We have to nominate a Southerner to beat Bush in 2004

[CoffeePlease1947]

Every winning Democrat since 1963 has been from a Southern State.
All the losing Democrats have been from elsewhere.

1964: Johnson Texas WON
1968: Humprey MN Lost
1972: McGovern ND Lost
1976: Carter GA WON
1980: Carter GA LOST
1984: Mondale MN LOST
1988: Dukakis MASS LOST
1992: Clinton AR WON
1996: Clinton AR WON
2000: Gore TN WON (lost the electoral college)

Every winning Republican since 1952 has come from either California or Texas. (Ford was not elected so he doesn't count).

It is not chance that this occures. It is very clear why. A Southern nominee cuts into the base of the Republicans and a Texas or California nominee cuts into the Democratic base. Can Democrats win without California? Clearly not. Can the Republicans win without the South, clearly not.

A Clark/Edwards or Edwards/Clark ticket would smack in the face of the Republicans. There is no way that Bush could win the election in 2004 if even just a few Southern states are snatched up by the Democrats. Florida, Arkansas, and North Carolina would be a huge blow to Bush which he could not recover.

I feel that Clark and Edwards could deliver this blow. They look better than Bush and Cheney too. We also have to face the proposition that Cheney may be swapped out for another Republican, like Frist that would strengthen Southern votes.

Mike

[vi5]

1. I swear, my head spins round and round with this stuff....

On the one hand we are told to not stereotype the south or paint people down there with one broad brush. That they are just as open minded as the north or anywhere else.

But then at the same time we are told that without a southerner on the ticket the democrats will lose. Yet we never hear or heard that with 2 southerners on the 1992 and 1996 tickets that they could never win because the North wouldn't vote for them.

It seems like conflicting messages. I don't dislike the south at all but nor do I think there NEEDS to be a southerner on the ticket. Maybe I'm giving people too much credit.

[bowens43]

3. This post isn't really about southerners

it's a stealth Clark post. Any of our top 3 or 4 candidates , regardless of there state of origin, will easily beat the idiot in 04.

[Julien Sorel]

8. Based on what evidence?

[CoffeePlease1947]

4. Southerns only vote for a person for two reasons

1) The candidate is conservative

2) The candidate comes from the South.

Since we do NOT want a candidate that is conservative, we have to choose the other way to get the votes. Vote for a candidate that is from the South.

Sorry, but the South and Mountain West are Republican. It is not sterotype, it is the reality of the situtation. We need one or two Southern states at least to win. Selecting a candidate from the moutain west is not an option because they will most likley still vote Republican and you would have to win like 5 of the states to equal one average size state in the south.

Mike

[vi5]

5. So then what you are saying is what I said in point #1...

That it's o.k. to stereotype the majority of Southerners as being close minded, provincial, and conservative.

Whenever I've seen anyone from the North make that statement they get flamed.

[CoffeePlease1947]

15. Yes, it is true for all America as a whole/I'm not from North

I am not from the North. Sorry, can't stick that on me. I grew up in a Southern state and California.

People are arrougant. When 50% think that we found WMD and when 48 million voters voted for Bush, that has got to be sign many Americans are stupid. Just look at California.

We have to get a MAJORITY to win. We need a SUPERMAJORITY to wipe out the Bush Family for good.

Texas and Florida both voted for a Bush. Twice each at least over two generations. This is not a sign of intelligence of the majority of people.

You have to appeal to the low lives that make up a huge chunck of the population if you want to win. You cannot just appeal to the intellectual liberal class, that will not win you an election.

Mike

[carolinayellowdog]

20. Not realities but stereotypes

Mike,

You make some preposterous assertions along with some sensible ones. To wit:

"Southerns only vote for a person for two reasons
1) The candidate is conservative

2) The candidate comes from the South."

That is totally preposterous. I've been a Southern voter since 1972 and have NEVER voted for a conservative, or for a Southerner *because* he was a Southerner. This is true of virtually everyone I know. It is surely true of almost all African American voters in the South along with almost all liberals here. Your assertion is ridiculous on the face of it in light of the many non-conservative elected officials in the South.

What you SHOULD have said, instead of making a preposterous false assertion about Southern voters in general, is this: "in presidential elections, Southern states are carried only by Southern candidates or conservatives." Which may be untrue or not; time will tell.

and another:

"Sorry, but the South and Mountain West are Republican. It is not sterotype, it is the reality of the situtation."

