The Return of the Blue and the Grey

by Chris Bowers, Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 08:48:26 PM EST

There is a lot of talk these days about the need to have a Southerner on top of the ticket in order once again compete in the south. I think this talk is extremely myopic, as it ignores our thoroughly we have been demolished in the south, despite having a southerner on top of the ticket from 1992-2000, and a southerner on the bottom of the ticket in both 1988 and 2004. Let's start with the Partisan Index for the Presidential Vote: 
Southern Battleground
  Partisan Index  Shift from 2000
LA   RNC +11.5	    (RNC +3.2)
TN   RNC +11.3	    (RNC +6.9)
WV   RNC +9.7	    (RNC +2.9)
NC   RNC +9.5	    (DNC +3.8)
AR   RNC +6.8	    (RNC +0.8)
VA   RNC +5.6	    (DNC +2.9)
MO   RNC +4.3	    (RNC +0.5)
FL   RNC +2.2	    (RNC +1.7)

Non-Southern Battleground
  Partisan Index  Shift from 2000
AZ   RNC +7.6	    (RNC +0.8)
CO   RNC +3.4	    (DNC +5.5)
NV   DNC +0.5	    (DNC +4.6)
OH   DNC +0.7	    (DNC +4.7)
NM   DNC +1.7	    (DNC +2.2)
IA   DNC +2.1	    (DNC +2.6)
WI   DNC +3.6	    (DNC +3.9)
NH   DNC +4.5	    (DNC +6.3)
PA   DNC +5.3	    (DNC +1.6)
MI   DNC +6.2	    (DNC +1.6)
MN   DNC +6.6	    (DNC +4.5)
OR   DNC +7.0	    (DNC +7.1)
ME   DNC +10.1	    (DNC +5.5)
WA   DNC +10.4	    (DNC +5.3)
In six of the eight southern states that were considered battlegrounds at some point during the campaign, Republicans gained in the partisan index. One of the two where Democrats gained was North Carolina, and probably at least somewhat Edwards related. The only bright spot in the entire south is Virginia, where Democrats clearly gained.

By contrast, in thirteen out of the fourteen non-southern states that were considered battlegrounds at some point in the campaign (that is, both Bush and Kerry ran ads), Democrats gained in the partisan index. Only a 0.8 shift to the RNC in Arizona, the smallest shift in any of the fourteen states, prevented a clean sweep.

In the Senate, five of the six seats that Republicans picked up in the south, with only South Dakota being the exception. In the south, Democrats experienced a net five-seat loss in the Senate. By contrast, outside of the South, Democrats experienced a net one-seat gain in the Senate.

State legislatures show the same pattern.

Republicans made gains in several Southern states, winning the Georgia House and the Oklahoma House, as well as the Senate in Tennessee. They also captured the House in Indiana.
By contrast, as Jerome pointed out a few days ago:
Democrats won majorities in the purple states:
  • Democrats won the North Carolina House, where power had been shared since the last election.
  • They earned a tie in the Iowa Senate.
  • They broke a tie in Oregon's Senate by winning 3 seats and won 3 seats in the House.
  • In Colorado, they retook the House and were poised to retake the Senate, pending results from one race.
  • In Minnesota, where they reduced a 30-seat Republican edge to a 68-66 GOP advantage.
There's more:
They [Republicans] also failed to win any seats at all in California, despite the campaigning and fundraising prowess of Arnold Schwarzenegger. In Hawaii, that state's popular GOP governor, Linda Lingle, saw the voters ignore her appeals for a more cooperative legislature as unions picked off several Republican incumbents. Even in the South, Democrats made some gains, winning back complete control of North Carolina's state House.
Democrats also made state legislature gains in Michigan and Ohio, and in both cases are now within only three seats of taking at least one of the two branches of the legislature. Vermont saw notable Democrats gains in the state legislature as well. Finally, Republicans wrested the Missouri and Indiana governorships from Demcorats, while Democrats wrested the Montana and New Hampshire governorships from Republicans.

Do I need to go on? The pattern is clear. We have been thoroughly routed out of the South, but are making significant gains in virtually every other part of the country. We are well on our way toward building a new post-Dixiecrat, and entirely post-New Deal majority coalition. If we cling to some foolish believe that our problems in the South can be fixed by nominating a conservative Southern governor who talks faith, we might as well fold up our tents right now. It has taken us twenty years to come close to building a national majority since the fracturing of the Democrat-Dixiecrat coalition in the early 1980's, but we are finally close. For a long time we were propped up by the false impression that the Southern wing of the Democratic Party was not completely dead, but after Tuesday it is time to put that false hope out to pasture. I'm not saying we should not keep trying in the south, as I believe we should keep trying everywhere. However, it is time to stop believing that just having a southerner on the ticket, or talking a little faith is somehow going to turn our fortunes around in the region. For that matter, we should not even believe that doing these things would even make us competitive in the region anytime soon. The Blue-Gary divide in the country is once again rearing its ugly head, and the Mike Easley's, Wesley Clark's, Mary Landrieu's and Phil Bredesen's of the party are not going prevent that from happening.




Tags: Demographics (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 89 Comments :: Post a Comment


It seems to me we need to recalibrate everything. (none / 0)

I really, really think we're looking at voter fraud here. Bev Harris over at blackboxvoting.org had a little Q&A over at democraticunderground.com and she says she can prove it. It's only a matter of figuring out its scale.

Florida, Ohio, and New Mexico -- at least -- will be back in the Kerry column by Inauguration Day.

This will be a complete disaster for the right wing. The true believers will circle the wagons and become even more belligerant than ever, but to a lot of Bush voters they're just going to look really sad. The center of political discourse will then make a dramatic shift to the left.

