Kerry, no need for the South

[jravnsbo]

A very interesting comment, by John Kerry last year that I now have seen froma  few sources.  I wonder what is on the laptop and whether any secrets will come out.  But if he gets the nomination, look for this comment to show up on ads in the South.

=============
Democratic Party presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry is apparently ready to write off a huge chunk of flyover country in his quest for the White House, boasting to a California fund raiser this week that he can lose the entire South and still beat President Bush in 2004.

"Al Gore proved that you can win the election without a single Southern state, if he'd only won New Hampshire," Kerry told a group of San Francisco supporters. The comment left at least one longtime Democratic Party observer aghast.

"That may be true," Congressional Quarterly's Craig Crawford told nationally syndicated radio hosts John Batchelor and Paul Alexander late Friday. "But he should not be saying that."

Crawford, who attended the Commonwealth Club fund-raiser, chastised Kerry for the reckless remark, saying, "It really allows the interpretation, which I think would be very dangerous for him, that he's going to write off the South."

"I don't believe candidates should ever blow their cover," advised Crawford, a one-time Carter campaign aide. "You don't want to start off looking like a regional candidate," added the Hoover Institute's Bill Whelan, who also heard the Kerry gaffe. "That's just not smart."

In fact, Kerry's non-Southern strategy may soon be revealed for all the world to see. A laptop computer belonging to Kerry spokesman Chris Lehane was purloined during the California campaign swing.

"A middle-aged thief with thinning hair and quick hands snatched a laptop computer from a car belonging" to Lehane, the San Francisco Chronicle reported this week.

The laptop is said to be "chock-full of campaign information" that the presidential hopeful would certainly prefer to remain secret.

"Obviously it's troubling to us because it contained a lot of valuable information," Lehane told the Chronicle. "We just want to make sure no one attempts to use it in the wrong way."

[StevenNick]

That comment could really hurt Kerry in South Carolina next week.  I can't imagine that it makes SC democrats feel all warm and fuzzy inside when they think that the front-runner is willing to completely write them off.

[Dave from Michigan]

It may be true but it's stupid to say. Democrats could really use a some southern states to help them win.  will hurt him in South Carolina

[agcatter]

I can see where a lib Democrat from Massachusetts really believes that.  He no doubt does.  However, to state it in public one week before the South Carolina primary is truly stupid.  I thought Kerry was supposed to be so damned intellegent.

[M]

He more or less publicly acknowledges a new solid South like Ryan was talking about on that thread a while back. (Where is Ryan these days, anyway?) Someone like Wendell Wilkie would automatically write off the South with no hope of winning it. Now at least some Dems are doing the same. Whether it's true or not, it's incredibly stuoid to say.

[jravnsbo]

And we all thought Dean would stick his size 10 in his mouth!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What a stupid thing to say.
Both the Democrat's and the Republican's need at least a few Southern states to win Presidential Elections.
It has not become a "solid South" for the GOP, but if the Democrat's act like it is, it might.
And they will then be relagated to permanant opposition.

[Huckleberry Finn]

That comment will really hurt Kerry in the south. It makes Edwards stronger and that's good because he is better candidate.

But Kerry was right. There is no need to win any Southern state. This time is harder than in 2000, because there is now less electoral vote in the North.

If Democrat candidate will win Gore's states and New Hampshire and West Virginia (which is tough I know)
OR Nevada (which is easier) it will be tie situation 269/269! Then Democrat should win one state more. And that is probably Nevada or West Virginia. And I think Ohio could be also feasible.

[jravnsbo]

NH they reported has a growing economy.  I heard their unemployment is only 4.1%, way below the nat'l average.  I keep telling you guys NH will go GOP inbt he fall.

It has 8 of 11 times in recent Presidential elections.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A 3 state strategy is a bad idea...

[jravnsbo]

I thinkif Bush wins Oh he wins it.  He also has a lot more possibilities int he Gore states than the dem nominee does in the Bush states.

