with getting an overview of the macrotrends & that minor regional differences, while relavent to electoral tactics, would be cumbersome in this context.

have you by any chance read chris caldwell's piece, the southern captivity of the gop? i summarized it & posted relavent links in this comment in dkos. if you haven't, i would highly recommend it as it complements your central thesis in this series.

link to my summary of caldwell: http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/11/21/222413/05/18#18
s.

by synth on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 11:23:37 AM EST

Re: wow. (none / 0)

Actually, I was planning to write about that piece today. It serves, I believe, as an interesting postscript to my series on the evolving elctoral coalitions.

by Chris Bowers on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 12:27:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: wow. (none / 0)

Synth, I read your summary of Chris Caldwell's article in the Atlantic Monthly. Although I don't subscribe to the Atlantic Monthly and can't read his article, I believe his general thesis (as described by you on DKos) is correct. I believe that political parties tend to drift towards the most fervent sector of its base and that seems to be happening to the GOP now. That is, it is falling into greater thrall to its Southern conservative base and, in doing so, runs a risk of radicalizing its ideology. As Chris as noted, political parties seem to be ideologically based now, rather than regionally based. So, as the GOP ideology morphs into a reflection only of its Southern conservative base, the GOP platform will likely become less attractive to voters in other regions.

If this possibility becomes reality (the GOP becomes the party of only Southern conservatives), it will have an incredible impact on Southern politics in ways that few have imagined. In a post Mark Schmitt wrote on his The Decembrist blog earlier this year, he pointed out that the South may be about to overplay its hand. That is, it may be just about to maneuver itself into a position of political irrelevance that it hasn't suffered since 1876. Schmitt explains that since Reconstruction the South has managed to hold the balance of power in American politics pretty reliably with few interruptions. Schmitt has foreseen the possibility of the GOP becoming the party of only southern conservatives and, as a result, the South may finally lose its influence in American politics. To read Schmitt's post, follow this link: Is the White South About to Overplay Its Hand?

Having lived my early life in the Deep South, I can tell you that this outcome will be a tremendous shock to those people and may lay them open to the political/cultural/social change they so sorely need. I have only one question should the South take over exclusive ownership of the GOP: will Fox News remain the propaganda arm of the GOP or will it admit that it's only the propaganda arm of the white conservative South?

by Mushinronsha on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 03:55:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks ... (none / 0)

... for your thoughts & for the link. if you can find a copy of caldwell's article, do read it. his analysis is very thorough. s.

by synth on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 01:42:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Encouraged By Your Analysis (none / 0)

I'm very gratified to see the analysis you did. The results confirm what I was already sensing but had no data to prove. I was exceedingly disheartened to hear post-election calls for us Democrats to run Southerners as our presidential candidates and to move further to the right for more appeal in the South and Midwest. In my heart, I knew these strategies were wrong and would lead us to ruin. We need to build our strategies on the trends you've uncovered and rediscover our inner McGovern.

by Mushinronsha on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 11:47:55 AM EST

An exceptional piece of work (none / 0)

Wow

That really is a great piece of analysis.

Thanks Chris

I had suspected as much, and fully agree that winning back the south is very much a long term goal that just is not feasible in the short or medium term.

Changes in society over the longer term may well bring some of these states into play but in the shorter term, say the next two elections, even a southern governor would really struggle to create a message that would win southern states, while a the same time delivering democratic base states.

The biggest danger I suspect is that in pushing for southern states we lose a grip on our base states.

Both Gore and Kerry were very close to winning. They made some tactical errors and faced much stronger opposition than might have been suspected, but if we can learn the lessons of these elections and find a way to connect to the significant percentage that still are not voting, there is hope of success.

by kundalini on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 12:35:51 PM EST

Long Term (none / 0)

This seems to further support the idea that over the long term (10+ or even 30+ years), we need to be building the case that liberalism/progressivism is best for the country/world, not conservatism: Sound electoral strategy is great, but a sound electorate is even better.

by absinf on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 12:47:32 PM EST

Southwest and Southeast (none / 0)

