Does Clark have a special appeal in the West/Southwest?

[leyton]

Clark came in second in the Arizona primary, I think he came in second in the New Mexico primary, and he won the Oklahoma primary. I know he spent a lot of time in Oklahoma, but is there something I don't know about him or about the Western states that makes him attractive there? I think our best chance for winning in 2008 is to pick up Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada.

[Sanity Claws]

1. Well, definitely not northwest

I attended the caucuses here in Seattle last year and our precinct didn't have a single Clark supporter.

[Auntie Bush]

2. I don't think that means much! Did he ever get to campaign in Seattle?

Dean had already had that place in the bag when Clark got a delayed start. This time...if he runs...You can bet he'll start on time. In fact maybe he already has. He's been giving a lot of speeches and TV interviews.

[Sanity Claws]

4. Maybe

I wasn't knocking him, just stating a fact. He's just not really known here. I don't hold any opinions regarding him.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. You are right about Clark's visibility in Washington in 2004

He never made an effort there. I have an old friend from College who lives in Seattle, going back to the early 70's from our campus radical days. I still see him every few years, and I saw him about 9 months ago. I kind of had him pegged as a probable Dean or Kucinich supporter but turns out he and his wife had researched Clark and backed him in their local caucus, but there weren't many others who did as he reported it. Clark was better known in California though.

[ZootSuitGringo]

26. Clark was popular in California,

Nevada liked Clark as well.

[AP]

38. By what measure?

[roguevalley]

5. by then I would imagine it was all kerry.

[Sanity Claws]

8. No still very pro-Dean

But Dean and Kerry were clearly way ahead of the rest of the pack.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. Clark had strong Native American support

He was strongly endorsed by the Native American Times, a national Native American newspaper. (Native Americans are a relatively important voting block in Arizona New Mexico, Oklahoma and the Dakotas):

"A strong belief in tribes as sovereign governments must be first and foremost in the mind of our country’s top leader to understand the complex relationship Indian Country has with our federal government. Treaty obligations with tribes are seldom understood by most political leaders, which can lead to a deterioration of this relationship and dire circumstances for Indian Country. There is one candidate running for President who not only understands it, he has enforced treaty agreements and sovereign rights of other nations around the world. As the North Atlantic Treaty Organizations (NATO) Supreme Commander, Wesley Clark put his own safety at risk while supporting treaty agreements between nations around the world. This is one of many reasons why the Native American Times endorses Wesley Clark for President of the United States.

While death loomed close to him, General Wesley Clark helped save 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, all without losing one American soldier. He is proven to be a remarkable leader. If words are a person’s bond and actions even more telling, then Clark is the clear choice from a Native and non-Native American perspective. If our country truly seeks peace, it will need a proven peacemaker. Only Clark fills that role...

Like most United States citizens we want a leader who takes serious consideration before sending our young men and women to war. Clark has a deep understanding of the dangerous world we live in and is best prepared to win the war and win the peace. Sometimes it takes more courage to negotiate, than to simply fire your weapon. It was clearly evident during Clark’s management of the crisis in Kosovo...

...The United States’ obligation to Indian country covers many areas that are essential for the well-being of Indian country. Clark is solid on health issues and shares our views on increased funding for the Indian Health Service and stands for increasing the quality of education in Indian Country. Clark has a plan that includes working directly with tribes on these issues because he believes they have the best understanding of how to help their people.

The Native American Times without hesitation endorses the candidacy of Wesley Clark."

http://www.gwu.edu/%7Eaction/2004/cands/endorsements/nativeamt123003.html


The Albuquerque Tribune endorsed Clark also (1/19/04).

I know Wesley Clark was very well received while campaigning in the South West, first for himself, and then later for Kerry. I don't have more specific information however.

[lukasahero]

6. The thing that benefits Clark in the "heartland" or wherever

is that he is "seen" as a moderate, even conservative Dem. (Or by many here as an actual conservative but I digress...) The thing is, his policies and ideas were at least as progressive/liberal as any of the other dem contenders and far more so than most.

Perceptions alone win over a lot of stupid people but that would be to our advantage in this case.

[ClarkUSA]

61. Wes Clark came in second in North Dakota, for example

On Mini Tuesday, he came in second to Kerry in total wins and places:

OK - First
AZ, NM, ND - Strong Seconds

This is evidence indeed of his Southwest and Heartland appeal for the reasons you mentioned.

He's the only liberal populist Democrat who is seen as much more moderate/conservative than he is, which is a great advantage, IMO.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. I don't know about his regional appeal

but he's definitely got sex appeal.

[FrenchieCat]

25. Don't EVEN get me started .........

[autorank]

32. I support FrenchieCat. The guy ROCKS and he opposed the war.

And forget Hillary Clinton and her "move to the middle." She BLEW national health, blew it bad; she's never run anything (Clark ran NATO); and she'll get about 12 votes south of the Mason-Dixon (and Yes, we do need some southern states, thats why Howard is there first).

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

...and let the Clinton's hob-nob with GHWB and Bar all they want. Makes me :puke: Oh, we're the ruling elite, we hang out together, give each other lots of money none of us ever really earned, and screw working Americans every day, in every way...oh, we're so civil and such good friends. F them. I like Harry Reid, live in a small town, kick ass in a big town.

[ZootSuitGringo]

9. I read that Clark was very strong in Nevada, and was sent by

John Kerry to campaign for him there. The state was very close, and would have certainly been a blue state with Clark as the nominee or at least on the second slotin '04. In addition, Clark campaigned for Salazar in Colorado, and was also popular there as well.

Had Clark been our nominee in 2004, our congressional coattails would have been much stronger, IMO. We could have won the Oklahoma senate with Clark on that ticket, as well as other races, but because we had perceived liberal Kerry instead, some congressional candidates in the more conservative states felt compelled to distance themselves from our actual nominee.

It is true, that although Clark is not very moderate (compared to others), he still does tend to attract the more moderate and conservative voters, even with his well publicized Madonna and Michael Moore endorsements. Maybe because on the other side of the spectrum, he was endorsed by more conservative Democrats such as Max Baucus, Mark Pryor, and Blanche Lincoln. He was also endorsed by many Hispanic congresspeople, and his popularity with African-Americans and Hispanics was much more widespread than with other primary candidates. This ethnic advantage may have been due to the fact that many minority groups are socially conservative to some extent, participate at a higher per capita numbers in our armed forces.

I could easily envision a Wes Clark/Loretta Sanchez ticket in 2008. Please Look into Sanchez as the ideal VP for a strong defense alpha maleb type, as opposed to a Richardson to add diversity to the democratic ticket. I can guarantee you that putting this strong woman (who has a very compelling life story) on the ticket would attract many votes in the southwest as well as other states with a high hispanic population. Also, Clark's daughter-in-law is from Columbia.

