« The Reachable & Unreachable South | Main | A Nation, Bullied »
April 01, 2006
Competing in Southern States Without Nominating a Southerner
by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math
The days of needing to win five Southern States to win the Presidency are over, but winning one or even two would make life a lot easier. I'd love to see a non-Southern candidate win Arkansas and North Carolina, for instance. But how do you do it?
Discuss.
April 1, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d834b501ac69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Competing in Southern States Without Nominating a Southerner:
Comments
I'm not sure how. But it worries me that you'd rate AR as a similar opportunity to NC. I think AR is eminently pickup-able, as is TN; NC will be another decade, as will be VA.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Apr 1, 2006 3:14:10 PM
There are some short-term factors that make NC (and SC) in play. The continued loss of textile and furniture jobs to offshoring means there's a lot of economic strife. And the bumbling of the war has returned a lot of folks to the "isolationist right" ... think Pat Buchanan with less explicit xenophobia.
But mostly I was picking Arkansas plus one Southern State at random that wasn't AL or MS.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Apr 1, 2006 3:32:42 PM
Well, I'll throw in my 2 cents and suggest that Virginia or Florida (if it counts as Southern) would make the most sense as the 2nd Southern state. The moves to a realignment in Virginia are very encouraging. I think wins in Tennessee or North Carolina ... well I think the Democrats would likely be winning anyway if they were somehow able to pick up one of those.
Posted by: Armand | Apr 1, 2006 6:26:47 PM
Not that I think he'd necessarily do well nationally, but the governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, might be better-equipped to play in the south than a northeasterner. The reason, I think, probably has more to do with an urban-rural divide than a south-north divide. The perception of the northeast and west as being more urban and "out of touch" with "regular folk" doesn't stick as well to a pro-gun outdoorsy type from a rural state such as Montana. I figure there are a few others who break with the two standard archetypes of 'southern democrat' and 'northeasterner/west coast democrat' espousing characteristics compatible with southern victories, though I can't think of many beyond Schweitzer at the moment.
Posted by: lb | Apr 1, 2006 8:09:09 PM
I think it requires a real Southerner. I don't know if policies or personality matter. Both Carter and Clinton won, and they have not a whole lot in common. Except things like a liberal history toward race relations, and a sophistication and advanced education.
Think about those guys. The crackers are just bullies.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Apr 1, 2006 8:50:49 PM
I'm actually somewhere between lb and bob on this. The Westerner has a chance in the South, since he can escape the liberal-northeastern-city-slicker stereotype and not be seen as the enemy. But he doesn't give the proud Southerner positive reasons to vote for him.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Apr 1, 2006 9:20:59 PM
Aside from proportional voting in the Electoral College (or direct election of the President/VP) - both requiring an unlikely Constitutional amendment, the best hope is a Dem. candidate that is not from the 'old Union' (civil war era). Echos of the 1860's (and 1960's) are still resounding in large parts of the south.
It doesn't probably matter whether the Dem. candidate is from other than he/she have values and personality that don't clash with perceived 'traditional southern values'. The person is more important than the region. A Mark Warner, Wes Clark, or Brian Schweitzer (if better known, and willing) probably can pass that test, but not a Hillary Clinton. GW Bush's persona and policy stance was crafted and overlaid by Rove to create that 'ol boy' that the south can support.
Florida and Virginia and Arkansas seem possible to me for the Dems. The others, not so much - although BushCo's unpopularity may provide a surprise ending. We are a prisoner of the electoral college system, and we have been sentenced to a life term.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Apr 1, 2006 9:26:50 PM
It looks like we could get Virginia and Florida, but it's funny, the reason we can do that is because of all the Northerners moving there. So there's an answer, right there: send them a ton of northern liberals.
Posted by: Greg | Apr 1, 2006 10:09:40 PM
We may not need more than a handful of Southern states, but we might need a Southerner to get them. I think a Southern candidate who knows the region & can sell himself as even slightly moderate imediately puts states like Arkansas, Virginia, West Virginia & Florida into play.
Posted by: Dustin | Apr 2, 2006 3:51:48 AM
"It doesn't probably matter whether the Dem. candidate is from other than he/she have values and personality that don't clash with perceived 'traditional southern values'. The person is more important than the region. A Mark Warner, Wes Clark, or Brian Schweitzer (if better known, and willing) probably can pass that test, but not a Hillary Clinton. GW Bush's persona and policy stance was crafted and overlaid by Rove to create that 'ol boy' that the south can support."
Region is part of the person.
Region is a signifier that instantly conveys cultural markers to the electorate. Region communicates values. Re-run the '04 election with an absolutely identical clone of John Kerry who was a Senator from Ohio instead of Massachusetts, and you'd pick up a couple of points in Arkansas and Arizona.
If Hillary Clinton had won her Senate seat in Arkansas rather than New York, she'd be a much stronger general election Presidential candidate. Bush the Elder from Texas was popular. Bush the Elder from Kennebunkport wasn't.