You make great points in many ways, but writing off the South is a bad idea. Dems can never write off the South as long as Midwesterners and Northeasterners continue to move to the Southeast, and they always will. Georgia, Texas, Florida, and North Carolina are rapidly gaining in population, as the map that someone put in their post shows. These four states already add up to 91 electoral votes. Liberals/Moderates (Dems) from Wisconsin and Minnesota move to North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia as often as they move to Arizona and Nevada, as the South is closer to the Midwest than the West is (it's not as far from where their families and roots are). 2.8 Million votes were cast for Kerry in Texas in 2004 -- that's more than the number of Dems who voted for Kerry in Minnesota and Maryland combined. Those votes are not being leveraged right now and become even less useful if Dems completely write off the South. The popular vote margin in 2004 mostly comes from states like Tennessee, Alabama, Texas, and Oklahoma. To hit 53 or 54 percent in a Presidential election anytime soon and not simply squeak in, Dems have to compete in the South. It's going to be a long time before Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico come anywhere close to having the same electoral pull as Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. A national strategy means competing in all four regions, not just three. It was only eight years ago that Clinton won five southern states. With Virginia and North Carolina becoming a bit bluer, and Missouri retaining a sizeable Democratic element, Dems can still win Southern/border states. The key is simply to nab one to three Southern/border states in an election. Florida remains such a crucial state (because Dems are quite competitive there and it has so many electoral college votes). Gore clearly did better in Florida than Kerry -- perhaps in no small measure because Gore is from the South. The West isn't growing so much faster than the South that Dems can afford to completely write off the South. I'm not convinced that Westerners won't vote for a Southerner. Clinton beat Bush 7-4 in the West and he beat Dole 6-5. Gore hurt himself more than necessary in the South with gun control, and Clinton had more of the Bubba personality. A Southern Dem nominee also can strengthen Democratic vote totals among moderates in Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Minnesota, and Michigan. Dems need a libertarian non-intellectual Southerner who consistently enunciates a broad, macro, partisan vision (a previous post makes a great point: Whoever runs absolutely must develop and present to the voters a consistent and partisan meme that stands for something.) Edwards, Warner, Pryor, Easley. One of these people is the ticket.

by JT on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 07:09:04 PM EST

Re: Southwest and Southeast (none / 0)

Liberman upped Gore's vote in Florida in 00. Bush's strong support of Israel for the last four years cut heavily into Kerry's support from Jewish voters this time. With all due respect, I don't think Gore's roots mattered in Florida. Philosophically, I agree with you about a southerner appealing to moderate and rural voters in the mid-west, but wasn't Edwards supposed to do that this time? While I personally found his message of "two Americas" very compelling, it made little impact(or not enough)with those voters. While the veep's role is usually overestimated,I know hopes were especially high for Edwards. Unlike '88, when Bentsen was brought in to add southern ballast and conservatism to the northeastern ticket(a mis-match which failed terribly), Kerry and Edwards, for all their dissimilar styles, were basically the same candidate. If the positions were reversed on the ticket, I doubt it would have made much difference in the south. I would like to see Edwards head the DNC. This would give him four years to go door-to-door and hopefully gain more experience and credibility around the country, however, he ain't ever going to carry Texas, or the rest of the south, no matter how much we all want it to come true. Perot, and the ambivalence of the religious right, were a gift for Clinton. If we have any realistic hopes of capturing the south in the near future, a strong third party candidate is necessary to split the vote. If you disagree, maybe you can get Ann Richards to come back and run for Governor.

by xpat on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 10:42:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you insane? (none / 0)

Deep South: (5 states) SC, GA, AL, MS, LA
Outer South: (7 states) TX, OK, AR, TN, NC, VA, FL
Border States: (3 states) WV, KY, MO

That's 30 senate seats and a heap of electoral votes that the Democratic Party would be writing off. NC and GA are the each same size as NJ. TX is bigger than NY. FL is bigger than PA. And the demographics are only getting worse.

What the hell has happened to the Democratic Party in the South?

In 2000, Georgia was a solid Blue state at the state level. Once, Georgia was blue enough to stand by Jimmy Carter in 1980 and elect Clinton in 1992. Now it is solid Red. The Georgia Democratic Party has almost completely collapsed in only four years. Louisiana will be the next. A state that Clinton carried TWICE was considered unwinnable for Kerry. If current trends continue, Landrieu will be a gonner in 2008.

In my local area, congressional district NC-11 (Asheville) used to change hands every election. Now, a corrupt GOP congressman is considered "safe". SC-3 (Anderson/Aiken) and SC-4 (Greenville/Spartanburg) were both held by Democrats in the not too distant past. Now the Democrats don't even bother in SC-3 and lost SC-4 by a 75-25 margin.

I don't have to tell anyone here that Bush was a very poor President. He screwed up Iraq, we've had a 3 year "recovery" from a six month recession, and Osama is still breathing, and that's just the start. Yet he still won and his party GAINED seats. Kerry outspent Bush by a considerable margin, yet didn't even do as well as Al Gore.

What will happen if John McCain or a similar Republican wins the nomination? If the Democrats get 0wn3d by a fool like Bush, what will happen if the Republicans find a halfway decent candidate?

