Assuming the polls are right and Kerry wins big in Virginia and Tennessee tonight, spoke-, will you be ready to say that he appeals to Southerners too despite the twistable quotes you’ve insisted are important? If Edwards can’t win there, where can he win?
The race will be over tomorrow. The other candidates may keep on for awhile out of sheer stubbornness, or to make rhetorical points, but they’ll stop seriously criticizing their nominee and get on board soon after. But it won’t matter what they do because not many will be paying attention to them anyway.
Kerry is already spending a fair amount of times predicting the attacks from “the Republican sleaze machine” and promising to fight back. That simple statement of awareness already inoculates him against Dukakisization, and puts the focus of public and press attention when the attacks occur on the attackers.
John, I agree Gore’s influence dissipated with Dean’s failure, and it will be gone as soon as there’s a nominee to become the party’s national representative.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Assuming the polls are right and Kerry wins big in Virginia and Tennessee tonight, spoke-, will you be ready to say that he appeals to Southerners too despite the twistable quotes you’ve insisted are important? If Edwards can’t win there, where can he win?
[QUOTE]
Firstly, if Edwards doesn’t win TN and VA, it will be because Clark is in the race.
Secondly, it will be no big surprise if Kerry (who has the full bandwagon effect on his side, and has been anointed by the national press) manages a win over Edwards and Clark in the South, since they are splitting their base. (In fact, I predicted as much after the Oklahoma primary. I said that Clark winning Oklahoma and staying in the race might have killed Edwards.)
Do I think Kerry appeals to Southerners? Hell no. He may appeal to a plurality of Democratic primary voters (because of the bandwagon effect and the split of the Edwards/Clark base), but I stand firmly behind my prediction that Kerry cannot win a Southern state come November. (Care for a wager?) Edwards or Clark could.
It may change Edwards’s perception as to whether to remain in the race. The bandwagon effect may be too much to overcome.
But it would NOT mean Kerry can win in the South in November. Winning even 50% of Democratic primary voters doesn’t tell us anything about swing voters. (See: Dukakis, Michael.)
You can expect Kerry’s “mistake of looking South” comment to played more or less on a continuous loop down here come general election time. That quote will not disappear from the Southern consciousness. In fact, looking at my copy of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (a Democratic paper, BTW), the quote is on the front page today, in the following context:
The Atlanta paper did Kerry the favor of redacting his quote to make it less abrasive. You can bet that Republican outlets won’t do him the same favor. Either way, the remark will resonate down here when the Republicans start spending money to burn it into the voter psyche.
I am still willing to make a friendly wager that Kerry won’t win a Southern state in November. Any takers?
spoke, I will bet you a shiny new Michigan quarter that Kerry takes at least one southern state. Having read your cite, I’m left wondering: what exactly do Southerners want the Democrats to do? On one hand you’ve got a guy who has taken a surplus and turned it into record deficits, added $2.3 TRILLION to the national debt, lost 2.2 million jobs, lied to us to justify starting a war, and coerced the Congress into passing the Patriot Act. On the other hand, you’ve got a guy who said it would be a mistake to think that you can’t win without the South. Is the Southern sense of honor that fragile that you can’t get over such an inconsequential statement? So if you’re in Kerry’s shoes, what exactly do you do to start a “southern strategy”?
I think Kerry can win without any southern states. Take the 2000 Gore-Bush split of states from the John Edwards site’s interactive map. Bush starts with a 278-260 margin. Given the woeful state of the industrial Midwest, turn Ohio blue. Turn Missouri blue and you’ve got Kerry at 291-247. Now add an honest election in Florida with some intensive voter education and you’ve got Kerry at 318-220. Now I think Kerry has a real chance to turn over Louisiana and West Virginia, now we’ve got a rout at 332-206. Kerry will compete well in the south as well as all around the country. Bush has done what no Democrat could do, namely unify the Democratic party. Kerry wins in a rout.
spoke-, if you’re really saying (as you seem to) that Kerry’s support in the South is all mindless bandwagon-effect and opposition-splitting, but that all caring and thoughtful southerners will only vote for another Southerner, then it’s no wonder you’ve flown into so much turbulence here. The assertion you make that Clark is as strongly identifiable as a Southerner as Edwards is also pretty damn dubious. The same numbers could also be taken to mean that southern Democrats put the same issues at the tops of their lists as do Democrats in the other parts of the country. Did Dean and Lieberman lose New Hampshire because they were splitting the New England vote with Kerry? C’mon now, the war has been over for a long time now.
