On the merits of NOT running a 'Southern Strategy' campaign

[WilliamPitt]

Before getting into arguments of 'Why,' let's look at a breakdown of 'What If' regarding running a campaign with no emphasis on the South. Kerry would need to win the Gore states:

Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, D.C., New Jersey, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, New Mexico, California, Oregon, Hawaii and Washington.

According to the map above, that will equal 260 Electoral college votes, ten short of the 270 needed to win the election.

Fight for Ohio, and Missouri, and West Virginia, and New Hampshire, and did I mention Ohio. Shore up your support in potentially risky states like Minnesota and Wisconsin. Any combination thereof, especially including Ohio, and that's the ballgame.

Now...the alternative:

Fight against a foe which enjoys superior funding on their own ground. Focus on Florida, the place where you have the best shot, and risk getting jobbed again by the state government which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bush family. Try to win in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, South and North Carolina...spend a ton of money with little real hope of success.

Because you have less money, this will bleed your ability to win back Ohio and West Virginia. This will expose you in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

I am not advocating "ignoring" the South. Kerry should go there and try to get 40-45% of the popular vote where he can get it to shore up those numbers. But he won't win any of those states, and Florida is frankly not worth the risk. 90% of the Florida populace could go into active revolt against the Bush administration and it still wouldn't be worth it, because Jeb still owns the shop.

Discuss.

[aldian159]

1. What's the color scheme mean, Will?

I'm a tad lost.

[WilliamPitt]

4. No idea

I googled '2004 electoral college' in google images, and this came up.

[SaveElmer]

8. I think it is showing the redistribution of electoral votes...

[KC21304]

24. Yes, Wisconsin lost one, and we lost a great Rep in Tom Barrett.

[WI_DEM]

2. in my humble opinion

Kerry would be best to choose someone from the midwest or west. The south will be largely a lost cause. I think if he goes with a midwestner his best choice would be Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa as Iowa is a toss up state. Harkin is also close with organized labor and has a much more electrifying stump style than Kerry. He is also a wicked debator.

In the west if he can get Gov. Richardson of NM--I think he would be a wonderful choice. He has a ton of experience and being a latino will be helpful nationally with a crucial voting bloc.

[katieforeman]

27. I like Harkin and Richardson but....

We need to look at the big picture when choosing a vp. That means looking at their negatives as well as their positives.

True, Tom Harkin is from the Midwest but he is extremely liberal and would not have the appeal we need with the disaffected republicans and Independents that we will need to win in states like OH. Harkin being on the ticket would make it even easier for Repubs to paint Democratic ticket as too liberal for mainstream America. Furthermore, he has been in the Senate even longer than kerry (I think). We have to defend Kerry's 19 year voting record. Do we want to have to defend Harkin's too? (This same argument applies to Gephart.)

Richardson was Secratary at the Department of Energy during a spy scandel. He managed to get blamed (unfairly) for the whole thing. He may help with the Latino vote but he could turn off far-more swing voters because of his role in the whole affair. Richardson's tenure at the department of energy is a huge liability in an election shaping up around national security.

Edwrads has demonstrated appeal to Independents and Republicans during the primary process. I'm from OH and I know he could help us win there.

Edwards is a disciplined candidate with a short voting record. He brings virtually no negatives to the ticket.

Edwards is the best campaigner in the party today. He has appeal in all of the battleground states. I think it's a mistake to focus on a vp choice based sloely on the assumption that he'll carry his own state. Remember Gore didn't win TN in 2000 and Gephart lost IA, his neighboring state, in the primary. In this age of national media, state of origin matters less and less. We need a candidate like Edwards who appeals to swing voters and moderates in all of the battleground states and who doesn't bring any negatives that could hurt the ticket.

[SaveElmer]

3. My feelings exactly

And I would add making a play for Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Montana!!!

[dmkinsey]

5. I like your thinkin' Will

You've put up a solid argument.
I know we can't ignore the South but we can't waste our effort either.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[YNGW]

7. Ignore the South...

.... and even if you do win the GE without a single Southern state, you'll pay holy hell for it from the South in the next 4 years. Congress. No, it's not a threat. It's politics.

Tough call.

[AP]

Ignore the south, and we probably lose the senate seats up for grabs,

which gets congress closer to being even fillibuster proof.