Would be a strong, attractive, diverse, take no shit ticket. Fresh, clean and honest!

http://www.lorettasanchez.house.gov/display2.cfm?id=8059&type=Home
Congresswoman Sanchez is the ranking woman of the House Armed Services Committee. She has served on the Terrorism Panel of this Committee, where she joined other Members to investigate intelligence progress and terrorist threats to the United States.
While serving on the Homeland Security Committee, Congresswoman Sanchez took a leave of absence from the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, which oversees education and labor issues. During her tenure on the Committee, she has protected parental involvement initiatives and successfully saved national gender equity in education program. She spearheaded efforts to promote school safety. Congresswoman Sanchez is a member of the Hispanic Caucus, the Blue Dog Democrats, the New Democratic Coalition, and the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. She also is a member of the Women's Congressional Caucus, the Older Americans Caucus, the Law Enforcement Caucus, and the Congressional Sportsman's Caucus.


CLARK/SANCHEZ '08!
How's that for telegenic charismatic appeal?

[FrenchieCat]

11. Damn good '08 ticket suggestion!

and both are under the GOP radar.

This ticket would pull in a lot of different types of voters. Sanchez is from my state, and yes, she certainly would draw the hispanic vote all over the country without hesitation. A strong woman like Hillary without the devisivenes, and Hispanic like Richards, without his baggage.

Plus, that would be a good ticket to look at....all day long!

Thanks for that one.

[leyton]

12. That ticket would be awesome in the Southwest. eom

[kevsand]

15. I hate to admit it,

but I'd never heard of Cong. Sanchez until now. On the face of it, a Hispanic congresswoman is an intriguing choice. The longer I think about it, the more I like it.

How did a Democrat get elected in Orange County, by the way?

[ZootSuitGringo]

16. Sanchez kicked some righteous butt, if I recall correctly

Beat the incumbent Repug there by the name of Bob Dorman back in 1994 or 1996, I think.

She's a good prospect, especially for Clark as his VP. That ticket could possibly kick ass in defense, draw strong from all minority groups (especially Hispanics), and women would love voting for her, cause she's real and competent. She has a strong domestic background too, and came from very humble circumstances. I think her sister is also a congresswoman, but I'll have to look that up.

(on edit)Looked up Loretta Sanchez sister, Linda Sanchez, who is also a congresswoman. First sister team ever to serve at the same time.
http://www.lindasanchez.house.gov/index.cfm?section=about_linda
ABOUT LINDA SANCHEZ
Congresswoman Linda Sánchez was sworn into office on January 7, 2003 to represent the newly created 39th Congressional District of California. The 39th District includes the cities of Artesia, Cerrritos, Hawaiian Gardens, Lakewood, La Mirada, Lynwood, Paramount, and South Gate (in their entirety), a large portion of Whittier, small portions of Long Beach and Los Angeles, and parts of unincorporated Los Angeles County - East La Mirada, Florence-Graham, Los Nietos, West Whittier, and Willlowbrook. Sánchez’s service is historic as she joins her sister Loretta (D–Garden Grove) in the U.S. House. They are the first sisters and the first women of any relation to ever serve in Congress. Linda Sánchez is an advocate for California’s working families. She is committed to reducing crime, making public schools safe and secure for our children, providing quality education and affordable health care, improving our economy by creating economic opportunities, and decreasing unemployment.

[kevsand]

17. This just keeps getting better.

Anybody who could take out Bob Dorman is first string in my playbook.

[ZootSuitGringo]

18. With that ticket,

we win back the Hispanic vote without having to deal with Richardson's baggage, of which he has quite a bit of.

We also don't get Washington Insiders. Loretta Sanchez has been in congress just long enough to have the experience needed without being a dinosaur (serving her 4th term now). I think she's 44 years old, married (don't know about any kids).

Here's more info on Ms. Sanchez:
http://www.lorettasanchez.house.gov/display2.cfm?id=8373&type=Home
She travels to her home district from Washington each week to do work in the community and meet with constituents. Loretta has focused much of her time on issues such as education, public safety & crime reduction, economic development, and protections for our senior citizens. Born and raised in the district she serves, she is acutely aware of the issues facing her constituency.

She has been successful at working on bi-partisan projects and helping to bring funding back to the district for many community projects. During her tenure, she has secured appropriations measures totaling more than $300 million in federal tax dollars, which was sent back home to Orange County. She has worked hard to improve the infrastructure and quality of life for this fast-growing suburban county through various transportation, education, environmental, and crime reduction projects.

She has hosted hundreds of community events for her constituency. She has personally visited every school in her district, often with dignitaries such as former Vice President Al Gore, cabinet secretaries, astronauts and other Members of Congress. She regularly hosts "Community Office Hours," a grassroots approach to generating community interest in and accessibility to their Congressional representative.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. She would be a bold and intriguing choice

I remember when she beat Dorman. I heard her interviewed one time. I liked her a lot. I think she will have had enough time in the House by 2008, but in order to work she would have to establish herself as a leader in the House in one or more fields where she could get occasional national coverage. She still has enough time to do that. I agree with you that an Hispanic on the Democratic ticket would be a powerful move with the right person, and maybe it is Sanchez.

[ZootSuitGringo]

23. I have seen her often enough on cable, i.e., Hardball and CNN.

But yeah, you're right, she needs to increase her profile, but she has time. She's up for re-election in 2006. If she's won Orange County 4 times, she certainly can hold her own.
She's has more experience than Edwards did, both in Foreign policy and defense and with Domestic policies. She's from the largest state in the Union, and from one of the most populous districts in California, so those are pluses.

Committee Membership:
House Committee on Armed Services - 11
Subcommittee on Personnel - 3
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces - 3
House Committee on Homeland Security - 2
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness Science and Technology - 2
Subcommittee on Intelligence Information Sharing and Terrorism risk Assessment - 2
Joint Economic Committee - 8

In the News...
Feb. 16, 2005
Sanchez Works to Aid Recent Storm Victims in Orange County
Rep. Loretta Sanchez today sent two letters of inquiry on behalf of the residents of Orange County to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) within the Department of Homeland Security, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Both agencies have been directly involved in the recent storm recovery efforts in California.

Feb. 15, 2005
Sanchez Introduces Bill to Update Military Sexual Assault Laws

Feb. 9, 2005
Sanchez Name Ranking Democrat on New Homeland Security Subcommittee

[Leilani]

31. I thought I had seen her during the Armed Services Committee

hearings, & she was tough & knowledgable.

[cidliz2004]

66. Another voice to listen to and respect.

If you are on board with this possibility, then it has got to be a strong strong choice. Clarkies hopefully will get on board and start seriously considering this possibility.

I think a hispanic would be the best way to go on the ticket in 08'.

[CarolNYC]

73. This sounds like a really intriguing possibility

although I do agree with Sybil that there should be a concern about pulling Dems out of Congress....Maybe if things go well in 2006??

[Clarkie1]

21. I like "fresh, clean, and honest"; attractive ticket there n/t

[FrenchieCat]

24. Me too!

I hadn't thought of her at all until she was mentioned in this thread, but hell, now that I think of it, she would be a great VP nom for Clark in particular. The reason I say for Clark, is that with his national Security strength, a woman can easily show up on the ticket and not weaken it....and Sanchez is quite strong enough in that area on her own anyways, for those who would be thinking...well, she'd be next in line. Hell, they could even win Florida, with all of those army bases over there, and the fact that she is a "real" Latina and a real progressive.

[autorank]

33. Zuit...you nailed it. Great team. Push that at Pocho.Com.

[sybil]

40. Oh please!

I really admire Sanchez, hugely admire her, but the House is where we are so horribly horribly lame. We should not pull a great congressional from either house to run as v.p.

