Democrats Face Long Odds In Battle For Congress

Senate Democrats' "prospects are so bleak, especially in the South, that simply holding losses to a mere seat or two would be quite an achievement," Business Week reports.

Meanwhile, on the House side, things don't look much better. "Numerous Democratic strategists have become convinced in recent months that their party is unlikely to pick up the dozen seats it needs to retake the House, even in the face of a sluggish economy and mounting questions about Iraq that could be issues to use against the Republican-dominated administration," the Washington Post reports.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/aug2003/nf20030811_1354_db015.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42074-2003Aug10.html

------------------------------------------------------------

This is just another perfect reason why nominating Edwards SHOULD be a no-brainer for progressives. He is the only candidate who has his roots firmly planted in the rural south. He will by far make the RNC spend money and use resources in more parts of the country and in greater quantities than any other candidate, and he is the candidate that more democratic congresssional candidates will benefit from and embrace in the image and idea departments, than any other by far.

It's politically ignorant to think that any other candidate besides perhaps Graham would NOT do worse than Gore did in the south and rural areas than Gore did, and Gore did BADDD, every election for decades democrats do worse in these areas and republicans do better. Nominating Edwards or Graham is essential to stem this tide, and Graham I believe has not done what it takes to come close to win the nomination, indicating that he is running for VP or perhaps senate majority leader if he decides he wants to run for reelection to the senate. If you don't think Democrats are going to feel a hell of a lot more confident with an Edwards-Graham ticket, you're lying to yourself

but for the presidency the Dems are not going to win the South. Maybe border states like FL, AR, or WV, but not the heart of Dixie.

Chances are better to contest the winnable states in the midwest, rust belt, and far west, and pull it off without SC, GA, or AL.

and Edwards could win Florida, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee

all of which are southern states

and just as importantly he'd put LA, GA, VA, SC, and even AL out of the solid GOP column and into the lean far GOP column

why does this make a difference? Because it means that the GOP would have to spend money and use resources and time in these states they otherwise wouldn't have to

To recap, Edwards could win the 4 most moderate southern states(FL, NC, AR, TN) as well as a couple border states(MO, WV)

and force the GOP to actually work somewhat for every other southern state, particularly the electorally rich VA, SC, and GA.

Dean couldn't win one southern or border state, even with Graham or Clark, Kerry could perhaps win MO or WV, although it's unlikely, and he could win FL with Graham on his ticket

I've found that here, the people who say the south is unwinnable for dems are the people who support unwinnable candidates in the south or at all.

I don't see AL, SC, GA, or VA coming into play. LA is in play, but not those other states.

In some depth.

The last northern Democrat to carry a majority of southern states was John Kennedy in 1960 and he had Lyndon Baines Johnson as his running mate.

You don't even have to go back to 1960 - we're still playing Nixon's southern strategy game, by Nixon's rules.

South Carolina--has not voted for a Democrat for president since 1976. This is the home of Bob Jones University and Strom Thurmond. Jim Hodges (D) lost his bid for re-election last year. It will be a complete miracle if Inez Tennenbaum (D) can win Sen. Holling's (D) seat. This state will not go Democratic unless Bush et al are in complete freefall in 2004.

Alabama--Same dynamic as SC. No Democrat has prevailed there since 1976. Even Clinton couldn't carry the state once. The Democrats just lost the Governorship very narrowly. Both Senators are Republicans. I will say that Alabama is more likely to vote Democratic before South Carolina, but that is not saying much. If we are winning Alabama then Bush is in complete freefall. But this is a state Democrats can't win.

Virginia--This state hasn't voted Democratic since 1964. However, Bush et al only got 52% of the vote, down from 61% in 1988. Clinton almost won here in 1996. The suburbs of DC, specifically Fairfax County, have deserted the GOP. In 2000 Gore and Nader's vote totals in Fairfax County exceeded Bush's, which the GOP won by around 8,000 votes. Mark Warner (D) was able to win the Governorship in 2001, but this state is still Republican. And maybe the Democrats might have a chance here, but it is less than 50%. Growing Latino and Arab Populations in the county will eventually make it more hospitable to the Democrats, but not until 2010 or earlier. So it will be a battleground state eventually, but not until several cycles pass.