Also, does anyone fear that if Bush doesn't have to spend millions in the south, he could spend it all in CA and, perhaps, win there? He's going to have Arnold helping him out there.

[WilliamPitt]

10. You have to campaign down there

for that very reason and others, but I'm talking about the allocation of fundamental resources. The reasons why Kerry won't win down there are the same reasons why Congress will continue to be Southern-Republican dominated. We can't change that before November.

[YNGW]

21. True, Will.

And I'll give you that point. I'd like to think that Kerry should have all the states in play. He is running for President of the United States, not just some. I know there's strategy involved, but I think Bush is going at it like all the states are in play, and if Kerry doesn't campaign in the same manner,....

Like I said, tough call.

[VelmaD]

9. I have never been so sad to have to agree with you

My whole yellow dog family lives in states in the South where we don't have a chance in hell.

One thing I do agree with though is that we also can't discount the South completely. Pulling that 40-45% in some Southern states is important to our ability to claim we have a real mandate from the majority of Americans.

My crazy goal is to see Kerry pull 45% in Texas so that chimpy knows when he comes back here that a whole hell of a lot of us don't want him here.

[goodhue]

11. right on

Focus should be OH, MO, WI, MI, PA, IA, MN.
Issue should be jobs, fair trade, health care, hope.

[Protagoras]

31. The turnout in Missouri

and the HUGE anger at asscrack shows this swing state is really up for grabs. Geppy doesn't swing votes there anymore..>DEMOCRATS swing votes...but interestingly Edwards got 25% of the vote...makes me wonder about the need of a midwesterner vs a populist on the ticket. Win Missouri and you win the election this year if all we do is hold what we had before.

But I predict we're going to swing a suprising number of those states even if we don't pick the right VP because frankly...people are sick of Bush and his lies.

[unfrigginreal]

12. His strategy should be to ignore the South

Once Kerry became the presumed nominee any chance of making headway in the South was lost. He just will not be popular with the Southern voter after the right starts tagging him.

The real problem is that this puts all the downticket races in jeopardy and may actually strengthen the GOP grip on Congress. The reason Kerry should ignore the South is because he MUST win the Presidency to counter the GOP Congress. He should spend the resources in the Midwest and Southwest where we've been making some progress.

[Dhalgren]

13. Great analysis, Will. And right, in this Southener's opinion.

Make Bush spend his maney down here, but don't waste our own - that's the ticket. Some day the South might wake up and join the rest of the nation - who knows - but not this year.

[AndyTiedye]

40. It Would Be Nice to Win One Southern State, But We Must Not Count on It

Bush* has enough money to saturate every state from now until November.
We don't.

[BootinUp]

14. Why this is not a good idea

If we don't play hard in key southern states and instead, just go for a comfortable loss 40-45% like you say, we will continue to lose Democrats in the South. Our chances of EVER winning back Congress or the Senate continue to get worse.

You have to play if you want to win. We should invest in key Southern States where we have done well in recent Presidential elections. Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Florida.


And Finally:

Hey I'm in Bush country, don't LEAVE ME HERE! Yeeeeaaaarrrrrgghh!

[Maddy McCall]

I say the same thing: I'm not ready to write me off. :-)

:hi: Jim

[carolinayellowdog]

15. False Dilemma aka Excluded Middle Fallacy

You present two options as if they are exhaustive when in fact there are others. The smart alternative to giving up on Southern electoral votes entirely isn't to fight in every unwinnable Southern state, but to focus on the handful that are winnable: LA, AR, TN, FL. Especially the first two.

[virgdem]

16. I agree - the South should not be ignored -

however, certain states should be targeted, such as Louisiana, which just elected a Democratic governor and has two Dem senators. In targeting those states that are in play for us, we don't waste our resources trying to win states that we know from experience will go to Bush.

[Maddy McCall]

17. Why I don't agree.

One of the great coups of the 20th century was that Republicans made themselves into a truly NATIONWIDE party.

You are advocating that we pull back in areas where we don't have strong support, especially in the deep south. In essence, this is advocating making the Democratic Party a REGIONAL party. We should aspire to grow our party, not prune it.