Please no congressionals, no! Not even my beloved Barbara Boxer!

And fercripessake who doesn't have more experience than John Edwards?

[Silverhair]

10. Yes. The Military is more respected in those parts of the country.

Clark's 34 year career is a big plus in the SouthWest & the South.

[Leilani]

14. Agree completely

Hispanics are very, very pro military...he would have done well among SouthWesterners.

By the way, Wes Clark's daughter-in-law is Hispanic. Although he'd never use that, if people knew, it would probably make a difference to some.

The Bushes always use Jeb's wife & kids to show how Latino-friendly he is.

[Clarkie1]

19. I think Arizona likes independent thinkers (they did elect McCain) n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Bruce Babbit as Governor also

I always liked Babbit. I remember when he ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Clinton should have appointed him to the Supreme Court.

But you are right. Clark does appeal to Independents for many reasons, not least of which is the fact that Clark himself was one. The South West embraces independent thinkers. Not so long ago New Mexico elected a Libertarian Republican Governor who came out for legalization of marijuana.

[Leilani]

27. I agree with the SouthWest potential for Wes Clark.

And I think Arkansas & West Virginia would be naturals for him.

West Va is one of the most pro-military states, & Wes is from Arkansas & can speak "family values."

Also raised Southern Baptist.

[Donna Zen]

28. 56,000,000 votes

Over the years the Democratic party has lost most of its once strong military support. Clark talks about the feelings in the Army after Vietnam, and I would suppose it started to really degrade then, and has just gone down hill from there.

Kerry tried very hard to capture part of that support, but I've not seen the numbers to see how successful he was. I think the Swiftboaters and Kerry's own protest against the VNwar stopped many who would were ready to make the move. (I approve of Kerry's protest, I just think we have to face how this plays among the military.)

Many Democrats seem unconcerned about this trend, although today I read that the DNC has appointed a new military out-reach person. Afterall, voting for republicans makes no sense if all they are going to do is use and abuse you.

The West/Southwest has many retired, active and families of the military. It is a huge vote that is concentrated in "red" states. We don't need all them, but we do need to increase the percentage that we are getting. Clark can do that and swing states that are currently close like NM and NV. Really. He is seen as a moderate, and well thought of in the Southwest.

And yes, he did receive the Native American endorsement, there and in Vermont. He also speaks Spanish and has, as already been stated above, a Columbian daughter-in-law. Oh, and then there is always Wesley Pablo--the 3.0 of the Clark family.

56,000,000 votes counting active and retired military and their families is something to think about.

[ZootSuitGringo]

30. we would only need like 10% more of those votes

and more would be doable with a Clark/(fill in the blank)

I didn't realize it was that many!

And Rove went only after a tiny section of the vote via the evangelicals.

[Donna Zen]

56. A huge number but worthy of consideration:

The number came from an analysis I read during the last election. It stuck in my head because it is so huge. While I don't know the methodology used to derive the figure, when one considers how many people you know with a family member who has or is serving, it does make sense.

During the years following the administrations of FDR, Truman and Kennedy, the Democrats still carried a large percentage of the military vote, especially among the rank and file. But when the country split over Vietnam, many people who could not separate supporting the soldier from supporting the war, and who could not identify with the protesters--who had the added branding of counter-cultural druggies--became uneasy with the Democratic party. Reagan gave them their way out.

The Vietnam vets who came out against the war can still be counted in the Democratic column, but those vets are far out numbered by the many who served more recently and had a very different experience. I view Kerry's service as "honorable" but nearly had my head taken off by vets because of the Swiftboater ads highlighting out of context testimony.

Which brings us to the idea of running a General. Among a thousand reasons I supported Wes Clark, one important one was that I saw it as vital to take the military-security issues OFF the table. I agree with those on this board that domestic issues are our strength and they are policies too long neglected in our American political discussion. But how can we talk about OUR issues, OUR ideas, if no one can hear us because of the hole in our national image? Take the damn issue off the table! I supported NOT because I wanted to talk about matters military; it's because I DON'T want to talk about the military.

In the analysis I read, the figure quoted was that we needed to move about 6% because the actual voters are concentrated in particular geographic areas. The republicans know this all too well...look at who they want us to nominate now.

The republicans cannot stand the idea that the Democrats have a four star general on their team, especially one that they wanted. General Clark's CV is a mind-boggling read. But he is liberal and he did join the us. If he was some "closet" conservative, why not just join the republicans? They would have greeted him with flowers and candy at the door, instead of smarmy, bashing, diatribes in leftest rags and on liberal discussion boards?

Water meet bridge. The Democratic party closed ranks and closed its collective mind. Clark is very concerned about the future of the country he loves. What his political plans are remain unknown, but he has been very clear about what we must do today: return to a strong two party system by making the Democratic party a "Full Service" party. It is about more than dancing around all of those would-be stars who represent us in between accepting the big-bucks from their corporate sponsors. It is about the Constitution.

We must protect the Constitution; if we can do that, we will be alright.~Wes Clark

[armymom for Clark 08]

29. Clarks ooozes appeal, but he talks staight too

There is no one that I would feel more confortable with as the commander in chief of my son than General Clark. He's seen war, he's had a son in the military, so he knows troops aren't just puzzle pieces on a risk board.

In the west, there is a tradition of independence and little "l" libertarianism mixed with the paradigms of hard work. From a moral standpoint, they want to help people, but otherwise they wasnt the government to butt out, just keep the country safe. There are many retired or former military voters that want someone who is strong on defense, not just swaggering trash talk.

The General speaks Spanish fluently, as does his son, and his Latina daughter-in-law. He looks great on a horse.

[AP]

34. Clark was weak in Mich, and there's nothing to suggest he has a ton of...

...appeal in any the rust belt swing states. (In Mich, he was 5th place with 6.7% in a race that took place at the same time he was pulling thirds in TN and VA). Even though he didn't campaign in IA, people knew he was running, and only 15 out of 13.5K voted for him.

And I know that he dropped out and endorsed Kerry, but there are no bright spots in MN, IN, IL, WI, etc. Eg, MN: 177 votes out of 54,000 cast, on March 2, only ahead of Lieberman. If he got, say, 3,000, I might not be so worried about his appeal there. But MN is a close state Dems can actually win, so you better be sure you're running a candidate whose message says something to Minnesotans (and Wisconsins, and Ohioans, and Michiganders).

I wouldn't want to pick a candidate who was O.K. (according to a questionable measure, which I'll address below) in AZ and NM while sacrificing the midwest.

To put things in perspective about those NM and AZ second places: Kerry got over 100% more votes than Clark in NM, while Dean was only 20% behind Clark.

So, it's not like he was going to do much better than Kerry in NM -- he was half as popular as Kerry, and if Dean only got 25% better, according to this logic, he'd be a better choice for winning NM than Clark. (Incidentally, Kerry Lost NM by .79%). By the way, I think all the government labs in NM made them like the vietnam vets -- that's the vibe I got.

In AZ, Kerry got 66% more votes than Clark (however, Clark doubled up Dean). Kerry lost AZ 55:45. So Clark's going to have to get much much more popular in AZ to actually make a difference in AZ. (And remember, McCain will be campaigning for the Republicans in AZ.)