Again, this is preposterous. A very large share of elected officials in the South are Democrats, majorities in some states. The reality of the situation is that the Mountain West is solidly Republican IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS except for New Mexico (and maybe AZ and NV next time) and that Southern states lean Republican in presidential elections when Southern candidates are not on the ticket. (Being from TN didn't enable Gore to carry a Southern state except FL.)

CYD

[CoffeePlease1947]

35. Your Reality maybe.

I said before. SOuthern states DO NOT vote for liberals. The Atlanta City Council is not a state, it is a city. The states of South vote conservative. OH wait, Zell Miller is a Democrat and so was Sam Nunn.

Give me a break! These people are more Republicans than Democrat just as the Repubican Governors of Hawaii and Massachusetts are liberals.

Yes, I am sure that Blacks and liberals in the South vote Democrat but they are not the state and certainly not the majority.

The South elects conservatives. Nor can you point to one liberal from the north that won the Southern states. Not one in the last 40 years or more. It doesn't happen.

You may not like it, but the South only votes for the Democrat if they are from the South. That is reality of the situation. The election results show that.

For you to say otherwise is to argue that McGovern, Dukakis, and Mondale won the southern states. They didn't. That is the FACT. Show where they won those states and you will be correct. Otherwise, you are not conviencing anyone.

And yes, WE are talking about Presidential elections, not New Orleans elections. I thought that was a given.

Mike

[lastliberalintexas]

40. Actually,

African-Americans and liberals would more than likely comprise a majority of the South. They just don't vote at the same rate as the RW pseudo-Christian zealots.


Your post is extremely obnoxious and condescending, btw. Many southern states voted for Bob Dole, a Kansan. How would you explain that in your scenario? How about the fact that the South has simply gone repub in voting trends lately? It doesn't have squat to do with where the candidate is from. In Texas, a trained monkey could (and actually has) win so long as they have the R behind their name.

You are very much discounting the fact that the South, by and large, has VERY low voter turnout rates. Dems still outnumber repubs in registrations, but we don't vote! Southerners do not act the way you have assumed, any more than a New England "yankee" is only going to vote for a Northeasterner.

[RichM]

2. "Being a Southerner" is an absurd basis for making this choice.

This ridiculous idea is like insisting that the nominee has to be a WASP, or male, or handsome, or a general, or a movie star, or have nice hair & teeth. I know that Democrats are desperate and have no principles, but please - you're embarrassing yourself.

[CoffeePlease1947]

10. Those are important

Yes, it is shallow, but it is the truth. A candidate for President can't be ugly, short, fat, or non-white. I didn't invent America. If I had it my way the person most qualified would be President.
But get your head out of your a*s. This is what the majority of America will vote for. Like it or not.

You cannot get a Black man elected as the Grand Duke Dragon of the KKK and you cannot sell a liberal from New England or the Midwest to the South. Check your facts. This is what killed us in 1972.

Reality and what we would like things to be is not the same thing. How many liberal came from the South? Even Clinton was pretty conservative for a Democrat.

But that is OK. We can pretend that the South will except a Black man for President, or a women for President. We can also pretend that Americans don't care about looks, clothes, speech, straight teeth, and religious beliefs

Let's pretend that American would elect a bald lesbian atheist in a wheel chair that weights 305lbs uses a machine to speak and is from New York. Let's pretend that her IQ of 208 and 25 years of political experience is really what the American people want and only look at qualificans.

Let's look past the fact that the South elected George Wallace, Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, 3 Bush family members, Strom Thurmond, and David Duke to political office. Let us also pretend that the South doesn't have the KKK and they protest the removal of the ten commandments for the court house and believe in the Confederate Flag. That will win the election.

I don't condone it, I am just pointing out the facts. You can choose to deal with the reality of the situation or wonder why Bush is re-elected for another 4 more years. Either way, attacking the messanger doesn't change the reality of the situtation.

Mike

[CMT]

34. this is what killed us in 1972?

so if George Wallace had not been shot-and actually won the democratic nomination--he would have won the election? I highly doubt it.

