Democrats and the West

[Brutus]

John Edwards and others are fond of saying that the Democrats must win in the South to beat Bush.  I don't think this is true, nor do I believe it to be very feasible, regardless of the Democratic nominee.  Rather than fight a hopeless battle trying to win electoral votes in the South, would it not make better sense to focus on the West?  Gore won in New Mexico, and the demographics are changing in other states such as Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado that could swing favorably to the Democrats.  If not in 2004, then perhaps in elections of the not-too-distant future?

[California Dreamer]

I agree. I am sorry to all you Dixie Dems but I am sick and tired of hearing about how you got to go play for the South.

You dont hear Republicans whining about the Northeast or the Pacific Coast. Lets face it, the Repubs have the Deep south sewn up and the Dems can only play at the edges.

Kerry was right, you dont need a southern state to win, and except for W. Virginia and Florida it isnt really worth spending a lot of money trying

And the Southwest is trending towards California like Demographics (and therefore voting patterns)...and it is there that the Dems can win in 2004.


And this is why the Hispanic Governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson will be the VP nominee

Viva La Demoratics!

[Mr. Fresh]

Well I didn't expect that from a Dem to a Dem.  

[Ben.]

Bill Richardson could only be a good VP for Edwards never Kerry it would be far too dour and "insiderish" a ticket with no real charisma or youthfulness (then again unless Bush drops Cheney for someone like Bill Owens the Republicans don’t exactly have the most barnstormingly charismatic and persuasive ticket)...

The real problem with not contesting the south is that we have five senate seats which we could potentially lose added to this there is a vulnerable Republican seat in Oklahoma... the answer to this is to have a candidate who appeals to independent voters across a broad geographical area and that man is either Edwards or perhaps governor Warner or senator Landrieu… Edwards has shown broad appeal with moderate Democrats and Independents as well as his anti-NAFTA positions possibly boosting the Dems in the “Steel States” furthermore he has been proven to be very popular amongst rural voters, his inclusion on the ticket would bring some much needed charisma, a very, very good debater to face Cheney, as well as assisting the Dems in the Senate and Congressional elections in the South….

The fact is that you cant right off the south because of the Senate races there and it would be foolish to do so… I think it may be many years before we win any of the deep southern states at a presidential level however with the kind of economically populist / socially traditionalist message that Edwards seems to be working towards we will have a shot at making these gains come sooner rather than latter and this time around a lot of senate seats could be held thanks to it….        

[opebo]

Bill Richardson could only be a good VP for Edwards never Kerry it would be far too dour and "insiderish" a ticket with no real charisma or youthfulness (then again unless Bush drops Cheney for someone like Bill Owens the Republicans don’t exactly have the most barnstormingly charismatic and persuasive ticket)...

The real problem with not contesting the south is that we have five senate seats which we could potentially lose added to this there is a vulnerable Republican seat in Oklahoma... the answer to this is to have a candidate who appeals to independent voters across a broad geographical area and that man is either Edwards or perhaps governor Warner or senator Landrieu… Edwards has shown broad appeal with moderate Democrats and Independents as well as his anti-NAFTA positions possibly boosting the Dems in the “Steel States” furthermore he has been proven to be very popular amongst rural voters, his inclusion on the ticket would bring some much needed charisma, a very, very good debater to face Cheney, as well as assisting the Dems in the Senate and Congressional elections in the South….

The fact is that you cant right off the south because of the Senate races there and it would be foolish to do so… I think it may be many years before we win any of the deep southern states at a presidential level however with the kind of economically populist / socially traditionalist message that Edwards seems to be working towards we will have a shot at making these gains come sooner rather than latter and this time around a lot of senate seats could be held thanks to it….        

Cheney would make Edwards look like what he is - a jumped up little used-car salesman.  Then again a lot of people do like that sort of thing.

[Ben.]

Opebo have you seen Edwards or Cheney on TV? ... no seriously coz the Edwards I’ve seen is hands down one of the best stump speakers and debaters in US politics at the moment... Cheney on the other hand comes across as creepy and corrupt he is the embodiment of the "dark side" of this administration in most peoples minds, which is why Bush would do well to drop him and appoint Owens (I doubt he will though)... James Carville has commented that Edwards is even better than Clinton on the stump and that certainly bodes well for him... in a Cheney v Edwards debate Edwards would come across as a sunny, reasonable and practical person while Cheney would just seem to be what he has always been a shady, and hardline political hack he’s the very embodiment of a vested interest... Its interesting that I have time for W on a personal level he seems like a decent guy however I disagree with him on most issues having said that when it comes to Cheney the mans a complete creep and should be booted out at the first opportunity gets Owens or Frist as VP and I’d feel much more secure with this Administration having said that I’d still prefer a Kerry/ Edwards administration…