You don't have to "spend a ton of money" in the "hopeless" states--but you do have to keep Democrats (like ME, dammit *stomps foot* ;-) ) involved and engaged in the party. You certainly don't want to send a message to states like Mississippi, which is just slightly less than 50% Democratic, that we aren't worthy of National party efforts. Why hand the rest of us (not meaning me, but other southern democrats) over to the REpublicans. We KNOW that Democrats don't have the same funding as Republicans and we DON'T expect the Democratic party to invest as heavily in our state as the Repubs will, but to just close the door on us is to sabotage the entire party.

And, Will, you know I love ya, but let me add this: When did Southern Democrats (ya know, we did have a little something to do with the creation of this party) lose their right to have a say in the strategy that affects us?

The problem with "forgetting" us is that it will have a downward coattails effect. If you don't think it is worth the party's time or money to run and run hard in the south, then how do you think House and Senate (and all those important statewide office) elections will play out?

It's dangerous to shut the door on any region. I hope you reconsider your proposal. :-)

And on edit, I also hope you will consider posting a "The Merits of Including Southerners in the Democratic Party" thread today. :-) :hi:

[WilliamPitt]

19. "The Merits of Including Southerners in the Democratic Party"

I'll leave that to my dad: www.aladems.org

[Maddy McCall]

22. I know you are a son of the South...

That's why I would love to hear you discuss it.

:-)

And on edit, after briefly perusing that site, I am even further convinced that we don't need to relinquish the south. That site demonstrates how Bush is neglecting the states he hopes to pick up in November. We have opportunity there...as a part of the Democratic party, I am not ready to write me off. :-)

[WiseMen]

18. Entirely Correct. Southern Strategy NOT Possible with Nader Treatening

some states. Now Kerry has to take a conservative approach as
suggested.

I am not sure that this entirely determines the choice of
running mate. Even if Kerry chooses a southern V.P. he cannot try a
Southern strategy without an unassailable margin in the Gore 2000 states.
The current polls show that this won't be possible with
Nader in the race -- polls will show Nader getting good percent in
these states until the election nears.

Kerry may still choose a southerner as long as he polls well in
the target states in the swing states.

[ringmastery]

20. We have to cherry pick in the south, spend some money and

Concentrate on Florida, Louisana, Arkanas, and Virginia.

Maybe North Carolina too if Edwards is VP.

The rest of the south is not-winnable and should be written off and ignored, IMO.

You won't see the republicans trying to win Massachusetts or much of the northeast.

[carolinayellowdog]

35. TN might be a cherry, but VA's a pit

which I'm sad to say as a Virginia voter. Historically, TN has been winnable for the Dems and while VA is changing demographically I don't think it's nearly as much so.

[ringmastery]

36. If Gore couldn't win Tennessee

no way Kerry could.

[BootinUp]

38. I'm not sure I agree

But if you are right then you just wrote our epitaph.

[DinahMoeHum]

23. What about Arizona? and/or even Colorado??

They're not exactly happy out there with * either.


:kick:

[WilliamPitt]

25. Yeah, but...

One of the reasons California has become a reliable Democratic state is that the Reagan folk repopulated Arizona and Colorado - more land, less 'brown people,' etc. California is ours now, but Phoenix and Denver belong to them. Look at the Senators.

[Maddy McCall]

26. California has a Republican governor...

:shrug:

[WilliamPitt]

32. California has a movie star

People will vote for the most famous name on the ballot. That's how W. got his start in Texas; he was a celebrity down there. Totally different ballgame.

[curse10]

45. No way Colorado will go dem

It's repub heaven out there.

[littlejoe]

28. The focus should be on Missouri and Ohio, where there has been

a severe hemmohraging of jobs. These two states are going to be ripe for the picking with some hard work and decent voter turnout.

[no name no slogan]

43. Exactly. All we need in 2004 is Gore's 2000 plus Ohio

If we got the same states Gore got in 2000, plus one large midwestern state (like Ohio or Missouri) we'd win enough electoral votes. If we took Ohio, we'd even have a margin big enough to overcome any Bushco cheating in FL.

The Dems REALLY need to concentrate on the populist economic issues in this election if we want to win. Don't play the Rethug game on this, because they'll use the cultural issues to try and divide us.

If we just hammer home the economics (jobs, wages, workers rights) we will get our base out to vote. And that will win it for us in November.