This could be the best thing that has ever happened to us.

by goldengreek on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 09:00:39 PM EST

P.S. (none / 0)

Bev thinks there may have actually been a sting operation involved. It's been obvious for months that the intelligence community's at war with the Bush administration, and the first thing I noticed about this whole theft is how sloppy it was. I think that was done on purpose.
by goldengreek on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 09:03:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It seems to me we need to recalibrate (none / 0)

Yes.  If there was significant &/or widespread fraud -- and frankly that is what we would have to expect from what we know of these people -- then all these arguments about why we 'lost' evaporate.  We didn't lose.
by larryrant on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 09:22:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It seems to me ... (none / 0)

I am sorry, but it seems to me that you are grasping at straws. I would like as much as anyone around here to have this election result go away like a bad dream. but how can that REALLY happen? Let's say that this person has what they consider to be proof of a fraud sufficient to have altered the outcome. What is the process to actually translate that to overturning the election? Wouldn't john Kerry himself have to file suit? I think there's about a snowball's chance in hell of that. At the end of the day, we have to be talking about something so egregious and so clear that either Anthony Kenmnedy or Sandra Day O'Connor will be compelkked to deny the candidate they were supporting the Presidency over it. Is it really THAT good? I doubt it.....
by blerb on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 09:53:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It seems to me we need to recalibrate everythi (none / 0)

Ahhh how I pray that you are correct. Sorry to burst your bubble (I truly am because I would love to believe this) but the election ended. I do agree that Bush stole it but its not changing, especially with the concession of Kerry. If Kerry had fought for all the votes things may have been different but things are over :(
UnitedLeft
by NCdemocrat on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 09:56:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Use the Open Thread (none / 0)

There is a place for this discussion, but not on this thread.
by Chris Bowers on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:32:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Our candidate's provenance.... (3.00 / 2)

The point about having a Southerner on the ticket is not really about winning the South per se.It is about fielding somebody that the "Good Old Boy" types who are to be found all over both the South and the West can identify with and trust. I agree that Colonel Sanders himself would not be enough to win SC, AL, LA, TX, OK, or MS for the Democrats. But I don't think you can make the same case in Arkansas, North Carolina, Virginia, or Missouri. These states are not as hardened in their anti-Democrat attitudes as you seem to suggest. They all have ever-growing enclaves of liberals in their urban centers.

More important, though, is the fact that a stone-faced, prep-school Norhteasterner just doesn't resonate with any of the pickup truck-driving, brush-clearing set anywhere. If you peel of just a couple of percent of these people, especially if there are compelling economic issues in play, you might just be able to tip the balance in states like Nevada, Colorado, Missouri, Virginia, etc. A well-selected Good Old Boy candidate, be he from North Carolina or Idaho, might just be able to do that. And importantly, I don't see any drawbacks for that type of candidate in the Northeast, either. Up there, they will vote for ANY democrat, because to them, it is much more about policy than some kind of amorphous feeling of kinship. So to ask the classic Yenta question: Could it hurt?

by blerb on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 09:15:52 PM EST

Re: Our candidate's provenance.... (none / 0)

Agreed. It's not the Northeast or West Coast we need to win over here. Even in the battlegrounds, the cosmopolitan voters are already ours. These people will vote for a moderate Southerner or Westerner. But the ones we really need to win over simply won't.

John Kerry is a good man who would've made a good President. But he was a Yankee. And in the battleground, that hurts.  

by PantherDem on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 09:28:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our candidate's provenance.... (none / 0)

Only in the southern battleground did it hurt. As I showed, he did exceptionally well in the non-southern battleground.
by Chris Bowers on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 10:13:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our candidate's provenance.... (none / 0)

I don't get how you've conclusively determined that Kerry's cultural baggage did not hurt him with rural and suburban conservative voters in NON Southern states that we need to win.  

Like Christopher in the top thread, I think you're performing gymnastics to reserve a place for secular intellectuals on the ticket because you feel a strong affinity for them.     And by the way, I'm a coastal secular intellectual.    

by Andmoreagain on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:48:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our candidate's provenance.... (none / 0)

Col. Sanders himself also couldn't win LA, TN, NC or WV anymore. FL, VA, AR and MO are the only places where we are even stil competetive in anymore.
by Chris Bowers on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 10:12:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our candidate's provenance.... (none / 0)

A democratic presidential candidate can win WV and it would be unwise to abandon the state to the GOP, if only b/c it would be a shame to lose two solid democratic senate seats.  
Montani semper liberi.
by liz on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 11:29:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our candidate's provenance.... (none / 0)

NC is full of conservative Democrats. VA is starting to swing back to the Democrats and FL is always in play.

TN, AR, and LA were traditional Democratic stongholds (Clinton carried them twice), but have been trending Republican at a rapid pace.

The Democrats cannot afford to neglect the South. The last four winning Democratic candidates (five if you count Al Gore's win in the popular vote) were Southerners. The last Democratic candidate to win the an actual majority in popular vote was a born-again Christian from Georgia who won every Southern state except VA.

As a Southerner, I do NOT want the South to become any more of a one party region than it already is.

Go ahead, keep calling us backwards, racist, homophobic, rednecks. Keep that superior urban attitude. Keep losing elections. As long as the national Democratic Party keeps saying "fuck you" to Southerners, the South will keep saying "fuck you" to the Democratic Party on election day.

Meanwhile, Massachusetts liberal William Weld is still considered a good Republican. Ahnold, Rudy, and Pataki all spoke at the RNC. If they can have a big tent, why can't we?

by wayward on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 12:03:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Quit lying about people's statements. (none / 0)

Noone said any of the things you accuse them of saying.  Chris is merely acknowledging that the realignment of the party's is nearly complete.  And your region, sorry to say, is firmly aligned with the Republican Party.  

Weld and his ilk will soon be as rare a species as the Southern Democrat.  It will simply take time.

by Teaser on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 12:39:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our candidate's provenance.... (none / 0)

Amen.  Please realize that some of us southerners in fact NEED a national Democratic party.  In GA, we just lost the House, as noted.  The Gov. didn't go GOP until 2002, same with the Senate.  GA, in local elections, was Dem until very recently.  I do agree that its the last of the dixie-crat stuff, but Majette, a black woman, still won 41% of the vote on a poorly run, cash-strapped campaign against a fairly moderate Republican who won the primary despite being called not conservative enough.  Add no presidential race help for 'message', and I'm surprised she got 41%!

My point is, the GA house is controlled by the GOP by around 5 seats, I think.  We need a national message for the Democratic Party so that we don't slip further.  I think its a lot more instructive to look at the county maps to gain a better picture.  Better yet, BOP has an awesome map that shows how blue states are still divided.  Regardless of the state, you still see a high concentration of Kerry supporters, like Atlanta, Charlotte, even certain swaths of blue in the deep south (SE GA, central SC, and S Ala).  I think the problem is that on a national level the Democratic party has lost the ability to connect with "regular" guys.  People who ARE cornbread and apple pie.  It doesn't have to do with position so much as how we present the position, our message, and being afraid to be honest about who we are, what we believe - we lack the balls to really bring a passion to the debate.  People respect passion, and respond.  As Bush said, people liked his dad, but nobody loved him.  As Democrats, we have the right positions on 'issues' - some people just don't trust us.

