I'm concerned about Kerry and the South

[mot78]

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/7812888.htm

When he calls campaigning there a "mistake" it's a terrible strategy.

[bicentennial_baby]

1. Ouch

Nice one Kerry...not

[DoNotRefill]

2. He doesn't need the South....

ans the South will reciprocate the sentiment....

[mot78]

4. If he bypasses the South then * will be able to campaign more in swing sta

states

[LuLu550]

3. I'm concerned about the south too,

that's why I am backing Clark

[slinkerwink]

6. I hope Clark calls Kerry on his comment about forgoing the south!

[mot78]

7. Yes, especially because Kerry has been riding a wave of "electability"

Clark and Edwards should jump on this quote and run with it.

[slinkerwink]

12. and Dean should attack Kerry on his poor voting record!

[kerryistheanswer]

5. We don't need the south

Reality is that the Dems will have a tough time in the south regardless of the candidate. We're not going to win there - we should focus on states like New Hampshire and Missouri in 2004.

[incapsulated]

8. If we don't win a few southern states

Get ready for "Recount II, the chads still hang".

The reason 2000 was so close was precisely because Gore couldn't deliver his own state. Clinton won with the ability to swing some of the south to his side. It will be even more important this time around with BBV and god knows what.

Ignore the south at your peril.

[bicentennial_baby]

21. Bingo!

I was listening to some political analysts on NPR this AM, and that's exactly what they said about Kerry and these comments...While it is theoretically possible for Kerry to do it w/out the South, it would likely be so close as to be a potential disaster for the Dems.

[SaveElmer]

28. I disagree

Republicans have won 8 presidential races since 1900 with almost no southern support. We should concentrate on true swing states like Arizona, Nevada, Mondatna, West Virginia, New Mexico, and Colorado. Our message will resonate much better there than in the south.

[incapsulated]

31. I don't care about 1900

I'm looking at the political landscape now, and it's solid red down south, where it used to be a place Clinton could win some.

What's different? A Republican in the Whitehouse.

Of course we need the swing states, but so does Bush. If he doesn't have to fight on his own turf, he can pour his resources into the states we have to get.

[SaveElmer]

33. He doesn't have to put resources in the South

He has them locked up (except Florida). If we put our resources in there too, it will weaken us elsewhere. Bush has more than enough money to fight everywhere, we are going to have to go where we can get the biggest bang for the buck. We have a better chance in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Montana than we do in Georgia, North and South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee. That is where we should be spending most of our money

[dolstein]

9. That's a popular myth around here -- but it's still a myth

Is it mathematically possible to win without carrying a single Southern state? Sure. And didn't Gore nearly win without carrying a single Souther state? Right again. But what people ignore is that while Gore didn't carry any states in the South (lets set aside Florida for now), he made Bush work extremely hard to carry states like Missouri (which, regardless of geography, is not very much a Southern state), Tennessee, Arkansas and Florida. If you write off the South, Bush can take all of these states for granted, and focus all of his formidable resources on the Midwest.

[eissa]

10. Yup

Jesus himself couldn't win down there on the dem ticket. If people can't realize that the repukes can't be trusted when it comes to your money and security, as * has proven so well, I don't know what any dem candidate (southerner or not) can do. People need to focus on their interests; if they can't, then we'll take the swing states that vote with their heads.

[DoNotRefill]

29. So Clinton lost in the south?

Or was he better than Jesus?

;)

[DoNotRefill]

27. Not true...

Dems can do OK in the South, provided that they steer clear of the "hot button" issues like gun control.

Want proof? Look at the Southern governors.

Kerry's position on gun control is political suicide in the South and much of the rest of the country.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

11. self fulfilling prophecy

circular reasoning. "Well, the South's not going to go for me - so i might as well focus on other areas." "I focused on other areas now the South is not going for me."

We have a disproportionate amount of military in the South, John. Word has it their families are pissed. Why not come down here and talk to them?