Plus Bush can lose one small state from 2000 and still win the election, b/c of the census.

If Kerry does write off the South or at least not campaign there much it will help the GOP in the Senate races and keep money free for other swing states.  

Also makes me wonder if he is considering Gephardt and a midwest strategy for VP.

[opebo]

If you define the south as including West Virginia, Florida, and Missouri then winning without a single southern state would probably mean winning one of only three states: Ohio, Arizona or Colorado. Since Clinton won Arizona and Colorado once and Ohio twice, Ohio would be the best bet. Kerry (or whoever) would need to focus on Ohio. The only other possibilities would be Montana and Indiana. Although Clinton won Montana it is a long shot. Indiana would only be winnable, I think, if the VP is from that state. So basically only three states would be the focus of a stategy which doesn't include the south.
No other non-Gore states are winnable.

Missouri is not in the South.

[opebo]

What a stupid thing to say.
Both the Democrat's and the Republican's need at least a few Southern states to win Presidential Elections.
It has not become a "solid South" for the GOP, but if the Democrat's act like it is, it might.
And they will then be relagated to permanant opposition.

Actually the GOP needs a lot more than a few Southern states to win - we need to win nearly all of them to make up for the Northeast and West Coast.  Thank goodness the South is solid GOP.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Both sides need to do well in both the South AND the Midwest, the GOP can't rely on the Rockies to win the election, and the Dems can't do the same with Lower New England.

[Gustaf]

If you define the south as including West Virginia, Florida, and Missouri then winning without a single southern state would probably mean winning one of only three states: Ohio, Arizona or Colorado. Since Clinton won Arizona and Colorado once and Ohio twice, Ohio would be the best bet. Kerry (or whoever) would need to focus on Ohio. The only other possibilities would be Montana and Indiana. Although Clinton won Montana it is a long shot. Indiana would only be winnable, I think, if the VP is from that state. So basically only three states would be the focus of a stategy which doesn't include the south.
No other non-Gore states are winnable.

Missouri is not in the South.

I wouldn't put Florida in the south either, I know it's there geographically, but it isn't like the other states nowadays, if you look at the 2000 results. If you factor in the favourite son factor, Missouri and Florida were the two "Southern" states not to vote overwhelmingly Bush, and are thus not like the others.

[jravnsbo]

Remember though MO in 2000 was skewed with late month anomolies, such as Gov Carnahan's death and fraud in St Louis voting.  FL 2000 was just crazy on all sides.  calling it early, before panhandle could vote, buttefly ballot, military vote, on and on.

2002-- GOP won everything in both states that mattered.

If you define the south as including West Virginia, Florida, and Missouri then winning without a single southern state would probably mean winning one of only three states: Ohio, Arizona or Colorado. Since Clinton won Arizona and Colorado once and Ohio twice, Ohio would be the best bet. Kerry (or whoever) would need to focus on Ohio. The only other possibilities would be Montana and Indiana. Although Clinton won Montana it is a long shot. Indiana would only be winnable, I think, if the VP is from that state. So basically only three states would be the focus of a stategy which doesn't include the south.
No other non-Gore states are winnable.

Missouri is not in the South.

I wouldn't put Florida in the south either, I know it's there geographically, but it isn't like the other states nowadays, if you look at the 2000 results. If you factor in the favourite son factor, Missouri and Florida were the two "Southern" states not to vote overwhelmingly Bush, and are thus not like the others.

[Gustaf]

I'm not looking at 2000 only, you can take a large number of elections from the past, you'll find that Missouri has never had the same voting pattern as the rest of the South. Florida might have been in the past, but has changed in recent years. The Deep South, states like Alabama and Mississippi, always vote the same way. Unless there's a landslide aginst the "South's" candidate, states like TX, NC, etc also come along. But Missouri and Florida are different, and I will stick by that.