While on a national level, it might be easy to write off the South, but that leaves us Southerners a bit lost.  We need a national message that people connect to in order to give our local campaigns some coherency and exposure.  Without it, we won't ever get our states back.

by DreadPirateKing on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 12:49:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our candidate's provenance.... (none / 0)

Excuse me, but you don't need a National Message from the Democrats to win local seats in Georgia.

The South again becomes an asset to the National Democratic Effort when Democratic Southerners get busy and win some elections.  You need to raise the money, set up field operations, and rebuild the Southern Democratic Parties, and if you read McCain Feingold clearly, you'll understand that it does shift the responsibility for party building to the states.  

I fully appreciate the problems Southern Democrats have -- the dependable base of the Southern Parties are now Black -- in the minority/majority districts.  You have to figure out how to create a coalition that includes Black Voters, and then finds enough people willing to vote their own economic and social interests instead of their fears in order to win.  But that's what you have to do.  We've got enough problems here in Minnesota what with the Republicans importing both Texas Candidates and Southern Tactics -- and we've finally figured out some of the tactical approaches that work.  We have a strong state party that can organize and rebound.  

Some years back I worked on a Presidential Campaign at the Field Organizer level, and what I found was that most Southern Democratic Parties were essentially letterheads.  They had no broad program -- no party building strategy. County Chairs had no idea what was required of them in organizing primary campaigns. And it is not "anti-Southern bigotry" to note the problem -- it is necessary frankness.  

If you can't win your sheriff races, your town council races, your legislative races and all -- then why should we assume you've got your game together vis a vis national politics?  

by Sara on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 10:08:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sara, where are you based (none / 0)

MN?   Are you currently working with the party?

and are you the same Sara who frequently  posted on donkey rising?   I've always found you to be one of the very best posters in the entire blogosphere.

by Andmoreagain on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:52:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sara, where are you based (none / 0)

Yea, I live in MN. Have done since the 60's but I am a birthright Ohioan.  

I have retired from Party work.  Over the years I accumulated a long list of party jobs -- 10 years on the State Central Committee, I've managed about 20 campaigns, I co-chaired Alan Cranston's 1984 effort. Raised Money, and (though all my friends thought I had gone off my rocker) in 1989-90 I worked on Paul Wellstone's first Senate Campaign, beginning when it was a rented broom closet, with one phone line hooked to an answering machine.  I've organized and chaired committees and commissions at the state level -- and for a couple of years I taught advocacy and lobbying at the University, and some of my former students are still in the legislature.  

Yea -- I post at Donkey Rising, at Kos, and at Digby and sometimes at Orcinus.  I really want to see the blog-world become a meaningful factor in politics, and I see lots of possibilities that need to be tried and tested.  I think the best thing those of us who have been around Party Politics for years, and wear our "Hack" badge with honor can do, is try to tell the new recruits what we know from our own successful efforts and lost good causes.  

by Sara on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 11:45:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our candidate's provenance.... (3.00 / 1)

"Go ahead, keep calling us backwards, racist, homophobic, rednecks. Keep that superior urban attitude. Keep losing elections. As long as the national Democratic Party keeps saying "fuck you" to Southerners, the South will keep saying "fuck you" to the Democratic Party on election day."

Excuse me? Did I do this?

Allow me to become a little self-righteous msyelf here. I disntinctly said that we should not give up on the South. All I am doing is pointing out how severe the situation is for the Demcorats int he south, and that it will take a lot more than a southern governor and some talk about values to turn it around.

Last year I wrote a pretty ardent diary at Dailykos calling people out for their anti-southern bigotry during the Dean flag flap. Now that I am simply pointing out how dire the electoral situation is for Democrats in the south, I do not think that means I am calling people in the south backwards.

I do not take kindly to accusations that I am bigoted, and that I am being predujiced against others.

Asshole.

by Chris Bowers on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:28:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our candidate's provenance.... (none / 0)

I don't know if the poster intended to call you out, Chris. If he did, then your ire is well-placed.

But we can't just ignore his/her badly-communicated point - there are someDems who think this way about the South, and rural voters in general. Hell, even I've done it in my darkest moments, and I was born and raised in a rural county. Even worse, there's a widely-held perception that ALL Dems think this way.

This sort of contempt for "hicks," real or not, is hurting us, and our new message and communication need to focus on it. These people aren't going to vote for us if they think we hate them.

by PantherDem on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:42:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our candidate's provenance.... (none / 0)

I want to really quickly point out something really important here.

The Republicans want us weak and divided, gnawing over silly things like "do we defend gays or cast them aside", "do we nominate southerners so we have a better chance at winning", "do we move more to the left or the center".

They aren't as divided as we are. The moderates are shunted aside. The far right holds all the keys and they appeal to peoples fears and hatreds.

We can not be persuaded to play to their level. I believe Chris was saying, simply, that nominating from the south won't solve our problems. Some folks here have noted that there is a high-handed approach from the north (I'm from Michigan, for example), that generally speaking our region has a condescending view of that region.

We are a party of all regions. We need to change the focus, as has been said, on getting the message out; We are proud to be Liberal. Liberal is not a dirty word in the north, south, east or west. The kind of bigotry embraced by the far right is dirty.

Okay, I've said my peace. I personally respect my fellow Liberals in the south and agree with something Chris said earlier; in those Red held districts we "can't" win, we need to spread a little money to generate a candidate, build inroads, and siphon off their resources. And maybe, just maybe, take a few seats from the Radicals!

by Green Irishboy on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:52:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree (none / 0)

you don't help our base with a southerner (who cannot be that liberal) and you are not going to win a national election (as you can't rely on local breadbasket issues - the only way Dems win in the Southern states any more).

What we need is a role up your sleeves regular guy democrat.  We need a Richie Daley, an Ed Rendell or a Dick Durbin.  We need a guy who can appeal to urban voters and working class whites.  I don't think Edwards can really do this (he appeals to rural voters, not urban voters).  

I also think this line of thinking (I agree with Chris) pushes us towards shaping a message designer for southern rural voters rather than northern urban, suburban and exurban voters.  

