Monday, April 11, 2005
Can Republicans "Out-Southern" Democrats in 2008?
If the Democrats have any brains at all they will nominate a Southerner for president in the next election. Why? Because they can’t win if they don’t.
And they have to nominate a real Southerner. In 2000, they assumed that Southerners were too stupid to notice that Gore was raised a liberal Northeasterner and spent only token time in the South. Gore was, in truth, nothing more than a carpet bagger and Southerners knew it. Then in 2004 Democrats were so desperate to win at least a couple of Southern states they decided to put a Southern VP on the ticket. After looking all over the place the best they could find was John Edwards, a raw, inexperienced, liberal ambulance chaser. Again, Democrats assumed that southerners were too stupid to recognize pandering when they see it.
The fact that neither of these men managed to carry their own states, much less any other Southern state, is proof positive that Democrats desperately need a real Southerner at the top of their 2008 ticket. Will they do it?
We believe so. A quick perusal of post election news and democratic blogs leads us to believe the Democrats finally “get it” with regard to the South.
“Democratic leaders are out of touch with the American people. [We] don’t really have the same life, day to day, as all those people out there in those red states”, said Doug Sosnik, former Clinton Political Director at the recent Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) meeting. “We can’t figure out a better way to sell to those people—we’ve got to be more like them.”
Being “more like them”, he says, means finding Democratic leaders from small-town and rural America. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (AR), the only Southern Democrat to win a Senate seat, agreed. Speaking at the same council meeting, she urged the party to adopt a strategy “that encompasses dealing with people who live where I grew up: in the middle of nowhere, out in rural America.”
Al From, the DLC’s founder, said “for the second term in a row, we did not win one electoral vote in the South. We have to expand the map. If we aren’t challenging the Republicans to defend their turf, they will constantly challenge us to defend ours.” Finally, he said, “you can’t talk about a national strategy until you talk about a Southern strategy.”
Democratic leaders are also keenly aware of just how soundly they were trounced in the South. Election returns have been studied down to the county level and reported in the Washington Post, Time Magazine and other national publications. Across the South, white voters constitute a majority of voters in 1,154 counties. Kerry won just 90 of them.
By contrast, Bill Clinton, (a real Southerner) won 510 of them. Enough to carry five Southern states and the White House in both 1992 and 1996.
Democrats are also very aware that history is not on their side.
According to Gleaves Whitney, a presidential historian and author of the AskGleaves.org blog, since 1856 Republicans have won seven of nine open presidential contests against Democrats. “Regarding 2008,” he says, “see if they don’t look south of the Mason-Dixon line for their candidate.”
Whitney also quotes Mark Rozell, another presidential historian. “In the past 40 years, the Democrats have won the White House only with a Southern Baptist at the head of the ticket. For 2008, the lesson for Democrats seems clear: In seeking a party nominee, go south.”
Why do we point this out to you on this blog? Because now is not the time for Republicans to ease their grip on the South. If Democrats are going to nominate a real Southerner (assuming they can find one who is viable), Republicans will make a huge mistake by not going toe to toe with them.
A Republican ticket that has no real Southerner facing a Democratic ticket that has one stands to lose not just a few Southern states, but the White House as well. Democrats have no choice but to try to win back at least part of the South. Republicans cannot afford to let that happen. That’s why we are predicting that the South will be ground zero in 2008.
Even in a Southerner vs. Southerner steel cage death match, Republicans maintain a decided advantage. Democrats cannot nominate a pro life candidate. Republicans not only can, but must or they will have unilaterally disarmed in the South and they will lose Southern states and the White House. Worse, they will have willingly tossed the Democrats a life preserver in a region they desperately need. That would be stupid.
If Republicans are going to have to defend the South against a real Southern Democrat, the only way to limit the damage is to “out-Southern” them. There is one way to do that: Republicans can nominate a real Southerner who also happens to be a former Southern Baptist minister. We’re willing to bet the Democrats can’t find one of those.
BSR
|
And they have to nominate a real Southerner. In 2000, they assumed that Southerners were too stupid to notice that Gore was raised a liberal Northeasterner and spent only token time in the South. Gore was, in truth, nothing more than a carpet bagger and Southerners knew it. Then in 2004 Democrats were so desperate to win at least a couple of Southern states they decided to put a Southern VP on the ticket. After looking all over the place the best they could find was John Edwards, a raw, inexperienced, liberal ambulance chaser. Again, Democrats assumed that southerners were too stupid to recognize pandering when they see it.
The fact that neither of these men managed to carry their own states, much less any other Southern state, is proof positive that Democrats desperately need a real Southerner at the top of their 2008 ticket. Will they do it?
We believe so. A quick perusal of post election news and democratic blogs leads us to believe the Democrats finally “get it” with regard to the South.
“Democratic leaders are out of touch with the American people. [We] don’t really have the same life, day to day, as all those people out there in those red states”, said Doug Sosnik, former Clinton Political Director at the recent Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) meeting. “We can’t figure out a better way to sell to those people—we’ve got to be more like them.”
Being “more like them”, he says, means finding Democratic leaders from small-town and rural America. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (AR), the only Southern Democrat to win a Senate seat, agreed. Speaking at the same council meeting, she urged the party to adopt a strategy “that encompasses dealing with people who live where I grew up: in the middle of nowhere, out in rural America.”
Al From, the DLC’s founder, said “for the second term in a row, we did not win one electoral vote in the South. We have to expand the map. If we aren’t challenging the Republicans to defend their turf, they will constantly challenge us to defend ours.” Finally, he said, “you can’t talk about a national strategy until you talk about a Southern strategy.”
Democratic leaders are also keenly aware of just how soundly they were trounced in the South. Election returns have been studied down to the county level and reported in the Washington Post, Time Magazine and other national publications. Across the South, white voters constitute a majority of voters in 1,154 counties. Kerry won just 90 of them.
By contrast, Bill Clinton, (a real Southerner) won 510 of them. Enough to carry five Southern states and the White House in both 1992 and 1996.
Democrats are also very aware that history is not on their side.
According to Gleaves Whitney, a presidential historian and author of the AskGleaves.org blog, since 1856 Republicans have won seven of nine open presidential contests against Democrats. “Regarding 2008,” he says, “see if they don’t look south of the Mason-Dixon line for their candidate.”
Whitney also quotes Mark Rozell, another presidential historian. “In the past 40 years, the Democrats have won the White House only with a Southern Baptist at the head of the ticket. For 2008, the lesson for Democrats seems clear: In seeking a party nominee, go south.”
Why do we point this out to you on this blog? Because now is not the time for Republicans to ease their grip on the South. If Democrats are going to nominate a real Southerner (assuming they can find one who is viable), Republicans will make a huge mistake by not going toe to toe with them.
A Republican ticket that has no real Southerner facing a Democratic ticket that has one stands to lose not just a few Southern states, but the White House as well. Democrats have no choice but to try to win back at least part of the South. Republicans cannot afford to let that happen. That’s why we are predicting that the South will be ground zero in 2008.
Even in a Southerner vs. Southerner steel cage death match, Republicans maintain a decided advantage. Democrats cannot nominate a pro life candidate. Republicans not only can, but must or they will have unilaterally disarmed in the South and they will lose Southern states and the White House. Worse, they will have willingly tossed the Democrats a life preserver in a region they desperately need. That would be stupid.
If Republicans are going to have to defend the South against a real Southern Democrat, the only way to limit the damage is to “out-Southern” them. There is one way to do that: Republicans can nominate a real Southerner who also happens to be a former Southern Baptist minister. We’re willing to bet the Democrats can’t find one of those.
BSR