Oh, you're going to win Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio, Florida, and Virginia? Not if the current trends continue. New Mexico just went red. Florida wasn't even close. Ohio's economy took a beating, yet Bush still carried it. The Republican Party has made significant gains among minorities and women. Bush did better among Hispanics than any Republican has ever done, even though he lost ground among the strongly Republican Florida Cubans (Thanks to Elian, he carried them so heavily in 2000 he had nowhere to go but down). African-Americans went 7:1 for Kerry, but they went 10:1 for Gore.

The Democrats are going to take seats from the "blue states" to make up for their losses? Sorry, that isn't going to work. Blue state Republicans are people like Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci, Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Arlen Specter, George Pataki, and Rudy Giuliani. Blue state Republicans can win in the blue states and are considered good Republicans, even if they disagree with the national party on the social issues. A "win the liberal Republicans" strategy is foolish even if you do carry New Hampshire. Liberal Republicans care about tax cuts. Conservative Democrats care about "social issues".

Simply put, the Democrats have gotten their asses kicked, and have been getting their asses kicked since at least 1994. I doubt if even Clinton would have gotten a second term if not for Ross Perot (and perhaps the total ineptitude of the Bob Dole campaign). This strategy isn't working. It's time to change to a strategy that will make Democrats competitive in all 50 states. It's time to appeal to the "guys with confederate flags on their pickup trucks" instead of calling them a bunch of ignorants racists all the time. That's not how you win votes, folks.

McGovern LOST 49 STATES. He even lost South Dakota. Eventually, they kicked him out of the Senate. (deja vu all over again for Daschle) Carter was the last Democrat to win a majority of the popular vote. Why follow the McGovern path?

by wayward on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 10:44:15 PM EST

Re: Are you insane? (none / 0)

So, what do you propose we do to win the South?

by pammo on Wed Nov 24, 2004 at 08:52:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you insane? (none / 0)

Your facts are pretty sobering, yet we came within an eyelash of winning the presidency w/o any southern state. Don't misunderstand, I would love for us to be truly competitive in the south. I just can't see how we can win on a national level.
I think we can pick up a Senate seat occasionally, when the republicans run a really lousy candidate, or an incumbent under indictment.
Nationally, it's a grim picture.
Even if you could find this mythical candidate who would be the darling of the NRA and the "confederate flag wavers", they would have to win the nomination. That's pretty unlikely under any scenario. If the unimagineable occurred, and all the liberals and moderates stayed in the race, cancelling each other out and allowing this Zell/Stenholm/Breaux type to win the nomination, you would guarantee a liberal third party candidate.
A border state might be in reach someday, given the constantly changing demographic. Please explain to me how we can win in Tx, Miss,Ala,Ga,Ok...?

by xpat on Wed Nov 24, 2004 at 09:54:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you insane? (none / 0)

Your facts are correct, wayward, but to infer any permanence to the pattern is, I believe, is unwarranted. To quote Steve Clemons (on a different topic): "... in revolutionary times, when everything seems to be changing, these sorts of anachronistic attitudes about permanence seem to be very wrong-headed."

by Mushinronsha on Wed Nov 24, 2004 at 02:52:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Southwest and Southeast/are you insane (none / 0)

Dems won't win Texas, Miss, Ala, or OK in a presidential election. Not going to happen. I agree -- a Stenholm/Breaux type of candidate would not work, as a left wing third party candidate would emerge in that scenario and take 2 to 3 percent of the vote. What I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be either or. Clinton and Carter are good examples. Clinton and Carter both combined liberalism in some areas, with Southerness in others. Regionalism does matter. People (Southerners in this case) vote for the presidential nominee, not the vice presidential nominee. Southerners didn't vote against Mondale, they voted for Carter. 1996 was not that long ago and Clinton won five southern states. That was even after elements of liberalism during his first couple of years in office. Regionalism matters. Not every vote that Perot got in 96 was from disaffected people on the right. Without Perot in the race in 96, I'm convinced Clinton would have gotten more than %50 of the popular vote. Even with every single Perot vote in Louisiana going to Dole in 96 (Perot was a strong third party candidate in 96), Clinton still would have won Louisiana by more than 5 percentage points. Dole + Perot in Arkansas in 96 was 44 percent -- 9 points less than Clinton at 53 percent. Regional characteristics are important. I agree that Edwards would not have won NC in 2004 at the top of the ticket. I think he would have made Missouri, Virginia and Florida more competitive, and could have won one of them. That expands the playing field for Democrats. Clinton and Carter are the biggest Dem presidential vote getters, percentage wise, in 40 years. Democrats have not won the White House with a non Southerner at the top of the ticket since 1960 -- 44 years ago. Even then, JFK did not win by much. The fact that Gore won the popular vote and Kerry lost it by a fair margin means something. Gore had more leverage in Florida than Kerry had/has in Ohio, because he led in the popular vote. A large percentage of Americans live in the South, and Dems can't afford to let the popular vote margin in the Southern states continue to grow. If it does, there will be even fewer strong Senate candidates in the South. Dems cannot cede for perpetuity the 30 Southern/border senate seats that one of the previous posters mentioned above. There has to be Southern strategy of some sort. It hasn't been proven to me that the Carter/Clinton type of nominee is any less successful in the Southwest, Pacific Coast, and the North than the non Southern type of Dem presidential nominee. Dems don't have to capture the South--they won't. They do need to pick off one to three southern/border states. A Southerner at the top of the ticket makes that a lot more feasible.

