Electoral Votes in the South, and why Edwards has advantage...

[Blackhatjack]

While it is possible for a Democrat to win the General Election without winning the South, the numbers clearly show that a Democratic win in Nov 2008 would be more likely if the Democratic Nominee can compete or win the Southern states. IMHO Edwards can do this and that makes him more electible than the other Democratic candidates.

Here are the numbers:

Electoral Votes in the South Up For Grabs...
Alabama 9
Arkansas 6
Georgia 15
Louisiana 9
Miss 6
N. Car 15
S. Car 8
Tenn 11

Total 79

Total Number Needed to Elect 270 out of 538


A Non-Edwards Dem Candidate Needs 270 out of 459 = 59% of Non-South Electoral Votes to win


IF Edwards competes evenly in the South He needs 270 of 538 = 50% of Non-South Electoral Votes

If Edwards wins the South, he needs 191 (270 - 79) = 191 of 459(41.6%) of Non-South votes


This is why Edwards is the most electible candidate we can nominate.

[Coventina]

1. The Confederacy may have lost the war, but they won the peace.

It just kills me that we have to pander to these idiots to win elections.

[williesgirl]

2. I'm not from the South (N.VA) but not all Southerners are idiots. Tide is turning in many

areas of the South, but if our mindset continues that they are all the same, we'll never win more of their moderates over. I don't think Edwards panders to them - more like he's one of their own moderates.

I'm still openminded on all the candidates, but hate of hear stuff like this. I think it makes us more like the pukes - so closed off.

Just my two cents.

[Coventina]

4. If the Dems have to pick a candidate specifically because s/he

"plays well" in "the South" we all know that's code speak for mollifying all the Democrats who are in the party because they're still mad about Lincoln.

on edit: FWIW, I think Edwards would make a fine President. I just don't like the idea that one region of the country gets to dictate our candidate.

[Clark2008]

11. And we don't like it when you call all of us idiots.

Should we be "mollifying" you?

Maybe it wouldn't sting so bad if you knew that we weren't idiots and could be trusted to pick a decent candidate. I think your ire over this is because you honestly believe we are all idiots.

That said - Edwards isn't it, but thanks for playing.

[Coventina]

77. I didn't say that everyone in the South was an idiot.

Just the bigots still stuck in the 19th century. Like it or not, there are enough of them there to still shape how "the South" votes as a block. Yes, it is changing, but at a snail's pace.

I know it's a massive drag to be surrounded by cretins. I live in Arizona, and until recently J. D. Hayworth was my representative in Congress.

On edit: typo

[RubyDuby in GA]

92. I am from the South and I am not an idiot. You owe us an apology.

[nealmhughes]

98. I swan! Someone just wasn't raised right, I reckon! Lord, it's done fixed to come up a cloud here

on the internets!

Rule 1: All regions are special and the best when one is there or making reference to them.

Rule 2: Never make blanket statements or assumptions or they will come back to haunt you.

Rule 3: Barbeque consists of a hog shoulder which is slow roasted over hickory coals in a "pit," after having been rubbed. The sauce is applied after the meat is "pulled." The sauce is made from a mixture of vinegar and pepper and secret ingredients, not tomato paste. It is eaten on a bun with coleslaw or chow chow on the bun.

Rule 4: Tea is made very strong with bags and then diluted with hot simple syrup and cold water to the degree of sweetness/strength, it is served with lemon on the side over ice and made by the gallon.

Rule 5: Bread is baked daily in a cast iron skillet using corn meal and eggs and buttermilk, no sugar.

Rule 6: Don't ever try to mess with a Southerner's family, their accents, or their education.

Rule 7: A Yankee is an accident of birth, a Damned Yankee Self Righteous Loudmouth who can't call a kettle black without seeing a pot in the mirror is an Outrage.

Family: came to Virginia in 1610 and to NC in 1650s, migrated to Tennessee, then North Alabama. Strong union, liberal FDR Democrats, UMC/Episcopalians, most with MAs. Wear shoes daily.

Self: 6 years everywhere from Florica to Idaho to Scotland, 5 years on Long Isalnd, 3 years in Omaha. Loved 'em all for their own charms.

[Coventina]

111. Well bless your little heart!

I've got Southern credentials as well.

Don't know the year my family landed in Va, I'd have to check with my grandma, she'd know. But I do know it was before the Revolution.

Our family lost our plantation in "the War of Northern Agression" and we've been "the genteel poor" ever since. My Great-Grandfather came out to the Southwest (which is why I'm typing this from AZ), but the rest of the family is still in the South, in every sense of the word.

So don't try to tell me bigotry is not widespread and deeply rooted. I know better.

I know there are many fine people like yourself and other Southern DUers in the region. My original post was not directed at you. It was directed at the Zell Millers of the party, which thankfully are dying out, but it's taking a loooooong time.

[TahitiNut]

3. So ... the 'South' will only vote for a 'Southerner'???

Why is that? What other region of the country votes only for natives of that region? The West doesn't. The Northeast doesn't. The Midwest doesn't.

I'm old enough to remember George Wallace and Orval Faubus. I'm old enough to remember the 'Dixiecrats.'

:puke:

[misanthrope]

7. You are at the crux of the matter...

...and the formerly public sentiments are now couched in code at the podium and just as present away from the dais.

[Clark2008]

12. No - the South would go for a mid-Westerner, too.

The problem is when the candidate is from the Northeast - ONLY.