[ZootSuitGringo]

35. I've read your stuff before AP, and I am deeply disappointed

in your very disingenious slanted post to try to take away the very good turn out that Clark got in the southwest.

#1. You bother to mention 4 states which had primaries AFTER CLARK DROPPED OUT, like you said; so why even bother?

#2. You contrast Clark's numbers to John Kerry KNOWING THAT KERRY AND EDWARDS WERE GETTING ALL OF THE MEDIA coverage during the relevant time period leading up those Mini Tuesday SOUTWEST PRIMARIES, YET CLARK STILL DID DAMN well considering that very important CRUCIAL FACT. No matter what you say, Clark still came in second in Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota and won Oklahoma.

#3. EDWARDS WITH TONS OF MEDIA COVERAGE STILL DIDN'T DO WELL IN THE SOUTHWEST. Now, since you seem to be his main representative on this board, I will have to say to you, EDWARDS HAS VERY LITTLE APPEAL IN THE SOUTHWEST.

next....

[AP]

37. Whatever.

#1: It's not that I expected Clark to do really well in IL, MN, etc. The problem is that he did so poorly, coming in at the very bottom, with very few votes behind 5 or 6 other candidates who had also dropped out. And he was still in the race for MI, which is, I believe, saying something about his appeal in the Midwestern swing states which can't be ignored. If he did very well in MI, but no better in the other Midwest states, I'd concede that maybe endorsing Kerry was the reason he didn't get many votes. But the poor performance in MI, plus not having a message that, on the surface, appeals to Midwesterners, plus the poor performance in all the swing states...well...it just seems like something that is worth considering.

#2: Um, the whole point of the OP is that Clark did so well in AZ and NM so maybe he'd be a better choice for 2008 in order to win those states.

I'm just pointing out that he did significantly worse than a Democrat who didn't win those states. Other candidates managed to get closer to Kerry in other states, so I could understand someone saying, for example, "Edwards has a better chance of winning SC than Kerry" (Dems lost SC by 18 points/Edwards got about 50% more votes than Kerry) or "Clark got about 10% more votes than Kerry in OK, so he might have a chance of getting closer in OK" (which Dems lost by 30 points). But I really don't give a lot of weight to the argument that a candidate half as popular as Kerry during an early-ish primary has a better chance than Kerry (and, like I said, Kerry won subsequent primaries by narrower margins than his wide margin over Clark in AZ and NM).

#3: Edwards with tons of media coverage didn't do well until the last three days of every primary, so he was obviously not getting the kind of national media attention that would have helped him. Mediatenor.org said he only got "personality" coverage, and no issues coverage. Well, if you look at the Stanford/UT/PBS deliberative poll, talking about the issues actually made Edwards more popular than Kerry. So why didn't the media give him that kind of coverage if they wanted him to win? Edwards did well in the last three days of every primary (for example, tripling his numbers in WI) not because of national "personality" media. He was advancing because of local news, his own commercials, personal appearances, and because people started talking about how he was on the issues, even if the national media wouldn't.

Edwards has a lot of appeal in the Midwest swing states. Look at the results vs other dropped out candidates and other participating candidates from IA to OH. He was not only second in every one of those swing states, he did very well in WI and OH, and, for example, despite only getting 10% in IL long after he dropped out, he got more votes than IL's former senator and Dean combined. Relative to other dropped out candidates, it's a very easy case to make that Edwards seems to have a little bit of popularity in states that are actually very important for Democrats to win, without giving much ground in the states bordering those states just to the south, running from OK to NC. Edwards certainly wouldn't concede the SW (in the same way Clinton didn't), but Edwards doesn't make me uneasy about the swing states the way Clark does -- and the swing states will be much more important than AZ and NM in 2008.

To sum up: Clark wasn't doing uniformly poor. There was a pattern: he did relatively well in the south and southwest, but not so well in MI, SC, and some other states. So it's cool to say that of course Kerry would blow everyone out after IA. But there's still something to be learned in regional disparities in performance. In other words, if you want to make a big deal out of what you see as a SW strength, you better be ready to talk about a MW weakness.

[kevsand]

49. "IL's former senator"

There's a reason why Braun was Illinois' former senator. She's DOA as a statewide candidate. She was great on issues on the floor of the chamber, but too many missteps outside the walls of Congress.

And you can't judge anything from Illinois' primary, because there wasn't one. No campaigning by anyone, no ads, no nothing. People here voted on the basis of what they saw in the national media, which was Kerry-Kerry-Kerry, and a little bit of Edwards.

Besides which, Illinois is not in play in any reasonably well contested presidential race. In 2008, it will have been twenty years since it went Repub. Don't even imply that Clark would put Illinois at risk, because it just ain't so.

[AP]

51. There were other states where there was no campaigning which had a...

...different distribution of votes.

For example TX -- Clark actually managed to break the pattern of coming last or second last in TX.

And, BTW IL is Clarks birth state, yet he did better in TX.

And TX'ans and IL'ans are watching the same national media.

Believe me, I don' t think that 10% is the ceiling of Edwards's appeal in IL. All I'm saying is if you want to see which candidates have something to work with in different states, the primary results give you a hint. With Edwards growing in appeal in the last three days in all the states he contested, and then having some stickiness after he dropped out throughout the NE, MW, SE and PacWest (but not SW or MW, except for Idaho), he looks like he has a decent foundation upon which to work. On the other hand, Clark's underporming in the MW and NE (but especially the MW rustbelt swing states) suggests that he has some work to do before he becomes a great candidate.

[Texas_Kat]

62. Clark's strength in Texas was second to none .....

before he dropped out of the race.

In fact, the only grassroots campaigns in Texas were Dean's, Clark's and Kucinich's (Dennis supporters were few but fervent). Edwards would show up every once in a while to pick up a check from TTLA (Texas Trial Lawyers Association) but so far as I know (and I was watching from deep in the heart of Texas) he never had any public events here until after Wes dropped out. Kerry didn't even do that much until just before Super Tuesday.

Clark has the credentials that appeals to Texans . Since he's always lived 'duty, honor, country' he's not dismissed as a 'raving liberal'. Once Texans begin listening to what he has to say, they're hooked.

2 1/2 million of Shrub's 3 1/2 popular vote margin came from Texas alone. Clark could have (and would have) narrowed the margin in Texas considerably and made it a competitive race.

Clark had only 5 months to create, organize and build a campaign. He likened it to 'crossing the Atlantic while building the ship at the same time'.

Clark's team will not be at the same disadvantage again.

[leyton]

69. Saying that Clark should have carried his "home state" of Illinois

is like saying that Dubya should have carried Connecticut. Yet, he is from there, but how many people associate Clark with Illinois? Probably not very many.

[kevsand]

72. Approximately none.

The Clarkies all treasure his Chicago connection, but everyone else in the state thinks he's from Arkansas.

[leyton]

68. Since Kerry won all but four primaries, but won only 19 states

I kind of assumed when I started this thread that his strong showing in Iowa propelled him to victory everywhere else - that he had the "big mo" while others had to fight to win the rest of the votes. So the fact that Kerry won Arizona's primary means that a lot of voters were just ready to go with whoever won the Iowa caucus, but of those that didn't, Clark may have outdone everyone else. There's no scientific way to tell who in AZ supported Kerry from the beginning and who in AZ voted for him because of his momentum - but one can safely assume that a great deal of Kerry's supporters in AZ were in the second group. The remaining Kerry supporters may have outnumbered Clark's, but if they did, it probably was by only a slim margin.

