TNR: How Dean Wins While Getting Obliterated in the South

[dkf]

http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml

HOW DEAN WINS WHILE GETTING OBLITERATED IN THE SOUTH: This Los Angeles Times article detailing how thoroughly the Democratic Party has been wiped out in Kentucky--a state Bill Clinton actually won in both 1992 and 1996--would seem like really, really bad news for the Democrats' national aspirations. If Democrats can't even compete (let alone win) moderate Southern and border states like Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee, the article quite plausibly suggests, they don't have much of a chance of capturing the presidency any time soon.

Maybe that's right. Maybe not. But, either way, the piece omits a couple of important caveats. First, for just about every Kentucky or Louisiana (i.e., states where a national Democrat was competitive as recently as 1996 but which are now long shots for Democrats) there's a New Jersey or a California (i.e., states where a national Republican was competitive as recently as 1992 but which are now long shots for Republicans). TNR's own John Judis has spent a lot of time documenting this phenomenon, and it's one of the things moves him to predict that Democrats will become the country's dominant party some time over the next decade.

The second, related point is that while there are probably roughly equal numbers of normally Democratic-leaning states that are now in play for Republicans (certainly West Virginia, maybe Pennsylvania and Michigan, depending on how Democratic you think they were in the past), there are at least as many, and probably more, normally Republican-leaning states that are increasingly in play for the Democrats (certainly New Mexico, Florida, and Arizona, probably Colorado and Nevada as well). The important point here is that, thanks to a variety of demographic trends (the most significant being the increasing number of Latino voters across the sunbelt), there are probably more of these states coming down the pike for Democrats over the next decade than for Republicans. (Uncle Judis also deserves credit for this insight.)

And the final point to keep in mind is that the development the Times describes doesn't necessarily even doom Democrats (and no, Jon, not even Howard Dean) this time around. The reason is that, while Southern red states, like Kentucky and Tennessee and Georgia, have probably only gotten redder since the 2000 election, East and West coast states like California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Connecticut, and Maine have probably only gotten bluer. Bush, after all, is a highly polarizing figure. Particularly to the 50-odd percent of the country that either consistently expresses misgivings about the war in Iraq or outright opposed it--a 50 percent that's highly concentrated in these states. Throw in the fact that Ralph Nader probably won't be siphoning of three, four, five percent from a Democratic candidate in these states in 2004, and the various culture-war issues, like abortion, religiosity, and gay marriage, which Republicans plan to have a field day with in the South, and, well, you get the idea.

more

[auntpattywatty]

1. The key word is "if"

[xchrom]

2. the most important trend

and the one that is ignored is rising voter non-participation or voter apathy.
if people don't vote or have an attitude that government doesn't represent them or affect their lives then this republic is signing itself over to miniority rule.
it's incredibly important that the citizentry is feeling this disconnect. in fact i think it's been the critical factor since reagan.
if people don't vote then they have no real political leanings one way or the other.

[BJ]

3. Isn't it time to tell white Southerners they're stupid?

Tell them that in voting Repug they're voting against their own best self-interest?

Tell the NASCAR-dad-moron crowd that they have more in common with poor southern blacks than the suits in the White House, Wall Street and Houston?

Tell the merry-wives of the KKK that "culture-war issues" do not put a paycheck in the pocket, food on the table, a roof over the head and an education for Johnny-Ray and Betty-Sue?

[HereSince1628]

7. cheesl, not in such words I hope.

Winning the hearts and minds will be tough if it begins with "Hey you NASCAR dad moron."

I trust all the candidates are rhetorically better equipped.

[forgethell]

17. Still, not every body

is interested in simple economic considerations. If they were, why we on DU and the Democratic Party would give up our support of gay issues, and our pro-choice preferences, and our support of the anti-war position, so that the white southerners could see where their economic interests lie.

We don't because these things are more important to us than winning is, and I think than economics would be if we had to choose. Same for them. That may make them wrong, but it doesn't make them stupid.

[LiberalBushFan]

4. let's not and say we did n/m

[KoKo]

5. I don't see NC listed as a possible swing state in any of these articles.

Can't imagine that NC given all the job losses is in Bush's back pocket.

[dolstein]

6. What the "We Don't Need the South" crowd keeps ignoring

is (1) the red states will have more electoral votes in 2004 than they did in 2000, (2) Bush doesn't need the Northeast, (3) Bush doesn't need the West Coast and (3) if the Democrats write off the South, Bush can concentrate all of his formidable resources (at least $170 million) on the Midwest and Southwest.

People conveniently ignore just how hard Bush had to work to carry states like Florida*, Missouri, Tennessee and Arkansas. Why should we give him a free ride in these states by nominating someone like Dean?