[Bombtrack]

6. I disagree with you, BUT

it seems more and more that this will either be between

2 working class southernors with great relatability and broad appeal to middle america

or 2 eastern establishment perceievedly limousine liberal New Englanders from the 2 most liberal new england states, who are super-easy GOP targets


If we had strong candidates from the midwest or plain states, southwest it would be a different story.

But we can either have somebody from the ideal region AND ideal socioeconomic background for political appeal

or somebody from the worst region and worst AND worst socioeconomic background for political appeal

[JVS]

7. Gephardt and Kucinich are fine candidates

[Bombtrack]

11. not really, my college curriculum is very politics heavy

I study these things alot, and trust me when I say it would be virtually impossible for Bush to lose to them.

Kucinich is the most fringe candidate running, so I'm not gonna go into him, and even though Gephardt is considered to be a serious candidate by the political world, it's clear he doesn't stand a chance in this primary and he would probably be smoked by Bush. If there is one party hack in this race it's him.

He doesn't have a drip of the McCain-type maverickism and shoot-from the hip- style that the gold in politics today. He can't even make people percieve he has it when he has none, like Howard Dean does.

I don't know if you mean "strong" candidate in either the primary or what they would be in the general, or if you just like the guys.

[JVS]

14. Kind of hard to believe when you support Edwards, who just appears...

to be another smiling Southerner. I've not seen him in the paper. I've only heard about him here at DU Kucinich at least can speak up enough to get noticed, and Gephardt has something like 16 union endorsements already. It appears that Edwards is still standing at the starting line

[Bombtrack]

17. I'm not going to bother getting into defending Edwards

or his campaign, it's clear the polically naive aren't flocking to his campaign.

[JVS]

23. Who is flocking to his campaign? Anyone?

[Bombtrack]

31. once you meet him, it's pretty difficult to not support him

partiularly if you are a southernor, which is why(as of a month or so ago) he'd raised twice as much as every candidate combined in Texas, and twice as much as all of them in South Carolina, and as much as all combined in Georgia, all important primaries.

And he'll win third in New Hampshire, because he's going to have held 100 town halls there by the primarie

[JVS]

36. I'm sure he's very nice

But this is a country of 280 million people. But here is the problem: Texas and South Carolina have a higher chance of collapsing into Anarchy than going Democratic. Whereas states like Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire, and West Virginia (more rust belt than southern) are beginning to fall away because of Democratic obsession with the South. I'd rather get 0% in SC and pick up Ohio than lose both trying to cater to Southerners.

[jburton]

What nonsense

Why not nominate a Nevadan?

Or a Coloradan?

Or somebody from New Hampshire?

All three were states narrowly lost in 2000.

[Bombtrack]

13. Because none are running

political science is not nonsense, as much as the Dean movement wants and has to beleive it

there is no more stereotypically left-wing state than Vermont, and there is no state where the democratic party has a worse national reputation than Massachusetts(except now maybe California).

And it's moronic to believe that that wouldn't hurt Dean and Kerry respectivly, particularly there socioeconomiclly elite, Yalie backgrounds only reinforce there natural disconnect with middle america

[jburton]

22. OK...

"political science is not nonsense"

No shit. I didn't say it was. But nice strawman.

I was responding to the original post that having a southerner is the only way to win.

[Bombtrack]

26. he overstepped a bit, but there is alot of truth

that we can't win without being COMPETITIVE in the south. Meaning, we need to make the GOP work just as hard at winning there as we did in 2000, if not more.

Otherwise they can reroute those resources and money to states like OR, NM, WI, IO, and PA, and win them with a candidate like Kerry

or even more than that to places like NY, IL and CA with someone like Dean.

If Dukakis had been from the south, or even from AZ, or OR, or OH, he probably could have won.

The only way to win isn't just to nominate a southernor

but the best way to lose is to nominate a candidate who's majority appeal is so inherantly limited to the northeast and starbucks liberals

[CMT]

37. Dukakis could have won--period

but he blew it in 1988. He emerged from the dem convention in '88 with a 17-point lead in the polls and then ran a lousy campaign where he took the month of August off staying in Boston acting as governor and allowing George HW Bush define him.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. Dukakis won Oregon

despite not being from there. He won a string of states along the Canadian border, which left one Dem observer (I forget who) to suggest that those states should secede and join Canada. It sounded good to me.

