Go West, Young Man (and woman)

[WI_DEM]

The Democratic party has a problem in the South, Bush won the region 57-42 percent and the GOP picked up senate seats in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Louisiana, despite, in many cases strong Democratic candidates such as Betty Castor, Erskine Bowles, and Inez Tennenbaum. The south is getting much more Red and conservative, while at the same time the West is getting more Blue.

Once again California supported the Democaratic candiate by double digits. Kerry improved the Democratic vote in Oregon and Washington since 2000. Nevada and New Mexico just missed going for Kerry. Colorado elected a Democratic state legislature and a US Senator as well as made gains in the US House. Kerry lost Colorado's ten electoral votes by only five points. Arizona was more solid for Bush but it has over the years been trending more blue as well. Montana and Wyoming elected Democratic Governors in the last two election cylces.

We need to take advantage of these gains. I don't think we should abandon our parties traditional values just to try and compete in the South.

The Democrats have been gaining ground in every region of the country since 1984--except the South.
In 1988, Michael Dukakis won:
New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island in the Northeast
West Virginia and DC in the border region
Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa in the Midwest
Oregon, Washington and Hawaii in the West.

That was the beginning of the realignment. Of those ten Dukakis states we have only lost a firm grasp on West Virginia. Iowa is a battleground.

Since then the Democrats have gained ground in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, Maine, Illinois (Duke got 48% here in 1988), Michigan, New Hampshire and New Mexico--the last two being "swing states".

The GOP has over the years lost ground in most of these states, up until 1992, for instance, California was a dependably Republican state voting for the Republican nominee in every election from 1952-1988 except for 1964 and the Johnson landslide. The same thing with Illinois, it voted Republican in every election from 52-88 except '60 and '64--and now it is one of the most Democratic states in the country.

The only area in these years the GOP has gained ground is the South. In every other region of the country they have lost ground. Why? because they have moved so far to the right that moderate Republicans have left the party. Maine, Vt, and NH used to be dependably Republican in presidential elections up to 1992--now that has changed.

I guess my point is that Dems have been gaining ground in every election in other regions of the country and just because we are losing ground in the south is not the reason to surrender our principles and also we shouldn't necessarily nominate a more conservative or southern nominee just to win. We must nominate the best person available regardless of region. If he/she is from the south, fine.

Also, many say the only way we can win the south is to nominate a southerner. This is due to Bill Clinton's limited success in the region. Clinton benefited in both '92 and '96 to having Ross Perot as a third party nominee (19% of the vote in '92 and 8% in '96) which helped weaken Bush in the south. Without Perot it is questionable if in '92 Clinton would have won more than Ark, Tn and WVA in the region. In '96 without Perot, he may very well have lost Tn. Also, Al Gore is a southerner and he too lost the south--so it is not just a case of having a southerner on the ticket that will make the difference.

I think we have a better chance of long term electoral gains in the West than we have in the increasingly culturally conservative south.

[Stinky The Clown]

1. I agree the south may be tough, but here's the one essential fact ........

Bush/51% ........ Kerry/48%

3%

That's it.

Are things rosy? No.

Can we gain back some of our losses? I think so.

And I think that gain can be broad. We need to concentrate on our national core messages and image. Nixon may have had his "Southern Strategy", but I'm not sure we need a "Western Strategy"

3%

Maybe what we need is a national strategy. A little more unity and discipline in the party. It was surely there in this cycle. Like never before. But we need more of it. We need to grow - broadly - what we already have in the way of progressive unity.