Our Southern problem in the Senate continued

[dsc]

I posted a long thread about why I felt that in most Southern states we should pretty much give up on Senate seats and instead concentrate on Governorships in the South and knocking of 'moderate' Republicans in New England and the Midatlantic. I want to flesh out some of my points using results from 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. I chose these years due to a) ease of finding on the net, b) they include both good years (98,00) and bad ones (02,04) and thus I think are representative of what our performance has been lately.

In 1998 the following states were up in the South:

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Lousiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma. Of those all but Arkansas featured incumbents and all the incumbents won except Faircloth in NC to Edwards. Results 2 Republican wins, 6 Democratic wins and a pick up of one seat for us. Great for us. (Arkansas was a Democratic seat coming in so it wasn't a pick up) open seats 1-0

In 2000 the following states were up in the South: Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia

Here incumbents ran in every race but Florida. One incumbent, Robb of Virginia, was defeated. We won the open race in Florida and netted even. open seats 1-0

In 2002 the following states were up in the South:

Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Lousiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia.

Here we had incumbents in every state but NC, SC, TN, and TX. Both parties lost one incumbent. We went 0 for 4 in the open races. Result even here.

In 2004 the following states were up in the South:

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina

Here there were two incumbents both won and five open seats. We lost all five. Net loss 5 seats.

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/psusp.html#elec (link I used to find results I used the CNN results)

So to sum up we had a 2 and 9 record in open seats in the South as a whole from 1998 to 2004. If you take out Florida, Louisiana, and Arkansas we fall to 0 and 7. It is one thing to have a bad record against incumbents, that happens. But for the open seats to be such an unmittigated disaster shows a fundamental weakness that may well be impossible to overcome in the short term. And lets look at those wins we did have. Nelson in Florida and Lincoln in Arkansas. Both are among the most conservative members we have. The ones who knocked off incumbents were Edwards and Nelson. Edwards is the most skilled politican we have seen since Clinton and Nelson is a former astronaut. We can't count on compelling personal stories or charisma out the yin yang.

We have to face reality, and that is that we will be fortunate to win any Senate seats in the South for a long time to come. This time around we have only one race where we will be favored (FL) and two that we might even have a shot at (VA, TN) depending on the candidates. We have no other even semi legitimate shots at winning in the South this time. The NE, MidAtlantic, and West are begging us to run great candidates in all these races. That is what we need to do.

In the meantime, build a farm team down here and win some Governorships. Get some favorable redistricting in House races and pick up some seats. We can't win the Senate here but we can help win the House if we fight the right races, at the right times.

[liberaliraqvet26]

1. Nelson can take fla....

and we cannot let Kathrine Harris win a senate seat

[dsc]

2. I do list him as favored

and Florida is one of the states I think we should fight in. But he will have a tough race, especially if she loses the primary to a more electable candidate.

[woodleydem]

54. Harris won't lose the primary. She is the RNC's choice and will raise a

lot of money in the primaries from RW groups. But she won't win statewide because she is extremely polarizing, and she won't have President Bush on the ticket to drive up turnout. Democrats will be pumped, and I believe Nelson has raised the most money of any Senator seeking re-election. I saw a hypothetical poll about two weeks ago with Nelson beating Harris by about 20 points. Besides, what the hell are Katharine Harris' accomplishments for Florida? She has only served two terms in the House, and has no real legislative marks to point to. This is a good development for Nelson, IMO.

[dolstein]

3. Sorry, but you have to contest BOTH the Senate and the State House

You may think that writing off senate seats allows the Democrats to conserve resources for governor races that are potentially more competitive. But but allowing Republican incumbents to go unchalleneged, you also allow the Republicans to concentrate their resources on the very same governor races.

Sorry, but if the Democrats are to become competitive once against in the South, they have to COMPETE.

[dsc]

7. They have virtually unlimited resources anyway

They spent like drunken sailors in NC and lost the State House and State Senate as well as the Governorship but won the US Senate in a walk.

[dolstein]

10. No they don't.

Puh-leeze. They have a finite pool of donors. And to suggest that it doesn't make a difference whether we run serious candidates for the Senate is just plain silly. A senate incumbent who fases no opponent doesn't have to race money. They can tailor their own campaign around the needs of other candidates.