[JVS]

51. Only Washington, Minnesota and New York went for Dukakis

and are on the Canadian border.

[Bombtrack]

84. no he won other states

he also won WV, OR, IO, WI, MA, and RI

my point is that when you are from Massachusetts(or Vermont) a sweep in in the south is more automatick than if you are from a different part of the country

[JVS]

85. Those were the only ones on the Canadian border that he won.

[rucky]

9. It's True, But It Chaps My Butt

I'm not particularly fond of being held hostage by regionalism. We give waaaaay too much attention to the South. Even though they are different from the rest of the country, they seem to be setting the agenda for both parties. Everybody else is willing to play together, but the South historically has a flair for disruption and power grabs. I say screw the South (in 2005). I'm sick of the swing voters and the coveted "NASCAR Dads" and the compromises we make as a party to win them over. We take the loyal Democratic voters for granted and it's setting up a backlash within the party.

Okay, I feel better now.

I know it's the current political reality, and the Southern candidates are ok, so ABB for this one.

[JVS]

12. We might do better to scapegoat the South.

Create a hate filled image of Southerners as a bunch of trailer park residents with no teeth, and then imply that voting for the Republicans makes you one of them. Prey on people's insecurities that they aren't middle class enough so that they vote for us. I could really see a lot of people made happy by an assault on the bible belt.

[Padraig18]

16. That would be REALLY productive...mmm hmmm

:eyes:

[JVS]

19. It might be more constructive than you think

Voters in Florida might not be important at all because their state government will rig the elections so that the Republicans win anyway. Southern states have already been Gerrymandered to the GOP's benefit. What is to lose? There is a Republican machine to insure that these states will not go Democratic. Why not quit sinking money into them and convince people in states where we actually have a chance of winning that if they vote republican then they are toothless, incest loving, inbred Jerry Springer guests. Is it dirty politics? Yes, but that doesn't mean it won't get votes.

[CoffeePlease1947]

18. That is what they will do with Kerry and Dean

Born with silver spoons in their mouths. Can anyone relate to Billionaire Kerry and the Heinz family?

How about Dean the millionaire from New York?

Sorry, I think Kerry is a great Senator! But both are easy targets for the Republicans. They also have no trouble attacking Vermont and Massachusetts. They are Democratic anyways.

Mike

[JVS]

21. The Democratic party needs to learn to shoot back

Even if that means maligning a region of the country.

[Padraig18]

28. I'm all in favor of shooting back

I merely suggest we don't shoot ourselves in the foot at one and the same time.

[JVS]

29. What are the southerners not going to vote for us? What's new about that?

[rucky]

25. You Don't NOT do something because of the Republicans...

they will ALWAYS find a way to attack. If we base our decisions on avoiding that, it is self-defeating and futile. Our strategy should be based upon boldly standing for something, not avoiding conflict & criticism.

[JVS]

30. Absolutely.

[rucky]

24. A little more subtile than that...

Race and Class should be at the top of our political agenda. If we want to pick up Southern voters, let's do it with a NATIONAL message and pick up the votes from ALL the disinfranchised racial and economic minorities who don't go to the polls. Why don't they go to the polls? Becasue we're too preoccupied with the NASCAR dads.

Who would get more people to the polls, John Edwards (NC) or Al Sharpton (NY)? I say Sharpton in a heartbeat, but I expect some debate on that.

[JVS]

27. That would be good too

I'm not saying that scapegoating the south is a sure-fire winning method, but it is a weapon to have ready in the arsenal. If Reagan could use the welfare queen in her Cadillac, maybe we can use Cletus the dirt farmer.

I agree that using economic issues is a good way to help us, but a lot of people will not acknowledge that they are not upper-middle class. If these people are too status conscious to admit that, then at least we can try to scare them into wanting to differentiate themselves from Cletus.

[CMT]

32. so democrats must only nominate southerners for president

that is laughable. I say we treat each region fairly and not pander to any of them. Our candidate should talk the same in the South as he talks in any other part of the country. There is no doubt that southerners, on the whole, are more culturally conservative than other parts of the country. They see themselves as the big patriots who like to rap themselves in the flag (forgetting they are the only region to ever secede from the union). Our candidates should speak about jobs being lost, inadequate schools, and healthcare in the south and elsewhere. If those issues won't cause southerners to vote Democratic then I doubt a southerner will help. Al Gore didn't carry a single southern state (except Florida, which has many notherners who have migrated there)despite being from Tennessee.

p.s.
there will in all likelihood be a southerner on the ticket. If not for president, then probably vice president.