[saracat]

78. As an Arizonan, most people supported Kerry all along.

You would have only to attended a rally to see that. The evening before the primary, he drew 7000 people. Forgetaboutit.(Former New Yorker!):)

[AP]

89. I agree with all that...

...but I think it's important to recognize that we're not talking about Oklahoma, where Clark beat Kerry by about 10%, and we're not talking about Kerry beating Clark by 10 or 20% -- and I think if you look at a few other states up to an including the March 2nd contests, there were a few where Kerry beat out the second place finisher by smaller margins, eg GA, where he only beat out second place by 11%, OH by about 33%, and WI by 13% -- all the last competive states, long after Kerry was clearly the inevitable victor.

In AZ, he got 40% more votes than Clark and 53% more in NM.

In terms of reaching the level of popularity Kerry had (for whatever that was worth, and almost certainly it had "inevitability" as a big component), NM and AZ are probably at the lower end of competitiveness. Certainly, coming in second in the SW is great for Clark. But they were probably among the weakest seconds for candidates who hadn't yet dropped out.

In fact, here's the breakdown up to Wisconsin:

More than 2X (big blow-outs for the winner, who was Kerry, unless otherwise noted)
DE: Lieberman (Edwards close 3rd)
NM: Clark
ND: Clark
MI: Dean


Roughly 2X (slightly smaller blowouts than previous category)
MO: Edwards
VA: Edwards

Less than 2X (close races, all things considered)
IA: Edwards (very close)
NH: Dean
OK: Clark wins, Edwards and Kerry close behind
SC: Edwards wins (Kerry about 33% fewer)
WA: Dean
ME: Dean
TN: Edwards (33% fewer)
WI: Edwards (very close)

[Clark2008]

81. AP has also consistantly refused to believe that the Republicans

were voting for Edwards in many of the Mini Tuesday primiares because of a schematic plan put forth by Republican websites and operatives. Most of those states have open primaries and the Republicans didn't have any competition for Dear Leader, so they voted for the weakest viable candidate to keep Clark out - and that was Edwards.
In my state, Clark came in second in all the Democratic areas, but third in all the Republican areas - and third, overall, as a result.
I know this to be fact, even though I can't provide a "link." I know it because I live here and because I witnessed it, firsthand.
And, it's never been a secret that Republican operatives do sneaky, underhanded things during elections - I think we can all accept that point is fact.

[fujiyama]

39. I don't think

primary support is a good way to gauge how well a candidate would have done in a general election either way.

After all, Edwards did great in the SC primary (and Kerry didn't do bad there either) but in the GE, they lost the state by over 15 points.

As we know this primary schedule was peculiar and there really wasn't much of a race after NH. Actually it can be argued that there wasn't much of a race after IA itself. Sure Edwards was close there (and it was a great accomplishment to have placed as well as he did), but as we know Clark started late and decided to skip IA, which may have killed any chances he had.

Dean also knew that whomever would win IA would likely win the nomination. Once Kerry had won IA, all the buzz was about how Kerry and Edwards did so well, and the Dean scream. I knew immediately after the IA results that Clark's chances were very low. Sure there was some media buzz when Clark first entered the race, but few started paying attention to the primaries until after Iowa, plus the media coverage Clark got was not nearly as great as what Dean was recieving (ie the big name endorsement from Gore, the internet donations, etc). Despite that, Clark did raise a lot of money.

It's tough to say how Clark would have done in the southwest had he been the candidate, but if we look at how he placed in the primaries, he didn't do too bad. He came in second in several southwest states and SD as well.

It's tough to say to say if he would have done much better than Kerry, but Clark would have been more difficult to paint as an "elitest northeast liberal". Plus, as much as I hate it, Kerry's protesting may also have hurt him. As another poster said, it's about the impression Clark gives. As a general you don't expect someone very liberal. He seems like someone that would be conservative, but is actually quite liberal.

But ultimately I have no idea if any candidate could won this election. Bush made it about 9/11 and "values". It was a tough thing to go against.

[sybil]

41. Wasn't it the Dems to win?

Afterall, it should have been relatively easy to defeat the 're-selection' of the worst president in the history of the United States.

Either the election was once again stolen or we had a lame candidate.

Or both.

[AP]

43. If Nixon could win in '72, that tells you something about the power of

incumbency.

It was Bush's race to lose.

It wasn't impossible for Democrats to win, but they were never the favorites.

[sybil]

44. naw!

I can think of one or two things Nixon did passably well.
Civil rights, environment...

How has bu$h enriched your life?

[fujiyama]

46. It doesn't matter

to many what "good" Bush has done for anyone (I'm sure if you asked many of them they'd be hard pressed to give you one way how Bush has made their life better).

As far as many of his supporters could see Bush protected the nation from the terra-ists after 9/11 and from "moral evil" (gays and abortion). IMO, that's a load of bullshit, but I think 9/11 freaked the hell out of many.

I don't think the democrats were ever favored in any way to win this. Look at the senate losses. I think that's enough to give any idea what we were up against. It was a longshot. Now, I agree with many that Clark (and possibly Edwards) may have faced a better chance for various reasons, but it's impossible to say for sure...Hell, I think even Kerry would have had a better chance, had he run a better campaign.

[AP]

48. There were more people in the streets protesting Nixon.

And Vietnam was much less popular.

[American Tragedy]

70. And Nixon was overwhelmingly reelected through all of that.

It's an ugly fact that not only did Nixon carry every state except Massachusetts, but he also received a sizable majority of the youth vote that McGovern had been relying upon. I wasn't there to see it, but that must have been a hell of a blow. Kerry at least got more younger voters, and the '04 election itself was fairly close.

You're right, incumbency is very powerful.

[AP]

42. I agree that there wasn't much of a race after IA.

However, I disagree that there's not much to learn from how the candidates performed in the primaries.

For example I think that Edwards geting 50% more votes than Kerry (45,000 of 294,000 cast) in a state the democrats lost by 17 points (270,000 of 1.6 mil votes cast) actually shows a little bit of strength for Edwards in the region (which includes NC, VA, TN, GA -- all states where Edwards was strong despite facing another southerner and a guy who won IA and was on a roll).

I also think it's informative to look at relative strengths and weaknesses for candidates. Edwards didn't get much steam in AZ and NM (even though his poll numbers almost doubled in the last 5 days in NM -- and how many candidates can say the picked up supporters in the last three days?; Kerry lost voters in a few states, including WI, and I believe OH, GA and MN in the last three days before March 2, which was probably a bad omen). And Edwards did have steam in other regions. That tells you something about his relative strengths and weaknesses, rigth? The same can be said for other candidates. Regardless of when Clark entered the race, he did well in some states and poorly in others, and he didn't steadily get worse: he did well in some states after doing poorly in earlier primaries. You think that that doesn't tell you anything about anythign? It tells you something about his relative strengths and weaknesses. It suggests something about him clicked in some regions but not in others.

