A Route for 2004 That Doesn't Go Through Dixie

[candy331]

Does anyone agree that this might have some validity to it? I think the racial issue has been used to truly polarize the South. Even though Southerners have the same issuses of jobs, healthcare,etc. they have been used for political advantages and cannot see that they are voting against their own interests. The Whites can't see that if things were returned to the pre civil rights era that they would still be hurting because jobs and the economy has changed. The jobs they could count on in the factories and mills(which Blacks couldn't get) are gone overseas never to return. Repugs offer Southern Whites pride of race and a religious right based on their misinterpretation of the Bible so the sheeple follow them. I am afraid that they think the "South will rise again" but to their chagrin the whole nation is teethering on the brink of falling. I believe that together we could stand longer but divided this country will fall sooner.

A Route for 2004 That Doesn't Go Through Dixie

By Thomas F. Schaller
Sunday, November 16, 2003; Page B01 Washingtonpost Solid Republican victories in the Kentucky and Mississippi governors' races, coupled with Howard Dean's clumsy overture to Confederate flag-waving Southerners, have raised anew the question of whether Democratic presidential candidates can compete in the South.


They can't.

And precisely because they can't, they should stop trying. Moving forward, the Democrats would be better served by simply conceding the South and redirecting their already scarce resources to more promising states where they're making gains, especially those in the Southwest.

I can imagine the laughter of party strategists -- and the ire of
Southern Democratic officials -- who subscribe to the prevailing wisdom that presidential elections are decided in the South. Indeed, pundits love to shout into the echo chamber that the last three Democratic presidents have come from the South.

This thinking is not only superficial and retrospective, but it could trigger a partisan realignment that would relegate the Democrats to minority status for a generation. Trying to recapture the South is a futile, counterproductive exercise for Democrats because the South is no longer the swing region. It has swung: Richard Nixon's "Southern strategy" of 1968 has reached full fruition.

-more-

[La_Serpiente]

1. Here are the aricles

that he is referring to.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40359-2003Nov14.html

and here is an online interview the author did

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36831-2003Nov13.html

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. Well, without Florida (again) it will be hard

IN addition to winning WV and NH, we have to add one other state that Gore didn't win. Only adding WV and NH results in an electoral college TIE- and we know how that will end up.

confirm electoral stratgey here

[joeybee12]

4. I think your math is off--Gore did not need FL if he had carried

a small state like NH or ARK or LA--only four electoral votes, and he was three short without Florida.

[wuushew]

8. Did you adjust for the 2000 census?

Gore States now equal 260 votes not 267 as was the case in 2000

[NewYorkerfromMass]

11. The Edwards map is adjusted

and adding WV and NH results in a tie at 269 votes each.

[phillybri]

27. If Gore took NH or HIS OWN STATE...we wouldn't be having this convo....

:grr:

[wuushew]

34. Some interesting math for you

States that I consider truly swing in 2004 in addition to Gore states which are 260 votes

FL,OH,MO,LA,CO,AR,NV,WV,NH or 96 votes

511 total combinations
3 losing combination
4 tying combinations
504 winning combinations

[UrbScotty]

3. Dems can't win in the South!?! PROVE IT!

Gore won Florida!

[JVS]

5. We need Ohio

Easier to get because there is less cultural baggage

[jeter]

36. States we can win (I agree Ohio will be easier - Gore shouldn't

have given up there. He lost by only 4 points).

Ohio
New Hampshire
West Virginia
Missouri
Arizona
Nevada
Florida
Louisiana (Bush is polling lower there than across the nation)
Arkansas (still most Democratic state in the south a certainty if Clark is on the ticket).

Total electoral pick up: 105 votes. The hardest states for us among this group will be Florida, Missouri and Arizona. Total 47 electoral votes. Which means we should reasonably expect to gain at least 58 electoral votes. Or 260 (if we hold on to all the Gore states) + 58 = 318.

maybes, with a little luck and imagination:
Indiana (Dean polls really well there)
Colorado
South Carolina (worst hit state during the recession)
Nebraska (economy)
Kansas (is trending Democratic)

Total electoral votes: 51 votes.

States that we won but will have to defend:

Pennsylvania (although this one is slipping more and more away from Bush everyday - his approval there is 45%).
Wisconsin
Minnesota
New Mexico
Oregon (not likely)

Total votes: 62 electoral votes.

I just can't see Bush winning anywhere else. Can you?

[joeybee12]

6. The Dems should look at the South, NOT as a whole, but as

separate states.

Arkansas and Louisiana are definitely within their sights--I think you can pass off Miss and Ala as definitely no-wins. Fla is in play, and you can't really call that a southern state because of so many transplants.

The Dems only need all they got last year, and then maybe a small state, such as LA or ARK or NH--remember--Gore got 268 electoral votes even without FL--these three states I mentioned have four each--enough for a victory. I can't think of any of the states that Gore won in 2000 going to Bush in 2004--the math is very simple.

[JVS]

9. We should also consider which states might be rigged

We were robbed in FLA before, there is no reason to believe that it would not happen again.

edit: typo

[joeybee12]

14. True--I think Georgia is another possible Dem state, but

they have Ralph reed pulling strings there--I really wish the Dem leadership would realize this threat and start planning--none of this getting caught by surprise like they did in 2000.