[CoffeePlease1947]

39. Of course you pander, that is how you get votes silly

You don't go to the NAACP forum and talk about how Affirmative Action has gone to far and racial profiling doesn't exist.

You don't go to a southern tabbacco farm and say we need to raise taxes on cigs.

You don't go to a Hispanic forum and talk about cutting immigrant benifiets.

Of course you pander. That is how you get votes. You relate to the south to get southern votes. You relate to the midwest to get Mid western votes, you relate to the west to get western votes. That is how you WIN. They are not going to vote for someone unless you address their needs and concerns. You cannot say. "I am not going to pander to the voters". That is just insane!

Why should they vote for someone that doesn't give a rip about their needs or concerns or is going to support what will benifiet them or their family.

Politics is about who gets what, how much, and when. If you tell them you are going to get less they are NOT going to vote for you. It is pretty simple to figure out.

Mike

[bitchkitty]

33. Make that a Dean/Edwards

or a Dean/Clark ticket and I just might agree with you.

[CoffeePlease1947]

38. That would be like a Dukakis/Benston Ticket

It just doesn't work to put the strongest guy on the bottom of the ticket. I would agree more with a Kerry/Edwards or Kerry/Clark. At least Kerry can make up for his billionaire attacks with millions more in the campaign.

Mike

[ozone_man]

41. 1980: Carter GA LOST, 2000: Gore TN WON?

I guess you might have to change your hypothesis. Carter lost in 1980. Also, Gore lost, he lost the electoral vote, by losing Florida.

Also, why start your series after one of the most Popular Northern Democrats was elected, JFK from Massachusetts. You aren't biased are you?

But, the whole idea of selecting a candidate or candidates based on where they are from is absurd to begin with. What the candidate stands for politically, and the experience and other qualifications that the candidate has is the important thing. With that kind of thinking, we should be looking at movie stars like Harrison Ford to be the candidate (one of my favorite actors), because we think he could win. I'm sorry for California with Arnold Schwarzenegger, but let's move on and get a candidate with substance and a track record of proven performance, not an actor, or someone planted to straddle parties or geographical regions in hopes of gaining more votes.

Having said that, I will be a hypocrite and say that balancing the ticket with a geographical spread is nice, but only if the VP candidate has substantially similar views and ethics as the nominee.

[Bombtrack]

42. the poster's premise is more acurate than yours

he was off that we can ONLY nominate southernors

But your off saying it doesn't matter. In 76, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 00 the candidate who had his feet more firmly rooted in the south has won. Carter had what is considered the worst term of any during that period, and Reagan beat him because he split the south, which Carter swept in 76.

So you think it's pure coincidence that McGovern was beaten by like a 3 to 1 margin in the south, and then 4 years later Carter swept it?

That McGovern and Dukakis were ovwhelmingly swept in the south, and then Clinton split it twice?

Gore didn't do as badly in the south as any of the northern dems. He was competative up until the end in TN, AR, LA, and VA, up until the very end. The northerners were beaten by margins twice as big, and pummeled in Florida, which we know that Gore probably won.

Because Gore was competative in the region, The GOP had to spend and work more than they ever would have there if someone like Bradly had been the nominee

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Carter Swept The South In 76

and lost the entire South except his home state in 80....

That being said, the seminal poster is on to something....

[ozone_man]

88. Gore lost in 2000 period.

The pendulum is swinging. Times are a changing, the great bull market run from 1974 - 2000 is done. We're going back to the Great Depression soon and we need a common sense governor like Dean to lead us through this dark period.

BTW, what about JFK? What about FDR? What about Calvin Coolidge? Wait wasn't he a Vermonter? You can choose to forget history, but you may be deemed to repeat past mistakes.

[mitchtv]

44. how about we not vote for a southerner?

How does that sound? I insist on a Californian or Nothing. That is what you babies are sounding like. I really like Edwards and Clark. I like them all, in fact, and will vote for a Dem. If the south can't do that , F' m. It makes me want to say "no one from the south please". That is patently absurd that we have to cater to the most conservative region in the country,that we will never ever carry.:puke:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. The Challenge Is By Ceding The Entire South To The Republicans

as Gore did you need the Electoral College equivalent of a inside straight flush to win....