[sandnsea]

29. Nev - Yucca Mtn

That's totally doable. That would leave Arizona in that region. Could Richardson pull it in? That's the win too. Do we go with optimism and energy, Edwards? Do we go with latinos and foreign policy, Richardson? Gephardt, anti-Nafta, unions, OH & MO? Nelson, foreign policy and Florida? Don't know, just don't know. I'm still thinking we need that Edwards energy in the campaign. Does anybody else bring that same electricity?

[QC]

30. Why does everyone assume that Ohio is a gimme?

It's gone Republican in four of the past six elections, six of the past ten and has a governor named Taft, for heaven's sake, and yet it's conventional wisdom in these parts that Ohio is a Democratic state. The most optimistic way to characterize Ohio, though, is as a generally Republican state that occasionally goes Democratic.

And I have to echo the points that others have made here, namely that there's a lot more to politics than the White House, and that if there is a public perception that the Democratic Party has told the South to go to hell, then our Democratic legislators, governors, congress members, and senators are doomed, along with our chances of taking back Congress or preventing an epidemic of Delay-style redistricting.

Further, just handing Bush a bloc of states that represents about half of the electoral votes needed to win simply allows him to dump his $200,000,000 in our states.

I agree that we should prioritize, which means not making an all out push for states like Mississippi and my native Alabama, but that's a whole other thing than what many have suggested, which is pretending that everything south of Maryland and east of New Mexico just doesn't exist.

[WilliamPitt]

33. I certainly don't see it as a gimme

Far from it. But Clinton won it twice, and No Republican has ever won the White House without it. That makes it gold.

[MrBenchley]

34. Look at the Southern strategy...

Pandering to it will lose the base elsewhere....

How many people want to vote for somebody who's even going to pretend the South should have won the Civil War...or pretend the Confederate flag isn't shorthand for racism...or pretend science ought to be jettisoned from the public schools in favor of superstition?

[carolinayellowdog]

37. No such animal

What possible Southern running mate would have taken such positions? No Dems I can think of (not counting the turncoat in GA.)

[Armstead]

39. Virginia and Florida

Were I in Strategy Central, I'd agree with most of that. I would, howevr, place emphasis on Fla. and Virginia.

Jeb owns the shop, but it still was a very close one. And, if you figue there are differences from 2000 like less of a Nader/Green factor, increased voter awareness about the process and more watchdog-ing, it still could tip Democratic.

And Virginia is sort of a Red/Blue state, if you figure in the northern suburbs, Charlottesville and urban areas and a Democratic governor. So it's not automatically blue this time, if there is a more energized Democratic "base."

But as a genral rule, while the hard south shouldn't be written off, it is possible to win without pandering to the right-wing mentality there.

[AndyTiedye]

41. Bush* OWNS Florida's Votes, and Nader is Back

We cannot possibly get enough votes in Florida to prevent them from stealing it.

[David Zephyr]

42. The Southwest.

Well, we agree on the futility of chasing most of the South for electoral votes that are un-winnable. I've been saying this for a long time and hopefully many here at the DU who are Southern can understand that it is not a snub, but a recognition that most of those states are out of reach...especially where Democrats have few dollars and resources with which to speculate. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=424822

I think you are probably right about Florida. If it were mine to call, I would work it only to keep the Republican there, but I would not count on it. We threw everything, but the kitchen sink at Florida in 2002 and lost big time.

By the way, Arkansas was lost to Bush by Gore by only 50,000 votes. I think Arkansas is a ripe target for Kerry with some extra help from Clark, besides Clinton this time.

We should spend like hell in West Virginia to get that state back.

After that, the Rust Belt and the Southwest are ripe for picking.

Edited to omit my mistake.

[GumboYaYa]

44. You paint with too broad of a brush.

The South is not a monolith. Two states in particular, Louisiana and Arkansas are trending Democrat. LA just elected a Dem govenor. They also elected Mary Landrieu in 2002 when so-called Dem states like MN and MD were electing Republicans. Arkansas elected a Dem senator in 2002 over an incumbent Repub. Both of these states went to Clinton both times Clinton ran.

I'm no proponent of picking a running mate or advocating positions to appease the South, but to say you should ignoe the facts on the ground in particular southern states is just foolhardy. I think we should focus on any state that is trending Dem and try to win there.

Regionalization of strategy is superficial analysis that should be rejected by anyone familiar with actual voting trends.