We really don't need the South to win

[ringmastery]

If we hold all the Gore states, and that's a big IF, but with the way things are going, increasingly likely, which states is Dubya going to pick up????

Look at this electoral map: http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/

We need to poach West Virginia and New Hampshire. That gets us a 269-269 tie. Then, we only need to win ONE of these states: Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Ohio, Florida. Do-able, IMO.

[Wonco_the_Sane]

1. Yes we do

Bush* will have 200+ million to spend. Most of it outside the south if we "write it off". Anyone can play delegate math and find fun was to win with their favorite states. (stupid Michigan beat Ohio State) :)

[King of New Orleans]

2. Just Missouri

Win the Gore states and Missouri you win. But clearly you want to run a national campaign. Besides the states you mentioned, Louisiana, Arkansas, Colorado and maybe Virginia and Kentucky should definitely be targets from the outset.

[Fovea]

33. as long as our thought experiment

starts with the possibly shakey presumption of holding the 2000 blue states, let's think about Missouri for a moment.


But let me add one other particular element. The economy is not going to improve remarkably. We outsourced too many of the jobs that should have developed so far, and the market cannot sustain without customers. Even the weak dollar won't help much, because we dont make all that many products the world wants (or can be sold to them). So what it means is that we lose purchasing power and do not gain exports. So my second assumption is that the economy is going to tread water at best, sink like a rock at worst.


Here is a state where the possiblity for the Republican coalition to delaminate is prounounced. The Urban fiscal conservative is unlikely to be very happy with Bush right now. He see Bush as a combination of the worst parts of his own party. So anyone who appeals to security and has an economic plan might be acceptable. Many of these are the guys who want to grow up to be Paul ONeill, they want some process that isn't about politics.

My favorite candidate is not going to resonate strongly with them at first.
Except, perhaps some who now are starting to doubt the current incarnation of 'free trade'. These would be manufacturing folks, generally.

The NIMBY Republicans in the outer suburbs seem to be highly free trade and favor the social conservatism. They seem to share interests with the Rural Republicans, and the Urban Republicans.

The Urbanites and SubUrbanites are the most vulerable segments, as teh Rural believers who have hung with the president after what he did to the economy, are invulnerable to rational argument.

You ask both of the remaining groups what they are most concerned about and you will hear the big three, the Economy(jobs, deficit, overtime), the Iraqi occupation/War on Terror, and HealthCare.

Whoever can offer plausible, well communicated solutions to these problems and reduce the deficit (balancing the budget won't happen in the near future again) will score big over the chimpster. Indeed, I suspect that some of them privately suspect that a basic remake of the American Economy might be needed. Those who are employers realize the utterly profound failure of the private healthcare system.

The other thing that is working in Missouri is showing the Bush administration as the corrupt political machine that it is. Iraq, and the silly panicked reaction to his SOTU plunge will go a long way toward keeping a lot of Suburban voters from going to the polls. Precisely becasue they identify as moral, conservative, professionals.
Bush's amazing cynicism is not some much a 'hold your nose' factor as a 'wipe it off' one.

The Rural Republicans all know someone in Iraq. They are very torn. They want to hear that the candidate they support is committed in deed, not just word, to improving the lot of those friends and family. Mentioning Bush's record of stripping the rank and file of money and benefits, not to mention actual military equipment like armor cause these folks to hop and swear.

If Bush does not meet withdrawl by June, he could lose these votes with an endorsement from Jesus himself. Also, $3/gallon gas is going to hit these poor folks like a plague of locusts. The news percolating into the public conciousness about the anticipated effects of climate shift on agriculture will have a profound effect on these voters. Look for a greenward shift in these groups. Alternative fuel is going to be a VERY important issue.

The Urban Republicans, aka the business community, are not large, but are influential. They are about fed with the militarists (Unless they work for Boeing, Lake City, SAIC, or some other such concern).
The failure of GM foods to meet with international approval requires elements of this group to advocate unilateral, coercive policy.
I doubt the willingness of the rest of the community to support such policies in light of our current foreign debacle or policy, if you prefer. I suspect the more lucid of them now worry about the things we have traded for 'free trade', here I think of jobs in particular.
Missouri is a hurtin unit, RE jobs.

I think nothing is as important to these voters as the economy. We can run on our record, virtually. Even our most progressive candidate has an economic plan that is lucid and well conceptualized.

I wonder how many of these paleocons are on the verge of a radical change of paradigm, in the light of the American Business Pandemic of Scandal from 2000-2004.

In summation. I agree that Missouri is pivotal, even if I am not at all certain that not contesting the South is wise.

Key elements of the Missouri Republican envirnoment are suseptable to various arguments from the Democratic platform, as expressed by the progressives.

[Joe the Revelator]

3. There is *NO* way we win without picking up

some of the southern reds.

[ringmastery]

4. How do you figure?

Tell me which Gore states go to Dubya this election?