As for Edwards being some kind of "scummy, ambulance chaser"...  he took on big corporations and helped out the little guy (that’s how it will be spun and its not far from the truth)...  back to the idea of Edwards v Cheney my prediction is Cheney gets beat but no as bad as W does against JK... IMHO

[TomC]

I'm a Democrat in the South and while I fully believe a Dem can win some Southern states, that will likely happen when and if Kerry (or the nominee) is perceived as going to win the election. Southerners will go for a Dem, even a Northeastern one, if he seems like a winner. This is why Kerry won in Va (50+%) and Tn (39%); he seemed the winner and people like voting for winners.

But what gets me is this notion that we HAVE TO have a Southerner to win. Most of us here are not so backwards and prejudice that we will ONLY vote for a Southerner. While many here may be more moderate than Cal or NY, etc, it is ridiculous to claim that, after the South went strongly for Wilson and FDR, and some states for Catholic Kennedy that we are now MORE closed minded  than we were then?? Media driven BS, that's all that is. Especially after African Americans have migrated (back) South since Civil Rights movement.

We've had THREE Dem Presidents since Kennedy, they have all been from the South. We have had many Majority leaders from the South (Byrd, Baker, Frist, wasn't Sasser for a while? Lott. Speaker of the House? Wright and Gingrich. We've had PLENTY of leadership from the South. The rest of the country should be pi$$ed that it is being left out.

As we approach the general the question shouldn't be: Can the Dems win in the South and Mountain states, but can Bush win anywhere else???

[opebo]

Opebo have you seen Edwards or Cheney on TV? ... no seriously coz the Edwards I’ve seen is hands down one of the best stump speakers and debaters in US politics at the moment... Cheney on the other hand comes across as creepy and corrupt he is the embodiment of the "dark side" of this administration in most peoples minds, which is why Bush would do well to drop him and appoint Owens (I doubt he will though)... James Carville has commented that Edwards is even better than Clinton on the stump and that certainly bodes well for him... in a Cheney v Edwards debate Edwards would come across as a sunny, reasonable and practical person while Cheney would just seem to be what he has always been a shady, and hardline political hack he’s the very embodiment of a vested interest... Its interesting that I have time for W on a personal level he seems like a decent guy however I disagree with him on most issues having said that when it comes to Cheney the mans a complete creep and should be booted out at the first opportunity gets Owens or Frist as VP and I’d feel much more secure with this Administration having said that I’d still prefer a Kerry/ Edwards administration…


As for Edwards being some kind of "scummy, ambulance chaser"...  he took on big corporations and helped out the little guy (that’s how it will be spun and its not far from the truth)...  back to the idea of Edwards v Cheney my prediction is Cheney gets beat but no as bad as W does against JK... IMHO

Your take on Cheney is interesting.. especially in contrast to my take on Edwards.  I think I just like people that maybe the majority of Americans don't like.  To me Cheney is a guy who tells it like it is - a Realist internationally, and a reliable pro-business/capital right winger.  He's without flair or trickery, he only has airtight arguments.  He's often described as having 'gravitas', but all that really means is he appeals to reason rather than emotion.  

An Edwards on the other hand is obviously peddling total fantasy, but with smarmy down home fakery - now to me thats creepy.  For me he's even creepier than Clinton, and that's saying something - its like with Clinton there was a note of irony to the whole act, and it always seemed he was self-aware.  He had a sort of wink in his manner that said 'I know you know I'm a fake' to the few intelligent viewers in the audience.  I think Edwards actually believes his own performance.

[Esteban Manuel]

Opebo have you seen Edwards or Cheney on TV? ... no seriously coz the Edwards I’ve seen is hands down one of the best stump speakers and debaters in US politics at the moment... Cheney on the other hand comes across as creepy and corrupt he is the embodiment of the "dark side" of this administration in most peoples minds, which is why Bush would do well to drop him and appoint Owens (I doubt he will though)... James Carville has commented that Edwards is even better than Clinton on the stump and that certainly bodes well for him... in a Cheney v Edwards debate Edwards would come across as a sunny, reasonable and practical person while Cheney would just seem to be what he has always been a shady, and hardline political hack he’s the very embodiment of a vested interest... Its interesting that I have time for W on a personal level he seems like a decent guy however I disagree with him on most issues having said that when it comes to Cheney the mans a complete creep and should be booted out at the first opportunity gets Owens or Frist as VP and I’d feel much more secure with this Administration having said that I’d still prefer a Kerry/ Edwards administration…