It's because the South and the mid-West, whom Northerners have call all kinds of "dumb" nicknames for years (see the post above), don't feel as though someone from New England could represent them. That's a valid argument.

It may not be an accurate argument, but, what do you expect with the media we have?

[TahitiNut]

13. "That's a valid argument."??

Since when?

From LBJ to Carter to Clinton to Gore, the Northeast has steadfastly supported Democratic candidates from the South. Are you saying that the few who engage in name-calling (other than 'Yankee') have hurt the feelings of people so badly that they ignore the FACT that people from other regions aren't as parochial?

Sorry ... but I see it as excessive parochialism. The very notion that 'someone from New England could (not) represent them' reeks of parochialism, imho. If there are regional concerns, what about the concerns of the western states where the federal government's land ownership exceeds 50% in some cases? What about the "rust belt's" concerns regarding snow removal and salt-damaged highways? I don't see a region without certain unique interests which, one might argue, are even of greater magnitude than the South's.

[Matsubara]

89. I don't think that's exactly it.

But I do think the south is much less likely to go for a person of color - there goes Obama.

or a woman, aspecially one who is not genteel in that Junior League way like Kay Hutchinson or Liddy Dole - there goes Hillary

or a northeastern Jew (Lieberman did much damage to Gore in the south in 2000)

or anyone who comes off as overly pointy-headed or effete (Bye Kucinich, John Kerry, Mike Dukakis)


I don't think the other candidates are automatically on the outs in the South, but they would have to work harder to win southerners over than Edwards would. He's smart, he's good-looking, was a football player (a religion in much of the south) and has the drawl and the charm.

I think Wes Clark also has a lot of the ingredients that would translate into a good showing in the south. But any of these people has got to win the nomination first, and that's where the south is less influential.


I personally don't have a favorite at this point, but Edwards strengths are not lost on me.

[dogman]

5. Why and how would Edwards carry the South?

We know about opinions. What about facts? In the same vain, why wouldn't others do as well?

[Blackhatjack]

8. Polling data indicates Edwards would do well in South because ...

he can appeal to the independents/undecideds and unaffiliated voters (which tend to be more moderate) than the other Democratic Candidates.

Plus, fundraising in the south favors Edwards tremendously. Where the money comes from tends to indicate where the votes will come from.

Edwards raised more in the southern states named than all three of the top Republican Candidates combined.

[dogman]

27. The top three now may not be the GOPer choice.

I think Newt or Fred may be more likely. As far as fundraising, Edwards has been running longer than the GOPers. I do agree that they me see Edwards as less threatening in the primary, but I don't know if voter suppression will be resolved in the '08 general election.

[illinoisprogressive]

15. The south is very red and Edwards is not popular with them.

He would have lost re election to the senate. They are not crazy about him.
Southern Illinois is just like the deep south and they are crazy about their senator, Obama

[mnhtnbb]

17. I call BS on this myth being pushed on DU. Elizabeth is totally ADORED in NC;

her military background is going to go a long way with all the military families
in NC.

Edwards is polling quite favorably in NC at this point. Bush and his Iraq
war are no longer popular in NC. Demographics have been changing in NC.
We now have a majority of Dem reps to Congress; the State Dem Party Chair
is a young, progressive, go-get-'em guy that came up through the Dean
grassroots. There's a lot of northern migration into the State and I will
predict that NC would go blue with Edwards at the top of the ticket.

http://www.newsobserver.com/636/story/569660.html

[JNelson6563]

24. Hmmm. I dunno.

He would have lost re election to the senate. They are not crazy about him.

Didn't he beat an R incumbent to win his seat? I'm not convinced he would have lost that race but that's merely speculation, just like your statement.

Southern Illinois is just like the deep south and they are crazy about their senator, Obama

I'm sorry but nothing anyone says will convince me Obama is our strongest candidate in the red south. I really, really like him too. His speeches blow me away. No doubt he could be an excellent leader. That doesn't change the fact he's not out strongest chance of taking the south. Far from it.

BTW did you see this in post #8 of this thread? I saw something about this earlier here on DU:

Edwards raised more in the southern states named than all three of the top Republican Candidates combined.

I thought that was a very interesting factoid.

Just my .0125 worth. :hi:

Cheers,
Julie

[mnhtnbb]

25. Link for facts on money raised by Edwards' in South

http://www.newsobserver.com/636/story/569660.html

[JNelson6563]

71. Good article, thanks!

:hi:

[Blackhatjack]

31. You are just plain wrong --Edwards is very popular here IN NO. CAROLINA

[misanthrope]

6. Check out Thomas Schaller's book...

..."Whistling Past Dixie: How the Democrats Can Win Without the South." He has some very, very valid points about strategy and how costly it is to squander resources and time.

commentary on Schaller from The New Republic

[Blackhatjack]

9. It is possible, but write off the South and you have to win big in all other states...n/t

[mnhtnbb]

22. For a rebuttal of Schaller...

I side with Dean on the 50 state strategy.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/11/28/141726/79#readmore

[Clark2008]

10. But he doesn't because he won't get any of those.

I keep trying to explain to people that Edwards is too "metrosexual" to pick up the swing Bubba votes.

Sigh.

[mnhtnbb]

20. The South is no longer full of only swing Bubba's. Puleeze!

[Blackhatjack]

30. That is a stereotypical biased myth you are promoting about the South...n/t

[illinoisprogressive]

14. Edwards was not going to get re elected senator in his state! please.

[mnhtnbb]

18. Since you're not from NC, why don't you reserve judgment for something

about which you might be informed?