Georgia--Clinton won this state in 1992 but lost it narrowly in 1996. Gore fared poorly there. The state just turned out Cleland and Barnes a year ago, which is partially due to the GOP's 72 Hour task force. As for voting machine conspiracy theories I take them with a grain of salt. The suburbs around Atlanta are heavily Republican, with the exception of Dekalb and Clayton counties. Whoever the Dem nominee is going to have to fare better in rural Georgia and in the suburbs of Atlanta. Of these four states I think Georgia is our best shot, although that is not saying much.

Louisiana--Clinton won this state twice. In 1996, outside of Arkansas, it was his best state in the South. He helped sweep Mary Landrieu into office with his 14% victory over Bob Dole (R) in the state. Unlike AL, SC, or GA, Democrats can still win statewide offices. They will probably retake the State House this November. There are a lot of Catholics here in the state and the Democrats have a chance here. They would carry LA well before they carry any of the previous four states I described.

you didn't include Tennessee and Arkansas.

I think they both could be in play* if there's a southerner at the top of the ticket








*In play means competitive, nothing more, nothing less

I would also put KY under that rubric. But they are better chances that AL, SC, VA, and GA.

and given that the GOP certainly doesn't share your fear regarding opposition strongholds - witness California - what, exactly, are we waiting for before we go after the SOBs?

Alternatively, if some states will only go Dem if Bush is in freefall, why are we even stressing over them?

If the Dems can't hold CA then we should just annoint Son of A Bush.


Conversely, if the Republicans can't hold the South they will lose in a landslide.

If the Dems can't hold California, we need to fire the goddamned milquetoasts that pass for party leadership, get someone who'll fight the Bush regime then fight like hell.

We need to get over the obsession with the "Republican south" and fight back down here.

like Clinton you can navigate the South.

And even a politically deft good old boy like Bill Clinton could only manage to fight the Republicans to a draw in the South.

Clinton blended.

Until we can fight back in the south, we'll keep dancing the the GOP's tune. And we'll keep losing.

seriously how is anyone supposed to know what you're talking about

I really tire of this kind of ambiguity in political discussions

That he neutralized the South with his own personal style.

That's not reproductable.

Any new Dem has to be more to the South than a guy they'd all want to chug beers with, score chicks with.

such as abortion, with his rhetoric

or welfare, with policy

but you do me the favor of putting it into greater focus.

such as abortion, with his rhetoric

"Safe, legal and rare", as I recall. It's still legal, but how many counties, especially in the midwest, lack abortion services now when they didn't in 1990?

or welfare, with policy

And were it not for this pesky recession, we might have some idea how many people have been seriously hurt by his little exercise in "weakness neutralization".

No, Clinton may have blended culturally, but I meant more that he blended by co-opting conservative talking points and goals. That concrete enough?

the rare part meant prevention of unwanted pregnancies, not rare in availability.

And welfare reform, whether you think the social cons outweigh the social pros or not, is a big part of his 92 and 96 success, without which we may have been in our second term of Dan Quayle.

with Edwards or Kerry or worst of all Dean, you can have a southernor who's platform and image neutralize our biggest current weaknesses, or a new-englander who exacerbates them

for preventing the lack of avilability.

And welfare reform, whether you think the social cons outweigh the social pros or not, is a big part of his 92 and 96 success, without which we may have been in our second term of Dan Quayle.

Your point being that Quayle would have been worse for the poor, I suspect. True enough in the immediate, but giving ground to the GOP only delays the inevitable. Does the next Dem president cut benefits to two years over electoral concerns? One? Eliminate them entirely?

with Edwards or Kerry or worst of all Dean, you can have a southernor who's platform and image neutralize our biggest current weaknesses, or a new-englander who exacerbates them

Or you can quit allowing your competition to define your weaknesses. I'll say it again - as long as you play a game by the rules given by your opposition, you will lose.

Once again there is no subjective way, one can say that Dean or Kerry would get more prorgessive law passed or even introduce it than Edwards

it's about perception and image, and too many Naderite liberals fall trap to dems trying to APPEAL to the middle through rhetoric and image

(noseful of shiraz hits the screen...)

it's about perception and image, and too many Naderite liberals fall trap to dems trying to APPEAL to the middle through rhetoric and image

Ah, so WE'RE the ones appealing to rhetoric and image! Damn, I thought I smelled something...

Image indeed. I think you want to talk to Al From and your boy Edwards about the whole rhetoric and image obsession.

people like Nader would have you believe that there is something wrong with reaching out to the independants in CAMPAIGNS,

as if it were the same thing as voting with the GOP on half the important issues.

there is nothing wrong with trying to appeal to the independants, as long as you govern as a progressive

and you have absolutely nothing to show that Edwards would not be as progressive and successful a president or more than any other serious candidate

do you?

