Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 August
2007 July
2006 May
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
My Links
Courage Campaign
Ethnic Press
Right Wing Watch
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| Democrat Can Win Presidency Without the South |
| 11.25.03 (11:02 am) [edit] |
[b]One suggested tactic for 2004 is to cede the region to Bush. But history argues against it.[/b]
Fearing that their next presidential nominee could bomb in Dixie, many Democrats are hinting that it might be smart for the party to virtually write off the Deep South and pursue victory elsewhere.
Officially, Democrats declare that they will compete with President Bush everywhere in the nation. But, privately, there is serious concern that their nominee will lose every state of the Old Confederacy, with the possible exception of Florida - a scenario that seems especially likely if they choose Howard Dean, the antiwar Vermont Yankee who, as governor, signed a bill legalizing gay civil unions.
A Dixie strategy has always seemed essential; no Democrat has ever been elected president without winning at least a few Southern states. But, faced with Bush's strong popularity in that GOP-trending region, Democratic operatives seem willing to entertain a strategy that would defy history: assembling an Electoral College majority from states in the Northeast, Midwest, Southwest and on the West Coast. After all, their 2000 nominee, Al Gore, almost pulled it off.
Many Democrats seem tempted by the idea. On a radio show last week, Democratic candidate John Kerry said that, yes, it was important to compete in the South, but he pointed out that Gore, who was shut out in Dixie, still would have won his race if tiny New Hampshire had not backed Bush - the sole state in the Northeast to do so. Dean's campaign manager has made the same argument.
The national party, meanwhile, has drawn up a list of 17 to 21 "battleground states" for the 2004 election, and virtually none are in Dixie, with the most notable exception of Florida. And a well-financed Democratic voter-mobilization group, America Coming Together, is targeting 17 states, including Pennsylvania - yet only two, Florida and Arkansas, are located below the Mason-Dixon Line.
Indeed, targeting is now in vogue. Democratic strategist Tom Lindenfeld, who believes in theory that the nominee should compete everywhere, nevertheless said: "It's not clear that if we take our limited resources and spread them everywhere, that it's a wise use of those resources." Top priority, he said, "should go to the states that Bush won narrowly last time [by 5 percent or less]. That's the basis for our future."
And that would virtually eliminate the South. With the exception of Florida and Tennessee (Gore's home state), the remaining nine states of the Old Confederacy backed Bush in 2000 by margins ranging from 6 to 21 points. Southern observers expect a repeat next year; North Carolina political analyst Ted Arrington said: "I'd tell the Democrats: 'Forget it, boys. Write off the South this time. Throw out the history books.' "
History shows that Democrats have never won without some Southern success; that Bill Clinton won four Old Confederacy states in 1992 and 1996; that Jimmy Carter virtually swept the region in 1976; that, by contrast, Gore, Michael Dukakis (1988) and Walter Mondale (1984) won nothing; and that a non-Southern Democrat has not won the White House since John F. Kennedy (1960).
Respecting this history, many Democrats remain adamant that the region should not be ceded to the GOP. Dumping Dixie means that their presidential nominee would have to win 70 percent of the electoral votes everywhere else - including all the states that Gore barely won: Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon and Wisconsin. Moreover, the Old Confederacy in 2004 will have more clout than ever; thanks to population growth, those states will command 153 electoral votes, six more than in 2000.
Mississippi Democratic chairman Rickey Coles said: "Ignoring the South is no way to build a national party. That just allows the party to wither on the vine. All this 'targeting,' all this whimpering and whining about 'limited resources,' obscures the fact that even if the nominee wins the presidency without the South, he wouldn't be a true national leader with a national constituency."
Ruy Teixeira, a liberal Democratic expert on voting trends, understands the temptation to write off Dixie - "It's common sense, you go hunt where the ducks are" - but he said that such a "wholesale abandonment" would send a bad message about the party.
"It would imply that we see all Southerners as a culturally alien mass that we don't know how to talk to," he said. "And that would further skew our image, identifying us even more with upscale social liberalism - which is a tendency that we already have."
South Carolina Democratic activist Phil Noble said: "There's a lot of thinking inside the [Washington] Beltway about writing us off, but that's a bad perspective. Sure, if the election was held today, Dean wouldn't win in the South. But the South has an independent, rebellious streak, and so does Dean. He could appeal to that."
Noble said that Democrats could win Southern states by demonstrating that whites and blacks with modest incomes share the same economic concerns.
He said: "We have a lot of folks without health insurance, and their children are suffering. Dean's hands-on experience with health care could have a lot of appeal."
Some Democrats also argue that Bush's standing as a war leader could suffer next year, even in the pro-military South, if the families of soldiers serving abroad become seriously restive about Iraq.
However, out in cyberspace, where front-runner Dean's fans talk politics, the Southern strategy is garnering some bad reviews. On a Web site called Independents for Dean, "Doug" makes the case for ceding Dixie to Bush: "Let NASCAR bumpkins have their W. They are not voting for any Dem anyway."