by JT on Wed Nov 24, 2004 at 03:37:37 PM EST

Re: Southwest and Southeast/are you insane (none / 0)

Edwards and Warner both possess the TV star qualities necessary for a national campaign. Warner must leave next year due to term limits. What can he do in the interim? Would it be wise for him to challenge George Allen for the senate seat? Would the voters care if he was using the senate seat as a springboard to the presidency? They might not be so eager to throw Allen out. I think his best hope would be to declare for the senate with the promise not to run in 08. He could always be tapped for the VP slot. Talented guy-maybe the timing isn't ideal? Ditto for Edwards-what does he do now? He spent most of his term in the senate getting ready to run in 04.

by xpat on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 10:01:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ideas (none / 0)

It is a shame politically that states in the southeast and southwest are among the fastest growing. I wish states like New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, California, Illinois, Hawaii, and Connecticut were. However, we need to latch on to this fact and stop the continuous process of losing electoral votes.

We can't start winning Utah, Idaho, Georgia, or Texas anytime soon. However, Nevada, Florida, and New Mexico are very doable, and Arizona, Colorado, and Virginia can be done with some hard work. Meanwhile, we can start paying people to move to California, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii (hey, the weather's great - what do you need Utah for?) - just kidding.

We can't afford to write off the entire South, especially the fast-growing South like Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia. But we should focus more on the Mountain states, notably Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico. Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado rounded out the top 3 growers in the 90's. Arizona is an uphill battle, but Nevada is becoming as much a swing state as Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Florida, and I'm increasingly optimistic about Colorado what with the Salazar brothers' wins this year.

With these fast growers, especially in the Mountains, the number one game is Latinos. Win back large majorities in the Latino vote - more than the 53% garnered by Kerry. We need 60 or 70%, and we also must improve our margins among Asians (56%) and women (51%, which should be between 55% and two-thirds if at all possible - this can be done by getting the security moms to stop thinking the GOP will keep them safe).

The southwest - that is the game (especially Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico, but we need to try for Arizona as well). The southeast is also important (especially Florida, the third fastest grower by the Census 2003 estimate, but also Virginia, which is now a legitimate swing state). I think Virginia, Colorado, and Arizona can be won with the right candidate, and Nevada, New Mexico, and Florida can be done even with just a tiny bit of luck.

To me, the game is to win back stronger margins among our base (it would help to widen the gap in party registration that has been closing since the Reagan years). Today, there are almost as many Republicans as Democrats - it didn't even used to be close. This can change if we retake the definition as the
peoples' party and stop being the little weakling that can't stand up to the big fat rich elephant.

Finally, we need to accept that we are no longer the party of the South, we are the party of the North. The North and the South will never agree on a candidate (1976 was the last time Texas and New York voted for the same guy, and in Texas' case it was probably due to regionalism, which is now a thing of the past). This doesn't mean write off the South - it means don't obsess on it. Obsess on the Mountain states, guys, and the swingy parts of the southeast (Florida and Virginia, and North Carolina to a lesser extent).

One more thing - it's about rallying the base, not appealing to moderates. Karl Rove proved this this year - he didn't win moderates, he got those millions of evangelicals who stayed home four years ago to vote. We need to increase turnout among blacks, single women, and other base groups, in addition to taking back strong majorities among women in general and Latinos.

by raginillinoian on Sat Nov 27, 2004 at 12:54:43 AM EST

Re: Ideas (none / 0)

Maybe the party could offer to move some of the 2.6 million Kerry voters in Texas? Give them a choice of New Mexico, Nev., Co.,or for a special relocation package, Montana.

by xpat on Sat Nov 27, 2004 at 06:13:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.