[CTLawGuy]

8. we still don't need any of the 10 Southern states

by Southern State I mean: LA, AR, KY, TN, GA, NC, SC, VA, MS, AL.

With all the Gore states plus FL, we still win.

[Cheswick2.0]

10. and a few of the western state that were lost are certainly in play

I don't know why people keep insisting they can look at old maps and decipher what happens in 2004. It is always a new ball game with new players.

[gttim]

12. Your forgot

Gore won Florida in 2000.

[dolstein]

13. You forgot

That IF Gore won, it was by at most a slim fraction of one percent. That doesn't make Florida a Democratic state -- not by a long shot.

You also forogt that not just any Democrat could carry Florida. Certainly not Dean.

[maha]

16. It's not just the South.

If you think culturally instead of geographically, the "South" takes up most of the Midwest and some of the western states. The same cultural factors that make Dean unpalatable in Alabama also are at play in Missouri and Indiana and many other states that are not "southern." A candidate who has no appeal to southerners will have no appeal to much of the Midwest as well.

[forgethell]

18. I don't have a link, but

if memory serves, some of those Gore states were pretty close

[dolstein]

19. You are correct, sir

Gore carried states like New Mexico, Iowa, and Wisconsin by exceedingly slim margins (close enough for recounts). Oregon and Minnesota were also very close, and even states like Michigan and Pennsylvania were too close for comfort. Anyone who assumes that Dean starts with all the blue states in his corner clearly assumes too much.

[CWebster]

22. It is amazing

the way we are told that Dean is sure to lose from supporters of candidates who can't hold a candle to Dean. what is wrong with this picture?

[forgethell]

31. I'm not saying Dean will lose

I'm saying, as a Southerner, that those who would write off the South are making a mistake. If the Dems do write off the South, then maybe they will deserve to lose, for the same reason Repukes deserve to lose: stupidity.

I don't think Dean is stupid. He knows he has to take a Southern state, or two. Look at his recent actions and comments.

[HFishbine]

20. Forgethell

You might find this site interesting:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/frametextj.html

[forgethell]

33. It is indeed

thank you

[Cheswick2.0]

9. it is not "we don't need the south"

It is "we don't need to pander to the worst of the south". Understanding this is what makes Dean a superior candidate to win southern states. Even people in the south can understand the need for jobs and health care. I think they are plenty smart enough to understand they have been had by the republicans "southern strategy"... if only someone would have the guts to tell them so in an inclusive way. Dean is going to do just fine in the south.

[dolstein]

14. Sorry to break this to you, but Dean will get crushed in the South

It'll be a bloodbath. The fact of the matter is that someone with Dean's background won't even get a chance to make his case. He can talk about jobs and health care all he wants and it won't make a difference -- the people he needs to reach won't be listening. They'll already have written him off.

[Brian_Expat]

29. Why should the rest of us change our strategy

To accommodate stupid people? If you're so bigoted that you're not willing to give another candidate a chance just because of where he's from, you deserve Dubya.

[paulk]

15. wishful thinking is not a good campaign strategy

Dean is not a "superior candidate to win the south". That's laughable. TNR makes an outside case for winning without the south - but to just say that Dean is a good southern candidate borders on fantasy.

Fantasy doesn't win elections, and to see this kind of thinking from the Dean camp scares the living shit out of me.

[NewJerseyDem]

24. But we could focus our resources on the midwest too

If democrats send money to try to win southern states like Arkansas then the democratic nominee won't have as much money to fight in the midwest. Bush will have more money and will be able to send some money to fight in the south but he will still have more than us in the midwest

I think that we should compete in some parts of the south. Certainly Florida is in play. Those 27 electoral votes would be very helpful. I think that Arkansas is in play, especially if Clark is the nominee. Louisiana has an increasing black population and has been good for democrats recently however I doubt that a northerner could win there or in an increasingly democratic Virginia. Border states like West Virginia and Missouri should also be contested. In general, if Edwards or Clark is the nominee we should contest more southern states than if we have a northerner. However, the main battle should be in the midwest and the southwest.

I don't think we can completely write off the entire south just like how Bush won't write off the entire norhteast. He will compete in Maine, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. However, we have to realize that most of the south is a lost cause in 2004.

[beyurslf]

11. I for one am all about ignoring the South

with maybe the exception of Florida and West Virginia. Why should we pander to the Dixiecrat crowd when the screw us in the end anyway? Concentrate on the industrial Midwest (MI, OH, IL) and the southwest (NM, AZ, NV).

BTW, I come from a state that hasn't Dem candidate campaign in it for decades (KS). If your state is solidly Repub and continuing to trend that way (ie: most of the south) just get used to it.

[Toot]

23. I agree

I'm in Georgia, voted for Zell to be senator:puke:, and don't see a Dem candidate winning this state. The ex-governor of Georgia, Democrat, was basically voted out because he dared to have the state flag changed to remove the confederate part.