[fujiyama]

47. It tells you a little

but the primary races are a very different game than the general election.

I can guarantee that most of my friends were not paying even the slightest bit of attention to the primaries. Oh, they heard about the Dean "scream", and they knew when Kerry got the nomination.

But I doubt they could have really told you anything about the other candidates. I'm sure most of them had not heard of Clark either. They aren't the kind to actually go out and vote in the primaries (though they did so in the GE). We live in MI, and I'm sure my friends would have just as likely have voted for Clark in the GE as they disliked Bush.

By the time Clark got here though during the primaries, it was almost a foregone conclusion that Kerry would get the nomination. The momentum was a difficult thing to stop. Remember, all democrats were hearing was how other democrats were voting for Kerry because they thought he was "electable". They also heard that he had a nice resume and figured, "what the hell?, this guy looks like he could beat Bush" (and I personally don't think there was any reason why Kerry shouldn't have been able to beat him) . Also by this time I think Granholm had already endorsed the idea of a Kerry/Edwards ticket. Kerry had several major endorsements in this state.

The primaries tell you a little about the candidates' relative strengths and weaknesses, but if we're going by that, the original poster has a very good point - the southwest is a region the Democrats have a decent chance in the future. We should not have lost NM. It was very close in NV. And CO was one of the few states where Kerry did better than Gore in (and Dems actually picked up a senate seat).

As for MI and MN, I seriously doubt we would have lost either of those states this time with any candidate (with the exception of perhaps the "fringe" candidates). If we had lost them, we would have lost in a landslide and as I said, I don't think any of the "serious" candidates were losing in a landslide.

I was a bit surprised with IA. I thought we'd win that and for some reason lose WI. Of course we ended up winning WI (barely). I don't see any reason why Clark wouldn't have done as well in WI. But this just shows how irrelevant the primaries/caucuces are in trying to predict the strengths/weaknesses of a candidate. Looking at how Kerry and Edwards did in IA, we should have won the state by a decent amount.

Ultimately, for those states we lost, Clark's military career couldn't have HURT in any way. I know you always thought that it was a mistake in making this election much about FP, but I disagree. This election was mainly about Iraq and "values" (this was a wedge issue exploited perfectly by Rove).

[AP]

50. Kerry won WI by .4 points. A candidate even marginally less attractive...

to WI'ites would have lost those 10 electoral votes.

MN Kerry only won by 3.5 points (and it's a state which has been electing Republicans recently). That's another 10 electoral votes.

MI was a 3.4% Dem victory for 17 electoral votes (even though they have a great Democratic governor and one of the best senate delegations in the country).

Those three states are definitely NOT safe Demcratic states.

I would not put those 37 electoral votes at risk for a grab at NM's 5 electoral votes.

But, hopefully, Dems will run a candidate in 2008 who campaigns everywhere and has a message about progressive values that works for people in WI, MN and MI as well as NM (but definitely for WI, MI and MN!).

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. I already showed you evidence that Clark was strong in Wisconsin

Prior to withdrawing on February 11th and subsequently endorsing Kerry and campaigning with him in Wisconsin that is.

Brief Recap:

ARG Poll WI Feb 6 2004: Kerry 41%, Clark 15%, Edwards 10%, Dean 9%

Clark had strong support in Wisconsin. Here are some clips from the Badger Herald, Feb 9th 2003:

"Gen. Wesley Clark spoke at an economy forum hosted by Gov. Jim Doyle in Racine Sunday, answering local residents’ questions about his stance on the issues and why he is the best choice for the democratic nomination...

Although Gov. Doyle made it clear he would not endorse any candidate, he praised Clark as a man with “broad political experience” who would make a good president. Doyle’s Lieutenant Governor Barbara Lawton is Chair of Clark’s Wisconsin campaign and has recently been criticized by state Republicans for allegedly campaigning on state time."


I forgot to mention that Clark also had been endorsed in Wisconsin by Earth Day Founder, former Governor and Senator Gaylord Nelson: "elected to the State senate in 1948, 1952, and 1956, and served as Democratic floor leader for four years; Governor of Wisconsin 1959-1962; elected as a Democrat to the United States Senate in November 1962 for the term commencing January 3, 1963; subsequently served out his term as Governor until January 7, 1963, and commenced his term in the Senate on January 8, 1963; reelected in 1968 and 1974 and served from January 8, 1963, to January 3, 1981".

[AP]

55. It looks like Clark tried hard to get those numbers.

Compare this to Clark's more respectable finishes in TN and OK. Clark was staffing and spending money to be competitive in WI (probably so that he could make the argument that as the VP selection he could make a difference in an important state), and where does that leave him? It leaves him on Feb 10th with Edwards thinking, gosh, I have a chance in WI, better get up there and spend some money.



A February 9 Journal Sentinel survey of 666 likely Wisconsin primary voters showed 45 percent support for Kerry, well ahead of retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark with 13 percent, Dean with 12 percent and Edwards with 9 percent. (The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.)

...

Edwards stopped short of calling Wisconsin his own must-win state, and although he did not campaign there much until the week before the primary, he apparently realized he might have a chance for a good showing.


"It looks like it's narrowed itself down to a two-person race now, and we're excited about our prospects," Edwards told supporters in Milwaukee on the night of the Tennessee and Virginia primaries, echoing a claim made by Dean. "We're going to have a campaign and an election, not a coronation."


Clark never made the trip north, despite spending $50,000 on TV ads in Wisconsin between February 1 and 7, more than any other candidate, and his second-place standing in the February 9 Journal Sentinel poll.

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/misc/wisconsin.recap.html


Despite spending little money in the state, and having little institutional support and virtually no personal presence, Kerry has jumped out to a big lead. Clark, by contrast, spent more than $500,000 in TV ads from early January to early February. Clark, Dean and Edwards all have spent more time in the state. Dean and Clark staffed up in larger numbers much earlier.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/feb04/206353.asp

[Tom Rinaldo]

58. Yes, of course

Every candidate had a strategy for success. Prior to the same Super Tuesday week when Clark came in second in Arizona and New Mexico, Edwards had poured most of his resources into South Carolina, which was the only primary he won other than his home State of North Carolina late in the campaign.

As I always go to pains to state, I am not knocking Edwards performance in the primaries. He beat out Dean and Gephardt in Iowa which earned him momentum and positive press coverage. Despite slipping slightly behind Clark in New Hampshire, Edwards had the good sense and ability to capitalize on the fact that South Carolina was up next in the rotation, a State where he had roots and strong media recognition. Coming out of Super Tuesday with a Primary win solidified Edwards media standing as the leading challenger to Kerry and that was the pattern that held up.

Clark was plotting a National campaign on the assumption that Dean would be the front runner, believing that a second or third place finish in New Hampshire behind one or both of the two leading New England Native Sons would keep him strongly competitive. He did not count on the positive momentum Kerry and Edwards would get coming out of Iowa, which had previously been shaping up as a Dean Gephardt or Dean Gerhardt Kerry close battle. Clark chose Wisconsin as an early state that would demonstrate his ability to be competitive in the Mid West.

