Why Are The Southern Candidates Underperforming in the North?

[rucky]

I have an apology to make to the Southerners: I thought the regional bias was only limited to the South. I thought the rest of the country didn't care as much where the candidate came from. I was wrong.

Are these numbers an indication of Northern regional bias? Or is this a backlash from all the emphasis the strategists (and Southerners) have put onto having a Southern candidate?

Either way, seems the "Southern Strategy" is either changing, or being ignored by many Dems outside of the South.

[bowens43]

1. Maybe the numbers have nothing to do with geography.

Maybe people are voting for the person they believe to be the best choice.

[rucky]

5. That's the thing:

Kerry's winning - largely because people see him as "electable".

Before Kerry's lead, it was commonly understood that Southerner = electable. New Englander = less electable.

We've seen a shift or a complete rejection of that understanding.

I didn't mean to take anything away from Kerry's own merits - maybe he deserves the credit for showing the nation that where yer from doesn't count for as much as originally thought.

[mmonk]

2. People are either choosing who they like

or jumping on bandwagons depending on how the voting looks. Edwards is trying to make alot out of the regional thing, but Kerry seems to be running ok in the south. True, vice versa doesn't seem to be there.

[robbedvoter]

3. People let the Teevee tell them who to vote for?

Clark did not campaign in ME, Mi and WA. The media ignored him/ ya think it had anything to do with "can anyone stop kerry" it's a kerry-edwards race memes? (Thanks, karl)

[King of New Orleans]

4. If a candidate doesn't

campaign in a state, why would the media cover him?