Reply #77: Occaisionally northerners win, [View All]

[Admiral Loinpresser]

but it's a disadvantage. Nixon's southern strategy has been fully implemented. Every southern state went red in 2004 (although it also happened in 1984 and 1988).

But every time we've run a southerner, we've won at least one southern state. Not to do so is a huge strategic advantage. I think a southern Dem also plays better with moderates in border states like Missouri and rust belt states like Ohio.

I agree that the role of the south in presidential politics is changing. But the reality remains that a Republican from any state can now do well in the south, while for a Dem, geography matters.

I'm not saying the double standards used by much of the electorate are fair or desirable, just a reality. We ran a nothern senator against a vulnerable incumbent in 2004 and lost.

I agree with Dean that we must run in all 50 states. That makes a southern candidate more attractive in the abstract. History is not an absolute predictor, but it should be considered. I think the GOP intelligentsia is cognizant of this.