Outside of a "working class" white democrate, the only other type of candidate I think we should consider is a Hispanic candidate (like Alex Penelas).  No more white southern democrats.

by lojo on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 09:10:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree (none / 0)

Oh, I disagree strongly that Edwards doesn't appeal to urban voters.    I think the question is does he really have that strong of an appeal to rural voters.

I agree that going Southern candidate-wise is no lock - but it's nothing to be afraid of  (as NE is).    I also agree that a "dull" midwestern type is probably not nearly as dull to the people we'd like to appeal to.    I will never again roll my eyes at a Gephardt-type  (though not Dick himself)

by Andmoreagain on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:55:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our candidate's provenance.... (none / 0)

Clinton wasn't (and isn't) a good ol' boy. That image attracts the White Evangelical Fundamentalists and those who actually elect a President based on whether they'd like to have a beer with him?  That's not our base.....and I hope it never will be.  

We need to expand our existing base and pull from the moderate Republicans in the Red States that we won by a razor thin margin.  

We need to establish our core Mission, Vision and Values and then stick with them - or run the risk of people staying home on election day.  We have to strengthen and expand our base from those who just weren't motivated to vote for Kerry because they didn't see much of a difference from Bush.

by elscal on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 08:03:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Point is not to win the South (none / 0)

Chris, I almost always find your arguments convincing, but in this case I think it is a straw man.  The argument that we should nominate someone from the South in order to win the South is absurd, most all agree.  

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.  

by SteveB on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 09:47:02 PM EST

Re: Point is not to win the South (none / 0)

"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."

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.

by Chris Bowers on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 10:08:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Point is not to win the South (none / 0)

RE:

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.

by blerb on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 10:59:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Point is not to win the South (none / 0)

It could be just as easily argued that Kerry outperformed Gore in over 40 states, according to total votes, even relative to population increases. It would be easy to argue this because he did.

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.

by Chris Bowers on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:38:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Point is not to win the South (none / 0)

DID Kerry gain in Wisconsin and Oregon?  I'm not sure - if you compare Kerry vs. Gore + Nader from 2000.
by sTiVo on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 08:44:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We didn't gain everywhere (none / 0)

It is not true that we "gained everywhere" outside the south.  Kerry got fewer electoral votes than Gore.  The "partisan index" removes the effect of the national vote margin, where we were 4 points worse this time, despite the non-existent Nader effect this time.

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.    

by SteveB on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:10:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A Slightly Different Emphasis (none / 0)

I would agree with the larger point here: that the Deep South (plus Texas) is hopeless as far as the deficits go on.   But the Southwest is certainly attainable in a shorter time horizon.  

Northeasterners, to much of the rest of the country, seem to lack "the common touch" or need a charisma transplant or appear stiff, aloof and remote or (you get the drift).  A midwesterner, or a border state person, or a westerner--and not an elitist--would seem, on the face of it, to have a better chance to appeal.

by dell on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 09:47:21 PM EST

Re: A Slightly Different Emphasis (none / 0)

A lot of people are saying that Northeasterners are "stiff" and "uncharismatic" but you cant say that about 100% of all the people there. Just look at John F. Kennedy.

Just thought I might bring that up, but I do agree that we need a "regular guy" persona on the ticket for the Dems and maybe choosing a guy from the New England area wasnt the best idea.

UnitedLeft
by NCdemocrat on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 09:59:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not about where the candidate comes from. (none / 0)

It's an acting job.

Skills required include:
• Being able to act naturally and come across well on TV
• Being able to speak plainly and clearly about complicated issues
• Being "likable"

Kennedy, as you point out, had these skills. Reagon had them, Clinton had them. We can decry the fact that the presidency has become an acting gig, but it is critically important that the president be able to communicate with and influence people.

So don't focus on where the candidate comes from - focus on his acting skills.

Of course, we want more than that, but it's what we've been missing in our last two presidential candidates


Nobody's right if everybody's wrong --Stephen Stills "For What It's Worth"
by vj on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 10:26:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's acting skills. (none / 0)

W for example, born in New Haven,
attended prep schools and Ivy League
universities, spends many hours
on country club golf courses ...
"now watch this swing."

W learned to act -- with a lot of
back-lot support. The costume dept
did more work for W than for
Nancy Reagan. And props ...
like an aircraft carrier?
That ranch in Crawford, however
puny in acreage -- "You Call That
a Ranch?" asked the headline
on a column in the Austin paper --
was courtesy of the location scouts.
Does W. actually know how to ride
a horse? Did he ever own a cow
before he bought that location,
er, ranch? Is W anything but an actor
and a drugstore cowboy? Could he
rope a calf? Brand a steer?
De-tick an infested animal?
No, but can he dress up and prance
around like a Marlboro Man, sure.
Did Marlboro sell?
Did W , the brand, sell?
And did anyone ever go broke
underestimating the intelligence
of the American public?
Karl Rove didn't. W didn't.
So let's not forget to look at
packaging and branding
our candidate next time.
Find one who can communicate
in sound bites, take him out of
Boston, get him a potemkin ranch
and some cute outfits ...

by Woody on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:44:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

parts of the north are the south.. (none / 0)

...as Edwards fans were saying all year. I am NOT saying Edwards would have won; I'm not even sure he would have done better than Kerry. I dunno. I agree entirely that outside the South, we're pretty much picking up states and making gains, and that inside the South (including OK as Southern) the collapse of the Dem name brand is now complete. (Question for Chris Bowers: what do you do with Nader votes from 2000? If the Partisan Index calculations exclude Nader, then the Dem gains in strong Nader states like MN and OR are in part artificial.) It's tempting to accept the Southern collapse and try to forge a coalition which does not include it-- in fact, that's what the Kerry campaign of Sept and Oct tried to do (after looking at internal polling in MO, NC, VA, AR). Trouble is you can't get to 270 EVs that way. Without FL, as we've seen, you have to win OH; but half of OH is very much like the South-- a New England or West Coast candidate starts out with two strikes against him (or her) there. Ideally we'd win back the governor's manse in OH and run an OH governor for Prez in three years. Failing that, we need to find someone who can connect with Southern and border-state voters: that doesn't necessarily mean a Southerner, but familiarity with the South would sure help.
by accommodatingly on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 10:18:10 PM EST

Virginia (none / 0)

The only bright spot in the entire south is Virginia, where Democrats clearly gained.

