5 Southern States

[mtwhitney]

I just heard John Edwards say something interesting. He said that the Democrats have NEVER won the White House without winning at least five southern states.

So, Dean supporters. Which five southern states will Dean win this November?

[opebo]

I just heard John Edwards say something interesting. He said that the Democrats have NEVER won the White House without winning at least five southern states.

So, Dean supporters. Which five southern states will Dean win this November?

Hah, for that matter which five could Edwards possibly carry?  I doubt he'd even carry North Carolina.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Edwards would take Florida and Arkansas in the general.  He may laso take Louisiana, it would be a tossup.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Edwards would take Florida and Arkansas in the general.  He may laso take Louisiana, it would be a tossup.

Edwards couldn't win one Southern state.  And if Clark is the nominee, the news of his forced "retirement" isn't going to sit well in the South.

Dean is the only one with a chance of beating Bush, though he is also much more likely to lose in a landslide.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Jmfcst, are you interested in the Atlas fantasty elections?  You would be a nice and polarising foigure to head the AFRNC!

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The South needs to quit fighting the Civil War and bogging down the rest of the country.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jmfcst, are you interested in the Atlas fantasty elections?  You would be a nice and polarising foigure to head the AFRNC!

I haven't checked them out, but if it is a prediction page: I don't make predictions 10 months out.  To me, Bush still has a chance to win by 20% or lose by 15%.

Bush was above national trendline in every Southern state in 2000 and I think that will hold true in 2004 if the nominee is Edwards, Clark, or Dean.  But Geph would be able to pull Missouri above Geph's national trendline.

[© Tweed the Younger]

It isn't a prediction page JMF.  It is our own elections that we are holding.  Check it out.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jmfcst, are you interested in the Atlas fantasty elections?  You would be a nice and polarising foigure to head the AFRNC!

What and where are these elections?

[© Tweed the Younger]

Jmfcst, are you interested in the Atlas fantasty elections?  You would be a nice and polarising foigure to head the AFRNC!

What and where are these elections?

They have their own topic here at this forum.  Go to the forum index, scrool down, and click on the section entitled "Atlas Fantasy Elections."

[YRABNNRM]

MiamiU, It seems you trying to drive me out as AFRNC Chairman. Care to explain?

[mtwhitney]

See why I hate these fantasy elections? One cannot start a real thread without it sliding into make-believe.

Goodbye and good luck

[Michael Z]

See why I hate these fantasy elections? One cannot start a real thread without it sliding into make-believe.

Goodbye and good luck

Gee, lighten up.

Btw, this wasn't a 'real thread' you started, it was a rhetorical question designed to patronise Democrats.

[mtwhitney]

It was a very serious question. If Howard Dean wants to win the nomination, he should have some sort of plan to win Southern States.

So what is the plan?

It is a serious question about a real topic.

But it looks as if I did not divine the true nature of this forum. Even when the mod set up a separate part for the fantasy people, they continue to hijack other threads. Mine wasn't the only one. So I guessed wrong. This is a forum for people that want fantasy. My mistake.

I don't think that I am of the correct age group anyway. I feel like a father who crashes his daughters slumber party and does not know when to leave. So I will.

[YRABNNRM]

It was a very serious question. If Howard Dean wants to win the nomination, he should have some sort of plan to win Southern States.

So what is the plan?

It is a serious question about a real topic.

But it looks as if I did not divine the true nature of this forum. Even when the mod set up a separate part for the fantasy people, they continue to hijack other threads. Mine wasn't the only one. So I guessed wrong. This is a forum for people that want fantasy. My mistake.

I don't think that I am of the correct age group anyway. I feel like a father who crashes his daughters slumber party and does not know when to leave. So I will.

Im not sure why you feel you're not wanted. I also think this isn't as big a deal as you're making it out to be but I am sorry if I had any part in taking your topic off task.

[Michael Z]

It was a very serious question. If Howard Dean wants to win the nomination, he should have some sort of plan to win Southern States.

So what is the plan?

It is a serious question about a real topic.

But it looks as if I did not divine the true nature of this forum. Even when the mod set up a separate part for the fantasy people, they continue to hijack other threads. Mine wasn't the only one. So I guessed wrong. This is a forum for people that want fantasy. My mistake.

I don't think that I am of the correct age group anyway. I feel like a father who crashes his daughters slumber party and does not know when to leave. So I will.

I'm under the impression that you haven't read the vast majority of threads here which have managed to maintain a serious tone. This whole fantasy election thing was designed to add an element of fun which had previously been lacking.

I also think you'll find that a sizeable amount of the membership here are over the age of 30, and, in the case of Zorkpolitics, over 40. Sure, we have some very young members, but to be fair it is this wide variety of people which has attracted me to this forum in the first place.

As for the nature of this thread, Dean's chances or strategy in the South have already been discussed at great length in other threads, with a furthermore less partisan tone.