Especially after the new census.... If we carry the same states as Gore we will lose by eighteen Electoral College Votes not four....

[JVS]

46. Unless you can make lemonade out of lemons and turn the rest of the USA

against the South. Point out how much of their tax dollars get sucked up by the South. Tell them that the South is dragging our country down.

[AP]

47. Yeah. That's gonna get a democrat elected. Hatred. Bush would

be all OVER that. He'd probably get a lot of NE people to vote for him just because they'd be apalled by the Democrats.

[JVS]

48. Politically speaking, hate works.

And NEers are just as able to be fired up by hatred as any other region.

On edit: The most important part would be getting states like Ohio and Indiana, which vote like the South to hold the South in such contempt that they vote Democratic. We could also scapegoat the south so that the Iowa, ND, and SD view the South as their enemy, not the urbanized coasts.

[AP]

90. Hate leads to fascism. A democrat has never won on a message of fear...

...and hatred. Why vote for the Democrat if you're afraid of the world and hate everything?

[Skip Intro]

49. From the South and I agree

A Clark/Edwards ticket would do a lot better in the South than, say, a Dean/Kerry ticket, imho. That just seems self-evident to me.

I'm not the least bit offended at the realization that the overall Southern voting psyche has to be considered if winning part of the South is our aim, and it should be one of our aims.

Coffee's assertion that the South, as a whole, will vote for a candidate who is either conservative or from the South makes perfect sense to me.

Not that winning the South should be our only criteria for selecting our nominee, but it should be a criteria.

Another advantage to having an Edwards on the ticket is that enough Dems might show at the polls, in SC, to help the Dem running to replace retiring Senator Hollings.

However, and this may sound contradictory, I don't believe that not having an Edwards on the ticket necessarily forfeits the South. I just think having a Southerner on the ticket gives us an added advantage at picking up some Southern states.

I think a Dean/Clark ticket would play well here, or a Dean/Edwards, or a Kerry/Edwards, or a Kerry/Clark. My gut tells me that, as far as the South is concerned, having Clark and/or Edwards on the ticket would be an advantage.

[mitchtv]

52. sure glad we people in the rest of the states

don't insist on a local boy. it sure makes me resentfult however that the region can dictate our candidates from the most conservative elements of the party- You can rest assured that posts like this will send me to the primary with a mission- anybody but a southerner-. Being a democrat, however, I will vote for whichever cadidate gets nominated. Praying however, that the voters on Ca NY and Ma get the candidate they want, not one dictated by a conservative region .

[JVS]

53. Let the bitterness grow into a full blown hatred and spread it to friends

We shall overcome!

[Skip Intro]

54. And a big ole sloppy wet kiss back atcha

Not dictating anything man, just calling it like I see it.

Did you miss nap-time today?

[onebigbadwulf]

55. Too bad...

Too bad we didn't let them cecede during the civil war

[Skip Intro]

57. Sheesh, can you feel the love?

Maybe when you come down from that ego trip, you might like to share your thoughts on '04 strategy?

[JVS]

56. At least when Cali feels under-represented in government it doesn't...

start a massive and bloody war, unlike certain regions of the country that should have taken their collective naps.

[Skip Intro]

61. Wow, I guess I should apologize for being from the South?

Not.

I'm no more responsible for that war or slavery than you are for the atrocities your ancestors visited upon the American Indians.

Is everybody on oxy today or something? Why all this hatred from what are supposed to be enlightened, tolerant people?

[JVS]

64. You don't have to apologize. Just quit acting all shocked when people...

might not like your state, ok.

On edit: Why do you bring up slavery? I just don't like your state because you repeatedly elect some of the worst people our federal government has been cursed with, and then have the audacity to suggest that the Democratic party should cater to you. Slavery is a whole different book.

[Skip Intro]

67. WASN'T apologizing

Don't act shcoked if people might not like my state? What is this, a football game or a cheerleader competition?

This is surreal.

[JVS]

68. You asked if you should apologize. I said that would be unnecessary.

This is reality. Your state makes the USA a worse place to live.