[Pastiche423]

26. I was born and raised in North Carolina

My father has lived there all of his life. Both of us voted for johnny boy for senate. Both of us would not have voted for a 2nd senate term. (To be fair, I no longer lived in North Carolina after 2000.) Both of us will not for him in '08.

That's one liberal Independent and one Democrat from North Carolina that will not vote for him for pres.

[Blackhatjack]

33. So if Edwards had run for reelection you would have voted for Rep Burr? Hard to believe...

... you are a liberal Independent and a Democrat and you would have voted for Richard Burr, the darling of the far right pharmaceutical and business lobby.

Obviously North Carolina has changed a lot since 2000, and it is no longer the 'red state' others here believe it to be.

And BTW the military families here are the best in the world, and they do not often speak out publicly, but those of us who live here know how they feel and it is not in support of Bush and his failed war in Iraq.

[Pastiche423]

61. Good lord, your reading comprehension is atrocious!

WTF did I say I was a liberal Independent AND a Democrat?

WTF did I say I would vote for a republic?

And, wtf did I mention military anything?

Btw, in 2000, I voted for Al Gore and Pete DeFazio. Ron Wyden's term wasn't up that year.

[Blackhatjack]

64. Here are your words, not mine.... maybe you have amnesia....

You posted: My father has lived there all of his life. Both of us voted for johnny boy for senate. Both of us would not have voted for a 2nd senate term. (To be fair, I no longer lived in North Carolina after 2000.) Both of us will not for him in '08.

That's one liberal Independent and one Democrat from North Carolina that will not vote for him for pres."
*****************

BTW In regard to you voting for a republic, if Edwards had run for reelection and you would not vote for him, your only choice would have been Richard Burr, a Republican.

[Pastiche423]

67. Maybe you can't read?

Everything I said in my posts are true. No matter how you try to spin my words, they are there for all to see, READ and comprehend.

[Blackhatjack]

68. Then your problem is comprehension .... (admitting your problem is the first step)

Why make personal attacks? But if you must, play on....

[charlie]

69. No, she's right

She wrote plainly and you don't come off looking so hot.

Seems primary silly season is here with a vengeance :crazy:

[Blackhatjack]

73. Oh I guess you keep up with who is 'looking hot' , not an issue here....

I had no idea the poster was a 'she'

but it makes no difference.... at least not to me. I brought up an inconvenient fact, 'she' chose not to deal with it, but rather to make a personal comment.

Why not just do us all a favor and rate everyone here as 'looking hot or not' since you think that is important for us to know. Meanwhile the rest of us will debate ideas.

[Pastiche423]

70. No personal attack...

just setting the record straight.

I have no problem w/my reading comprehension, so I have nothing to admit.

Quit acting the fool and read my original post.

[Blackhatjack]

72. I posted your own words, try to make it go away if you like....

You just refuse to face the facts.

[piedmont]

84. I think you really may have a reading comprehension problem.

She said that she would NOT VOTE for Edwards. She never, ever said that she would vote for his opponent. Just because you don't vote for a candidate doesn't mean you vote for his/her opponent.

[Blackhatjack]

93. Time for another installment of "What does this funny symbol mean? " Let's begin....

I do believe you may be unaware that the punctuation mark (?) indicates a question, rather than a statement of fact.

In response to her statement that she would not vote for Edwards if he ran for reelection, I posted: "So if Edwards had run for reelection you would have voted for Rep Burr?"

This concludes today's punctuation symbol education program.

Tune in tomorrow for 'that tricky semi-colon.'

[piedmont]

99. Yeah, you put a "?" at the end, which made it a stupid question, instead of...

a stupid statement. You also said: "Hard to believe...
... you are a liberal Independent and a Democrat and you would have voted for Richard Burr, the darling of the far right pharmaceutical and business lobby."

If you had asked "if you wouldn't have voted for Edwards, what would you have done?," you wouldn't look nearly so dishonest in saying you were just asking a question.

edit to add:
In another post you wrote:
"BTW In regard to you voting for a republic, if Edwards had run for reelection and you would not vote for him, your only choice would have been Richard Burr, a Republican."

which is clearly not true, and illustrates again that you assumed she would have voted for the republican.

[Blackhatjack]

102. I am just crushed that you think my question was stupid. At least you acknowledge the ? mark now.

And tell me, what is dishonest about asking a question?

Most DUers would agree with me that any liberal Independent or registered Democrat would be a rare bird indeed if they chose to vote for Repub Richard Burr rather than for Demcratic Senator John Edwards.

And if you continue to 'assume' things you know nothing about, well you know what that makes you...

[piedmont]

104. She never said she would vote for the repub. Get it, now?

You're the one making (false) assumptions in this thread:

"BTW In regard to you voting for a republic, if Edwards had run for reelection and you would not vote for him, your only choice would have been Richard Burr, a Republican."



I like Edwards. You apparently like Edwards. Pastiche doesn't. Get over it.

[charlie]

105. Lol

Why do you bother? He knows what he's doing. Obtuse Self-important Pedants for Edwards, NC Chapter representing!

[Blackhatjack]

109. Why not go back to what you do best?

Carry out your self-assigned duty of determining 'who is hot and who is not'?

People who cannot discuss a topic without making personal attacks usually do not have the ability to present a winning argument in an open and honest debate. In this matter, the facts are against you.