It may well be that Kerry won’t win a single state in the South, as you suggest, but it wouldn’t be because of a single quote instead of simple party affiliation and the feeling among the dominant conservatives there that Bush is still a less-bad choice. What attitude similar to the one you’re intent upon reading into Kerry was evident in any of the other recent Democratic candidates who also had trouble winning there? Time to set it aside, pal.
I’ll jump in with **Jonathan ** and ask you to confirm that you think Kerry will take less than 50% in TN or VA, or even less than the total of Edwards and Clark. It’s possible, sure, but I hope you’re not betting the plantation on it.
You need to read the Atlanta Journal article. Conservatives are not so dominant here as you think. The South is moderate. Clinton and Carter won Southern states. Georgia has a Democratic House, and until recently, a Democratic Governor. You’ll find Democratic governors and senators from several Southern states.
Gore had the same attitude. He also wrote off the South and didn’t campaign here. He only jumped into Florida with a last-minute, slap-dash campaign when he decided it wasn’t a lost cause after all. The attitude cost him, and it will cost Kerry.
Set what aside? I’m telling those with ears to hear that Kerry can’t win in the South because of his too-liberal record, which won’t play with moderates, and which will only reinforce the “Massachusetts liberal” stereotype. To make that pre-existing handicap worse, he stupidly gave his opposition a perfect sound bite to use against him down here.
It is a mistake for my party to nominate a candidate who has effectively ceded the South. Southern states are winnable by a Democratic candidate. (See: Clinton, Bill). Kerry is not the candidate for the job. Can the election be won without the South? Maybe. I guess we’ll find out. I do know it’s a much tougher job if the party cedes the region.
I’ll probably hold my nose and vote for the big stiff if (as appears likely) he gets nominated. But I harbor no illusions that it will do any good here.
Ah yes, and ElvisL1ves, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am hung up on the Civil War, or have something against Northerners generally. Not so. In fact, I would be quite content with a Howard Dean nomination. He doesn’t have Kerry’s too-liberal record, and might actually play down here in a general election. Not gonna happen, though. He got dismantled by the Powers That Be.
Yeah, that comment about Confederate flags and pickup trucks probably won him lots of supporters.
“The Powers That Be” = Kerry, Edwards and his own mouth, plus lame media coverage.
I don’t think you’ve ever given a real reason that a Southern VP nom. wouldn’t help Kerry in the South, but at this point it’s hardly even worth arguing about. Clark and Edwards did help to beat themselves, although I’m not convinced either one would’ve beaten Kerry anyway. Did you see that Carol Moseley Braun beat Clark in Michigan?
Well, pal, pretty much all you’ve said against Kerry is about that comment, *not * about this alleged liberalism. You now have left yourself, too, with having to explain why Southern moderates are any different from the moderates everywhere else Kerry’s won - unless you’re claiming they’re somehow more numerous down there, or that Democratic moderates are a fundamentally different breed from Republican ones. What the hell are you still claiming is different there that matters in this context? What are you so damned vehement about that hasn’t already been debunked?
Anyway, I do look forward to your explanations of Kerry’s big wins in Tennessee and Virginia tonight. Perhaps they just don’t represent the South?
