2004 Democratic Primary

[agcatter]

Realpolitik,
The political South is obviously of interest to you as you've posted several threads dealing with the subject.  It's always been of interest to me as well.  I did my graduate thesis  over presidential politics in the modern South.  I mention that not to claim that I'm in ANY way an expert on the subject, but rather to illustrate that, just like you, the topic has always been of great interest to me.

First, let me say that West Virginia could easily go Democratic in the next election.  I don't think it will, but it was always a Democratic state at the presidential level and has been carried twice since 1968 by northern liberals Humphry and Dukakis.  I think Gore's environmental stance as well as the general cultural drift was just too much for Gore to overcome in the last election.

However, I firmly believe that any Northern Liberal Democrat loses big in any of the other Southern states you cite, and the historic trends confirm that.

The Democrats have nominated four Northern Liberals since 1960 - Humphry (68), McGovern (72), Mondale (84), and Dukakis (88).  None of these candidates even came close to carrying the states of NC, Tenn, Virginia, Florida, Arkansas, or La.

Democratic perentages 68, 72, 84, 88:

Ark    -  31, 31, 38, 42
La.    -  30, 31, 38, 44
Va.    - 32, 30, 37, 39
Ga.   -  27, 25, 40, 40
NC    -  29, 28, 42, 42
Tenn - 28, 30, 42, 42
Fla    - 31, 28, 35, 39

Ronald Reagan had far more success in liberal Massachussetts than any of the above candidates had in any of these Southern states.  The above percentages were achieved by Northern Democrats rounding up 92% of the black vote in states with anywhere from 20 to 36% of voting population being black.  This means they were garnering no more than 25% or less of the white southern voters.  Unless that changes drastically, these results will repeat over and over.  I don't see Howard Dean changing this equation do you?

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

Sorry, bud.  My mistake.

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

***VERY IMPORTANT***

2nd Round of Tax Cuts to take effect in early 2004!!!

In July (Q3) 2003, parents received $400 per child tax credits in the mail due to the fact that the per child tax credit was raised from $600 to $1000.

Also in July (Q3) 2003, individual tax RATES were lowed so workers began taking home more of their paychecks.

BUT, get this...the tax cuts were RETROACTIVE back to Jan 2003, so for the first 6 months of 2003 Americans overpaid taxes under the current tax code.

THEREFORE, those 6 months of overpayments will be REFUNDED to Americans when people file their 2003 taxes returns in early 2004!

So, just as 2003Q3 GDP got a boost from tax cuts, 2004Q2 GDP will get an additional boost.

----

But what should scare Dems even more was the weekly jobless claims that plunged 43k to 358k from 391k for the week ending 11/1/2003.

The Oct unemployment report (6.0%) only included data up to 10/15, so the Oct report didn't include the huge plung in jobless claims.

But the plung will be reflected in the Nov unemployment report (released in early Dec), and it will show a BIG increase in job growth!!!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That's O.K

Out of interest if you were running Musgrove's campaign what slogans would you use?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The South is very interesting.
Why do so many people vote against their economic interest so they can vote to state their position on wedge issues?

My theory on the South is that the current GOP advantage is a result of Democrat weakness not GOP strength.
This point was rammed home by Musgrove's insane campaign in Mississippi.

WV should go Dem next election if only because Bush has failed to halt the decline in the Coal industry and his education policy is being blamed for the states budget problems.
But it's only 5 EV's and won't cause Bush to lose re-election.

Other than WV, AR and LA the best chance for a Dem pickup may actually be Virginia(!)

I'm not sure what Dean is yet, but I'll agree that if Kerry wins the Dems will struggle to pickup any state other than NH...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

West Virginia

01 Wheeling c
02 Charleston c
03 Coal District c

Maine

01 Portland and Augusta c
02 Madawaska c

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The final boundary changes can be found at www.elections.ca

[Kevinstat]

One thing I read is that the new boundaries "come into force effective on the first dissolution of Parliament that occurs after August 25, 2004."  Is Parliament dissolved on the day the Prime Minister calls a new election, is it election day, or is it some other time.  Regardless of which day it is, I think there's a good chance that the coming elections will be held under the existing district lines.  What do you people think?

Sincerely,

Kevin Lamoreau

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Canada is run under the "Westminster System", in other words their are no fixed election dates and the P.M can call an election whenever he likes.
The new boundries come into force on the 25th of August, but Martin is under no obligation to call an election after or on that date.
He can call one on the 24th if he likes.

When the election is called partly depends on whether the boundry changes are favourable to the LPC, if they are expect an election to be called very soon after the 25th, if they are not expect an election any time before that date.

[Ryan]

I'm gonna have to disagree that Musgrove's campaign was horrible. It wasnt perfect but quite decent. I really think his vote total was the most any democrat could be expected to get in Mississippi right now (with a strong GOP challenger) The negative connotations to the word "democrat" are just too strong right now.

And yes I do know recent Miss. Gubernatoral history. Its no longer valid. The south is changing and changing fast and its not looking good for the dems.