[Blackhatjack]

108. No one else would have run against Edwards except Burr, is Not Voting A VIRTUE??

A choice of candidates means you would have had to vote for Edwards OR Burr. There would not be another choice.

There is nothing admirable about voting for Burr, and I find it hard to believe a self-described liberal independent and/or a Democrat would make the choice to NOT VOTE rather than vote for the Democrat (Edwards).

Not voting for Edwards in that scenario would necessarily improve the chances that Burr would prevail. Is that admirable? About as much as not voting in the upcoming 2008 General Election.

It would be like cutting off her nose to spite her face. But hey, not everyone acts in their best interest.

And once again, I made no false assumptions. Go back and read what I posted. I asked a question. But if you want to go on trying to characterize my observation as a false assumption I will continue to point out your error. Flame on.

Edited: to correct tense to 'would have run'

[piedmont]

112. You're getting desperate.

A choice of candidates means you would have had to vote for Edwards OR Burr.
<snip>
And once again, I made no false assumptions. Go back and read what I posted.

In post 64 you wrote: "BTW In regard to you voting for a republic, if Edwards had run for reelection and you would not vote for him, your only choice would have been Richard Burr, a Republican."

You didn't say "choice of candidates." You said her only choice would have been Burr. This is quite plainly false. You just can't admit that you couldn't comprehend that she could choose not to vote for either candidate. You didn't even mention the possibility of not voting in this thread until it was pointed out to you.

"I find it hard to believe a self-described liberal independent and/or a Democrat would make the choice to NOT VOTE rather than vote for the Democrat (Edwards)."

This is just a re-statement of:

"Hard to believe...
... you are a liberal Independent and a Democrat and you would have voted for Richard Burr, the darling of the far right pharmaceutical and business lobby."

with the substitution of "NOT VOTE" for "vote for Richard Burr," AFTER it was pointed out to you that not voting was a possible choice. You're just moving the goalpost, and it doesn't make any more sense than the first time. OF COURSE an independent or any other voter might not want to vote for a Dem if they see him as no better than the goober running against him. The reason is simple: one may not wish to help either candidate get a "mandate" heading into office, if both are as likely to do a poor job.


Flame on.

I haven't flamed you at all. But I will say that I think you've been generally nasty and defensive with several posters in this sub-thread.

[Pastiche423]

97. I don't want my words to go away

What I wrote were the facts.

[Blackhatjack]

101. Your promise not to vote for Edwards if he had run for reelection would leave you w/ only 2 options

"Both of us voted for johnny boy for senate. Both of us would not have voted for a 2nd senate term."

Applying the 'plain meaning' rule of interpretation, your options would have been to vote for the only other candidate running, Repub Richard Burr, OR you would have decided not to cast a vote at all in the election.

Which is it?

And I asked a question. See my post above.

[BlooInBloo]

16. Fuck the bigots. It's been proven as a practical matter that we don't need their votes....

... Let the GOP be nothing more than a regional party.

Our top 3 poll HUGE wins over ALL the republicans as it is. There's no problem.

[mnhtnbb]

19. Hey. We're not all bigots and I respectfully request that DU members

refrain from such grandiose exaggerations.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mnhtnbb]

23. Who needs freepers for insults when we have DU?

I'm not the one behaving like a child. Take a look in the mirror, why don't you?

[JohnLocke]

32. You can't write off the South. It just won't work.

[krkaufman]

107. Neither should the Democratic Party pander to the South ...

... and nominate a candidate strictly because he's "Southern."

[tritsofme]

28. Edwards' presence on the ticket in 2004 did nothing to make NC more competitve

Bush won by the same margin as he did in 2000.

Making this assertion that Edwards is more competitive in the South questionable.

[Blackhatjack]

34. If you lived in NC you would know two things about the 2004 Election in NC...

First, The Kerry Campaign made a strategic decision to spend resources OUTSIDE North Carolina, and did little advertising here.

Second, the strategy was set by the Kerry Campaign, and North Carolina would have been competitive if they had made the effort here. The Edwards Campaign went along as they should have, made no waves, and supported what Kerry wanted to do.

[tritsofme]

37. Having a favorite son on the ticket

Should have been enough to close the gap at least a little from 2000, but it didn't.

[tritsofme]

35. delete

replied to wrong post

[mnhtnbb]

39. Ah, but those of us living here knew that according to the NC polls,

Kerry/Edwards had pulled within the margin of error (3-4%) v Bush/Cheney
by the week prior to the election. We know there were lost votes
in Carteret County on machines; we now know that polling shenanigans
were pulled by Repubs in many states--not just Ohio. We know the DoD
has been (and continues to be)handling requests for absentee ballots
by overseas military, their families and others. Plenty of opportunity
for hanky-panky, and there were anecdotal reports of overseas Dems having great difficulty getting absentee ballots for the 2004 election.

The exit polling data did not match the final results in NC, like in many other states. One can only speculate whether having Edwards at the top of the ticket
would have made any difference, especially given the odds that shenanigans
were pulled with manipulation of the votes.

However, one cannot deny that Edwards did beat an incumbent Republican
when he ran for Senate. One cannot deny that we have a Dem governor
and majority Dems in the State house. One cannot deny that with the 2006 election NC elected a majority of Dems to Congress. One cannot deny
that there are some fairly good odds that NC could go blue in the Presidential race in 2008.