Remember though MO in 2000 was skewed with late month anomolies, such as Gov Carnahan's death and fraud in St Louis voting.  FL 2000 was just crazy on all sides.  calling it early, before panhandle could vote, buttefly ballot, military vote, on and on.

2002-- GOP won everything in both states that mattered.

If you define the south as including West Virginia, Florida, and Missouri then winning without a single southern state would probably mean winning one of only three states: Ohio, Arizona or Colorado. Since Clinton won Arizona and Colorado once and Ohio twice, Ohio would be the best bet. Kerry (or whoever) would need to focus on Ohio. The only other possibilities would be Montana and Indiana. Although Clinton won Montana it is a long shot. Indiana would only be winnable, I think, if the VP is from that state. So basically only three states would be the focus of a stategy which doesn't include the south.
No other non-Gore states are winnable.

Missouri is not in the South.

I wouldn't put Florida in the south either, I know it's there geographically, but it isn't like the other states nowadays, if you look at the 2000 results. If you factor in the favourite son factor, Missouri and Florida were the two "Southern" states not to vote overwhelmingly Bush, and are thus not like the others.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Both MO and FL have swung towards the GOP since 2000.
The Dems should go vote hunting in the Upper South (note to new members: I've been banging on about this for ages an' I ain't stoppin' now), and should not waste resources on the increasingly affluent state of Florida, which was, after all, a GOP stronghold in the '80's.
And unless they can build a genuine black-white coalition in the Deep South (ie; something of a Holy Grail for the DNC), they will struggle down there as well.

[Gustaf]

It will be interesting to see how Kerry does in Southern primaries. A win in New Hampshire in no way guarantees the nomination.

I think it does, if you look at the boost Kerry got in these states after his Iowa win, running 2nd in SC I believe, he will do well enough if he wins NH. Then comes Maine and Michigan, which he would most likely win, and then he has enough momentum on Super Tuesday to carry the two most important states: New York and California.

[Gustaf]

It will be interesting to see how Kerry does in Southern primaries. A win in New Hampshire in no way guarantees the nomination.

I think it does, if you look at the boost Kerry got in these states after his Iowa win, running 2nd in SC I believe, he will do well enough if he wins NH. Then comes Maine and Michigan, which he would most likely win, and then he has enough momentum on Super Tuesday to carry the two most important states: New York and California.

It may depend on the margin of victory. If Dean, for example, were a close second, within 5%, it might slow down Kerry's momentum.

Possibly, but Dean was percieved as the winner before. It comes down whether people came to view a Kerry victory in NH as self-evident after his Iowa win. But, as I stated before, the only thing that could really save Dean is if Kerry moves way ahead in polls and is started to be seen as the obvious winner, and Dean then claws his way back to a victory. And that MIGHT now happen, but most likely Kerry will win big, and that's that. I think the nomination is decided tonight.

[jravnsbo]

go to ABCNEWS they posted another one, apparently he made the same comment at dartmouth this past weekend about the south.

I for one, would like to know the context of Kerry's comment. One could argue that Kerry is not the best candidate, because he is a 'northeastern liberal' and therefore would not do well in the south (which may be true). If his comment was in response to this idea then it is perfectly reasonable. It has been pointed out that the last Democrat to win the White House who was not from the south was JFK in '60 (also Kerry's initials interestingly). Even Kennedy had a southern running mate, however. Another problem is that the Gore states are losing electoral votes (7 electoral votes as a result of the 2000 census). After 2010, they will almost certainly lose more, but the exact number would be difficult to predict. Kerry has addressed the issue of whether he will do well in the south by pointing out that Southerners want the same thing as all Americans (jobs, for example).
I think Kerry can beat Bush, but certainly he needs a running mate from the South or at least from a swing state (Gephardt, Clark, or Edwards). The fact that it is difficult to win without winning at least one state in the South, in my opinion, is an argument *against* the electoral college. It needs to be repaired.