The point is less that Clark poured resources into Wisconsin, the point was whether or not that effort made any difference. It is a virtual given that without making an effort, candidates did poorly in contests (Kerry being the exception as the designated front runner after Iowa, and New Hampshire, he then did well whether or not he made any special efforts). Edwards did not put much effort into the South West and that showed for example. However Lieberman poured plenty of resources into New Hampshire and finished 5th. Gephardt poured massive resources into Iowa and finished fourth. Clark put resources into Wisconsin and built strong support as a result. Both of the Wisconsin polls you and I listed took place after the Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina etc. results were already in. Momentum was running strongly against Clark but he still had very respectable Wisconsin numbers for early February considering that.

[Dinger]

57. Guess What Tom? I Have A Tape Of The Racine Appearance,

taped from the second row. It's wonderful! Wisconsin loved Clark, and Clark obviosly loves it here too. I look forward to supporting him in 2008!

[Tom Rinaldo]

59. That must be a great tape.

Hopefully we will get the chance to record new ones.

[Stan Davis]

36. Colorado...

Gen. Clark would do great in Colorado.

His only campaign stop was on November 9, 2003. The campaign was hoping for 400-500 people for the major event, and 75 for the big-dollar fundraiser at a private home. They hoped for $50,000 total for the evening.

At the "big one," 900 showed up, with 125 at the private home with a total take of over $85,000.

Colorado for Clark had over 3000 people in its database.

Remember that Clark lived in Colorado twice, in stints at Ft. Collins near Coloraod Springs. He owned a condo in Dillon, a resort town in Summit County, the capital of Ski Country USA.

He came back to support John Kerry and Ken Salazer on October 15, 2004, and packed 'em in.

There are so many vets in Colorado, a moderate to conservative state, that he could take Colorado with half an effort.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO

[sharonking21]

45. Clark had good support in Texas

We certainly had an active grassroots contingent for Clark here in Texas. By the time it got to polling in Texas for the Democratic Primary, he had long since pulled out of the race. So you cannot go by that: he endorsed Kerry. Further, I'm not at all sure solely looking at primaries will give you what you want as an indicator.

Think of a general election in Texas with W. not able to run. Assume we still feel threatened by Al Queda et al and that the war in Iraq (or God forbid, elsewhere) is still a big problem for the country. Think of the fact that my Houston-based conservative oilman brother, who usually votes Republican, was so disgusted at Bush policy that he gingerly voted for Kerry (although he would have preferred someone like Clark less wholly identified with the left).

Might be real possibilities here were Clark to run with a Hispanic on the ticket. Clark is honest, sincere, smart as a whip, good on defense but a diplomacy-oriented multilateralist. Best of all, he has good judgment, good policies on far more than just defense or security or foreign policy. Most of all, he has a compassionate, dare I say, liberal, heart.:kick:

[AP]

54. Re TX: at one point Edwards had raised more TX $ than all others combined!

And his second place on March 9, a week after dropping out, was with 1/3 the votes Kerry got in first place, but three times the votes Dean got in third place, and he got more votes than 3rd, 4th (Sharpton) and 5th (Lieberman) Combined. Clark was 6th with a little more than 2/3rd the votes Lieberman got.

[Texas_Kat]

64. Edwards raised most all his money from trial lawyers in Texas

Be careful of touting who and where the money came from, you might be surprised. Edwards raised the vast majority of his funds from trial lawyers. His grassroots support was weak.

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/indus.asp?ID=N00002283&Cycle=2004

"Presidential scholar Bruce Buchanan from the University of Texas at Austin told the Star Telegram that Edwards, a lawyer, had a leg up on his competitors because of his support among the state's trial lawyers. Many of them are among the Democratic Party's most generous benefactors. One of them, Dallas lawyer Fred Baron, is co-chairman of Edwards' national fund-raising effort. And when Edwards was in Houston last week, he raised money at an event hosted by lawyer John O'Quinn."

http://www.polstate.com/archives/005023.html

Fred Baron (BTW) is the self-same gentleman who hosted Wes in his home in Dallas for the Dallas Democratic Forum a couple of weeks ago.
:D

[bush_is_wacko]

52. I can't put my finger on it, but I'm from Colorado

and I can tell you Clark does hold some special kind of Westerness about him. I didn't know enough about him to follow that closely and I did know a lot about Kerry so he ended up as my choice.

All the states you mention here have a unique lifestyle that is different from the rest of the country IMO. We still cling to the cowboy image, but we also appreciate our big cities.

Sante Fe, New Mexico is a town full of art AND history. Colorado has a great deal of culture, and we rely heavily on out of staters who vacation here. Nevada, of course, has Vegas and Arizona, like Colorado, has all those fantastic vistas that people come from far and wide to see.

We just don't fit into the Bible belt, heartland thing that Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, etc. etc. does. I think it is because we are exposed to so many different parts of the country through our visitors that we aren't way to one side or the other.
Clark seems to be representative of those same values. Cowboy versus Culture. I think he has a good chance to capture large portions of the population in the states you mentioned, but he needs some serious publicity!

[vikegirl]

71. Agree with you and Stan Davis

I'm in Denver, and there were NUMEROUS Clarkies, and not only at meet-ups. When I'd tell people that I supported the General, they'd grin and say they did too! Even a few Repukes I know said they'd take Clark over chimpy any day.

But *sigh*, it was not to be. But I know there's still a *lot* of Clark fans in this old cow town!

[CarolNYC]

74. This is a really interesting analysis

Thanks for posting it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, & Colorado are the Democrats future

We have been trying to undo the Republicans lock on the South for 25 years by running Southerners, and we keep losing ground there. I am not in favor of writing off the South. First off, with a good candidate and campaign we can still pick off a few swing states there. Second, we can rebuild in the South with a strong populist message. I strongly back Howard Dean's efforts to renew our Party in the South.

Having said that however, the four States listed above currently account for 29 Electoral votes. That's as many votes as Virginia, West Virginia, and Tennessee combined. That's more votes than Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa combined. Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado are all rapidly growing in population, unlike the North East and Mid West. And there are cultural and intellectual forces at play in all four of those States that resemble the demographics of the now relatively solidly Democratic West Coast States of California, Oregon, and Washington. Sure Colorado and Arizona have voted Republican in past Presidential elections, so did California at one time.

If Democrats can make inroads in these Sun Belt and Mountain States, while holding on to most of the Mid West, we can become the majority Party again.

[ZootSuitGringo]

63. Amen!

Clark needs publicity. If he gets that, and voters get to know who he is and what he's done, he can be a winner. Republicans would hate that, and keep their fingers crossed.

Democrats need to understand that having a 4 star general as their nominee would scramble the Republicans, as they would realize that we mean business and that we are willing to kick the shit out of them.

Remember whatever the Republicans want for the Democrats, Democrats should want the exact opposite.

The Southwest can be ours for the taking, if we play it smart.

[Donna Zen]

80. Ignoring the South: a lose/lose strategy

Between the voting machines in Georgia and the political pulpits' of the mega-churches of the south, it is tempting to save the dollars, and write off the south. But doing that has some dire consequences; you eliminate forcing the republican party from showing their ugly side, their philosophical mindset that wins southern votes and is a turn-off for northern suburbs and the libertarian Southwest.

It is less about winning a specific southern state than it is about controlling the dialog that frames political perceptions.