Besides, if we don't even give voters the option of voting Democratic in high profile races like the Senate, they may not even bother to turn out at all, and that affects races down the ticket.

[dsc]

12. Can you name one close race in which Republicans have been outspent

I sure can't. They do have pretty much unlimited resources. If they want to spend $50 million on a Senate race, they can. And they can replicate that as many times as they need to. If there were say 200 Senate races a year, then I would conceed your point. But there aren't.

[dolstein]

16. Sure -- Corzine outspend his opponent in his senate race

Again, your logic appers to be this: the Republicans are going to win a close race anyway, so why bother? Of course, the Republicans don't ALWAYS win close races. Sometimes they lose. On the other hand, the Republicans are going to win EVERY race in which the Democrats don't even bother to field a candidate.

[dsc]

18. I said a close race

The Republicans would have, and could have, funded that race if the candidate there had had a ghost of a chance. NJ had been a Democratic stronghold by then for a pretty long time in terms of the Senate. Their candidate was weak. So they chose not to fund them.

[dolstein]

26. It WAS close

Are you kidding????? Corzine only got 51% of the vote. You write a very convicing version of fiction. Unfortunately, it doesn't square with the facts.

[dsc]

29. He won by four points

there was a third party candidate. It was closer than I recalled but 4 points is a pretty decent margin. I wonder how much Corozine really outspent him by (he spent a lot in the primary which wouldn't really count)

[dsc]

19. I also don't say beans about close races

I think we should spend like drunken sailors in Maine, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Oregon and Ohio. We should find candidates who we think can win and tell them we will spend whatever it takes to win. We should give them consultants, money, staff, and anything else they might need. What we shouldn't do is spend money on places like Alabama or Virginia if we can't get Warner to run.

[tx_dem41]

4. I would rather have Blanche Lincoln and Bill Nelson in the Senate...

than Jim Holt and Bill McCollum, the conservative Republicans they beat. Wouldn't you?

Although I agree with you about building a "farm team" through Governors (my state of birth just elected Kathleen Blanco as Governor), generally you seem to be to quick to all but give up on existing seats (such as the two in Arkansas, one in Louisiana, one in Florida), as well as fighting for decent opportunities in Virginia, Tennesee, and I believe North Carolina in the future.

Remember to get six seats back, you better contest them all.

[dsc]

6. I asked this close to a dozen times in the last thread

to resounding silence. Just who are we going to run? We ran mostly good candidates in 2004 and got creamed by a sad bunch of candidates. If we can't win when we run vastly superior candidates, I can't see us winning at all.

[tx_dem41]

8. So we give up?

I have lived in the South my whole life. Believe me when I say, in the last few months, the times are a'changin. There is hope.

[dsc]

9. I would rather us spend our time and money

finding a viable challenger to people like Collins, Smith, and DeWine than to finding people who lose less badly to the likes of DeMint and Colburn.

[tx_dem41]

11. You just named Senators from a state that has a Democratic Governor...

and a state that just had one. You seem to be forsaking your "farm team" strategy before it leaves the starting gate.

[dsc]

14. I only name two states there

and only one has a Democratic governor. If he wishes to run and thinks he can win then great. But here in NC I don't think Easley can beat Dole. Maybe Hunt could but given his age I don't think he can either. It is much harder to win these Senate seats than governors races and the governors races do us some amount of good. Maybe we can see a tide turning sometime but for now I would rather spend millions to unseat Collins than the same millions in an open seat in Tennessee.

[dolstein]

13. Newflash: Nothing lasts forever

How many state races in Montana did the Democrats lose before they elected a Democratic governor the last time around?

According to your logic, the Republicans should never have fielded a candidate for governor in Georgia, because no Republican had ever been elected governor since reconstruction. Frankly, I wish they had taken your advice.

[dsc]

15. We had just won a statewide race in Montana

Senator Baucus had won in 2002. That would be two years if you are counting. In Georgia they got lucky and may well have cheated as well. We will see if that governor lasts.

[dolstein]

17. I was talking about a race for governor

According to your logic, because the Democrats had elected and reelected Max Baucus, but had lost many races for governor, they shouldn't have bothered running anyone for governor and should have focused on the senate instead.

