Is Kerry-Edwards the most electable (D) ticket?

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The last northern Democrat to win Ohio was Roosevelt. Sixty four years ago. Good luck.

I like how you qualify it. Why 'northern Democrat'? It would make more sense that a Southern Democrat would have a harder time winning Ohio... oh, and Clinton won Ohio both times. Carter won it in '76 as well.

I wonder how jimmytrick will react when a Northern Democrat wins this elected . I also seem to remember people saying a Catholic couldn't be elected President as well.

The last northern Democrat to win Florida was Roosevelt. Sixty four years ago. Good luck.

I say "northern Democrat" to compare Kerry to Edwards. Historically, nominating northerners has always, always been catastrophic for the Democrats. This is THE real electability issue most especially now that the Republican party is even stronger in the south than historically. Plus Bush is working hard to get the Hispanic vote which, as you might notice, will be cast in the South.

It took the Great Depression to get Roosevelt elected. Folks, you may be pissed as all hell at Bush but we are several orders of magnitude short of the political unrest created in the 1930s.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And yet he was so close to winning in the Electoral College and it would have happened with Florida being the Southern state.

Close only matters in horseshoes and tactical nuclear weapons.

jt's point regarding Democrats and the South still seems to be standing.

And besides it's only been 20 years that the Republicans have controlled the South.

Exactly my point. I fail to see the logic of trying to make the blue states bluer without at lest attempting to pinch off a few red ones. There are a few Southern states that might be competitive if the Democrats put forth the effort. Gore lost TN because he didn't bother to even seriously campaign there.

[PLATO]

The midwest is a strong area for "christian values" and fiscal conservatism. While Bush has not been very fiscally conservative (to say the least), he can still play this issue against a Mass. Senator. (The same ole "tax and spend liberal" argument) Propably the only dem that he would have a chance against with this argument. On the values issue, Bush wins against any dem candidate. Additionally, the midwest is traditionally an area that will give early political support to a rebounding economy.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by PLATO


Overlooking the fact of course that Kerry stands no chance in the midwest.

Yeah, thats right. Northern democrats never win out there either.

I was trying to make a point without hurting the Yankees feelings but, what the heck.

We ain't having no stinkin Yankee presidents.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Gore lost TN because he didn't bother to even seriously campaign there.

Not true. Gore lost TN because it was pounded how he did a 180 degree turn from many positions that he had when he was elected to the Senate. The net result was that he has little credibility left in TN.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by jimmytrick

We ain't having no stinkin Yankee presidents.

Damn straight.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Historically, nominating northerners has always, always been catastrophic for the Democrats.

Because the sample size is big enough to show that?

What do you have, Dukakis and Mondale? Dukakis was running against a Northeasterner as well (Bush 1). Mondale was running against a Californian.

that the Republican party is even stronger in the south than historically

You'd hope so, since historically the Republicans hardly ever won the South (look at the 1976 election for instance).

jt's point regarding Democrats and the South still seems to be standing.

Only if you consider 20 years and 6 elections as dispositive. And you only had two Northern Democrats, both running at the wrong time.

I fail to see the logic of trying to make the blue states bluer without at lest attempting to pinch off a few red ones. There are a few Southern states that might be competitive if the Democrats put forth the effort.

That wasn't the point. The point was that if Kerry keeps all the states Gore kept and just added one more (Ohio, Florida), then he wins the elections, so saying a Northern Dem can't win is utterly foolish. It'd be like saying a Republican can't win the South in January 1968.

[Agathon]

The Dems don't win in the South because Southerners are a bunch of gun toting racist fundy hicks.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Close only matters in horseshoes and tactical nuclear weapons.

jt's point regarding Democrats and the South still seems to be standing.

And besides it's only been 20 years that the Republicans have controlled the South.

Exactly my point. I fail to see the logic of trying to make the blue states bluer without at lest attempting to pinch off a few red ones. There are a few Southern states that might be competitive if the Democrats put forth the effort. Gore lost TN because he didn't bother to even seriously campaign there.

You are dead on right. Seriously. Gore's loss is the exception that proves the rule and stemmed in large part because Gore had been in Washington so long he no longer was considered Southern by the folks back home.

I want to say another thing. History must be taken in context and generals tend to prepare to fight the last war. What happened in 2000 best be weighed against 100 years of political history or someone might as well get out the McGovern electoral map and paste it on their wall.

Besides, Edwards is the only Democrat I can vote for and I am not going to automatically vote for Georgie this time around.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Agathon
The Dems don't win in the South because Southerners are a bunch of gun toting racist fundy hicks.

We are not racist anymore!!!!!

[Ramo]

The midwest is a strong area for "christian values" and fiscal conservatism.

The midwest has been losing jobs, and places like Ohio and WV, both extremely close in 2000's election, aren't particularly smitten with this administration given the 360 on steel tariffs. And who knows what'll be the fallout if we're called on our agrisubsidies in the WTO (whatever the case, Shrub won't come out of looking any better).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

jt's point regarding Democrats and the South still seems to be standing.

Only if you consider 20 years and 6 elections as dispositive.

Care to point out a modern candidate (Lincoln doesn't count!) that won the election without at least being competative (carrying at lest 2 states) in the South?

And you only had two Northern Democrats, both running at the wrong time.

Who cares about Northern Democrats anyway? The relevent distinction here are Democrat or Republican since the running consensus is that the Democrats would be best served writing off the region as a whole.

[Imran Siddiqui]

History must be taken in context and generals tend to prepare to fight the last war. What happened in 2000 best be weighed against 100 years of political history

Yes, you are right, generals fight the last war, and by looking back at '100 years of political history' you are fighting 3 wars beforehand. What happened in 2000 is more indicative of the 2004 election than 1988 was.

If things stay as they are (sluggish growth, Iraq bog down), a northern dem has a great chance.

[Ramo]

Politics aren't static. The Dems no longer need the South.

[monkspider]

The south is completely irrelevent to American politics.