In northern states the Democratic candidate is encouraged to voice strong union support, or support for environmental protections, all worthy positions from my point of view. But the southern majority supports neither of those positions, and a republican candidate would be forced to come and say so when running in the south. While the Southwest has its more conservative nay-sayers, it also has a sizable voting population that agrees with the Democratic positions. Thus, while challenging the republicans in Arkansas, Louisiana, or Tennessee may or may not flip those states, it does have an impact beyond the region.

This is not my original idea; it was put forward by a southern strategist who appeared on Moyers' NOW. A light came on when the man was talking. I agreed with him then; I agree with him today.We are letting the republican party off the hook of their true beliefs and agenda, when we write off the south: a lose/lose Democratic mindset.

General Clark would have run a competitive race in the three southern states noted; and would have forced the dialog onto the Southwestern stage. So in addition to the clout delivered by his first name, the dynamics change considerably when Democrats stop the republicans from blurring the perception of their true nature.

[Tom Rinaldo]

84. That is an excellent point Donna. Some thoughts...

It is really a good insight, but Democrats don't have to keep running Southerners in order to contest for the South and trigger off the dynamic you describe. I like Howard Dean's attitude, he will fight for the South, yet he ain't no Southerner. Democrats do not have to be subservient to the currently prevailing Southern mindset in order to make our case in that region the way you describe.

Of course Wesley Clark is a Southerner also, but with a small "S" as compared to someone like Edwards or even Warner. That's because Wes Clark is strongly associated with a National institution, the Armed Forces, rather than a regional office representing one State in the South. Clark also moved often since he was stationed in numerous different positions, including of course time spent in Europe. I think that is another element of Clark's South West appeal. Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona are newer additions to our Union and all strong growth States. They are at the other end of the continuum from both New England and the South when it comes to strong deep local roots. Of course these States have some, but family trees in the North East and South often trace back centuries in the same locations, and landmarks tend to be from the 17th and 18th Centuries.

People don't move as much or as often in the North East than they do in the South West. Southerners are generally more likely to stay put as well. New people are flowing into the South also of course, but the tipping point of newcomers shifting demographics toward Democrats is further away than it is in places like Nevada and Colorado.

In a way this is almost a twist on Bush's labored metaphor of an Old Europe and a New Europe, except this one is more accurate. There is an Old U.S. and a New U.S., and the South West/Colorado is part of the new U.S., and an independent self made man like Wesley Clark with strong Non regional National identification resonates more with that mind set than a typical Southerner or North East Liberal might.

[Donna Zen]

85. Thanks for the kudos:

As I said, this is not my original proposal, but I think the man knew exactly what he was talking about since he's a southern talking southern politics.

You are correct that it doesn't take a big "S" southerner to run in the south. Dean has been braving the Mason-Dixon recently with some success. While it would be great to win a few southern states, the emphasis must be to gage the electoral map differently: who can compete in the South? Yes, the General, who is really America's son and a world player could make that happen, but more than that, he can force the issues because he can win a southern state. The republicans could not ignore his efforts or they risk the loss of a portion of their stronghold. Viola! Make them run in the south and they run toward their ugly side.

The conservatism of Southwest is a different bird with a different demographic. They reject many of the ol' big government solutions of the Democratic party, but not the essential rationale for a collective solution. There is plenty in play here, but the bottom line for me, is the unmasking of the republican agenda by making them reveal themselves in a fight.

I hadn't thought about the mobility of the various sectors of the country, so that even adds to the mix. They questions about the trends of all of these factors is going to become more defined as we move along. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that there will be a republican running against us when the time comes. None of this is new to them, in fact, I would suppose that they are already creating new strategies for expanding their grip on the Southwest.

I'm still favoring Mitt Romney to head the republican ticket: a blue state governor with Southwestern connections and appeal.

[kevsand]

87. I would add Florida and Texas to the list.

In fact, I think there's fertile ground for Clark all along the Gulf Coast, given the military presence.

I really like the idea of contesting the South with ideas and issues to clarify the debate. I agree that is much better than just trying to find some lukewarm southern body to run.

I also think this would fit in well with what Dean seems to be trying to do. In sports, we would call it stretching the field. Force your opponents to commit their resources over a broader range, and their weak points become easier to exploit.

[IndianaGreen]

65. I think Clark would do well in Indiana

Clark doesn't come across as an intellectual even though he is a former Rhodes scholar. I think he will do well around this part of the country.

[dolstein]

67. Anyone who looks to Democratic primary results to answer this question

is, to put it bluntly, a fool. The Democratic primary electorate, even in conservative states, tends to be very liberal, and highly unrepresentative of the general electorate. Just look at how Kerry did in the red state primaries. He won nearly every one of them, but he got his clocked cleaned throughout the South in the general election.

Personally, I think a four star general (Clark) would have much more appeal than then one of the leaders of the anti-war movement (Kerry). But that's just a hunch. I have no real evidence to back this up, for the simple reason that there isn't much polling data out there.

[CarolNYC]

75. I agree

with your comments about primary results and general elections. I can't see where someone's showing in a primary in a particular state indicates how well they'd do in a general election against a different opponent with a whole host of different voters.

[FrenchieCat]

76. I second that agreement.

I think that Clark could clean a Republican's clock during the general election. But, Noooooo, let's get a 1992 type Southern Governor for 2008, so that we can just lose again....cause 2008 won't be 1992.

[snowbear]

77. 4 Star Guy...

I still wonder how the General would have done if he would have just gone ahead with Iowa instead of pulling out and focusing on NH...

I realize they thought it was the best choice at the time.. but who knows how Iowans would have voted? :shrug:

It could have changed everything... Woulda, Coulda, and maybe Shoulda...

[kevsand]

79. So let's change "shoulda, woulda, coulda"

to "shall, will, can!"

Whether skipping Iowa was right or wrong, it seemed best at the time because of the late start. We can change that by starting really early this time.

And speaking of Iowa, what's happening on the ground there now? Any Clarkies still active in Iowa? And more important, what do the 2006 elections look like in Iowa? Are there opportunities for Clark supporters to pitch in and help local candidates in Iowa in '06?

[CalifSherry]

82. Clark Support in Northern California

was a mix of life-long Democrats who, like me, feel that the party drifted right-ward of the positions and values we have always held; moderate Republicans who feel abandoned by their party; retired military who are sickened by the damage done to the services by faux Commanders-in-Chief, and a significant number of people registered "decline-to-state."

Lots of people attacted to a really fine mind combined with a sense of both service and personal humility. I was amazed by the diversity of the mix and can understand why he would do well in the Western states.

[capi888]

83. You Bet He Does:

If you read his books, read his messeges, read his policy statements,and attend his speeches, you will understand who this man is and be impressed, with his vast knowledge! Not only about foriegn policy, but social and economy issues.

[Donna Zen]

86. The NYT on Colorado:

Colorado Dems

[kevsand]

88. Fascinating, isn't it?

We need some of that reform here in Illinois...

Stan Davis (see his post above) was at ground zero for the "coup in Colorado." Maybe he should start a thread discussing how that went down, and what lessons we can take to other states.

I think that this sort of action is going to happen more and more as Dean starts to rebuild the party in all fifty states from the ground up. We're going to need to be a part of that, not just in the West, but in the South and everywhere else.