I feel our candidate should state their message all over, but don't waste a lot of time in states like Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi,

[newyawker99]

26. Hi Toot!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[BobbyJay]

21. Dean can win without the South by winning all the Gore states + Ohio

or plus AZ, NH.

The likelihood that Dean wins all the Gore states is what troubles me.

[tedoll78]

27. Here's how Dean wins.

Gore states equal 260EVs. Dean's nomination pretty much locks-up most of the northeast and the west coast. Of the Gore states, Dean would need to concentrate on:
OR/NM/IA/MN/MI/PA.
It's of incredible benefit that Nader isn't running as a Green. This 1/2/3% will help immensely in holding-onto most of those states. Dean's NRA credentials will help with most of them also.

We then should focus on these states that Bush barely won, worth 30EVs: OH/NV/WV.
If we win any two plus the Gore states, we win the whole thing.
(I would consider Florida, but I don't trust Jeb any more than I can throw him.)

- Ohio is economically wrecked. Tons of job losses in the manufacturing sector. And again, the NRA wouldn't be breathing down our neck.
- WV isn't doing so hot job-wise. And Dean won't be labeled an enviro-whacko like Gore. And once again, the NRA will be neutered.
- We should milk Yucca Mountain in NV for everything it's worth. Also keep in mind that Las Vegas is one of the nation's most rapidly-expanding metropolises in the country.. a good GOTV operation there is essential. Senator Harry Reid's re-election is looking really solid right now; the GOP can't find a good candidate against him, which could really demoralize their base in this state.

But we should also force Bush to spend time and money in the South. Which is where some campaign trickery comes into the picture. It's not illegal, but it is shady and will require tight lips within the Dean campaign.

We fake interest in certain southern states. Those states are:
FL/LA/AR/TN.
Here's how we fake the Bush team out:
- The campaign "leaks" false polling numbers once in a while showing the race there too close to call; this will trigger doubt in the Bush team's mind, and more resources will be directed there.
- The VP nominee spends 1/3 of his/her time there in those states, as a decoy. The media will be following that person everywhere (s)he goes, and will help convey the idea that we aren't ceding these areas.
- The campaign carefully coordinates the release of video publicity footage of its workers and volunteers supposedly "swarming" these states. Registering voters, going from door-to-door.. that kinda thing. If the Bush campaign sees us doing this, they will feel the need to at least match it.
- We advertise on TV nominally. A small budget. And we claim that money that would otherwise go to TV ads is instead going to GOTV operations.
- We let residents of these states take their areas into their own hands. The Dean campaign has been extremely successful with ceding power to local control. That way, if these residents are well-organized, we actually have a shot at one or two of them.

For the 9 states above, we need a world-class GOTV operation. George Soros and ACT is concentrating their millions on GOTV ops in 19 of the closest states, so that will help. And if Dean is the nominee and this pattern of him bringing new people into the voting process holds, we could see 3 or 4 million brand new voters at the polls next year. (I have the distinct feeling that this election will be another 50-50 deal, and that those few million voters will make a difference.)

The author of this article is correct in one thing: the Blue and Reds are returning from post-9/11 unity back to their polarized states. Bush's approval rating as an average across the country is only high because the red states keep it from sinking. If we remove the solid Red States from the average calculations, his approval/re-election average sinks like a stone. And what's more, recent polls show independent voters wary of re-electing Bush - Good news for whomever our nominee is.

I honestly think that Dean can win this whole thing. Certain conservative elements of his record, the probability of new voters participating, the help of Soros & ACT, , a fired-up Dem base (allowing Dean flexibility to pursue the Mushy Middle), the certainty that Dean's campaign will be better-run than ours in 2000.. things aren't as glum as many would paint them to be. Gore was 10 to 15% behind Bush for most of 1999 and 2000.. I know we can do this.

[bearfartinthewoods]

30. wasn't dean all for shipping NH's nuke waste to yucca?

[leyton]

25. No southern sweep here, but....

Perhaps Dean should focus his resources on a few choice states in the south that are most likely to swing his way. Instead of spending roughly equal (or proportional) amounts on all the southern states, he should try and pick off the states that could go his way (WV, Louisiana, Florida) and just leave the rest alone.

I don't know how the logistics of this would work either, but it would be advantageous for him if he could focus his grassroots support (Meetups, etc.) from the various southern states he couldn't possibly win on these states he could win. If people are willing to go campaign for him in Iowa and New Hampshire, perhaps they'd be willing to flood West Virginia, Louisiana, and Florida in order to help them swing Dean.

[nancyharris]

28. This poll is a couple months old but Dean may not even win Vermont

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/55296.html

[mandyky]

32. Boward Bean, huh?

How did they come up with that one?