Yea, so watch Mark Warner run.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 10:37:03 PM EST

Just the Northeast? (none / 0)

Let's not forget Al Gore just four years ago.  Hardly a Northeastern guy.  Although someone on a different message board was quick to point out that "he wasn't really from Tennessee, he grew up in Washington." Perhaps anyone not from the deepest part of the old Confederecy qualifies as an elitist by the time the GOP slime machine gets through with them.  Funny how the Bush family, while having Texas connections, can have strong ties to the Northeast and nobody seems to hold that against them.  
by Randi on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 10:38:42 PM EST

Re: Just the Northeast? (none / 0)

Gore WAS a Senator's son, not exactly a "Good ole' boy".

Of course, Bush was a President's son, but the GOP spin machine turned him in to an outsider and an ordinary guy.

As The Daily Show's "America" put it, "People are still wondering how the fuck he pulled it off."

by wayward on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 12:11:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think there is a consensus opinion here . . . (3.00 / 1)

. . . with which I agree, as follows:

  1. It ain't the candidate's region of origin that matters -- it's the candidate's persona.

  2. The entire South is a lost cause, and nominating a Southerner will not change that one jot.

  3. On the other hand, there is a sense in which we should try to appeal to "Southern-like" voters, or to people who have a little bit of "southern" mentality, in states in which we do have a shot -- especially in OH (and maybe in some other places, like VA or MO). This may well be necessary, in fact, to get the 270 EV we need.

  4. As a GENERAL RULE, a northeasterner is unlikely to have the appeal needed as per #3 above, so that we may be better off nominating someone who hails from a different region. We should be very clear that their may be exceptions to this rule, however; one wonders if, for example, Joe Lieberman might connect well to such voters, given how much he talks about his own faith. (Not that I'm in favor of this, mind you -- he's way way too hawkish -- just giving an example to make the point.)
 
by scottso on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 11:04:45 PM EST

I think there is a consensus opinion here . . . (none / 0)

. . . with which I agree, as follows:

  1. It ain't the candidate's region of origin that matters -- it's the candidate's persona.

  2. The entire South is a lost cause, and nominating a Southerner will not change that one jot.

  3. On the other hand, there is a sense in which we should try to appeal to "Southern-like" voters, or to people who have a little bit of "southern" mentality, in states in which we do have a shot -- especially in OH (and maybe in some other places, like VA or MO). This may well be necessary, in fact, to get the 270 EV we need.

  4. As a GENERAL RULE, a northeasterner is unlikely to have the appeal needed as per #3 above, so that we may be better off nominating someone who hails from a different region. We should be very clear that their may be exceptions to this rule, however; one wonders if, for example, Joe Lieberman might connect well to such voters, given how much he talks about his own faith. (Not that I'm in favor of this, mind you -- he's way way too hawkish -- just giving an example to make the point.)
 
by scottso on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 11:05:34 PM EST

Re: I think there is a consensus . . . (none / 0)

i think that pretty much sums it up. Except that I would Include Californians and other urban West Coasters in the list of those who won't work well as Democratic presidential candidates. As REPUBLICANS, on the other hand, they're pure gold....
by blerb on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 11:11:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think there is a consensus opinion here . . (none / 0)

#1 is the only appoint above that really has any relevance.  I live in the South- NC to be exact.  The South is not a lost cause, we continually elect Democratic state government.  

The problem comes from #1.  We don't need a 'good ole boy'.  We need someone who comes out, says in plain english exactly what they stand for, what they value, and what they plan on doing.  Standing there and rambling isn't going to work.  Talking like a politician isn't going to work.  Saying what you think someone wants to hear isn't going to work.  All a candidate has to do to win Southern votes is to cut the crap and put things simply.

The problem's also in the framing and the way things are addressed.  Big complaint a coworker of mine (that voted for Bush) had was that Kerry never came out and said what he was going to do or how he intended to do it.  He spent the entire campaign saying how Bush was wrong.

It's kind of like walking up to a person and telling them their ideas are wrong or stupid.  They're going to ignore you after that, and never really think your candidate's a good fit for them.  Southern candidates realize this, realize that the way they can win is to cut the crap.

Take Jesse Helms - a lot of people from NC voted him not because they agreed with him, but because they knew exactly where he stood on issues.

by davecarden on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 11:23:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think there is a consensus opinion here . . (none / 0)

Take Jesse Helms - a lot of people from NC voted him not because they agreed with him, but because they knew exactly where he stood on issues.

My dad, who lives in NC, called Helms the only honest man in Washington, and voted for him even though he disagreed with most of what he stood for.

He can't stand Bush because of the war and his screwing the working man, but couldn't bring himself to vote for Kerry either. (He voted Badnarik.)

What I wonder is why didn't we nominate Dean? Dean could have neutralized the gun issue and wanted to win the votes of working class Southerners (the guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks) who were getting screwed by the GOP, but voted for them anyway. Dean was quite liberal, but he said what he meant and he would have taken the fight to Bush. That would have gotten him a lot of respect.

Instead all the other Democratic candidates accused him of pandering to racists. Even Edwards, who should have known better. They missed the entire point about what Dean was saying and what the Democrats need to do.

by wayward on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 12:24:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think there is a consensus opinion here . . (none / 0)

RE:

Helms the only honest man in Washington

But that has nothing to do with actual honesty. Helms was owned lock, stock, and barrel by Tobbacco, Big and Small. He would have sold his own granny to serve that special interest. He was thus no more honest than any other senator, except the was also basically an unreconstructed advocate of Jim Crow, like his soul brothers Strom Thurmond  and Trent Lott. When I hear statements like this about people like Helms, I feel it proves my point all the more. People in the South think he's honest because he seems like one of them, not because he's actually honest. The same is true of Kerry and Bush. This "Bush is a straight talker" meme is a big load of crap promulgated by a media that likes to deal in facile stereotypes. If you actually sit down and try to analyze what Bush said during the campaign (an unpleasant but necessary task), you find that he basically speaks in a string of misleadin platitudinous non-sequiturs. He continually appeals to some laudable idea in response to specific questions, without actually establishing how exactly that idea is connected to the subject of the question. That is not to say that Kerry is not himself given to circumlocutions, but at least Kerry TRIED to explain his position in some manner that was connected to actual reality. So you got to choose beteween a complex, sometimes ecasive explanation and a simple, misleading non-sequitur. But it is laughable to say that George Bush, with the exception of his war in Iraq and his desire to marginalize gays via a constitutional amendment, was in any way clear and forthright about what he stood for. When he didn't realy want to admit what he wanted to do, he avoided the issue EVERY BIT as much as Kerry did. He just did it in a more effective way.

by blerb on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 12:02:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think there is a consensus opinion here . . (none / 0)

Agreed.  I live in the South- Arkansas.  I'm not one to criticize Kerry, but he pussyfooted around a lot of issues.  Nuance doesn't fly with Southerners.