[DarthKosh]

I don't think LA will be that close because Bush won it by seven points.

[Nym90]

I agree that West Virginia is fairly likely to go Dem. As for the rest of the South, Florida has changed dramatically even since 1988 to become much more competitive, and could be won by any of the serious Dem candidates. Other than that though, Clark and Edwards are probably the only Dems who could win any other Southern states. Of course, Florida is the only Southern state that the Dems really need to win, and they don't even need Florida if they can win someplace like Ohio.
Clark I believe would win Arkansas, and be competitive in Louisiana and possibly Tennessee. Edwards would be competitive in North Carolina and Arkansas, and maybe also Louisiana and Tennessee. Gephardt and Lieberman also would both be competitive in Arkansas. Dean and Kerry would lose the entire South except maybe West Virginia and Florida (which are both quite unlike the rest of the South, and as we've said earlier West Virginia probably shouldn't be considered the South...it doesn't really fit into any region.)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't think LA will be that close because Bush won it by seven points.

Which is not a lot

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I've been looking at congressional results etc. from NC, and it appears that the Dems do have a chance there... with the right candidate with the right platform.

If we were to divide the South into different regions it may be easier to understand:

Upper South: Arkansas, WV, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennesse and possibly Maryland, DC and Missouri.

Deep South: Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Lousiana

Texas: Texas

Florida: Florida

The Dems might do well in the "Upper South" in 2004, but are going to struggle in the Deep South until racial divisions begin to heal.
They have a chance in Florida, but Texas is a no no.
They were under 40% in Texas in 2000...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Looking at the House results, Arkansas is a Democrat stronghold(if the popular vote is adjusted they won about 60%), and I think most Democrats will be able to win it in 2004.
Ditto WV.

Problem is neither are very large, and if Bush can pick up Wisconsin and Oregon it would negate those possible gains.

[agcatter]

Be careful about trying to take congressional voting patterns and using them to predict what happens at the presidential level in the South.

Southern congressional candidates in rural areas do NOT run on the same platform as the John Kerrys and Howard Deans.  Southern whites have been splitting their tickets for years while they vote in droves against the national nominee.

The scary thing about Howard Dean isn't that he wants the votes of whites with pickup trucks and confederate decals.  it's that he actually thinks he can get them.  Good luck Howard.  You're going to need it.

For the posters who think Howard Dean can be competitive in Florida, what are you guys smoking?

[Ryan]

Looking at the House results, Arkansas is a Democrat stronghold(if the popular vote is adjusted they won about 60%), and I think most Democrats will be able to win it in 2004.
Ditto WV.

Problem is neither are very large, and if Bush can pick up Wisconsin and Oregon it would negate those possible gains.

Agcat brought up a good point about using congressional elections as predictors for Presidential elections.

I would go furthur and say that even out of the south their relevance is much less than you might think.

Reason is that in some very uncompetitive states or rather seats the other party often doesnt field a serious candidate against a popular incumbent. The latter ends up winning with something like 90% even though the actual partisan alignment in the seat may be about 50-50. This result will of course prejudice the total state congressional percentages that you seem so fond of.

The conclusion is dont assume party strength based on congressional results.

[dazzleman]

Some of the comments I have read on here about the south by people advocating a liberal position tell me why the Democrats have such a slim chance of winning any southern states next year.

There seems to an assumption among liberals that racism is the primary motivation for white southerners (whom the Democrats presume to all be "poor") to vote Republican.  The theory is that white southerners are stupid and vote against their own economic interests out of racial hatred.

This is essentially the position taken by Howard Dean, the former governor of a state that has virtually no black population.  Dean's statements on this issue are positively dripping with condescension toward southerners.  The reality of the situation is much more complex than this.

First off, the Republican party is not overtly anti-black.  It does not support the agenda of the NAACP or other left-wing "advocacy" groups, but that doesn't make it anti-black.  Republican-sponsored welfare reform has benefited blacks more than the Democrat-supported AFDC did, and Republicans support efforts to free blacks from failing inner city schools, while Democrats side with the teachers' unions.  One could make a very good argument that the programs espoused by the so-called proponents of black progress have had a big hand in preventing greater progress on racial issues in the past 30 years.

In addition, it is simplistic to say that Democratic economic policies will aid southerners, particularly the "poor" ones that Dean speaks about.  Maybe the southerners believe that lower taxes and greater economic freedom will lead to better job creation for them than higher taxes coupled with social programs.  Since the southern economy has been growing faster than the rest of the country for some time now, following more conservative economic policies, maybe the southerners are right.  Maybe not, but it is simplistic and condescending to say unequivocally that what white southerners need is more government programs.

I also think that northerners, especially ones like Dean who come from lily-white states like Vermont, ought to stop patting themselves on the back about their tolerance on racial matters.  There is a great deal of racial prejudice up north, and some of the greatest racial tensions and even violence have taken place in supposedly liberal places such as Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Detroit.