As for Edwards being some kind of "scummy, ambulance chaser"...  he took on big corporations and helped out the little guy (that’s how it will be spun and its not far from the truth)...  back to the idea of Edwards v Cheney my prediction is Cheney gets beat but no as bad as W does against JK... IMHO

Yesterday i was talking with a friend of mine about Cheney and he tell me exactly what u did... i agree with both of u! if i have to describe Cheney with just 1 word i say: dark (like he have joined the dark side)

This guy tell me too that in his opinion there're 2 political trends in presidential election in the US:

1. People vote for the better of them (i.e. Kennedy, Clinton)
2. Peoble vote for the guy who's like them (i.e. Reagan, Bush)

That's what he said , i had to disagree, i like inhabitants of US and that's why i can't think that's them are like GWB.

[Esteban Manuel]

John Edwards and others are fond of saying that the Democrats must win in the South to beat Bush.  I don't think this is true, nor do I believe it to be very feasible, regardless of the Democratic nominee.  Rather than fight a hopeless battle trying to win electoral votes in the South, would it not make better sense to focus on the West?  Gore won in New Mexico, and the demographics are changing in other states such as Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado that could swing favorably to the Democrats.  If not in 2004, then perhaps in elections of the not-too-distant future?

The fact that the press say tha's necesary to have someone form south to win it didn't make it real. As TC101 said they aren't morons who if don't see anyone of them in the ticket don't vote for it.

In the other hand even when i'd like to think that Colorado, Arizona or another SW state will be democrat some day i don't think that will happens until 2008, in the meanwhile it's necesary (as u know) to win just a bit more of EV to win, the west and east cost and the great-like-northern states aren't enough and u need then, at least a couple of states of the south. That's the fate of an indirects election...

(as a simpathetic comment i have to say that in the game "president for ever" i always win with Kerry in N.M., A.Z., and C.O. maybe a sight to future?
 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why do people always treat "the South" as if it was homogenous?
Facts are that Virginia has more in common with PA than with Texas.
Making sweeping generalisations about an area as large and diverse as the South is stupid.
Please treat states that happen to be south of the Mason-Dixon line just like any other... and stop reading woefully ignorant and/or innacurate stories by braindead journo's.

BTW if the Democrats abandoned "the South" they will never, ever take back the House.

[Ben.]

I get the sense that we may judge these guys by completely different criteria Opebo... for me Clinton was not at all creepy... but hey your a Republican and I'm a Democrat so by our natures we will lionise those on our side and demonise our opponents at least in our minds...

The thing is in most peoples minds Cheney is seen as a cynical and corrupt politician who is only in it  for himself (maybe I’m overstating that but its not far off the mark), I really think that Bush would be better off with Frist, Owens or perhaps Liddy Dole or even Norm Coleman (bright but potentially very vulnerable in 2008, he was elected on plurality thanks to a strong liberal third party candidate)….

Well that’s my two cents obviously if I had to had a republican president I chose Powel or McCain (both of whom id probably vote for) however being realistic I say those candidates above would be in most way a hell of a lot better than Cheney…so please George stick with Dick…    

[Brutus]

Bill Richardson could only be a good VP for Edwards never Kerry it would be far too dour and "insiderish" a ticket with no real charisma or youthfulness (then again unless Bush drops Cheney for someone like Bill Owens the Republicans don’t exactly have the most barnstormingly charismatic and persuasive ticket)...

The real problem with not contesting the south is that we have five senate seats which we could potentially lose added to this there is a vulnerable Republican seat in Oklahoma... the answer to this is to have a candidate who appeals to independent voters across a broad geographical area and that man is either Edwards or perhaps governor Warner or senator Landrieu… Edwards has shown broad appeal with moderate Democrats and Independents as well as his anti-NAFTA positions possibly boosting the Dems in the “Steel States” furthermore he has been proven to be very popular amongst rural voters, his inclusion on the ticket would bring some much needed charisma, a very, very good debater to face Cheney, as well as assisting the Dems in the Senate and Congressional elections in the South….

The fact is that you cant right off the south because of the Senate races there and it would be foolish to do so… I think it may be many years before we win any of the deep southern states at a presidential level however with the kind of economically populist / socially traditionalist message that Edwards seems to be working towards we will have a shot at making these gains come sooner rather than latter and this time around a lot of senate seats could be held thanks to it….        

Good points!  Assuming that Kerry becomes the nominee, I hope Edwards is on the ticket - not so much for the geographic balance, but for the balance of personality.  Kerry is bland and dull.  Edwards would infuse some real energy into the campaign.

[TomC]

BTW if the Democrats abandoned "the South" they will never, ever take back the House.