[dsc]

21. How much national money went into that race?

I would love to know. I bet it wasn't a tenth of what we spent on the losing efforts in places like NC, SC and GA last cycle.

[quaoar]

50. There wasn't resounding silence

You just didn't like the answer you got.

[dsc]

55. One person mentioned running Easley

that is it. Even assuming he somehow could beat Dole in 08 that is one race.

[Rowdyboy]

5. You make perfect sense.....

And governorships are winnable for Democrats down here. The same can rarely be said for senate seats.

[tx_dem41]

20. Why are we bending over backwards looking for reasons to lose...

or reasons to not even try???? Shouldn't we be looking for reasons and ways of winning. We will never be a majority party with this defeatist attitude.

[dsc]

22. Look give me a winning strategy that isn't

wait for the like of Edwards to drop into our laps and I will join you in saying go for it. But I don't see any strategy that isn't the equivalent of that.

[Bluebear]

We won't win by tilting at windmills either

I really think we can win Nevada and New Mexico before we could ever hope to win Alabama or South Carolina, for instance.

[tx_dem41]

28. Well, Alabama and South Carolina don't have Senate races in 2006.

But, Southern states like Virginia, Tennessee, and Florida do. We can win the first two, and we have to hold the seat in Florida. Let's look at OK, SC, and KY in 2004. In each of those races, the Democrat did much, much better in the state than Kerry did. Why do you think that was?

Do you ever want to be a majority party again. You're never going to do by giving up on about 15 out of 50 states. What you will do is cede 4 more seats over to the Republicans.

[dsc]

30. They lost by less

that isn't exactly heroic. In KY Bunning literally went crazy and we still lost. In OK we lost to a doctor who scammed Medicaid while sterilizing the poor. In SC we lost to a loon who thought that all gay teachers should be fired. In short we put up great candidates in the last two and lost decisively anyway.

[tx_dem41]

33. You're assigning us to permanent minority status.

Because if you lived in the great Plains you would say the same thing for those states. You will give up 4 more seats in the South. Where are you going to find 9 wins?

[dsc]

37. No we are running even in the plains

Of the four plains states we have 4 Senators. Two in ND, one each in SD, and NE. In the upper midwest we are also even one each in MN and IA, two in WI and none in MO. We would be fools to give up there. The Northeast and MidAtlantic can balance out the South for us but we need to get rid of the seven Republicans in those states.

[tx_dem41]

40. For one thing, I don't consider MN/WI/ IA/MO the Great Plains...

but that's just me. The strategy in the OP would be to give up on NE because Ben Nelson's too conservative. You'll give up on KS for sure. To stretch a bit, you have stated elsewhere that MT is no great shakes. Please, identify nine (oops...now 10) we are going to win in the 30 states you want us to contend in?

[dsc]

45. That is why I called MN, WI, IA, and MO the UPPER MIDWEST

and not the Great Plains. And I stated we are even in the Great Plains, which we are. If we find a good candidate in KS then we should go for it. I admit I don't think we should do there what I advocate in Maine since I don't think the chance of winning is nearly as good. As for Montana I have stated more than once I think we should target Burns. He nearly lost a few years ago and we have won the last two statewide races in Montana. The only states in the Rockies I wouldn't really bother with are Utah and Idaho.

[Aflac]

23. This is a long term problem seeping into local politics

The Democratic Party has to effectively do two things to make inroads in the South. Devolop a Culture of Life that disagrees with killing babies or Iraqis. This is not that difficult because moderate Christians believe in helping the poor and peace but through an effective propaganda campaign the old testament evangelicals are governing the direction of Christianity in America. WHAT DID JESUS TEACH!!! It needs to be said that Jesus didn't believe in Wars for natural resources, executions, or ensuring that the rich got tax cuts. The Republican party through many hard long years of deligence have convinced America that Jesus was a Republican. It's simple revisionist history.