I can't help but feel that you are overreacting. Sometimes threads divert from the original topic, that's the chaotic nature of the Internet (especially in a community as closely woven as this). You could simply ask members to get back to the question you asked instead of walking off in a huff like a moody teenager. Honestly, if anyone here is acting immaturely it is you.

But if you feel so strongly about this then I guess it can't be helped.

[© Tweed the Younger]

See why I hate these fantasy elections? One cannot start a real thread without it sliding into make-believe.

Goodbye and good luck

Goodbye.

[Gustaf]

It was a very serious question. If Howard Dean wants to win the nomination, he should have some sort of plan to win Southern States.

So what is the plan?

It is a serious question about a real topic.

But it looks as if I did not divine the true nature of this forum. Even when the mod set up a separate part for the fantasy people, they continue to hijack other threads. Mine wasn't the only one. So I guessed wrong. This is a forum for people that want fantasy. My mistake.

I don't think that I am of the correct age group anyway. I feel like a father who crashes his daughters slumber party and does not know when to leave. So I will.

Wow. That is really patronizing. There is nothing stopping anyone from having a serious discussion. The fantasy elections were not really discussed, news were being pointed out to another member. I think you should lighten up a little and have serious discussions if you want.

And, btw, the election can be won without the south, will probably have to anyway, and, thirdly, Dean is not really in it to win it.  

[© Tweed the Younger]

Let him leave if he wants to Gustaf.  If you beg him to come back, he will.  But guess what?  In another two weeks he will say that we haven't changed at all and get mad again.  It is better to let him leave and forget about him.

[Gustaf]

Let him leave if he wants to Gustaf.  If you beg him to come back, he will.  But guess what?  In another two weeks he will say that we haven't changed at all and get mad again.  It is better to let him leave and forget about him.

I don't think I'm begging him...

I just think he should get a grip, and don't be so insulting. He basically denounced a large portion of the board as immature teenagers, which I think is condescending and patronizing. People who lack a sense of humour should be aware of it, and not take notice of fun stuff which will just make them mad.

[dazzleman]

It may be true that the Democrats have never won the White House without winning at least 5 southern states, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have won the White House with fewer.

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson could have lost the whole south, and still won the election, because he had virtually every other state, admittedly a very unusual circumstance.

In 2000, Al Gore would have won the presidency if he had won even one southern state.

I think that if the Democrats maintain their stranglehold on the northeast and west coast, and do well in the upper midwest, they can win the White House if they can just crack into the south, with as few as one southern state.  Obviously, the more the better from their perspective, but I don't think 5 is a magic number.

I would also say that given the current political configuration of the country, it is unrealistic for the Democrats to think that they can win southern states if they start losing in other sections, like the upper midwest or Oregon.  If they can't win there, they're sure not winning the south.

[Gustaf]

It may be true that the Democrats have never won the White House without winning at least 5 southern states, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have won the White House with fewer.

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson could have lost the whole south, and still won the election, because he had virtually every other state, admittedly a very unusual circumstance.

In 2000, Al Gore would have won the presidency if he had won even one southern state.

I think that if the Democrats maintain their stranglehold on the northeast and west coast, and do well in the upper midwest, they can win the White House if they can just crack into the south, with as few as one southern state.  Obviously, the more the better from their perspective, but I don't think 5 is a magic number.

I would also say that given the current political configuration of the country, it is unrealistic for the Democrats to think that they can win southern states if they start losing in other sections, like the upper midwest or Oregon.  If they can't win there, they're sure not winning the south.

Good points, I agree with everything you say there. It is just like a stupid thing I saw on some Republican forum from before the 2000 election that claimed that historically a Republican losing both California and New York loses the election. Some of these theories overlook other factors and people easily get carried away by "magic" factors.

[dazzleman]

Good points, I agree with everything you say there. It is just like a stupid thing I saw on some Republican forum from before the 2000 election that claimed that historically a Republican losing both California and New York loses the election. Some of these theories overlook other factors and people easily get carried away by "magic" factors.

I think the two are connected.  If the Democrats can win large states like California and New York, the south is not as important to them.  The whole picture has to be looked at, not just individual states, whose importance depends only on the overall state alignment.

[Gustaf]

Good points, I agree with everything you say there. It is just like a stupid thing I saw on some Republican forum from before the 2000 election that claimed that historically a Republican losing both California and New York loses the election. Some of these theories overlook other factors and people easily get carried away by "magic" factors.

I think the two are connected.  If the Democrats can win large states like California and New York, the south is not as important to them.  The whole picture has to be looked at, not just individual states, whose importance depends only on the overall state alignment.

Yes, I agree. Nice to read a calm unbiased post ince in a while!

(kidding though, a lot of the posts here are.)

[English]

The Democrats won't win any southern states, (unless you count West Virginia), which is a great shame. I believe it's in the economic interest of most southerners to vote Democrat!! They don't necessarily need to however if they can carry the entire North East, Great Lakes and West Coast. It all depends on the Democrats being able to hold on to what they have, and perhaps win somewhere like Ohio and New Hampshire. If they can do that, they'll win.