I disagree with the notion that the Democrats need to win in the South. Looking at the 2004 map, and comparing it to what is happening leading up to these elections, the Democratic candidate in 2008 could win by taking all of the states Kerry won in 2004, and flipping just a few states into the Democratic column.
Kerry won 251 of the 269 electoral votes needed; he could flip . . .
–Colorado, 9 EVs, Bush won by 4.67%;
–Missouri, 11 EVs, Bush won by 7.2%; the Senate race is a dead heat between Talent and McCaskill, so Dems can win there;
–Ohio, 20 EVs, Bush won by 2% and the state GOP seems to be imploding there;
–Nevada, 5 EVs, Bush won by 2.59%;
–New Mexico, 5 EVs, Bush won by less than 1 percentage point–and Bill Richardson could be on the Democratic ticket;
–Iowa, 7 EVs, Bush also won here by less than 1 percentage point.
Obama needs to pull just Ohio into the Democratic column, and he’d be the next POTUS.
Yes, eloquent is the right word, indeed. This excerpt from his book, Dreams from My Father, had me in tears by the end. His words, his tone, his stature, whether written or oral, all work together to both move and inspire. Eloquent. Yes, I like that word.
Dude, calling a black person who could speak well “articulate” went out the window in 1988. It’s from an era where Jimmy The Greek was still saying the black man was a good athlete because we bred slaves to be big. An era when every white QB was labelled “brainy” and every black QB was labelled “athletic”, no matter their actual attributes.
I was incredulous about the poster’s claim that she wondered what the question was all about.
Even if eloquence is the predominant characteristic of Barak Obama, it’s astounding that someone is so unaware of the history of the use of “articulate” that they would call him that, and if he’s going to be in the public eye for the next 3 years, I’d refrain from calling him “well spoken” in the presence of anyone who went to college in the past 25 years, lest you be taken for a rube.
Even if you’re saying the same thing, calling him a ‘great public speaker’ is a well-received complement. Saying he’s “articulate” brings a whole bag of shit along with it.
Besides, it’s more accurate. With one notable exception, *everyone *in politics in articulate. Gore is articulate. The difference between Gore and Obama is the quality of their public speaking, not their articulateness.
Excuse me, but I didn’t wonder what the question was all about, I wondered about the asker’s motivation for asking it. Note the use of the word, ‘why’ in my original statement. I was trying to politely suggest that if that thought even entered their mind, perhaps there was a bit of inherent prejudice in their thinking, without coming right out and accusing them of being prejudiced. Feel free to continue to misrepresent me, though. Your ire is so charming.
For better or worse, what gets candidates elected is charisma. He has more charisma than all the Democratic candidates of the past 20 years put together.
I think if he runs, he’ll easily get nominated. Whether he could get elected , unfortunately is a big question, due to his lack of experience, his name and his race. If McCain is the GOP candidate, it would be a very interesting and close race.
For me, it would be the first time in decades I would have to choose between two good candidates rather than pick the least-worst of two awful ones.
I notice you are from Wisconsin, Otto. Let’s take a look at Wisconsin’s Supreme Court…Hmmm…pretty white, except for one recent appointee, who (we learn) is the first-ever black Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice! Governor? Lieutenant Governor? Attorney General? Secretary of State? White. White. White. White.
Physician, heal thyself!
I see no reason Obama could not win states in the South, and in particular I’m thinking of those states where Clinton was competitive: Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana. I don’t understand your concern about what white Republican Southern men will do, since they represent an electoral minority. Who needs 'em? Democrats win in the South by wooing: their party base + independents + women voters. White Republican men don’t factor into it.
Southerners who would vote against Obama because he’s black are people who would never vote Democratic anyway.
Moreover, an Obama candidacy would likely energize black voters, and black turnout in the South is always a critical factor in Democratic success.
Obama is a moderate, he’s an eloquent speaker, and he doesn’t come across as a stuffed shirt. These are things that matter in Presidential politics in the South.
It wasn’t my intention to get into a pissing match over this, so I don’t know why you’re frothing quite this heavily. But if you want to stack up a historical comparison of race relations in Wisconsin vs race relations in Georgia…you lose. Huge.
First of all, I am a he, not a she - although that is irrelevant to this topic.
I lived in Europe during the time period you are talking about, and even if I had lived here, I have no interest in professional sports whatsoever - thus I am totally unaware of any connotations with the word “articulate”.
When I originally posted this, I had just watched the four video clips from Meet the Press, and once again, was very impressed with Obama and how articulate, yes, articulate he was when asked some difficult questions.
Perhaps my definition is different than others - to me, an articulate person is someone who can effectively communicate their opinion in few words, in a manner that shows poise and command of the subject. Obama comes across as a man who would not be easily rattled in a debate; a man who listens to the question and answers accordingly - not using canned phrases from a memorized speech. In other words, a man who can think on his feet and articulate his viewpoint in a manner that is easily understood by the listener.
I’m stickin’ to the word, and if it carries baggage in your mind, well - so be it.
No problem! When it comes right down to it, we’re in agreement. The states I list in my northern strategy scenario and the ones that you cite in your post are pretty damn close.
Still, he lost the majority of the South. Twice. In elections that were electoral near-blowouts otherwise.
Show me a non-Southern Democratic presidential candidate that did well in the South in the last 40 years. You can’t. You have to go all the way back to 1960, and that guy had the benefit of a high-profile Southern running mate.
It’s not that simple. You have to look at the individual non-Southern candidates the Democrats put up over that span:
Hubert Humphrey (1968): Race was still a huge issue in the South of the 60’s, and Humphrey had been vocally in favor of desegregation. Rightly so, but he could not reasonably expect to win the South of that era under the circumstances. Even so, he managed to win Texas.
McGovern (1972): Lost in a huge landslide nationwide, winning only Massachusetts and DC. Way too far left for the South.
Mondale (1984): Another huge landslide. Won only Minnesota and DC. Clearly not an attractive candidate anywhere.
Dukakis (1988): Another landslide. Won just a handful of states. Stuffed shirt.
Kerry (2004): Stuffed shirt, clumsy campaigner.
Frankly, those are all bad candidates, and not much of a sample from which to draw meaningful conclusions. Non of them had that combination of eloquence, confidence, warmth, a centrist approach and a common touch which we saw in Clinton, and which I think we may be seeing again in Obama.
I think Obama’s success in the South would depend in large part on who Obama’s opponent would be. For example, suppose he were running against the decidedly non-Southern Rudolph Giuliani.
On the other hand, if the Republicans put up an attractive candidate who is also a Southerner, then it’s going to be hard for any Democratic candidate to pick up a Southern state.
Can we just let go of the sidebar sniping in this thread? There is no need for it when the topic itself is so rich.
I have a friend who organized all of the PR/Appearance/book tour activities for Obama related to his new book. She worked up close with him to do so. She was blown away - she said he has that magic quality that you only see rarely - everyone he worked with on the publishing side to get his book out have already decided to sign up and support him should he run.
Seems like he has that Leadership/Charisma gene - sure, he was amazing with his DNC speech, but what I hear in my friend’s comments is that his power comes through up close and personal as well as on a big stage - having that ability to connect at both levels is rare indeed. When someone like that comes along, they have an advantage that regular pols can’t match. Whether he could ride it to the White House is dependent on many, many other variables - some he/his organization can control, some they can’t - but he appears to be starting with a real, distinct advantage.
Given what I know about his politics thus far, I love the thought of such a charimatic leader with his value set leading our country…