There's plenty of negativity from the Repubs. How about a little optimism? A little hope?

[tritsofme]

43. If all that is true about Dems winning in NC

Then why pull out the voter fraud card to explain away Edwards inability to make the race competitive?

It seems obvious that Dems can in that state, but 2004 proved that Edwards didn't make a stone's worth of difference.

[mnhtnbb]

52. It wasn't just the possiblity of vote tampering, it was Kerry's decision

to ignore campaigning in the state.

[NCarolinawoman]

63. I have to disagree and tell you I don't feel Edwards is popular in North Carolina.

Do you ever travel to Eastern N C. and talk to some of the Democrats who voted for Edwards against Faircloth back in '98? A lot of these Bluedogs voted for Bush because they fell for his good old boy talk about, "I will keep you safe from the evil-doers".

Now they can't stand "W" anymore but they don't like Edwards any better. When they were hit by Hurricane Isabel back in 2003, Edwards chose to hop on a plane and head to California (fundraisers) instead of joining the Governor to visit the hurricane victims. They remember this. Edwards did not even carry his own county or neighborhood back in '04 while all other local Democrats were winning. Concerning the military counties on the coast; those were the places he never was able to win even back in '98.

I have real doubts that he can carry this state. He simply lost touch with his constituents.

[Blackhatjack]

65. That may be your perception, but the polling in NC does not support you...

I hope Edwards is the Democratic Nominee, but in any case I think whoever gets the Democratic Nomination will have a real chance to win North Carolina in 2008.

I just think Edwards' ability to reach the independents/undecideds and unaffiliated voters will make it easier for the Democratic Nominee to win here.

I know eastern North Carolina well, and some of the most conservative voters in this state reside in the eastern portion of NC. But even in those areas, there is a lot of anti-Bush sentiment right now over the way this war in Iraq is being fought, and the toll it is taking on military families.

[mnhtnbb]

87. I think you can't lay all the blame on Edwards for '04. Kerry was at the

top of the ticket and surely many people were voting against that Massachusetts
liberal who would be running the show.

As for Edwards not carrying his neighborhood, take a look at the voter registrations. He lived in a very Republican part of Raleigh. Chapel Hill,
where he lives now is in Orange County which went 66% for Kerry/Edwards in 04.

[skipos]

29. It will be a long time before a Dem picks up any state Wallace, Thurmond or Byrd won

VA and AR are our most realistic pick up opportunities. VA is trending Dem, which helps.

[Blackhatjack]

36. I respectfully disagree with your assessment....

The Repubs have worn out their welcome, are welded to Bush and this unpopular war, and moderates that live in these states tend to be independents/undecideds and unaffiliated voters --which Edwards has polled consistently as the Democratic Candidate that can appeal to this group.

It will be different this time. The fundamentalist evangelicals will not show up in droves to vote, but their turnout may be higher if Hillary is the Democratic nominee. Scandal investigations of Repubs will hit a fever pitch before the General Election. And the economy is going to turn downward.

All of these events will help a Democratic Nominee win in the South, and the failure to allocate funds to run here would be a major mistake.

[skipos]

38. So what Wallace/Byrd/Thurmond states are in play in your opinion?

In a close election, Edwards (who is arguably our strongest g.e. candidate) seems unlikely to win NC. He got a 4% VP boost in 2004, but NC is a solid +14 Repub state. What is scarier is that it is one of the least red southern states. As I said before VA and AR (and FL if you consider that the south) are the least red.

Have you looked at election trends in the southern states? In most of them, there is nothing to indicate anything other than a extremely solid pattern of supporting Republican presidential candidates. 8 crappy years isn't going to be enough to make states like MS and AL have the 20% reversal they need to turn blue. Look at what Nixon and Agnew did for Repubs. After 4 years of Carter, America was ready to forgive the GOP and give us 12 years of Reagan and GHW Bush.

[Blackhatjack]

40. Almost every 'Old South' state is up for grabs to a Dem Candidate that can reach the moderates ....

Don't know where you got your information, but North Carolina is anything but a solid Red State.

Look at the post above and you will see Democrats in North Carolina have made major strides, and will move NC into the Democratic Column in the General Election in 2008.

And it is not just North Carolina. The South is prime territory for a candidate like Edwards.

[skipos]

78. See my post below.

And take a look at surveyusa.com if you want to see how our candidates do on a state by state level. I am not sure how updated the polls are.

[mnhtnbb]

41. And now after 6 + years of GW Bush, the pendulum may be

swinging back. If you look at southern states in presidential elections,
some--not all--but some have turned blue when a Southerner was running.
Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter both took some southern states. The election
in 2000 would have yielded FL to Gore if the election hadn't been affected by Jeb Bush and Katharine Harris fixing the voter rolls, and had the Supreme Court
ordered a full recount of the State instead of stopping the recount.

It is not impossible for some southern states to turn blue.

[tritsofme]

45. 0% VP boost in NC for Edwards

2004
George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 1,961,166 56.02%
John Kerry John Edwards Democratic 1,525,849 43.58%

2000
George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 1,631,163 56.03%
Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 1,257,692 43.20%

I take that back, he got 0.38% better than Al Gore.

[mnhtnbb]

48. Take a look at the exit poll vs. vote results for NC graph

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=468189#468290

More and more evidence is coming out (specifically in Ohio) to indicate
the electronic voting machines generated wins for Bush that didn't
square with the exit polls. I think the same thing happened in
NC, because the exit polls on election day were fairly representative
of the polls taken one week prior to the election.