[Joe the Revelator]

5. Anywhere from Cali to NYC

depending on who the vp is. We can't just give up on a section of the country. Thats a poor poor strategy.

[beyurslf]

7. Why do you say that?

There are any number of states we can pick up to win if we hold what Gore took. AZ or MO namely.

[abburdlen]

6. If you don't need us to win

Why did you stop us from leaving the Union?

[beyurslf]

10. I didn't.

Don't be so offended. I live in KS and can't think of anyone ever saying, "Man we gotta have KS to win" or "We can't win without a great plains state."

It's facts. We do not have "have" to win in the South to win. I think we "have" to be competitive in the South though. We have to force Bush to spend time and money there but we don't have to win those states.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

13. Who cares

Personally once we stopped you from owning human beings I think we should have let you go.

[Wonco_the_Sane]

17. Smart

What are you 150 years old? You sure did a great job of keeping us in line. sheesh

[carolinayellowdog]

21. What's with this "we" and "you" business?

40% of whites in slave states were Unionist (see The South vs. the South by William Freehling). Slaves were of course not slave owners; where do they and their descendants fit into that accusing "you" directed at all Southerners? When you combine the slave population and the Unionist whites, the *majority* of Southerners opposed the Confederacy. What about those of us descended from Native Americans or free blacks? What about the very sizable Northern opposition to emancipation?

It's nearly a daily occurrence here to see *all* Southerners stereotyped, scapegoated, and insulted. If people want to argue about electoral strategy, no problem. But the regional hatemongering we see attached to this subject is absolutely disgusting.

CYD

[YNGW]

8. Could Be Trouble

I believe Kerry will write off the South except for Florida, and I have no reason to believe he will win there either. If he did write off the South and he won anyway, something tells me he'd have hell to pay. As a lifelong Southerner, I can imagine some of the stuff the Southern states would do to upset his applecart. It could get nasty.

[mmonk]

9. maybe, maybe not

we could win without New England as well if we pick up a state or two out west.:think:

[beyurslf]

15. Anyone can play electoral math.

All we "need" to win is
CA
NY
TX
FL
GA
VA
NC
OH
PA
NJ
IL
DC

The 11 largest states plus DC. Is that going to happen? No. Any "region" of the country can be written off if enough wins in another region are made. Gore showed that we can win without winning in the South if we make it up in the SouthWest or the Rust belt.

[dolstein]

11. We really don't need to win

"If we hold all the Gore states . . . "

That's not just a big if. That's a freakingly enormous if.

You also conveniently ignore that fact that, in addition to winning the blue states, Gore was competitive in New Hampshire, Nevada, West Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, Florida. Gore did not write off the South. He actively contested several Southern and border states.

It is THEORETICALLY possible to win without carrying a single Southern state. But it is, for all practical purposes, impossible to win without at least being competitive in a few Southern states.

[Padraig18]

12. Yes, we do.

No Democrat in history has ever been elected President without picking up 5 Southern states.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. It's time for a "Northern" strategy.

The south has long been a drag on northern liberalism. It's past due that we force the south to change if it wants recognition in a liberal Democratic party. Enough of the Zell Millers, etc, who vote for republican measures in the name of the "southern vote".

[Padraig18]

18. Should we write off the governors, legislature and so on, as well.

Our party is morte than just top-of-the-ticket offices. We also need governors, and legislators, and sheriffs, county clerks, school board members, city councilmen, etc.. I will not write the South off.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. No. But, we're talking about national interests.

If southerners want to elect "Democrats" to local office, they should have at it. At some point they will, hopefully, come to the realization that moderate republicans with (D) after their names are not Democrats. And, if they want real change instead of the status quo, and be included in the national party's decision making they will have to get over trying to win republican votes with half-assed republicans(D).

I just hope the DNC can see through the hopeless strategy that cost us in 2000 and 2002 of moving to the right for votes that aren't there and that we shouldn't want anyway.

[Padraig18]

25. That's utter madness.

We HAVE good Democrats in office from the South, and our failure to try and compete tyhere could well cost them their offices. I will not participate in such a suicidal strategy. :puke:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Good Democrats?

Would you care to list all of southern Senators and Reps that voted against the war?

[Padraig18]

31. A single vote does not make them 'bad' Democrats.

eom

[Dob Bole]

20. Fortunately, you don't know what you're talking about

There is only one Southern Democrat that I know of who is like Zell Miller- Zell Miller. Why is Zell Miller that way? So you'll talk about Zell Miller. I might as well generalize and say "screw the north until you can get rid of your Joe Liebermans and Evan Bays, who are a drag on liberalism.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Really? How many southern senators and reps voted against the IWR?

I don't recall any. Perhaps, you can fill me in.

As for Lieberman and Bayh and their ilk, I would like to see them leave. But, their voting records would probably be a helluva lot more liberal than the average southerner.

