About the Presidential election and the Senate

[Phelan]

I'm kind of interest in who here thinks that we can retain the ability to fillbuster with 6 Democratic Senators in the south retiring if we have a yankee on the top of the ticket.

Let me plead my train of thought here, southerners have not voted for a northerner since JFK and the parties have changed since then. Dukakis and Mondale didn't do very hot in the south. Also I don't have research to prove this except that I took about 15 minutes a googled straight tickets (I may check the nexus for more data later) to see how likely people are to vote straight ticket in an election. Well it turns out people are more likely to vote straight ticket than not. (At least from my limited non-scientific sample)

So what we have here is:
a.) people are more likely to vote straight ticket,
b.) southerns have not voted for someone from above the Mason-Dixon line in 40 years
C.) 6 nonincumbent races that had an incumbent
D.) we loose 6 seats I believe we can no longer fillibuster
E.) no longer being able to filibuster means
i.) radical court appointments
ii.) good bye medicare, medicaid, social security etc.
iii.) even if a Democrat wins the Presidency he can't get shit done because the senate will be firmly republican entrenched.

So I am honestly asking people if I am just being very pessimistic (a former US Senate candidate I spoke with this morning thinks we are going to loose the 6 seats.) or if my fears have merit. And if you think my fears have merit, why don't more people understand that problem and come out for Clark or Edwards? And don't give me that "well they can pick a VP from the south" since I'll doubt either Edwards or Clark as VP will deliver the south for Kerry.

[Bombtrack]

1. 5 retirees in the south, plus Blanche Lincoln for reelection

but you're right that it's complelely myopic to think that Kerry's inevatable poor showings in these states won't spill off into the senate races.

We need Clark or Edwards to be the nominee, not the vp

Also, Kerry won't just likely do worse than Gore in the south, but also rural America in general, and Gore did worse than dems did in a long time there

[Goldmund]

2. Since us Northerners

vote for Southerners all the time, why can't Southerners get with the program and realize that the civil war is over? I don't understand this persistent reasoning that one region of the country somehow gets to determine everyone's political destiny grossly disproportionately to their actual population.

[rucky]

3. actually, the primaries have shown that Northerners are the ones...

who won't vote for Southerners.

Meanwhile, watch Kerry win VA & TN.

Then again, that also blows the "Southerner must win" theory out of the water as well.

[Bombtrack]

4. General elections have no direct parallels to party primaries

That's one line of reasoning that really is so rediculous yet people here can't seem to stop thinking with

[Goldmund]

5. Not true.

You're basing what you're saying on a very limited and specific sample. 1) The people who vote in democratic primaries are much less likely to be burdened by regional pettiness than people voting in the GE; 2) As the original poster said, the southerners have not voted for anyone from the North in the GE in 40 years -- you're simply talking about this primary cycle, in which both the previous front-runner (Dean) and the current (Kerry) are from New England.

Northerners were happy voting for Southerners in primaries in previous elections, and in GE as well -- Clinton, Carter, etc.

[NWHarkness]

6. I live in Michigan

And I seem to recall voting for Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

[Bombtrack]

7. the south's population is a third of the country

And there is a chance that 1 or 2 southern states, say Florida could go for a northerner in this election or somewhere down the road. Just not likely someone who represents the the stigma of the polar opposite of America culturally politically, like Kerry or Dean.

Clearly recent history shows that the best presidential candidates have been southern democrats and western or southern republicans.

Just like it's better for democrats to come from the rural/conservative part of a state and for republicans to come from the most liberal/urban part of a state in a statewide election

[Goldmund]

8. Eh?

"Just not likely someone who represents the the stigma of the polar opposite of America culturally politically, like Kerry or Dean."

And which America are you talking about????

Right. The South IS America, they way it's meant to be, and Northerners are purple-haired hippie faggots.

For the record, I know many, many people in the South much more liberal than either Kerry or Dean. This really has nothing to do with people themselves, more with notions that tie conservative -- excuse me, "centrist" -- ideologies with certain territories and then try to stir people's territorial allegiances to peddle those ideologies.

[Bombtrack]

9. If you want to talk about the political extremes of the country

in terms of states you have Vermont and Massachusetts on one end and you have Mississippi and Oklahoma on the other. A republican from an aristocratic family running from Mississippi would carry a stigma that would hurt him nationally and a Yalie/eastern establishment democrat from Boston or Burlington would be hurt nationally as well.

These aren't swing areas of the country

[Goldmund]

10. Then, according to you...

a Democrat from an aristocratic family running from New England would be a fine balance. Well, that's what you've got in both Kerry and Dean.

Unless you're actually claiming that either of these two is in any way an "extreme liberal" -- which can only look that way for someone who is extremely conservative.