http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40359-2003Nov14.htmlCheck out the rather detailed analysis of why the author, Thomas Schaller assistant professor of political science at the University of Maryland, thinks the Dems might be better off pretty much forgetting about the south for now.
Then check out the online discussion about the article the author held the other day at:
Outlook: Is the South Worth Winning?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36831-2003Nov13.htmlSchaller's analysis commences with:
"Solid Republican victories in the Kentucky and Mississippi governors' races, coupled with Howard Dean's clumsy overture to Confederate flag-waving Southerners, have raised anew the question of whether Democratic presidential candidates can compete in the South.
They can't.
And precisely because they can't, they should stop trying. Moving forward, the Democrats would be better served by simply conceding the South and redirecting their already scarce resources to more promising states where they're making gains, especially those in the Southwest.
I can imagine the laughter of party strategists -- and the ire of Southern Democratic officials -- who subscribe to the prevailing wisdom that presidential elections are decided in the South. Indeed, pundits love to shout into the echo chamber that the last three Democratic presidents have come from the South.
This thinking is not only superficial and retrospective, but it could trigger a partisan realignment that would relegate the Democrats to minority status for a generation. Trying to recapture the South is a futile, counterproductive exercise for Democrats because the South is no longer the swing region. It has swung: Richard Nixon's "Southern strategy" of 1968 has reached full fruition.
more
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40359-2003Nov14.html