I hope Kerry doesn't expect to win South Carolina with this kinda quote.

[Sean Reynolds]

'Cause he said he didn't need 'em:

"Al Gore proved that you can win the election without a single Southern state, if he'd only won New Hampshire" - John Kerry

I think this is a back handed slap at the south - basically saying their opinions don't matter. Well you know what Mr. Kerry? I'd rather stick with Democrats that WANT the whole nation to unite, not just pockets of liberal areas. At least Edwards, Clark, Kucinich, Dean, Sharpton and EVEN Lieberman want to unite the south in 2004.

I also think that South Carolina shouldn't vote for someone that doesn't want their vote; whether it be in the general election or primary election.

[ButterflyBlood]

1. I agree

but I doubt he's planning on winning it either.

[Sean Reynolds]

2. Well he's going to need the south...

Whether he believes it or not.

[jfxgillis]

9. WHY!?!?!?!

The objective and mathematically verifiable fact is that Kerry's statement is true.

Rather than being impolitic, it actually serves the long term interests of either winning in November and or for the Dems thereafter or both

[ibegurpard]

11. No it's not true

The electoral counts have changed since 2000.

[Sean Reynolds]

12. Just because it's mathematically true, doesn't make it right.

The south IS apart of America and we need to start treating them like they are. It's also nice to note that MOST of this country's population boom is taking place in the southern region, meaning that IN the future the south will be key.

Kerry giving up the south IS WRONG.

[ibegurpard]

16. Sean, it's NOT true mathematically

Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, and Texas all picked up electoral votes while many "Gore" states lost them after the Census.

[jfxgillis]

19. Kerry was commenting on Gore, for whom it IS true

Plus, to make the general statement true for '04 we need only add one small competitive red state. NV or WV, maybe AZ. And adding that one other smaller states STILL results in winning w/o the South.

[jfxgillis]

17. Listen. If your're going to be here for a few minutes I'll explain

Okay? Maybe over a couple of posts.

The first think you need to realize, is that if Kerry says (or implies) "I won't compete in the South" the very first tactical response by the Bushies is that THEY TOO will not compete in the South.

Bush would be NUTS to spend a DIME in a region that was uncontested.

[Sean Reynolds]

21. We ignore the south.....

We lose.

It's that simple. There are a few southern states Dems can win, but they can't win them by ignoring them.

[jfxgillis]

27. What price do we pay?

We surrender to the Zell Millers of the world who sit in their stinking hunting clubs and demand that the Democrats adopt anti-labor, anti-diversity, anti-secularist, and anti-global-stability positions if we want Southern White Conservative Males to vote Dem on the basis of some vague affinity with old time populism which had a Left strain 60 years ago but is almost purely conservative now.

Fuck that.

Kerry's saying, "Know what? THAT'S NOT WORTH THE PRICE."

Here's what Kerry should tell Zell fucking Miller and Fritz Hollings and whatever fucking similar leftover Dems there are: "I'll modify my trade positions to save the Carolina textile jobs if you let the AFL-CIO organize them. If not, go fuck yourself."

I'm TIRED of being blackmailed by the South. They want in the Dem coalition? FINE. Here's our agenda. Sign on or get the FUCK out of our way.

[SadEagle]

13. Because we need to put up the fight.

If we don't challenge in any of those states, we have more ground to defence. If we can make Republicans spend significant $$$$ and focus to defend, we can gain some advantage.

[jfxgillis]

18. It's a zero-sum game, sad-eagle

It will take the expenditure of resources by US to force THEM to expend resources. It nets out as zero.

In fact, if the South is not going to deliver any ECs but all we want to do is tie them down, then the effect on Congressional races for Dems in the South is a NEGATIVE payoff.

[isbister]

3. Take the whole quote,

cutting it in half like you've done doesn't make your position stronger.

Oh, sorry, neither would the whole quote. Carry on then...

[Sean Reynolds]

5. Show me the whole quote.

This is all I saw, don't shoot the messenger.

[jpgray]

4. People interpret Kerry remarks very liberally

So I suppose in a sense that's good for the party.

:D

[Sean Reynolds]

6. I think that quote will bite him in the ass.

[KC21304]

7. I believe someone asked him if he thought he could win

with Edwards and Clark in the race. I don't believe he said he did not want their vote.

[Sean Reynolds]

10. Well if he expects to WIN without the SOUTH...

Doesn't that mean he doesn't CARE for THEIR (the south) vote?

He's tossing away the south like they don't matter. When in fact they DO matter.

[jfxgillis]

15. That's a big resounding YES but

think two layers deeper ....

[ibegurpard]

8. Kerry DOES realize that the electoral counts have changed

doesn't he?