[Skip Intro]

71. "my state is better than your state"

LOL!

Dude what are you smoking up there?

And can you fedex me some?

[JVS]

73. Being better than South Carolina isn't saying much.

[Padraig18]

76. That is uncalled for! n/t

[Skip Intro]

77. You're killin me

You know, my best friend was from Pittsburgh, and he was a pretty cool guy.

I am happy for you, JVC, that you feel you are from one of the "superior" states, and happy to see that that belief doesn't make you condescending or arrogant at all. Says a lot about you.

I wish I could continue this totally enlightening and intellectually challenging discussion with you, but I have to go fix my possum stew now. I'd be happy to fix some up for you if you're ever in the neighborhood. I'll keep an eye out for some guy driving down the street with PA tags yelling, "We're number one!"

:eyes:

[Padraig18]

78. If you fix collards, I'll come too!

Love 'em! :P

[Skip Intro]

81. lol

never developed a taste for collards - i think its the smell, the rest of my family loves 'em tho.

(i don't really eat possum stew either, lol)

I would be very happy to share a toast with you to the new Democratic administration, tho, anytime.

:toast:

[Padraig18]

82. Great!

:toast:

[JVS]

79. I never said PA was better than SC.

I just said that SC is horrible. But if you want to say PA is better than SC, I am not going to argue with you.

[mitchtv]

59. sorry you take it that way

I just have a lot of problems with being told you most nominate so ans so or we won't play . I am Liberal and Proud. Don't need no stinkin incrementalism.

[Skip Intro]

65. I took it the way it read

I'm liberal and proud as well. Simply sharing my thoughts on the topic matter which, I believe, was taking the South from the repukes, which would be a good thing, yes?

I said nominating a Southerner would be an advantage to winning the south. Its not rocket science. I also said we could win without doing so. And I believe I said imho.

Sorry you took it as dictating.

[Padraig18]

58. So does that mean it's also not OK...

... for non-Democrats to try to dictate our candidates, too? Like the Greens, for instance? Inquiring minds want to see if there is logical consistency...

[mitchtv]

60. everyone is entitled to 'try' what they choose

greens should inquire if we want to form a coalition, but being a subsidiary of the gop I doubt that will happen

[Padraig18]

62. Good, honest answer

I wasn't challnging you, btw, I just happened to agree and wanted to see if our thoughts were in synch on the issue.:thumbsup:

[mitchtv]

66. unless bush gets caught in bed with a man

No dem will win places like SC . people there had better learn" ANY dem is better any time than any Puke"

[penny foolish]

72. Only 20 years ago, the South was mostly Yellow Dog

People in the south would have rather voted for a yellow dog than a Repug. The times have changed.

[dsc]

83. twenty years ago was 83

you are thinking more like 40 years ago.

[tom_paine]

63. No, Gore won the electoral college, too

He won Florida, and three ADAs with a $5,000 budget could have proved it, if it wasn't the Imperial Family who carried out the fraud.

The only thing * won was the 5-4 Judicial Arm of the Coup vote.

[penny foolish]

69. Coffee, your theory sounds good, one problem

You said "It is not chance that this occures. It is very clear why. A Southern nominee cuts into the base of the Republicans and a Texas or California nominee cuts into the Democratic base. Can Democrats win without California? Clearly not. Can the Republicans win without the South, clearly not."

The South has become the base of the Repugs only within the last 12 years. Ever heard of the Solid South? Yellow Dog Democrats? Times have changed.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. The Yankees

are winning 3-0

-:)

[Loyal]

74. GORE DID NOT LOSE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

He won Florida and its 25 electoral votes. Final vote tally: Gore 291 Bush 246. One D.C. Gore elector abstained. PLEASE STOP SAYING GORE LOST, EVERYONE KNOWS HE WON! :(

[dsc]

75. A couple of things

First you have a factual error in your analysis Carter was still from Georgia when he ran and lost in 1980 so one loser did come from the South.

Second, and much more importantly, I don't see this working. No one who is sane thinks we have any chance in any Southern state besides Arkansas, Louisianna, Florida, and maybe Tennessee. These are states which were won by us two out of the three elections from 92 through 2000. Everyone keeps bringing up the fact Clinton and Gore carried a bunch of Southern states but they did so while winning nationally by 6 points (43 to 37) and (49 to 43). Gore, who won nationally but by just less than 1 point (49 to 48) only carried Florida. Assuming a close race I am willing to conceed that a southerer may carry his won state so that Clark could win AK, Graham could win FL, Landrieu could win LA, and Edeards would have an outside shot at NC, but that is all they could do.