The second thing is drop gay marriage. Marriage is between a Man and a Woman because Marriage is a Religious cermony. Two guys kissing destoyed great Senate canidates. Marriage is NOT a state sponsered activity. No one has ever been married at the DMV. Gay Rights are really iffy unless you just want to right off a huge voting block. COST BENIFIT ANALYSIS there are a descent amount of Gay Republican attack dogs that vote and act in their economic interest. I know its the right thing to do but I don't need to see two guys kissing for me to feel like I'm a true American. In Oklahoma if your a democrat You're a Baby killing Queer Loving Liberal. If you call a Christian small minded It makes them feel good; Jesus was persecuted too. They are suffering for their beliefs. I'm surrounded by these people who have been indoctrinated with Republican Ideology that has now become blended with theology. Millions of Americans have been convinced to vote emotionaly against their economic well being due to this bluring of theology/ideology. When you try to convince someone logically they shut down their mind because it's an issue of faith.

Basically: There has to be moderate democrats that talk about God the problem is that Republicans have effectively made Brad Carson Tom Daschule (Baby killing queer loving liberals) that's really the language that is implied in the state/local level. To consolidate Blue States you need Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robinson in commercials as the spokespeople for the Republican party. Brad Carson was so moderate he was really a republican. He got destroyed by a serious nut job Tom Cobourn becuase of commercials citing a gay rights group backing Carson and charactatures of him holding hands with Hillary and Ted Kennedy. It's a problem of deligently talking about GOD and meaning it. It's a long term fight that has to begin soon

[dsc]

24. Of the nine candidates who lost open races mentioned in my post

can you name even one who supported civil unions much less gay marriage?

[Aflac]

27. Did You watch any attack adds

Public perception was that they were incredibly supportive of gay rights and propaganda won over truth

[dsc]

31. I live in NC

and they equated Bowles with Clinton far more than attacking him on gay marriage.

[Aflac]

35. afsgg

How many intolerance bills were put on state ballots
People hate Hillary Clinton but she didn't out "The Values Vote" You can shout political hatred but you whisper bigotry

[tx_dem41]

25. Quack, quack! n/t

[election_2004]

32. On the issue of gay marriage.....

Southern Democratic candidates need to reframe the issue to portray civil unions as a compromise, while still maintaining that marriage will be defined between a man and a woman.

Gay people live in the South and are an important voting bloc to any Democratic candidate. You can't simply say to them, as voters, "You get nothing!"

Mongiardo opposed civil unions, and they tried to orchestrate a last-minute "surge" on his behalf against Bunning. Look how well that turned out.

[tx_dem41]

38. I have one better....frame it as "Get the Government the hell out of ..

...the Marriage business, entirely!". Its a religious ceremony.

[Aflac]

41. That's the way it should be framed

Rights become unions as a whole. Marriage is done in whatever religion/Congregation you want but the problem is that Christians believe that all societies fall from within because of "Hedenism/Decadance" Our values determine or strength as a nation. It's just so deep rooted into their craniums

[tx_dem41]

42. You're mistaken...there are many, many Christian churches that perform...

gay marriages. And remember, even if a Marriage Amendment is passes, those churches will be able to keep performing those marriages.

This framing is not anti-gay rights at all. Its anti-Government-in-our-personal lives.

[election_2004]

43. That could work too....

Because that would be taking more of the "classical conservatism" approach.

Don't force your values on us, and we won't force our values on you.

[0rganism]

57. Marriage is EXACTLY a state-sponsored activity

You say,
> Marriage is between a Man and a Woman because Marriage is a Religious cermony

I call bullshit. First, if the regulations regarding marriage were defined by religion alone, then there wouldn't be any problem at all with situations like polygamy among Mormons. Second, the ceremony is entirely meaningless; you can go have that ceremony today, tomorrow, and every day for the rest of the year, and it won't mean jack without a marriage license duly obtained from (yes, you got it) the state.

That's the ENTIRE REASON IT WAS EVEN A POLITICAL ISSUE. If marriage were purely religious, then the states wouldn't even be involved, they wouldn't regulate it, and all ballot measures regarding the particulars of marriage would be moot. The whole bit in the constitution about states recognizing marriages from other states would be wasted ink.

> No one has ever been married at the DMV

What, do you think the DMV is the only state office there is? People get married by a "Justice of the Peace" every day, go down to your courthouse sometime and check it out. And what does the priest say when he finishes up this so-called "religious" ceremony?

"With the power vested in me by the state of (whereever), I now pronounce you man and wife."

The religious institutions understand this, they receive their legal authority to perform marriages from the very state sponsorship you claim doesn't exist.

You need to rethink your position, carefully this time.