[jfxgillis]

14. Sure.

Throw in any other very competitive state Gore lost and you got the new total.

The numbers still work.

[Dr Fate]

20. Clark & Edwards will do well in the South...

...Arizona will go for Clark too...

[PretzelWarrior]

22. he's a realist. heavens! we can't have pragmatism!!!

Kerry and his wife were on the news today saying they are going south believing they can beat the others in the primaries there, and you can bet they will try hard to win them. But face facts. It is going to be super hard to beat Bush in South Carolina or Alabama.

NH is one of the best bets for a Dem victory. (Bush only won NE by a few thousand votes) All of those blue states could go back to blue....and then all you'd need is NH.

That is REALLY ENCOURAGING--not fuel for some anti-Kerry fire like you seem to think.

[Sean Reynolds]

25. A realist?

More like a self serving whore. He doesn't care about the south, just like he really doesn't care about the American people. Kerry is in this race to only advance HIS cause, not the people's cause. If he truly were for the people, he'd try and unite the WHOLE nation. NOT just the states that tend to go Democratic.

[PretzelWarrior]

29. whatever. you believe what you will. He WILL UNITE

as much as is possible in this fractured country. Uhh...Bush is a divider. There are already deep divisions created by the extremist idealogues in this country such as Buchanan, Bush, Dean, etc.

It is so easy to read things into words taken out of context. If the Southern folks will have him...you will certainly see Kerry working for their vote. But ALLLL presidential candidates in general elections use a calculus strategy to spend money/effort in the areas where they have a chance to switch the momentum to their cause. You won't see Bush spending a ton of money in New York or Massachusettes and similar states, and you won't see Kerry or other nominee spending tons of money in Texas or Mississippi. It's just realism.

There's that word again.

[Sean Reynolds]

30. He won't unite.

He's stated he doesn't want the southern vote. Last I checked the south made up a big block of our country.

And it doesn't change my belief Kerry is this ONLY for himself.

[Edge]

23. I agree.

Kerry should learn to unite the whole country if he wants votes instead of alienating certain parts of the country.

Shame on you, Mr. Kerry.

[PretzelWarrior]

24. why? Bush didn't have to. He won the country hicks

and GOre won the educated city folks. Yes, that is cruelly simplistic, but there is some truth to it.

We will beat Bush with a Kerry nomination. You smell like someone here just to knock our wonderful winner, Kerry. Go drink a 6-pack and sleep it off.

[Edge]

26. I don't consider Kerry a "wonderful winner."

Sorry.

[Sean Reynolds]

28. He's a winner by default.

For the past month Kerry has been saying Dean can't win this, Dean can't win that. He's had help from the media and it finally has payed off. People don't like John Kerry for his ideas, they like John Kerry because they believe he can beat Bush.

[Adjoran]

31. Sure, it's theoretically possible

You can construct 270 EC votes without any southern states. Getting there is much easier said than done, though.

There's a lot more at stake in the south. We've had some successes in southern states in recent years, especially in Louisiana. But we have five Democratic incumbents not running for reelection. Hollings, Miller, Edwards, Graham, and Breaux are gone. Do we want to skip the south and risk losing all five? Not to mention that a regional sweep might also endanger Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas?

The repubs would also gain more state legislature seats, making it ever harder to resist their redistricting plans in the future.

It's a suicide mission, betting it all on a roll of the dice. Remember, we would also have to hold ALL the Gore states. Several were squeakers: New Mexico, Iowa, and Oregon were won by extremely close margins, and now the repubs have an incumbent and the likelihood of a resurging economy to help their chances. The Gore states lost seven EC votes in redistricting, too, so two small states picked up might only get us to break-even with 2000, which isn't good enough.

No Democrat has EVER won the Presidency without winning at least two southern states. That is in 204 years of Democratic Presidential candidates. A pretty long streak we would HAVE to break, or lose, if we write off the south.

The last Democratic slate to win without a southerner on the ticket was Truman - Barkley in 1948, both from border states.

This election is going to be tough enough without conceding a huge chunk of the country before we even begin.

[jfxgillis]

32. Interesting, but peel back a layer

Presume Kerry is the Dem nominee and presume that by competing in the South Kerry will draw Bush to the South to defend one of his stronghold.

If you were running for one of those Senate seats, would you rather be a very conservative Republican campaigning with a Texas conservative Bush or a conservative-to-moderate Democrat campaigning with a Massachusetts liberal Kerry?

All of those "No Democrat this" (or "No Republican that") rules are indicative, not dispositive, and MOSTLY the residual of a chapter of the Democratic party that most lib/moderate Dems would just as excise.

The Party that HAD to have the South died the day LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act.