Arkansas is not lost!  We really want to be Blue!  Arkansas was the only Southern state where Democrats gained ground in the Legislature.  Democrats gained two seats in the state House, giving us a 72-28 edge.  Democrats also held off strong competition in the state Senate, keeping the 28-7 advantage.

by digitalis on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 06:48:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wonk vs. common man (none / 0)

I agree and more.

He pussyfooted and even when he didn't, he talked in wonk-ese rather than showing how it affected the voters.

Case in point:

"President Bush passed No Child Left Behind.  But he didn't fund it."

To Kerry, the implications of that were self-evident.  Not so to many voters.  What if he'd followed it up with:

"So guess who did have to fund it?  You did, through higher state and local taxes, which, for many Americans wiped out their tax cut."

by sTiVo on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 09:04:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think there is a consensus opinion here . . (none / 0)

Hate to rain on your "consensus" but forget about Lieberman.  Faith?  Come on.  He's of a different faith than the faith-based.  And yes, he's too hawkish.  Plus he too is a little stiff.

Otherwise, I agree with your points.  I can envision the sort of northeaserner who might break your general rule in point 4, but I know of no examples at the moment.

by sTiVo on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 08:51:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Midwestern/Coastal coalition (none / 0)

I agree with everything that's been said about the South being lost.  And it stands to reason that this fact presents an opportunity to us in the Midwest.  

Historically, the Union/Free states have voted to oppose the Confederate/Slave states both before and after the Civil War.  The historical anomaly is the New Deal.  Once Nixon courted the Southern white voter, he set in motion a shift in which traditionally Democratic-leaning states shifted Republican and, as a reaction to that, many traditionally Republican states (like Connecticut and California) have shifted Democractic.  

I believe we need to focus on a core of Midwestern states of which Illinois is the bellweather.  Illinois elected a string of Republican governors from 1978 until 2002, but now the party is DOA, as Alan Keyes would attest.  In order to get a national majority, we have to connect with the voters of Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, etc.

I'm from the Midwest and I believe that many New Democratic ideals (like balancing the budget) can play well there.

To connect to the small town residents as well as city dwellers, I advise that we start speaking the language of good, old midwestern common sense and understand that there is an economic crisis in much of small town America, one that trickle-down econmoics is not going to solve.  I believe if we run a plain spoken, moderate, midwesterner (the sort of guy that Richie Daley can go out and stump for) we'll be the majority party again.

by the unpaid halfwit on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:45:28 AM EST

Re: Midwestern/Coastal coalition (none / 0)

I disagree that "New Democrat" describes the type we're looking for.  Without the unions, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota would have been red states.   In some of the smaller cities (like Janesville) the unions were most of the campaign.  I don't necessarily oppose a budget-balancer, but I do oppose the anti-union tilt of the New Dems.  As Thomas Frank says, NAFTA broke the back of the Democratic party in places like Kansas.
by sTiVo on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 08:56:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Midwestern/Coastal coalition (none / 0)

With one exception, Ia Service International Union Member) the 13 Legislative Seats the DFL in Minnesota took this go-round were in the Suburbs.  They are not heavily Unionized.  

In fact the most important thing the Democratic Party needs to do is learn how to win in the Suburbs in a consistent way.  That is very very different from rounding up blocks of votes in the inner cities -- though we need to attend to that too in a much more organized manner.  We need to look at Democratic Organizations in small town and rural America that keep electing Democrats, and understand how they do it.  We need to understand why certain kinds of candidates have good results in their own district, but could never run in others.  

by Sara on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 12:04:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So Many Southerners On Dem Tickets (3.00 / 1)

This post actually understates things considerably. The Democrats have run Southern--or at least Border--State politicians on their tickets consistently in almost every election since 1944. It's the Republicans who've done it far more sporadically. We've had Truman, Kefauver, Johnson, Eagleton, and Carter previous to those mentioned. The GOP has never had a real Southerner as President. Bush is a real as they get.

My point?  It's pointless to try to play this game. We should concentrate on learning Lakoff's lessons. If Kerry had done that--framed his campaign in terms of progressive values, and stayed on message for the duration--he'd be President elect today. It's just that simple.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 02:07:15 AM EST

The South (none / 0)

I'm not sure that it's a wise strategy for the Democratic Party to seek candidates that appeal to Southerners in particular.  Nobody ever says, "let's find a candidate who will appeal to those people up North."  Seems to me it's a bit condescending to appeal to the South as if those voters are members of a separate species.  I'm inclined to think that we ought to run the most effective politicians we can, regardless of their regional origins, and trust the voters to make the right choice.

I don't think that Bush won because he is personally more appealing to Dixie dwellers than Kerry; Bush is a spoiled, wealthy frat brat who was born with a silver spoon up his butt, and he can barely lay claim to being a Southerner himself.  Bush won because GOP strategists succeeded in pushing all the right fear and loathing buttons in the culturallly conservative South and Midwest.  Karl Rove was  diabolically clever enough to offer anti-gay ballot initiatives in enough states to draw out a significant number of the Christian Fundies and their brethren.  Subtract those voters from the equation in Ohio alone, and John Kerry would be President.

by global yokel on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 02:10:09 AM EST

Peter's Right (none / 0)

Democrats lost the South because rascists felt less and less comfortable in the party. Democrats lost this race because homophobes trust Republicans to prevent Adam and Steve from moving in. Oh and because they still believe in the Osama/Hussein/WMD nexus.

We don't want to reach out to these people, still less pander  to them. Instead we need to educated them, engage them on the issues, but by no means compromise our own beliefs forged in a reality-based continuum.