[Dob Bole]

32. For Starters, Robert Byrd...

but that's inconsequential. The fact that Senators Lieberman, Bayh, Kerry, Clinton, Biden etc. voted for the war seems to serve your point well.

What was your point again?

[Wonco_the_Sane]

16. Why?

Why write off any region?
Why give Shrub any state without a fight?
Why ignore the needs of blacks and poor people who dominate the region?

Fight the fights you can win? How about fight the fights that need fighting. (rah rah sis boom bah, by the way) :)

[blm]

19. We're GETTING Nevada. Arizona, too.

Arizona has lots of retired military who will not vote for Bush again.

Bush lied about Yucca Mt. to Navadans in 2000. Kerry opposed Yucca Mt. He will take it HANDS DOWN.

[teevee99]

23. why risk it?

nominate wes clark and he'll beat bush by a landslide, taking the south, west and traditional blues.
nominate kerry and you'll have to strategize around the south.
nominate edwards and you're in real trouble with the rest of the country outside of the south.

it's simple really,.

go clark!

[yellowdawgdem]

24. we need the South

I think we do need those Dixieland voters to win. It's political suicide to start dismissing whole regions of the country. Arrogant, too. I'd even go for a Kerry-Edwards ticket if that would bring in even 1 of those states. That said, I really think Kerry just has to avoid making any glaring mistakes.

[Dob Bole]

26. Total is 295-243 if we only pick up

North Carolina, West Virginia, Louisiana, and Arkansas. This is without counting New Hampshire, which we will probably win.

[shivaji]

27. Gore States + NV + WV = 270

enuff said

[Renew Deal]

30. I hate that way of thinking.

You are wrong for some of the reasons already mentioned. Besides that, I want an president of the US. Not the president of the coasts.

[mmonk]

34. You win when

you concede no vote and let the chips fall where they may.

[spindoctor]

35. According to this map we have 260 EV's in the pocket

Only need 10 more from any swing state(s).

Any one of FL, OH, GA, MO, TN, AZ

Any two of CO, LA, KY, AR, NV, WV

That sounds far from impossible.

[QC]

36. This topic is like a bad penny.

Every three or four days, someone posts it again like he just had a sudden flash of inspiration, and the same group of DUers points out, yet again, why "writing off" any big chunk of the country is a bad strategy.

So, here it goes again:

1. The Southern and border states have almost 60% of the electoral votes needed to win. Writing them off is the equivalent of running a 100-yard dash in which your opponent gets a 60-yard head start. You can still win, but it's a hell of a lot harder, and the slightest stumble will make you lose.

2. There's more to governing than the White House. If the Clinton years taught us anything, it should be that. "Write off the South" and we can say goodbye forever to any hope of controlling Congress again. Also there's the matter of governorships and state legislatures. Write them off and you can expect an epidemic of Texas-style redistricting, making it even harder to have any influence over Congress. And let's not even think about what kind of judges the goopers will appoint if they have a filibuster-proof Senate.

3. Five open Senate seats this fall. No need to elaborate on that.

4. Lots of black people and poor people (of all colors) in the South. The former are perhaps the party's most loyal constituency, and both need us. If the Democratic Party ever writes them off, then it should change its name, because it is no longer the Democratic Party that my family has supported for generations.

5. National party vs. regional party. It's very hard to claim any kind of mandate when all of your support comes from a few enclaves scattered here and there.

6. Demographics. Population is shifting southward, yet, in a more favorable nice demographic shift for us, the Latino population in this part of the country is increasing. There are substantial Latino populations now in even places like rural Alabama. Shall we just hand over a growing region with an increasing minority population to the Republicans?

7. If we do not contest the South, Bush gets to spend all of his $200,000,000 in "our" states.

Here are seven reasons why "writing off the South" is a lousy strategy. I'm sure others can think of more reasons, but these are certainly enough for me.

[mlawson]

37. I know. What is up with this???

It this "idea" something that has been repeated until it has become a "truism"???? Too bad we can't have your excellent analysis pinned to the top of this forum, so the next time this occurs to someone, they can be directed there.

[QC]

38. Thanks for the compliment!

I think there are several reasons for the popularity of this topic.

One is the perception that "the South" is a monolith that is absolutely 100% Republican. It follows from that perception that the only way for us to win is to look elsewhere.

Unfortunately, another reason this topic comes up sometimes is plain animus against the South and Southerners. You can always tell when that is the case because the discussion includes complaints about letting "trailer trash" dominate the country and such as that. There's no point in trying to reason with people like that.

And sometimes there's a form of scapegoating involved. For many people, the South is where conservatism lives, and without it America would be a liberal paradise, with free Birkenstocks and tofu for everyone. Of course, this ignores the fact that if only the South voted Republican, then Democrats would control every branch of the federal government and the majority of state governments as well, which is clearly not the case. The truth, of course, is that the Republicans have support in most parts of the country. Let's not forget where Nixon, Reagan, Dannemeyer, and Dornan came from.