Same person with different region equals different person.
Posted by: Petey | Apr 2, 2006 9:14:22 AM
"Same person with different region equals different person." I'm with you to a degree Petey, but only to a degree.
First off, all the poli sci studies I've seen of this show that people are a bit more likely than average to vote for a candidate from their own state, but there's not a significant relationship when it comes to voting for someone from the same region/from a bordering state.
Secondly, I think the way this does have an effect, and what those studies might have trouble getting at is the "personality" of a candidate/campaign - things that this thread is getting at like its "values". And there probably are a number of people from the West who I think could appeal to Southerners. Knowles? Kitzhaber? Schweitzer? None are running or are likely to run - but there's a "just folks" style, a directness, a sort of not afraid to work with your hands or handle a gun feel to some of the politicians out there that I think a lot of Southerners wouldn't feel threatened by (as opposed to say, someone who's an intellectual policy wonk, or a MASSACHUSETTS LIBERAL who's married to an independently wealthy, powerful, articulate woman with an accent).
Oh, and I think Hillary would be death in the South regardless of the state that elected her to the Senate.
Posted by: Armand | Apr 2, 2006 12:37:00 PM
The only way for the Democrats to win the presidency is to run a national campaign, not a southern strategy or a western strategy or a "for God's sake no North Easterners" strategy. I can't believe the amount of naval gazing you're doing about whether a generic candidate can win based on where he's from. Who you nominate is important - not what region they come from. If you think Edwards is your man just say so and make the case for him - but remember the Republicans will simply attack him for being a wealthy trial lawyer instead of a "French looking" Yankee. Al Gore? Does anyone even remember he's from Tennessee? He'll be portrayed as a nerd and a radical and a proven loser. Mark Warner - why is his name mentioned other than that he's from Virginia? Can he hold his own in a debate with McCain on Iraq or terrorism or the budget? Would he even support progressive issues if he were elected?
Anyone the Democrats nominate will have some history, some personality trait or some completely fabricated issue that the Republican's will attack them on. Whoever is nominated needs to be able to hold his own, frame the debate and hit back hard. That's the question you need to be asking, not "What state does he come from?".
Republicans don't play these games with their candidates. They thought nothing of running a conservative Texan and a Texan running mate for office. Mitt Romney doesn't worry about being a "Massachusetts Republican". Sam Brownback doesn't worry about being an ultraconservative and not being able to take Michigan.
Republicans can draw from any region they please and they can counter any lightweight southerner you pick for them.
The idea that the Democrats need to pick a Southerner is a Republican talking point that you should be squashing, not feeding.
Posted by: Mike | Apr 2, 2006 11:58:54 PM
They thought nothing of running a conservative Texan and a Texan running mate for office.
I don't think we need to run a Southerner. I think we should focus on personality. But the above is wrong. In 1999, the explicit argument made for Bush to Republicans was that, while less conservative than most, he could win.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Apr 3, 2006 9:31:32 AM
"Republicans don't play these games with their candidates. They thought nothing of running a conservative Texan and a Texan running mate for office."
Yup. That's because nominating a Southern candidate makes just as much sense for Republicans as it does for Democrats. If the GOP shuts out the Democrats in the South, they are very likely to win the election. Nominating Southern tickets makes sense for both parties.
It makes sense for Democrats to nominate a Southerner to prevent the GOP from shutting them out in the South.
It makes sense for Republicans to nominate a Southerner to shut out the Democrats in the South.
"Sam Brownback doesn't worry about being an ultraconservative and not being able to take Michigan."
Because he doesn't need Michigan if he sweeps the South.
-----
"Who you nominate is important - not what region they come from."
To repeat myself from above, region is part of the person.
-----
I don't think the nominee has to necessarily be Southern. The Southwest and Mountain West have an odd regional affinity with the South. Brian Schweitzer passes the region test.
And, of course, there will always be exceptions that prove the rule. But those exceptions are far rarer than folks want them to be.
American national politics has been a regional game for a long time now, and the South has been the keystone region for a long time too. Region really does matter.
Posted by: Petey | Apr 3, 2006 4:52:57 PM
Besides focusing on Florida, I'd say that there need to be two or three states that receive a serious effort. Perhaps Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennesse or Kentucky would do the trick.
But whether or not we do that, we need to focus on the Southwest/Southern states, like Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and yes, Texas. I really want to see an effort made in Texas, even if a month before election day, most money is pulled out. In other words, as long as we give a serious attempt, I won't mind if the end result isn't what we would have wanted. At the very least, a few camoaign stops in Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio and the like would help us set up a structure for the future.
Posted by: Brian | Apr 5, 2006 9:20:52 AM
I don't think dems need to concentrate on what region a candidate is from per se, but they DO need to pick someone who is strong on so-called Republican issues. I would love to see Wes Clark as the nominee. I also think that they need to steer clear of Hilary, the Rebublicans have been planning for her to run for way too long.
Posted by: mitzi | Apr 23, 2006 10:43:11 AM