New York and Boston, those great bastions of northern liberalism, are about as racially segmented as you can get, complete with high levels of hostility between the races.  Where I live in Connecticut, you couldn't have a greater degree of racial separation if it were imposed by law.  This doesn't happen by accident, but through the deliberate decisions of large numbers of individuals.  So I think northerners who criticize the south on the race issue ought to stop the self-deluding hypocrisy and look more deeply at the issue, outside the bounds of political correctness.

Zell Miller is right.  Until northern Democrats obtain a better understanding of the south and stop the condescension, they don't stand a chance there, and they shouldn't.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm well aware of that, BUT they are a good guide in some cases. (and MUCH better than using Senate or Gubernatorial elections).

And warped results are fairly easy to spot
(2 in Virginia alone!)

[DarthKosh]

I don't think LA will be that close because Bush won it by seven points.

Which is not a lot

Actually it is a lot.  He won LA against a strong canidate white a high black turnout.  I still believe that Dean will not get a high black turnout.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Some of the comments I have read on here about the south by people advocating a liberal position tell me why the Democrats have such a slim chance of winning any southern states next year.

There seems to an assumption among liberals that racism is the primary motivation for white southerners (whom the Democrats presume to all be "poor") to vote Republican.  The theory is that white southerners are stupid and vote against their own economic interests out of racial hatred.

This is essentially the position taken by Howard Dean, the former governor of a state that has virtually no black population.  Dean's statements on this issue are positively dripping with condescension toward southerners.  The reality of the situation is much more complex than this.

First off, the Republican party is not overtly anti-black.  It does not support the agenda of the NAACP or other left-wing "advocacy" groups, but that doesn't make it anti-black.  Republican-sponsored welfare reform has benefited blacks more than the Democrat-supported AFDC did, and Republicans support efforts to free blacks from failing inner city schools, while Democrats side with the teachers' unions.  One could make a very good argument that the programs espoused by the so-called proponents of black progress have had a big hand in preventing greater progress on racial issues in the past 30 years.

In addition, it is simplistic to say that Democratic economic policies will aid southerners, particularly the "poor" ones that Dean speaks about.  Maybe the southerners believe that lower taxes and greater economic freedom will lead to better job creation for them than higher taxes coupled with social programs.  Since the southern economy has been growing faster than the rest of the country for some time now, following more conservative economic policies, maybe the southerners are right.  Maybe not, but it is simplistic and condescending to say unequivocally that what white southerners need is more government programs.

I also think that northerners, especially ones like Dean who come from lily-white states like Vermont, ought to stop patting themselves on the back about their tolerance on racial matters.  There is a great deal of racial prejudice up north, and some of the greatest racial tensions and even violence have taken place in supposedly liberal places such as Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Detroit.

New York and Boston, those great bastions of northern liberalism, are about as racially segmented as you can get, complete with high levels of hostility between the races.  Where I live in Connecticut, you couldn't have a greater degree of racial separation if it were imposed by law.  This doesn't happen by accident, but through the deliberate decisions of large numbers of individuals.  So I think northerners who criticize the south on the race issue ought to stop the self-deluding hypocrisy and look more deeply at the issue, outside the bounds of political correctness.

Zell Miller is right.  Until northern Democrats obtain a better understanding of the south and stop the condescension, they don't stand a chance there, and they shouldn't.

First off I'm not a liberal.

Facts are facts, a lot of people in the South are poor, and a lot of em vote against their economic interest.
It's also true that poor people need government intervention(DON'T even bother to argue about that. I live in a poor rural area).

And all credit to the GOP for their sucess in at getting people to vote against their economic interest.
If you take Texas and Florida out of the picture the South is not doing very well at all.

There is a lot of racism in the North, and even more out West(would you like to be black and in Idaho?)

I happen to think that a northerner like you can slag off other northerners for not "understanding" the South is hypocritical.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't think LA will be that close because Bush won it by seven points.

Which is not a lot

Actually it is a lot.  He won LA against a strong canidate white a high black turnout.  I still believe that Dean will not get a high black turnout.

I don't think that Gore was a strong candidate, but I'll agree that the Flag stuff might stop a high black turnout for Dean.
Maybe he's going for the Yellow Dog vote?

[DarthKosh]

I don't think LA will be that close because Bush won it by seven points.

Which is not a lot

Actually it is a lot.  He won LA against a strong canidate white a high black turnout.  I still believe that Dean will not get a high black turnout.

I don't think that Gore was a strong candidate, but I'll agree that the Flag stuff might stop a high black turnout for Dean.
Maybe he's going for the Yellow Dog vote?

Gore was the strongest canidate the Dems put up in years.  He had record high black turnout and he couldn't win LA that  is why I think Dean does not have a chance of winning it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Clinton?

[agcatter]

Clinton ran as a Southern moderate.  Dean and Kerry are neither southern nor moderate.  They are much less likely to get the votes of southern whites than even Gore.  Bush carried Louisiana by 8 pts.  He beats Dean or Kerry by between 12 and 15 in 2004.