And, the optimists notwithstanding, Dean may indeed face hurdles in the South, if he is the nominee. His civil union law will not play well among cultural conservatives; his antiwar stance and faint praise for the coup against Saddam Hussein ("I suppose that's a good thing") may ring hollow in the nation's most hawkish region; his proposed repeal of Bush's tax cuts may not sway Southern whites, who generally like the GOP's low-tax philosophy; and his call last Monday for business "re-regulation" clashes with the free enterprise credo.
Worse yet, his professed desire to be the candidate "for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks" has alienated many Southern whites. Some thought that Dean's Oct. 31 remark tagged them all as racist hicks; and those who respect the Confederate heritage were incensed when Dean later apologized, calling the flag "a painful symbol of racism and slavery." As flag supporter Jim Dean (no relation), an estate planner in suburban Atlanta, remarked the other day: "Nobody bought the Dean ploy."
Merle Black, a Georgia political analyst, said: "[Howard] Dean was trying to say that lower-class Southern whites and blacks should be voting together on economic issues, but, by throwing the Confederate flag into it, he showed his lack of touch for Southern politics. It made him look culturally distant from the region."
Black noted that, increasingly, the typical Southern voter is a young married suburbanite who came of age during the Ronald Reagan era, when conservative Republicans made major inroads in the South; these voters are now fueling the GOP's rise to majority status. Last year alone, three Southern Democratic governors and a Southern Democratic senator were ousted, and four Democratic senatorial candidates lost races for open seats.
For these reasons, he said, "the Democrats, especially with Dean topping the ticket, should see the Northern-Midwestern-West strategy as the way to go. Focus more on states like Ohio," where Bush won last time by only 4 points.
Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist, said it would be wrong to sour on Dixie; however, "you have to follow the numbers and be pragmatic." She is eyeing the Southwest - notably, Nevada (where Bush won by 3 points), and Arizona (Bush by 6). Those states, along with New Mexico, are increasingly home to pro-Democratic Latinos and California expatriates.
Even some Republican strategists are warning colleagues that the Democrats could skip the entire South and still win. Pollster Hans Kaiser said the other day: "They can't win Southern states against a sitting Republican president - but they don't have to. They can do it elsewhere."
And as he wrote in a recent memo about the front-runner's non-Dixie prospects: "We are whistling past the graveyard if we think Howard Dean will be a pushover."
By Dick Polman
Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writer
11/23/03
© Philadelphia Inquirer
|
|
|
| |
posted by: SamAdams (reply)
post date: 11.25.03 (11:13 am)
The Dems could win back the south if they would go down there and talk straight & simply show in stark, dire terms (with the numbers that prove it):
You're Getting Poorer While the Corrupt Bushies & Their Corporate Rapists are Getting Richer
You're Kids are Dying in Iraq While the Bush/Cheney Inc. Brats are Swilling Booze & Bonking Frat Boys
You're Medicare & Social Security Are Being Slashed So that The Bushies can Buy CarLoads of Diamond Tiaras While They Gorge like Pigs-at-the-Trough & Swill Gallons of Wines at Banquets
You are Without Health Care-- While the Bushies Go To WalterReed Medical Center
You are Asked to Pay-Off Highest Debts in History-- While the Bushies & Their Lavishly Obscenely Rich Campaign Contributors POP OPEN THE CHAMPAGNE BOTTLE & LIVE THEIR NEO-BELLE EPOQUE
Your Kids Will Be EnSLAVED to the Bushies-- and will HAVE TO WIPE THEIR SORRY ASSES ... IF YOU DON'T VOTE THESE THUGS, LIARS & GOONS OUT OF OFFICE
posted by: WinstonSmith (reply)
post date: 11.25.03 (11:43 am)
I would be a mistake to ignore the south ... The dems have to go down there-- and show the people how the rich are living in Crawford (compared with Brownsville) and the Hamptons (compared with their poor towns) ... Show the PALACES of the rich and famous in the USA -- and show how the poor will fare under Bush policies for the RICH.
posted by: question (reply)
post date: 11.25.03 (5:11 pm)
Dean will have trouble with Florida, but anyone would. They have some hardcore Bushies there. Another thing he did wrong, he criticized the legislature's act called the SaveTerri Bill, which prevented the starvation of a brain damaged but not comatose 39 year old woman. He mocked the legislature and Gov Bush. This issue was not truly about the right to die, but the right to kill someone because they are unable to speak for themselves. There is an investigation into the cause of the young woman's collapse finally going on now. Also, Howard is for Euthanasia. Bad decision. Then the govt starts euthanizing people, whether they want it or not, because they are a liability to the health care system, like Hitler did. But other than that, I like howard cause he is running on the support of people, not corporations. Good Blog.
posted by: Fre (reply)
post date: 09.27.06 (11:36 am)
Good Site
posted by: vermhsb czod (reply)
post date: 10.25.06 (1:40 pm)
gxksb xtwdrsez fziby dpyqzjlr cwfnbjkp pzqckahtg xwdc
posted by: kenorplts lgekdybsu (reply)
post date: 12.21.06 (1:56 am)
svbpxcwue rgiuxp dgmbt pksi yjlcwmus ukcot gbon
posted by: wyfvbpr cajr (reply)
post date: 12.21.06 (2:11 am)
ojrx tqxsbu gzwtvd aintypc zbcefsvqo wogqrn novdzql
|
|
