since 1948 no Democrat has ever won without either a Southerner or border state candidate on the

Douglas Carpenter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-11-08 09:29 AM
Original message

since 1948 no Democrat has ever won without either a Southerner or border state candidate on the

Edited on Sun May-11-08 09:30 AM by Douglas Carpenter

ticket. And an Obama/Clinton ticket would simply be too urbane to make a respectable enough showing in the largely rural parts of America which along with the outer suburbs is a great deal of the country.

There is a new conventional wisdom that says that the West which used to be solid GOP territory - but now is in contention could replace the South as the region that needs at least one Democrat on the ticket. Yes, technically speaking Illinois like California might be considered "the West". But it is not "West enough" - culturally speaking.

Strategically speaking, I don't see a whole lot of advantage for Hillary running as the V.P. It might help "unify the party" as they say..but since 1948 no Democrat has ever won the Presidency without at least one Southerner or border state candidate on the ticket. There would be no geographic regional balance from an Obama/Clinton ticket.

In 1960 LBJ was chosen because they knew that without him there was no possibility whatsoever of JFK carrying Texas and without at least one Southerner on the ticket - Nixon would have easily swept the entire South including Texas effortlessly. They needed Lyndon to win. They would have lost without him.

Also, Hillary's greatest weakness in the general election is that she has almost no cross over appeal. She is deeply despised by almost all Republicans and has considerably less support among independents than Sen. McCain. Although she has poled better than Obama among white male Democrats - as a demographic she is generally disliked by independent white male working class voters if positioned in a general election, and all the more so in the South, the West and in small towns and mid size cities.

In order to win, the Democrats have to have a ticket that can carry at least some states from either the West, the South or Southern border states while making a respectable showing in small towns and mid size cities across America.

Although it is a given that McCain and the Republicans will almost certainly win most of rural America and most white males votes -- in order to win - the Democrats have to make a respectable showing in rural America and among white males. I cannot see how Hillary on the ticket would strengthen the ticket in either the West or the South (including border states) or strengthen the ticket among white males and or help make a respectable showing in small town and mid size city America.

Obama's weakest points in a general election is in Southern and border states and among white males and in small towns/mid size cities. In the state by state counting that Obama would need in order to win a general election this would play out very differently than exclusive Democratic Party caucuses and primaries in places like Wyoming or North Carolina.

For Sen. Obama to win I cannot see how he can do it without broadening his appeal in these areas. And I do not see how Hillary would be anything but a hindrance. So from my point of view, the V.P. candidate needs to be a populist Southerner or Westerner or border stater who appeals to white males and who would have appeal in small towns and mid size cities.