I think you overestimate the extent to which the national parties control local politics.

[StevenNick]

Opebo have you seen Edwards or Cheney on TV? ... no seriously coz the Edwards I’ve seen is hands down one of the best stump speakers and debaters in US politics at the moment... Cheney on the other hand comes across as creepy and corrupt he is the embodiment of the "dark side" of this administration in most peoples minds, which is why Bush would do well to drop him and appoint Owens (I doubt he will though)... James Carville has commented that Edwards is even better than Clinton on the stump and that certainly bodes well for him... in a Cheney v Edwards debate Edwards would come across as a sunny, reasonable and practical person while Cheney would just seem to be what he has always been a shady, and hardline political hack he’s the very embodiment of a vested interest... Its interesting that I have time for W on a personal level he seems like a decent guy however I disagree with him on most issues having said that when it comes to Cheney the mans a complete creep and should be booted out at the first opportunity gets Owens or Frist as VP and I’d feel much more secure with this Administration having said that I’d still prefer a Kerry/ Edwards administration…


As for Edwards being some kind of "scummy, ambulance chaser"...  he took on big corporations and helped out the little guy (that’s how it will be spun and its not far from the truth)...  back to the idea of Edwards v Cheney my prediction is Cheney gets beat but no as bad as W does against JK... IMHO

Just remember what Cheney did to Lieberman.  And Lieberman is no intellectual lightweight.  He's certainly smarter than John Edwards.

[Brutus]

BTW if the Democrats abandoned "the South" they will never, ever take back the House.

I don't know about 'never' but you've got a good point.  The population of the sunbelt states is growing faster than the rest of the country.  If the Democrats don't start building some strength somewhere along that latitude, their days are numbered as a national party.  I guess I see the Southwest as the best hope, which is what prompted me to start this thread.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Bill Owens is a joke.

And Kerry's gonna win Colorado, since that's where he's from before he came to Massachusetts.

[Dave from Michigan]

I don't think Kerry will win Colorado

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Far more people live in Dixie than the South West though.
But my main point is that the Dems hold a lot more rural seats in the South than is commonly realized... and that there best shots at gaining seats this year is in rural seats in the South.

[Ben.]

Bandit 73… you’re a Nader voter and by that I take it you’re a liberal… I’m in no way being condescending but from your point of view voting Democratic seems like simple common sense and the result of the inevitable tide of progress… I afraid it not that way… Owens is not the kinda guy who reflects my beliefs but then again if I wanted a Rep who I’d vote for I’d chose McCain or Powel… the fact is Owens got 63% of the vote in his re-election bid in 2002 and that was after he got 49% in 1998 so the guys not a bad pol he’s not too conservative but yet he’s sufficiently conservative to hold on to the republican base… he is good on TV (I saw him on Sunday on Fox along with Barbour, Richardson and Granholm and he was good) he comes across as sunny and upstanding and he is good at articulating the GOP’s message in a not too ideological way… in my view a better choice for VP than Cheney but I expect… and I hope that Bush will keep Cheney and it sure looks that way at the moment…

As for CO going Dem in November… I strongly doubt it… I’d expect Kerry to perhaps do a little better there than Gore did and Edwards could do much better but its going to be a solidly Republican state in the fall… sorry, but it’s the truth as I fear will be Kentucky….  

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Bandit 73… you’re a Nader voter and by that I take it you’re a liberal… I’m in no way being condescending but from your point of view voting Democratic seems like simple common sense and the result of the inevitable tide of progress… I afraid it not that way… Owens is not the kinda guy who reflects my beliefs but then again if I wanted a Rep who I’d vote for I’d chose McCain or Powel… the fact is Owens got 63% of the vote in his re-election bid in 2002 and that was after he got 49% in 1998 so the guys not a bad pol he’s not too conservative but yet he’s sufficiently conservative to hold on to the republican base… he is good on TV (I saw him on Sunday on Fox along with Barbour, Richardson and Granholm and he was good) he comes across as sunny and upstanding and he is good at articulating the GOP’s message in a not too ideological way… in my view a better choice for VP than Cheney but I expect… and I hope that Bush will keep Cheney and it sure looks that way at the moment…

As for CO going Dem in November… I strongly doubt it… I’d expect Kerry to perhaps do a little better there than Gore did and Edwards could do much better but its going to be a solidly Republican state in the fall… sorry, but it’s the truth as I fear will be Kentucky….  

I don't know about Colorado being solidly GOP.  Bush got 52% there, Gore 43%.  That's still 48% that didn't want Bush to be prez.  Its a possibility.  I see the possibily of Colorado going Dem about the same as Minnesota going Rep.  Not likely, but a possibilty.