Please, inform yourself.

[Blackhatjack]

51. Mnhtnbb is right... we saw that across the entire state. It sure is hard to educate the critics...

North Carolina was not the swing state, and therefore did not get the attention it deserved in following up on election irregularities.

However, you will recall that we had voting machine failures that held up a statewide office certification for months because the votes were cast but could not be recovered and verified.

You cannot expect NC to vote the same way in 2008 as in the past. Dems from NC are now the majority in the US House, and Dole is going to get a run for her money in 2008. The tide has turned here.

[Zynx]

86. Vote fraud in North Carolina...yeah right.

[skipos]

76. That isn't how you should do it

If you want to see how much more or less a state votes Dem or Rep in presidential elections, you compare the margin of victory in the popular vote to the margin of victory in the state.

Look at these rounded numbers below for the elections of 88, 92, 96, 00 and 04. For example, 77d means that DC voted 77% more Dem than the rest of the country.

IMO, this is the best way to look at trends.

And again, Edwards got a VP bounce (@3%) and NC is fairly red.

STRONG DEM
District of Columbia: 77d, 70d, 67d, 76d, 82d
Massachusetts: 16d (Dukakis P), 13d, 25d, 27d, 28d (Kerry P)
Rhode Island: 19d, 12d, 24d, 29d, 23d
Vermont: 4d, 10d, 14d, 9d, 23d
New York: 12d, 10d, 20d (Kemp vp, congressman) 24d, 21d
Maryland: 5d, 9d, 7d, 16d, 15d
Connecticut: 3d, 1d, 10d, 17d (Lieberman VP) 13d
Illinois: 6d, 9d, 9d, 12d, 13d
California: 4d, 8d, 4d, 11d, 12d
Maine: 4d, 3d, 12d, 5d, 11d
Hawaii: 17d, 6d, 17d, 18d, 11d
Delaware: 5r, 3d, 7d, 13d, 10d
Washington: 9d, 6d, 4d, 5d, 10d
New Jersey: 6r, 3r, 9d, 15d, 10d

LIKELY DEM
Michigan: 1r, 2d, 5d, 5d, 6d
Pennsylvania: 5d, 4d, 1d, 4d, 5d
Oregon: 12d, 4d, 1r, 1r, 7d
Minnesota: 15d, 6d, 8d, 2d, 6d
New Hampshire: 19r, 4r, 1r, 2r, 4d
Wisconsin: 11d, 1r, 2d, 1r, 3d

SWING STATES
Iowa: 18d, 1d, 2d, 1r, 2D
New Mexico: 3d, 3d, 1r, 1r, 2D

WEAK REP, TRENDING DEM
Nevada: 13r, 3r, 8r, 4r, 1r
Colorado: 1r, 1r, 10r, 9r, 3r

LIKELY REP, TRENDING DEM
Virginia: 13r, 10r, 10r, 9r, 6r

LIKELY REP
Florida: 15r, 8r, 3r, 1r, 3r
Ohio: 3r, 4r, 2r, 4r, 1d
Missouri: 4d, 5d, 2r, 4r, 5r
Arkansas: 6r, 12d(Clinton P), 8d (Clinton P), 6r, 7r
Arizona: 13r, 8r, 6r, 7r, 8r

STRONG REP
North Carolina: 9r, 6r, 13r, 13r, 10r (Edwards VP)
West Virginia: 12d, 7d, 6d, 7r, 10r
Tennessee: 9r, 1r (Gore VP) 6r (Gore VP) 4r (Gore P) 12r
Louisiana: 2r, 1r, 4d, 8r, 12r
Georgia: 13r, 5r, 10r, 12r, 14r
South Carolina: 16r, 14r, 14r, 16r, 15r
Mississippi: 13r, 14r, 14r, 17r, 17r
Kentucky: 4r, 2r, 8r, 16r, 17r
Montana: 2d, 3r, 11r, 26r, 18r
Indiana: 12r (Quayle VP), 12r (Quayle VP), 14r, 16r, 18r
South Dakota: 1d,9r, 12r, 23r, 19r
Texas: 5r (HW Bush P vs. Bentsen VP) 10r (HW Bush P) 13r, 22r (Bush P), 20r (Bush P)
Kansas: 6r, 11r, 27r (Dole P) 21r 23r
Alaska: 16r, 15r, 26r, 31r, 23r
Alabama: 12r, 12r, 15r, 15r, 23r
North Dakota: 5r, 18r, 15r, 28r, 25r
Oklahoma: 9r, 14r, 16r, 22r, 29r
Nebraska: 13r, 23r, 27r, 30r, 30r
Idaho: 18r, 19r, 27r, 40r, 36r
Wyoming: 15r, 11r, 22r, 41r (Cheney VP), 37r (Cheney VP)
Utah: 26r, 24r, 30r, 41r, 43r

[w4rma]

54. I live in Virginia. Edwards can carry Virginia just like Webb did. Obama and Hillary can't.

In fact this entire thread just shows another example of why I won't be voting Hillary or Obama in the primary. They want to ignore the entire South and give the whole area to the Republicans without the Republicans having to spend a dime down here.

The heck with that! Being competitive everywhere at the top of the ticket affects every election down ticket.

Ignore the South and lose Congress.

[Blackhatjack]

57. You are right --we should not cede any State in the South, it makes a difference down the ticket

Edwards has the fundraising lead by miles in the South, and that is a good indication that he can get the votes from the South as well.

