Geography and the Notion of “Balancing the Ticket”

[David Zephyr]

There seems to be two nearly sacrosanct notions that I feel need to be aired out, so to speak. These are the notions that:

1.) Notion One: It is imperative that both of the two major political parties have “geographically balanced” tickets in order to win a national election---that the Presidential and the Vice-Presidential nominees must hail from different regions of the nation. I do not hold this view. Neither did Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 or George W. Bush in 2000.

2.) Notion Two: It is imperative that a Southerner be on the 2004 Democratic national ticket in order to win. I mention this because, having lurked and posted here at the DU for soon to be three years, I have never seen a single poster from any region --- other than the South -- that has argued that the Democrats had to have someone on the national ticket from their particular geographical area of the country in order to win the White House.

I think it is important to encourage discussion on these two notions.

The notion that there must be a Southerner on the ticket has some validity, to be fair. The argument goes like this: not one Democrat, since John F. Kennedy, has been elected President that wasn’t from the South. Yet, on the other hand since Texan Lyndon Johnson’s victory as President, the Democrats have lost six national elections and in three of those contests a Southerner was on the losing ticket: Carter in 1980, Bentsen in 1988, and Gore in 2000. And while we all believe that Gore actually won in 2000, it was not because of the South, but in spite of it, for Al Gore not only lost his home state of Tennessee, but nearly all of Dixie, didn’t he?

Recently, there have been various threads recommending a “Dean/Kerry” ticket which a small minority of our Southern brothers and sisters took exception to with arguments that generally ran along the lines of the two notions described above. Essentially, the message seemed to be that ‘there’s no way that two New Englanders could ever get elected’ and/or that ‘if the Democrats are going to win, then they’d better have a Southerner on the ticket’.

As a native of the South, although I have lived overseas for nearly 5 years and here in California for nearly 30 years, I must admit that this is a subject that holds great interest to me and I wonder why it is that such beliefs are held so dear amongst some (not all) of our fellow Southern Democrats.

I have never heard in my entire life of anyone here in California assert that the Golden State with its 54 electoral votes had to be represented on the national ticket in order to win a national election. And yet, surely a strong argument could be made that since 1968, four out of the nine winning tickets had Californians at the very top of the tickets…that’s forty-four percent of the time. If one goes back to 1952 when Eisenhower had Nixon as his running mate, the percentage increases to 46%.

I have also not heard the claim that the Democratic National Ticket in 2004 must have a New Englander in order to win either. Why is this? Nor have I heard it claimed that a Midwesterner is an absolute requirement to winning the Executive Branch of Government. Why is this?

Actually, in my opinion, if there’s any rationale to pandering to regional pride, then I would suggest that the Rust Belt and the Midwest is where our Party’s better opportunities lie, where the contests were closest, wouldn’t you agree?

As far as the other notion that a national political ticket must be “geographically balanced”, I find that while this idea may have some merit, recent history teaches us just the opposite, for as we all know, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were Southerners. And we also know that our current President and Vice President were both residents of Texas. That’s three for three of winning national political tickets that could hardly be called “geographically balanced”, could they?

Personally, I don’t think that the American people are that hung up on their particular region needing to be represented on the 2004 Democratic National Ticket, do you? Aren’t most Americans above such insecurities? I think they are.

Why couldn’t a ticket with two New Englanders like Dean and Kerry ticket win? Or why couldn’t a ticket with two Southerners like Clark and Edwards win? Or why couldn’t Gephardt and Clark ticket win, even though they are from neighboring states?

I believe that if the Democrats are to win in 2004, then we must discorporate ourselves from what I feel are irrational, although quaint, notions that might lead us into pandering to regions of the country rather than to the American people as a whole.

What do you think?

[mitchtv]

1. right on the money

it can be a consideration, all things being equal, but, this business of my region , or I go home with my marbles is infuriating. As much as I would love a Californian or New Yorker on the ticket.

[David Zephyr]

2. Sensible.

It is infuriating, Mitchtv, and I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking so.

It is almost like the Party is being held hostage to some feudal superstition, isn't it?

Let's move on as a national party with the best possible two candidates we can.

[David Zephyr]

3. Kicking Before I Go Home.

Here's hoping that this might get a little attention.

[mrgorth]

4. Good post

It's not so much that it needs to be balanced as you say. I think that if the ticket had any combo of southerners/westerners and midwesterners everyone else (northeast/Cali) would be fine with it. Fact is the dems are beyond week in the south, midwest and ranch states. Since they can't really truly cater to the wishes of those voters,lest the become repugs, they choose to pick a candidate from that area. It may not work as well as they hope but it's likely better than nothing.

[David Zephyr]

6. I Agree.

It is silly beyond reason to think that one candidate can deliver an entire region of the country. A Southern Democrat will not deliver the entire South if any at all as Al Gore's 2000 candidacy proved.

I do believe that while John Edwards could not deliver the South, he could deliver North Carolina which has a healthy number of electoral votes. Gore could have lost Florida and won the White House with North Carolina. So, in this thinking, I think Edwards could deliver his own state unlike Gore.

The same scenario applies to Dick Gephardt, who probably could not deliver the midwest as much as he may brag that he can, in that he could deliver Missouri which like North Carolina the Democrats narrowly lost in 2000. Again, Democrats could afford to lose Florida, pick up Missouri and win the White House with all things else being the same as they were in 2000.

But still that only shows that a candidate can truly only deliver a state based on geography and the rest will come down to how appealing the ticket is regardless of geography.

For this reason, my hope is that whoever is the victor in Boston next summer will not give weight to the geography of the candidate, but rather would pick the woman or man that he/she thinks would make the strongest ticket against the Republicans.

[Yupster]

5. Geographic balance was real important

before the Civil War. Not important today.

It would be nice to pick a VP from a competitive state, if there's a good one to be chosen. Put Bob Graham on Gore's ticket, and there wouldn't be any Florida controversy I'd guess. It seems most candidates just pick the vp candidate that they think they like best regardless of where he's from.

Southerner on the ticket? I don't think it's too important. I would say don't put two northeasterners together though, or two Pacific coasters. But, Kerry or Dean and a mid-westerner like Missouri or Ohio, or Indiana, or Wisconsin would be fine I would think.

[David Zephyr]

7. Competitive States.

Yeah. That's the most geography will do for a candidate.

Call me crazy, but I believe a Dean/Kerry candidacy would have once been powerful, but no longer. Too much bad blood.

If Dean chooses from the existing candidates and not from somewhere else, he'll more than likely choose one of these and in this order:

1.) Clark
2.) Graham
3.) Edwards
4.) Gephardt

[elperromagico]

8. What makes a candidate "electable"?

Here's the litmus test:
Lick the tip of your finger, stick it up in the air, and figure out which way the wind is blowing.

I think it's the very fact that we did so poorly in the South in 2000 (and came so damnably close to winning overall) that makes people clamor for a southern candidate.

We could win the White House in '04 without a single southern state by a margin of 275-263 or 271-267. It's entirely possible. Should we therefore ignore the south? No, of course not. Play like you're going to win it all.