[election_2004]

34. Democrats should NOT abandon Missouri in '06!!!

Jim Talent is beatable, and there is no reason for him to get another six years!

[dsc]

36. I am not counting MO as the south

I only am counting the confederacy and oklahoma.

[Aflac]

39. You've put your finger on the problem

The south is only half of the problem. The midwest is being consolidated in the mold of the south

[tnlefty]

44. I'm not giving up. Rosalind Kurita in '06 for FrankenFrist's seat!

I met her and I'm more willing to support her for this senate seat than Ford,Jr. www.kurita2006.com, I'm sure that she needs all of the help that she can get.

[dsc]

46. I will let Tennessee pick their nominee

as I don't have any ties to Tennessee. Once they do we should look and see the chances.

[tnlefty]

47. I don't have ties to NC, but I donated a little money to Bowles'

campaign. I didn't ask you to pick our candidate I was merely trying to offer an alternative to what appeared to me to be a dismal outlook on our chances to win any senate seats in the south.

[dsc]

48. I may well give in the general

but not in the primary. Bowles didn't have a primary here so you did what I may well do.

[Awsi Dooger]

49. A couple of things regarding the info atop this thread

You didn't highlight our biggest Southern success of late in the senate, Mark Pryor knocking off an incumbent by 8 points in the Arkansas senate race of 2002. I realize you said "both parties lost one incumbent" and that meant Arkansas in our favor, but I think that race deserves more of a mention. We had an excellent candidate with a family history in Arkansas politics and he prevailed easily. It can happen elsewhere.

I understand where you're coming from regarding 2004. It was sickening to field the superior candidate in so many cases but be denied in huge margin by moron opponents. That is still residue of 9/11 and fear, IMO. You can't take for granted it will continue or to what extent. We were within grasp of winning Kentucky and Florida.

Also, in the analysis atop this thread you alternately list Bill Nelson as having won an open Florida senate race in 2000, but a few paragraphs later you give him credit for knocking off an incumbent, implying it was due to celebrity status as an astronaut. The initial statement was correct. Nelson won an open race versus Bill McCollum after incumbent Republican Connie Mack announced his retirement a year earlier.

[dsc]

52. Would Pryor have won if Hutchinson weren't a hypocritical horndog?

I have no idea. I think he may have given the extremely good candidate he was, but again that doesnt' fall from the sky and really is only applicable in places like Arkansas and Louisana. Landreau is the daughter of a New Orleans Mayor who was a larger than life figure.

[Awsi Dooger]

56. You always allow your opponent an opportunity to be a hypocritical horndog

By emphasizing the race, fiedling your best candidate and fully funding him/her.

A better question is this: would we have prevailed in Kentucky last year if we'd emphasized the race all year long, and not merely the final month? No one could have predicted Bunning would self destruct to that extent.

We need more margin for error, not less. The runoff in Louisiana was avoided by 1% when Kerry refused to contest Louisiana. Just a few visits could have made a difference and our record in Louisiana runoffs is very good.

I know the outcome when we forfeit.

[dsc]

58. Kerry can't be blamed for Louisana

I don't particularly like Kerry's campaign but I have to say that he isn't at fault for the dismal performance of those candidates. Three Democrats couldn't hold one Republican to under 50% that is bad.

[quaoar]

51. Not through bashing the South yet?

Why don't you just start one of those "Why doesn't the South just secede" thread?

[dsc]

53. It isn't bashing the South

I specifically advocate competing four states for Senate and all of them for Governor. It is being realistic. The people here aren't buying the dogfood.

[SCantiGOP]

60. I agree

I've worked in the last two SC Senate races, and knew we were going to lose them both. We have a real chance to unseat a terrible GOP governor in two years. I agree with your analysis. Of course we'll continue to run the best candidates we can find, but the SC Democratic Party needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.

[many a good man]

59. The New South is gonna rise one day

Migration patterns show that the redneck edge will soon ebb. We must put up principled candidates who don't cater to the region's worst biases. Even if we lose year after year eventually we will prevail.

We must stand for the common interests of all middle class people. A lower class white man has more in common with a lower class black than he does with a rich white man. Some day they will see that they are being swindled by the religious hucksters.

They won't want to vote for the pale imitators, they'll want to vote for people with character. And they will.