[peacebaby3]

74. Hillary & Obama were in AL in March. Neither of them are ignoring the South. n/t

[Blackhatjack]

75. I think that is a good thing for ALL Democrats and Democratic Candidates...

Those of us living in the South deserve the opportunity to see and hear OUR Candidates who will be asking for our votes. Both Hillary & Obama deserve credit for doing this.

If you believe your candidate is the most qualified and the most electible, you would welcome the opportunity for the voters to hear all candidates and their positions. An informed electorate is best for a democracy.

[skipos]

79. Could you provide me with quotes

showing Obama and Clinton wanting "to ignore the entire south?"

You did notice that I mentioned VA as a realistic pick up, right? AL, MS and other deep southern states are not realistic pick ups unless we have a Johnson/Goldwater level blowout (and it should be noted that even Johnson didn't win LA, AL, MS, GA and SC.)

I am not saying we don't try, but there is not harm in figuring out where our stengths and weaknesses are.

[mnhtnbb]

80. Take a look at 1976. Carter SWEPT the South. There was

huge displeasure with Ford granting Nixon a pardon. It was time for
a change.

There is much the same feeling today. Look at Bush/Cheney approval numbers.
Look at the displeasure with the Iraq War. Look at the polarization of
have/have nots and disappearing middle class. Look at the fears about
global warming. Look at the realization we need to do something about
energy policy in this country--that isn't behind closed doors and managed
by a former oil executive. The list goes on and on.

Edwards is the populist who has a great chance, IMO. The Democrats ignore
his appeal at their own peril, trying to win the Presidency by ignoring
the South.

[skipos]

83. And look how fast the public ran back to Republicans in 1980

You have probably noticed that McCain and Dame Rudy, for being idiotic warmongers, poll surprisingly well. Just because everyone thinks Bush/Cheney stinks does not mean they will go vote for Hillary, Edwards or Obama over Giuliani, McCain, or Romney.

I am not saying we should ignore the south, I am saying we should be realistic. States that voted for a gay marriage ban 85 to 15 aren't going to run out and vote for the D just because Bush and Cheney have low approval ratings.

I should also add that Carter beat Ford 50 to 48%. Not quite the blowout I would have expected after Nixon and Agnew's scandals.

[mnhtnbb]

88. Recent poll in NC showed generic Dem beating generic Repub for President

I'm arguing to not give up. We have the advantage in registrations, the advantage in disapproval of Bush and Repub complicity with his policies.
It's not an impossible task if the Dems will wake up to the possibility.
Dean, IMO, has taken the right tack with his 50 state strategy.

I'm beginning to think there's a fair amount of bigotry right here on DU, and it's not against a black man or a woman. It's against white southerners!



Is N.C. turning blue?

North Carolina is a red state when it comes to presidential politics, having last voted for a Democrat in 1976 for Jimmy Carter.

But with public opinion turning against the Iraq war, might the Democrats have a chance?

Yes, says a new poll by Public Policy Polling, a Raleigh-based polling firm.

The survey found that a generic Democratic presidential candidate would beat a generic Republican presidential candidate, 43-41.

The firm polled 448 likely general election voters on Feb. 12. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.6 percentage points.

http://www.newsobserver.com/722/story/545345.html

[Blackhatjack]

95. I saw this story as well. It is possible spread would be larger with individual names(not generic)

[skipos]

96. I want to see polls with Edwards beating Dame Rudy and McCain in NC

Then I will be more optimistic.

[Herman74]

106. Florida too!!!

Remember both Clinton and Gore won Florida as presidential candidates, and Kerry didn't lose it by much (maybe it was stolen from him).

I like your emphasis, though, on considering individual states rather than the South as a whole.

[mudesi]

42. Sadly, the majority of the South is Republican, mostly Christian fundamentalists

Regardless of what the many southern DUers want to believe, the polling and history doesn't lie about the South. Perhaps the disaster of the last 6 years has been enough to temporarily convince a good chunk of them to vote for the Democrat (or stay home), but the reality is that for a Democrat to take a Southern state is an uphill battle, to say the least.

Even though there is no question in my mind that they'll choose the Democrat in 2008, courtesy of Mr. George W. Bush, it is going to take a long time for Howard Dean to actually penetrate the old fashioned "traditional" thinking that many still have there.

The South will become liberal when enough people there put "Universal Health care" above "God in the classroom".

[Blackhatjack]

44. Here is one myth('majority of south is repub") that can be refuted with facts

FACT: There are more registered Democrats in North Carolina than registered Republicans.

[mudesi]

46. Doesn't mean much

Considering that since 1980, North Carolina has voted for the Republican. That's 27 straight years of Republican electoral votes from North Carolina.

The following site has all of them up to 1996. It's fascinating what Reagan did to the psyche of the people.
http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/

[Blackhatjack]

49. "Doesn't Mean Much" is not quite like disproving this fact ....

I do believe my fact is correct. And I do believe you did not refute it.

It is a myth that North Carolina is Republican. I stand by that statement.

[mudesi]

81. Still doesn't mean much

A majority of North Carolinians are registered Democrats, yet since 1980 a majority have voted for the Republican presidential candidate. In the end, your facts are irrelevant.

Saying "I'm a Democrat" and then voting (consistently!) for a Republican makes you a Republican. Actions speak louder than words.