[Cloud]

13. Kerry can't win the south

We don't need the south to win. All Kerry needs to do is carry the northeast and a few western states like California. If he can carry a few swing states such as Ohio and a few in the midwest he is the new president even if Bush* carries the entire south.

[abburdlen]

19. "Everybody always makes the mistake of looking South"

Heck who needs those southern senate seats anyway.

[Cuban_Liberal]

25. No Democrat has ever been elected POTUS w/o at least 5 southern states

Those are historical FACTS, and it was a major blunder by Kerry to say what he did.

[SaveElmer]

34. But many Republicans have

Just because something hasn't happened in the past does not mean it cannot happen now. The political landscape has changed. In my mind it is better to put the most resources where it will do us the most good. The south (except Florida) is a lost cause. The west and southwest is not. Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Montana will more than make up for the loss of the south. Note: I do not put Florida in this category as it is more southwest in character. We need to fight for Florida

[Bryan]

14. It is a terrible strategy

...which could suggest why he seems to be backing away from it. During his brief interview with Ted Koppel on Nightline last night, he said that he believes that health care, schooling and jobs are crossover issues in the South and that "we need to stop treating the South like it's a foreign country".

[Ripley]

17. So he admits to treating the south like a foreign country?

You know it is this condescending crap that is why so many in the south hate some of those folks from Mass. They stereotype and make vast sweeping judgements about a fricking HUGE geographical area when they haven't even set one foot below the Mason Dixon line. The south has been changing over the last decade and right now is probably disproportionately hurting from state budget crunches and losing soldiers every day.

Whoever said "ignore that south at your own peril" above is right on the money.

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. He doesn't need the south.

His campaign said so. :eyes:

[kentuck]

16. I think Kerry said we don't need to treat the South like foreign country?

I don't think he has any intent on ignoring the South??

[blm]

30. Bingo. No need to pander to the south, ala "Book of Job"

Get it.

SC vets are the same as Iowa vets.

[cindyw]

18. I love when people take comments out of context. You Dean supporters

have been screaming about it for months. But now that they do it to Kerry, your all over it. Here is what Kerry really said.

"I think the fight is all over this country," Kerry said. "Forget about those red and blue states. We're going to change that now, and we're going to go out there and change the face of America."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/kerry_south_040126-1.html

Kerry is talking about a larger issue of treating the country, not in sections, but as a whole. We will have to watch the next week to see if he is right. I think he is. Rather than treating the south, like they have issues alien to the rest of us, we have to recognize that they have the same issues as the rest of us now. I think he is right and I know that Dean agrees with him.

[Ripley]

20. As long as Lurch continues to spit hatred at anyone in the south

who happens to have a confederate flag and treats them as criminals, well let's just say he can't kiss and make up.

[cindyw]

23. Oh please. Prove that and then defend the confederate flag here and see

how DUers will jump all over you. Kerry recognizes that people fly that flag for complex reasons. I have a quote somewhere. I'll have to find it. But you miss the point .

[demon67]

22. I'm concerned about congressional races in the South

is Kerry? is anyone? If the top of the ticket flips the bird to the entire south, it will surely reverberate through the congressional races, particularly the numerous Senate races, as less dems will be motivated to show up and vote.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lurking Dem]

32. I doubt we'd miss you much, either.

[LizW]

26. This is dumb on so many levels

He has to force Bush* to campaign in the South. If he doesn't, Bush* will spend all that money beating him in the swing states that he MUST have because he didn't campaign in the south.

Also, there are House and Senate races in the south. Is he planning on just blowing those off and trying to deal with a hostile Republican Congress? Dumb.

Then there's the race thing. How smart is it to point out to southern African Americans that he's taking their votes for granted? I'm not black, but I'm a southerner, and it pisses me off to have Iowa and New Hampshire pick a nominee who, in his vast arrogance, thinks he doesn't have to get his hair mussed coming down here to ask for my vote!

Sure it is mathematically possible for Kerry to win without a single southern state. But that is only the election. How will he govern? Are we to expect that the only Americans who warrant his presidential attention are those who have something to offer toward his re-election? Hmmm. Now that I type that out, it sounds just like what we have now.