The path from 49 state victory in 1972 to a last ride on Marine One for Nixon was shockingly quick in retrospect. And the groundwork has already been set, we have knocked 40 full points off Bush approval, and over the broad span of issues the country agrees with us.

On the other hand Bush leads in only one category: Fear.

People need to step back a little and process the information here. Iraq is spiraling out of control as we speak in the Sunni Triangle, and in reports I read today Chalabi is trying to form an alliance with al-Sadr on an explicitly Anti-American platform. Bush's War is not going well, both the news and the polls show as much. We predicted as much, we were right, and the odds are that it is going to consume his second term.

Bush's 'mandate' may not make it to Thanksgiving.

PollKatz: Bush Approval in 15 polls
by Bruce Webb on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 08:37:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Peter's Right (none / 0)

There's no Democratic Congress this time.  Ain't gonna be no impeachment.
by sTiVo on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 08:57:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nixon was never impeached (none / 0)

And it was not clear even in his last days that Dems had the votes to do it. Of course the vehicle will not be impeachment, in all likelyhood bush will be in office on Jan 19, 2009 because I doubt he had the sense of shame Nixon had.

Nixon walked because all his credibility had vanished and his power to accomplish anything eviscerated. As Bush sees key aides being led away in handcuffs as the mirage of 'pro-US Iraqi democracy' disappears in the rubble of Fallujah there is at least some chance of him having a Nixon moment.

And the answer is certainly not to let him have easy victories in the short run hoping that long-term consequences show how smart we are.

PollKatz: Bush Approval in 15 polls
by Bruce Webb on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 09:59:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The entire South is a lost cause? (none / 0)

I don't think so.  I'm down here in Southern VA.  I'm a PA transplant going to Old Dominion.  I can't tell you the anguish that the Democratic Southerners here are going through.  This stuff is breaking their hearts.  

Don't believe everything that you read about the south being a bunch of rednecks.  Yes, there sure are a lot of them but there is also a large group of progressives down here that need a little mental lift.  They feel like they've been left behind and the fight is wearing on them.

This summer at the Democracy For America Meet-ups we had one gentleman who was a former Republican Councilmember.  He came because as a moderate he felt that there was no room for him or anyone who felt like him in the Republican party.  There are a lot of folks like that down here and instead of giving up on them we should make a concerted effort at woooing the moderates either into our base or encourage them to take a stand against the radical right.

On a more practical note we should always take the fight to them down here and tie up their resources or they will do the same to us in the North.

by lisadawn82 on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 09:28:44 AM EST

new approach (none / 0)

Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant" is a 100 page book that explains how Democrats can win elections by reframing issues.  It's not about how to be dishonest or even slick in presenting our beliefs.  It's about using language that appeals to most people's feelings and ideals.  Lakoff is a linguist and he examines how the Republicans have framed their issues and shows Democrats how we can use the same process with ours.  
I think once people read it they will see that it probably won't make much difference if our candidate comes from the North or the South.    

by hawkseye on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 09:31:50 AM EST

Red/Blue differences (none / 0)

One thing that is striking when looking at the Red/Blue maps is the extent to which population density equates to Democratic or Republican areas.  What is it about living in an urban environment that leads to Democratic voting? Certainly, living in a more densely populated area thrusts people into contact with people of other races, religions and political viewpoints more often, and challenges their opinions on a more regular basis. I think it perhaps could make people see the need for social services and a safety net a little more clearly.  

Do people really see the world a bit differently depending on how much elbow room they have?  Do the Democrats need to address that in determining how they address these voters?

by Randi on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 09:49:38 AM EST

Re: Red/Blue differences (none / 0)

They fear the unknown. Also they don't want their tax money going to minorities. They don't benifit from inner-city programs, they only pay for them. Unfortunately we DO need to run someone with southern ties. Roves is a sleazeball, but he won. The key is to win. Much can be done from inside the white-house. If we run another yankee, we will lose. It's sad but true. I'm from MA. I knew it would be next to impossible for Kerry to win. Now we're again on the outside looking in. The gops ran Bush because of his name and strange dopey charisma. If we don't play the game right, we lose.
by kitebro on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 10:03:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The South.... (none / 0)

With the Teixiera-Judis book in mind (The Emerging Democratic Majority,) I wonder if we should worry less about crafting a message that will appeal to Southern voters and instead focus heavily on GOTV efforts?  The demographic is trending our way big-time, especially in states that have a large and rapidly growing Latino population - TX, CO, AZ, NM, FL and others.  Seems to me it's easier and more effective to go out and register 100 new Democratic voters than it is to change the mind of a single cultural conservative.
by global yokel on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 10:16:18 AM EST

Re: The South.... (none / 0)

That's true, but there are things that can be done to level the playing field that a president could accomplish. Undo the changes that Reagan made to the media. Make it illegal for one company to own several media outlets in any area. Demand equal time from station with politacl commentators. With the media in their pockets, we have an uphill climb. Alos voting reform can be accomplished from within.
by kitebro on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 10:25:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The South.... (none / 0)

Bear in mind though, that lots of Latino voters share the same concerns with abortion and gay and rights that Southern conservatives do.  Oh, and I get the distinct impression that lots of Hispanics are quite sexist as well.  On a great many issues, especially economic ones, they are ripe for the taking by the Democrats.  But not on all.
by Randi on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 10:31:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Theory for several years (none / 0)

I have been saying for years that the R's have been making gains in the South because of their culturally divisive message while the old Northeast Republican party had not quite gone the way of theh albatross- although with the results of this election it will be interesting to see.  The difference this cycle seems to be that the retiring senators came mostly from the southern states.  It would have been interesting to see what the results would have been if their had been equal vacancies in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and the South.  My guess is that we would have seen a flip.  

The Republicans who were despised by Southerners as the party of Lincoln and anti-slavery have slowly become the party of the culture wars.  My guess is Lincoln is spinning in his grave.  Another suspicion I have is that the Southern voting block has been quicker to abandon its traditional association with the Dems for the culture wars than NE and Upper MW have been to abandon the message of the idea that the R party stood for fiscal conservatism and personal responsibility.  As the R's continue their tack right into the culture wars and abandon these cornerstones of the Rockefeller Repub. party, they will find that their old bases in the NE and Upper MW collapse.  The fissures are there, but suffice it to say that the full seismic event has not happened.