[Blackhatjack]

82. Must be nice to live in a world where pesky facts do not get in the way of firmly held ideas....n/t

[tritsofme]

47. That is an often irrelevant fact

Lots of older folks in the South are registered as Democrats, but the last time they voted for a Democratic president was Jimmy Carter, or maybe LBJ.

For many years, but especially until 1994, there would a dichotomy wherein Southerners would vote near straight Democratic tickets, but still vote for the GOP presidential candidate.

[Blackhatjack]

50. Irrelevant when it comes to disproving the myth put forth? I think not.

There are a heck of a lot of people registered as Democrats in North Carolina... so many that in fact more registered voters are Democratic than Republican.

Sure seems like a relevant fact to me.

[tritsofme]

56. Next step, get them to vote Democratic.

Not as easy as the first step.

I remember election returns coming in during 2004 in Florida and people here were estatic about counties, mostly rurual, still outstanding where 80-90% of voters were registered as Democrats.

However it was like a bath of cold water when it was pointed out that many of these were holdover Dixiecrats that voted in similarly lopsided margins for Republicans, especially in a presidential election.

[mnhtnbb]

59. They have voted Democratic. And continue to do so.

Here are the results when Edwards won his Senate seat in 98.

http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/98generl/totals.pdf

[Blackhatjack]

60. We are already doing that, as evidenced by the 2006 Election returns...

We have a real progressive leading the Democratic Party in North Carolina, and we have been surprising all the political pundits who rely on past performance to predict the present and future outcomes, only to be proven wrong.

North Carolina is moving into the blue state column. If an election were held today in NC, Bush would NOT win.

[mnhtnbb]

53. And here's the chart to show it

Click this for visual and voter registration totals by party
and other breakdowns.

http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/voterreg/other/party.htm



Found on this page

http://www.app2.sboe.state.nc.us/

[Blackhatjack]

55. Good Job! Maybe we can put an end to this myth ....And did you notice 1mil unaffiliated voters?

The unaffiliated voters make up 20% of all registered voters in NC, and those are ones that Edwards can reach as the Democratic Nominee.

[mnhtnbb]

58. Yes. I've had enough battling the wars on DU tonight. See ya!

[Blackhatjack]

62. Thanks for helping set the record straight about NC.

[calteacherguy]

66. What about Southern white-folk guilt and the black vote?

Would that favor Obama? I don't know.

You are making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions and generalizing about a large group. I don't think it's a valid argument.

[Zynx]

85. Edwards brought no votes in North Carolina in 2004.

2000: Republican gets 56.4% of the vote.
2004: Republican gets 56.2% of the vote.

%'s are of combined Democratic and Republican votes, i.e. mainstream voters.

Case closed. Edwards doesn't win Southern states.

[mnhtnbb]

91. Case not closed. See post #76. See what Edwards did

when he ran for Senate when he didn't have a Massachusetts liberal who ran a very bad campaign at the top of the ticket. He beat the incumbent Republican by almost 9% margin.

1998 General Election
Grand Totals and Candidate Addresses
Race Candidate Votes Address City ZIP
Senate -
(D) Edwards, John 1,029,237 3323 Alleghany Dr. Raleigh 27609
(R) Faircloth, Lauch 945,943 P.O. Box 496 Clinton 28329
(L) Howe, Barbara 36,963 5049 P Lucy Avarette Rd. Oxford 27565

http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/98generl/totals.pdf


Dig up the polling data prior
to the election when Kerry/Edwards had closed to within the 3-4% margin of error against Bush/Cheney in NC. Research the exit polling data which did NOT match
the outcome of votes in NC. Look at the influence of DoD handling requests
for absentee ballots and the number of military personnel in the State.
Look at lost votes on voting machines in Cartaret County. Look at the subsequent
fight that has gone on in NC to get verified voting. Look at our new, progressive Dem State party chair (identified through Dean grassroots).

I don't know what state you live in, but I'm guessing it's not NC.

[Blackhatjack]

94. Most DUers do not realize the magnitude of the Edwards victory over Repub Faircloth...

Faircloth was an incumbent Repub with full backing of the National and State Repub Parties, had huge campaign financing advantages, and was expected to win handily no matter who the Democrats ran at him.

This was Edwards' first campaign for public office. He devised a campaign that went right at Faircloth, built momentum, and won. Faircloth was a 'Jesse Helms-like' Republican and Edwards winning was quite a shock to the Republican system.

Of course those of us living in NC know the history behind this race.

You have laid out the facts, and there is nothing you can do to convince people who will not accept those facts from a resident of N.C.

[WI_DEM]

103. On the other hand Faircloth wasn't very popular either as I recall

[Blackhatjack]

110. It all depends upon who you ask. Faircloth was formidable enough to deter top Dems from running...

Faircloth had the 'Jesse Helms' machine behind him. True Helms was not the force he once was, but many top Democrats shied away from running against Faircloth because of this.

I don't have access to the polling data before Edwards decided to run against Faircloth, but I seem to recall that there were serious doubts that Faircloth could be beaten.

[THUNDER HANDS]

90. we'd be better off trying to pick off one southern state

just one, and we'd win.

I have no idea which one, but we only need one.

[WI_DEM]

100. I don't think Alabama, GA, MS, or LA are up fro grabs for any dem in '08

I think we would have an outside chance in SC, Arkansas and TN.
an even shot in FL
If Edwards is the nominee he may carry NC, but he didn't really help there that much as the VP running mate in '04.