[sable302]

15. Gore won Oregon

by only a few thousand voted I believe. The GOP has been very active here as of late. Don't get suckered into believeing that our side will win everything Gore did.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. Southern Comfort

The republicans can not be allowed to feel too comfortable in the South, or they will shift campaign resourrces out of the South and into swing states elsewhere. Republicans campaigned quite hard in Florida, Tennessee, and Arkansaw in 2000, and they mounted serious efforts elsewhere, in States Clinton had previously won, to ensure that Republicans held onto their regional base. Had Bush not had to campaign is some Southern States, he could have poured more money and time into several important States that Gore won by very small margins, and there were several of those. It would be very dangerous to give the Republicans a free pass in the South, even if a Democrat could theoretically win enough electoral votes without it. It sets up a "What's mine is mine, and what's yours we'll talk about" Republican campaign for 2004. This is a selling point for nominating Clark or Edwards. I back Clark.

[La_Serpiente]

7. Is it possible

that we could put up a battle in Arizona?

[joeybee12]

10. Definitely--Dumbo's poll numbers suck in AZ, and it was

close in 2000.

I really think a lot more of Bush's sattes in 2000 will be in play in 2004 than vice-versa--the hatred of Dumbo is clearly dominant in the states Gore won in 2000.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

16. 51 to 44 Bush is not close

Bush 781,652 (51.0%) Gore 685,341 (44.7%)

http://presidentelect.org/e2000.html

And anti-war peacenik Dean could not win it either.

[mrgorth]

20. As much as I hate you

for your Dean attacks, that's a great map...except it looks DAMNED RED!!! I think writing off the south might be a good idea and concentrate on some winnable western/southwestern/midwestern states.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

21. Ouch.

I'm sorry I can't return the "warm" regards. But I agree that the south is a lost cause- especially with confederate flag friendly Dean.
I honestly feel Dean's only hopes lie with adding WV, NH, and Ohio.

[mrgorth]

23. OH and IN

add a lot of votes. Is IN that far to the right?

[JVS]

24. IN is not going to flip

[mrgorth]

29. WOW. What's up their butt?

They vote GOP every single time? Why?

[JVS]

32. 56.6% vs 41 in their favor

[rucky]

13. With Dean or Clark... no beltway Dems, IMO

same goes for Louisiana. They sorta have a maverick mentality.

Also, guns are a big issue in AZ.

[AP]

12. Clinton made progress in the south without backing down

one inch on race or turning into a born again christian or compromising on gun safety. (From 98-01, Democrats won 7 out of 13 governor's races in the south.)

Is it really a mystery why the Republicans are doing well now? It's because Bush seems like a good old boy, and because the War on Iraq makes him look like he really cares about national security (and the media has a really easy time selling these lies to the public).

[NewYorkerfromMass]

18. They liked that southern twang in his voice

really, and Edwards has it too.

[AP]

17. Gore didn't lose 13 southern states because they rejected Democrats.

Gore CHOSE to run in only one Southern state -- Florida -- and he designed a strategy around it (running on a drug program for seniors and on values, which his VP selection and his rejection of Clinton solidified). He won FL, really.

Had Gore picked a different strategy -- if he campaigned harder in his home state, and if he embraced Clinton and campaigned in Ark, or if he picked Edwards as his VP, which would have made him more competitive in VA, NC, SC and TN -- I think Gore would have won some of those southern states.

Gore's strategy, possibly more than demographics, resulted in the 13 state sweep of the south by the Republicans and I wouldn't ignore the south based on conclusions that don't take into account Gore's campaign strategy.

[Noordam]

22. Had Gore picked Graham from Florida he would have

won 50-60 thousand more votes in Florida. In 2000 Graham had a well oiled machine.........

[mmonk]

25. very good

[0007]

31. Especially Clinton

Lieberman was a mistake

[mmonk]

19. over simplification

based on southern whites as a homogenous group vote as they do based on race. With that approach, dems will definitely lose. This isn't 1863, nor 1963.

Clinton didn't run on race. Carter didn't run on race. Nor did they develop any strategy based on race baiting or splitting on racial lines.

Its about offering up something other than republican economic theory or patriotism is linked to Bush foreign policy. Talking down to or not talking issues straight up is how Dems lose the South as well as lacking coherent economic strategies (other than unions and regulations).

[jbutsz]

26. Oh, yeah - good idea...

Stop trying to represent the Southern US, that's a good political move - too hard anyways, might as well just give up. :eyes:

Sounds like a strategy Karl Rove would approve of. :grr:

Not every voter in the lower states is a right-wing jack-booted KKK thug.. :spank:

Rather than concede, give the South a reason to vote otherwise: the truth.

[mmonk]

28. exactly

I live in Raleigh, NC. In the 70's, we had an African American mayor. Raleigh is predominately white. It is southern. Therefore, if southern whites vote based on race, I wish people would explain that.

[jbutsz]

35. Race

Race is an aspect here with Republican voters but indirectly and usually for reasons other than the candidate him/herself. Just Saturday, Republican Jindal (Indian, dark skinned) was nearly elected (52-48%), in La.

[Mr. Brown of MD]

33. Schaller often has unique ideas, I'll say that

The man's the advisor for the College Democrats chapter here on my campus - as I am the vice president of said chapter, I get to see him and speak with him from time to time. Since he's also a political science professor here, I'll probably have some classes with him before I graduate. His wife is involved with the DNC women's caucus somehow. She might even be in charge of it, I forget exactly what it is.

Haven't read the full article yet, I'll have to see what it says. But, one thing I can say is that I'm sure he has given it some thought, and he believes it is the best way for us to take back the WH in 2004.

One thing I can remember about previous articles that he has written, is that he often comments on realigning demographics, which he believes is why the governor's race here in Maryland was lost by the Democrats: the party followed an old model that had succeeded for the last 30 years, but the time for that model finally wore out because of changing population bases and such. I think there was a lot of merit to what he had to say about the change in population here in Maryland. Whether or not he can successfully apply it to the rest of the country, I don't know.

Incidentally, I'll try to pass along some of the comments in this thread to him when I see him next.

-CollegeDude
If anyone is interested