Any candidate who wins nationally by 6 points is going to carry some southern states no matter where they come from. There is not much chance of any of our candidates being uniquely able to win by that margin. In other words if Edwards can win by 6 points then so can Dean. This race will be about Bush and if he is worth keeping. The region of our candidate won't alter that.

[dfong63]

80. we have to nominate a governor or senator to beat bush

every winning dem since the 50s has been either a governor or senator. a never-elected general who has an allergy to giving straight answers? forget it.

[TKP]

86. Southern States

This comments has to do with the original post and with many of the other postings to date.

I was born in the South and grew up there in my formative years. I don't see the South voting for what would be preceived as a Northern liberal. Southerns are generally very independent and do not trust government or social programs. They very much want to decide for themselves in their local communities and in their respective states, and to have Washington, D.C. to leave them alone. There are several levels to which I can admire this attitude. To ignore the South would be to the detrement of the Democratic Party, for there are many people nationwide who have connections to the South, either by blood or businesswise or any number of other ways. If you try and paint Southerns as toothless hicks (as was suggested) that are cozy to the Republican Party, and try and manipulate people into voting Democratic because you do NOT want to be like them (a rather condescenting attitude), it'll backfire, first and foremost because it's not true. You are by fiat handing over the largest growing portion of the country.

A better questions would be to ask why what was once a solid FDR Democratic part of the country has gone Republican in national elections. I don't believe it's because Southerns don't believe the Democratic Party to be the party of the working class. IMHO, the South has shifted because of social reasons. Now, what do we need to do to get them back?

[elperromagico]

92. I think...

... the Southern shift to the Republican party has as much to do with Republicans playing the race card as it does with anything. That's what the "Southern Strategy" was all about: Scaring white voters into voting Republican by convincing them that black people were a threat to their supremacy.

Remember that, for all intents and purposes, the Republican party was originally the progressive party. The Democratic party represented conservative ideals. It was not until around 1912, with Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, that the Democrats began to become the liberal party and the Republicans began to become the conservative party.

The shift in the South didn't really happen until the 60s. Blatantly racist Southern leaders, like George Wallace and Strom Thurmond, were Democrats until '64 or '68. Here in Arkansas the Republican candidate for governor in '66, Winthrop Rockefeller, actually gained considerable support by being more liberal than his Democratic opponent. There was even an organization here called "Democrats for Rockefeller," IIRC.

LBJ's strong stance on civil rights was the major cause of the shift in Southern politics, as far as I can tell. Republicans recognized the shift and used it to their advantage.

[poskonig]

87. Where are Kennedy and Truman?

Everything above is after the infamous southern strategy, and the Gore "loss" and the Carter loss are downplayed.

[elperromagico]

91. Or if you want to go back further

'32, '36, '40, '44: FDR - New York, won
'28: Al Smith - New York, lost
'24: John W. Davis - West Virginia, lost
'20: James Cox - Ohio, lost
'12, '16: Woodrow Wilson - New Jersey, won
'08: William Jennings Bryan - Nebraska, lost

I think the reason why the first post started with LBJ was because that was the first time a Republican candidate (Goldwater) made inroads in the South. Up until that time, the Dems could usually count on the Solid South for support and electoral votes.

The only exception (I think) is Truman, who had to compete with Strom Thurmond for Southern votes.

[elperromagico]

89. A few things

I'm a Southerner, so of course I would like to see a Southerner on the Democratic ticket. Is it essential? No. The truth is, we could win the White House without a single southern state. We very nearly did just that in 2000. If Gore had picked up three or four electoral votes elsewhere, he would have won, and Florida would only be a footnote in the pages of history. Remember that until the 60s, several Republicans won the White House without winning in the South.

Having said that, I would love to see the Democratic candidate cut into the South and score some victories that would put the fear of God into the Republicans. A Southerner on the ticket might help to accomplish that.

Simply put, I want us to win. If we can win without the South, that's fine. If we can win and gain ground in the "Solid South," all the better.