And for the last time now: Kerry did NOT say he’s “ceding the South”. He did say it wasn’t mathematically necessary to win anywhere in the South to still win the Presidency. That’s a simple statement of fact, NOT of policy. Obviously, if there are Southern states that Kerry decides are winnable, he’d like to go get them, and you don’t offer any credible evidence that he won’t, or that it won’t work if he does. None. Our ears are working fine; how about yours?
spoke, do you really think that Kerry doesn’t stand a chance in Florida? Do you really think he’ll do worse in Florida than Gore did? Remember that if you assume that thousands of older Jews in Florida didn’t cast their votes for Patrick Buchanan, Gore would’ve won the state by several thousand votes.
Yeah sure thing spoke- , and there ain’t no dew in Dixie.
You gotta stop reading that liberal rag - The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
That newspaper blows more off-the-wall smoke than a left-handed cigarette.
The Democrats couldn’t beat President Bush in the South in '04 if they ran… ___>>>> Robert E Lee <<<<.
Next we’ll hear that Florida isn’t really the South. Most of it really isn’t.
Whatever. Try this: A Democrat observing that he doesn’t need the South to win is absolutely as true and as meaningful as a Republican saying he doesn’t need the Northeast and California to win. No slight is intended either way. Any candidate will obviously concentrate resources on the tossup states, and those can be anywhere. Making the observation out loud may be impolitic, but it does reflect a grasp of political reality, and that is not a bad thing for a candidate to have, of course, especially this year.
Where it can become a pernicious attitude is *after * the election, when planning for the next one starts. An incumbent who doesn’t expect to have a real chance in a state the next time around is less likely to send any goodies their way, and he may be less likely to pay off people who are going to vote for him anyway. But either way, it’s better for you to be in a tossup state in that regard.
Large parts of FL are definitely South. Other parts aren’t. (How meaningful! ;))
I think it would be a mistake for the Dem nominee to fail to seriously contest the South, for the simple reason that the GOP nominee can then sink all his money into winning Dem and swing states. Bad move.
I think that, aside from SC, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Oklahoma, the Southern and border states are in play this year. Kerry has a nontrivial chance to win a Georgia or an Arkansas or a NC or a Kentucky.
I’m ready to place a bet on Kerry winning at least one Southern/border state.
With 95% of the Virginia vote in, it’s Kerry-Edwards-Clark-Dean-Sharpton-Kucinich with 51-27-9-7-4-1%. So Kerry > Edwards + Clark there, since he’s getting an outright majority.
FWIW, Kerry’s and Edwards’ showings were pretty consistent statewide. I was looking at the county-by-county results on CNN.com, and it didn’t seem to matter if I was looking at Northern Virginia, Richmond, Tidewater, Southside, the Shenendoah Valley, Southwest Virginia, or where. Edwards finished first in a half-dozen or so small counties and by a slender margin in one middling county (Stafford, just north of Fredericksburg), and finished third in a coupla places, but otherwise, he was second, usually with between 20-35% of the vote, and Kerry was usually first with between 40-60% of the vote.
Kerry’s win isn’t so dominating in TN, but with 44% of the vote in, it’s 40-26-24-5-1-0% among Kerry-Edwards-Clark-Dean-Sharpton-Kucinich.
Wesley Clark’s all but said he’s calling it quits after tonight. Dean has changed his mind about dropping out if he loses Wisconsin next week. I’m assuming Edwards will stay in for at least a week once Clark folds.
And I agree: the race for the nomination is over, and Kerry’s the man.
The race for second is pretty meaningless, since Clark’s gonna drop out, and Dean’s on Kerry’s shit list, not on his short list.
What IS meaningful is how long the pretense of a race keeps up, to the extent that the news media keep covering it. That’s free advertising for Kerry. So here’s hoping Dean and Edwards keep actively campaigning through Super Tuesday, at least.
So, how about some veep predictions? I’m thinking it’ll be Edwards. I can’t see Kerry inviting any of the dropouts so far to be his running mate, nor can I see him asking Clark to be his #2. (Nor can I see Clark wanting to be veep.) Edwards, by not attacking other Dems, has not only helped keep the focus on Bush, but has kept the veep possibility open. He’d almost surely accept if offered, since he’s not running for re-election as Senator from NC.