Look at the endorsements Kerry got, from a laundry list of old mainline Repubs.  When Jeff Seeman and I were canvassing together we had a chat about the potential of a second Bush term and we agreed that the full effect of this rift would begin to manifest in an ugly way in a second Bush term.  In our loss, the seeds of our future success have been laid.  We know Bush will tack hard right.  What will the moderate R Senators from the NE and Upper MW do???  That is the big question.  So Chris, who are the most likely R Senators in the NE and Upper MW to be retiring soon.  Those open seats should be our target because they are very winnable for us.

by CharmRWC on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 12:06:54 PM EST

need a midwesterner (none / 0)

Ideally the ticket should be a populist midwesterner on the top, and a moderate southerner or westerner on the bottom.

That combinations should sweep the midwestern battlegrounds, add those to the northeast and pacific strongholds we already have, and peal off enough southern/southwest/or mountain states votes to win.

How about Durbin/Salazar in 2008?

by aenglish on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 12:48:38 PM EST

Re: need a midwesterner (none / 0)

 I think you have something. Salazar won in Colorado angainst a guy with a well- known brand name from Colorado- Coors. And the repub. candidate - Martinez won a very tight race in Florida. And remember in the California recall election, Cruz Bustamante was beating the governator in the polls until ads started accusing him of being too beholden to Indian gaming money. I would love to see how much a good democratic hispanic candidate would help in the west and Florida as pres. or vp.  
by ruralvoter on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 02:10:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great stuff (none / 0)

Any chance of reviving this thread, or has that been done somewhere else?
by Eleanor A on Fri Dec 10, 2004 at 10:18:52 AM EST

Democrats lost the south for the right reason... (none / 0)

The Democrats lost the south the first time because of civil rights, which was a stand for rights of all people.

But it is my belief the south was lost because Clinton and half the Democrats stood of the wrong side of an issue with Republicans and that issue is/was free trade.  Democrats sided with the multi nationals instead of people and southerners thought vote Republican lose my job today vote Democrat lose my job tomorrow.  

And Kerry lost ground from what Gore did in most places.  Compare the county map of Kerry to Gore in Pennsylvania, Gore won about a half dozen more working class counties in Pennsylvania that Kerry lost.  

Councilman Bill Painter
by Painter2004 on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 12:24:43 AM EST

上海机票 (none / 0)

北京机票
北京机票
北京国际机票
北京打折机票
北京特价机票
北京机票查询
北京航班查询
北京广州机票
北京上海机票
北京深圳机票
北京成都机票
北京昆明机票
北京海口机票
北京厦门机票
北京杭州机票
北京西安机票
北京香港机票
北京东京机票
北京台北机票
北京高雄机票
北京澳门机票
北京汉城机票

成都机票
成都机票
成都国际机票
成都打折机票
成都特价机票
成都机票查询
成都机票预定
成都机票特价
成都北京机票
成都广州机票
成都上海机票
成都深圳机票
成都昆明机票
成都海口机票
成都厦门机票
成都杭州机票
成都西安机票
成都香港机票
成都台北机票
成都高雄机票
成都澳门机票

西安机票
西安机票
西安国际机票
西安打折机票
西安特价机票
西安机票查询
西安机票预定
西安机票特价
西安北京机票
西安广州机票
西安上海机票
西安深圳机票
西安昆明机票
西安海口机票
西安厦门机票
西安杭州机票
西安成都机票
西安香港机票
西安台北机票
西安高雄机票
西安澳门机票

上海机票
上海特价机票
上海打折机票
上海国际机票
上海航班查询
上海机票查询
机票查询
上海飞机票查询
上海机票价格

by 123 on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 10:31:37 PM EST

成都机票 (none / 0)


成都机票查询
成都机票
成都打折机票
成都航班查询
成都航班时刻表
成都机票查询
成都机票预定
成都机票价格
成都国际机票查询
成都到北京机票
成都到广州机票
成都到上海机票
成都到深圳机票
成都到大连机票
成都到厦门机票
成都到杭州机票
成都到西安机票
成都到重庆机票
成都到青岛机票
成都到香港机票
成都到台北机票
成都到高雄机票
成都到澳门机票
成都到东京机票
成都到汉城机票
成都到新加坡机票
成都到曼谷机票

上海机票
上海机票价格
上海打折机票
上海国际机票
上海特价机票
上海机票预定
上海航班查询
上海航班时刻表
上海机票查询
上海机票价格
上海飞机票
上海到北京机票
上海到广州机票
上海到成都机票
上海到深圳机票
上海到昆明机票
上海到西安机票
上海到厦门机票
上海到大连机票
上海到重庆机票
上海到青岛机票
上海到东京机票
上海到大阪机票
上海到汉城机票
上海到香港机票
上海到台北机票
上海到曼谷机票
上海到雅加达机票
上海到澳门机票
上海到名古屋机票
上海到巴黎机票
上海到伦敦机票

广州机票查询
广州机票
广州打折机票
广州航班查询
广州航班时刻表
广州机票查询
广州机票预定
广州机票价格
广州国际机票查询
广州到北京机票
广州到广州机票
广州到上海机票
广州到深圳机票
广州到大连机票
广州到厦门机票
广州到杭州机票
广州到西安机票
广州到重庆机票
广州到青岛机票
广州到香港机票
广州到台北机票
广州到高雄机票
广州到澳门机票
广州到东京机票
广州到汉城机票
广州到新加坡机票
广州到曼谷机票

by 123 on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 10:37:38 PM EST

北京机票 (none / 0)


北京机票
北京国际机票
北京打折机票
北京特价机票
北京机票查询
北京机票预定
北京到广州机票
北京到上海机票
北京到深圳机票
北京到成都机票
北京到昆明机票
北京到海口机票
北京到厦门机票
北京到杭州机票
北京到西安机票
北京到香港机票
北京到东京机票
北京到新加坡机票

成都机票
成都国内机票
成都国际机票
成都打折机票
成都特价机票
成都机票查询
成都机票预定
成都机票特价
成都到北京机票
成都到广州机票
成都到上海机票
成都到深圳机票
成都到昆明机票
成都到海口机票
成都到厦门机票
成都到杭州机票
成都到香港机票

厦门机票
厦门到北京机票
厦门到广州机票
厦门到上海机票
厦门到深圳机票
厦门到昆明机票
厦门到台北机票
厦门到香港机票

重庆机票
重庆到北京机票
重庆到广州机票
%