Actaully Clinton won several soutehrn states. In 1996, when the polling looked promising, he even went to Alabama and Virginia. He held a few rallies there and may have even put TV ads on.

slamming Dole for voting against the original Medicare legislation.

If you in the South can raise decent amounts of money, develop a good field, and then poll well, maybe the party will then throw money your way and contest those states.

But unless you do that they are not going to waste money on states they definitely can't win. And AL, SC, GA, and VA come under that rubric.

IF CA is even in play then we are losing 49 states.

...good analyses,

I appreciate it.

Edwards wouldn't win those states, but he would force the GOP to use campaign resources(people and money) at least in small amounts for Bush, that they otherwise wouldn't have to if Kerry or Dean were the nominee

look at 88, Dukakis(even with Benston) was so unappealing in the south that the GOP could move all of its resources that they would have used in the south, and west to an extent, and use it in other battleground states in the west and midwest.

Had the nominee been Gore, the dems could have won or at least come a hell of a lot closer and won more of congress.

Please read the whole post before you respond like that

We need to make Bush defend as much of the map as possible.

If we nominate a northerner, Bush will take the red states for granted and spend his nearly quarter of a billion dollars on the blue states.

look, this race is either going to be Edwards, Kerry, or Dean

those 3 and Gephardt will be the serious candidates going into the final primaries, and ultimately it's either going to be a race between a southern-rural self-made man and Bush, or 2 upper-class yalies

Kerry is the stronger than Dean by far. Dean would most likely win more electoral votes than McGovern and Mondale, but fewer than Dukakis

Kerry on the other hand WOULD nominate Graham as his veep, and HOPE for defending all blue states, particularly the blue states that the RNC has already demonstrated that it plans to concentrate on.

Those states are OR, NM, WI, IO, and PA. Kerry has an advantage in PA, but because of his image and the DNC's finances, he could lose the others

The states red he would concentrate on are FL, NH, MO, OH, AZ, and NV

yet Kerry would be a bad choice for coattails in all the most important defending senate races NC, SC, GA, AR, and FL

the Dem's would be wise to write off the South and Border states and concentrate on the Electoral College equivalent of the straight flush.

I fear 2004 is going to be Hell on down ticket Southern Democratic candidates.

N Carolina, S Carolina, Georgia, Florida.

If a New England guy wins the nomination and decides to pull out of the south, it would really hurt this time.

Who cares if you lose Georgia by 8 or 18? Well the senate candidate sure would care.

The guy who ran against Hillary beat Bush in New York State by about 15 % and still got buried. You don't want to force a senate candidate to have to beat his presidential nominee by 15-20 % to win.

Breaux's retirement is looking more and more likely. However, he is deeply partisan and wants to see if a Dem wins the governors race this november. If so, he will resign and the Gov. will appoint Congressmna Chris John to fill his spot, giving John the advantage of incumbency when he defends his spot for his firt full term in 2004. John is too conservative for most of us here, but for LA he would be good enough.

I didn't even know he was thinking of quitting?

Bush 65%

Dukakis 35%

or close to that


Senate Race


Connie Mack (R) 50.2%


Buddy McKay (D) 49.8%


What a shame.

Not only is far more difficult to get people in the South to vote Democratic,
it is even more difficult to get those Democratic votes counted.

We'd have to be ahead by more than 16 points to win in Georgia,
and Florida is even worse.

God forbid we do anything to actually change anyone's mind. Damn those slopeheaded southerners, they've got us surrounded again! Retreat!

Don't assume you know a damn thing about how anyone will vote in a year or ever.

to make judgements.

Don't assume you know a damn thing about how anyone will vote in a year or ever.

The Democratic candidate will get 88% to 91% of the African American vote


The Democratic candidate will get 60% to 67% of the Hispanic vote.


The Democratic candidate will get 60% to 65% of the Asian Amercian vote

Not a race but the Democratic candidate will get 65% to 75% of the Jewish vote.


The election will be won or lost among white voters. The Democratic candidate proibably needs to get at least 37% or more of the white vote to win.

if the nominee were Dean, he would get far fewer Black votes than Gore got. Either percentage or just fewer black voters. 1, for the same reason he has the least black support poll-wise of any serious candidate currently- his white-white state and geek-chic liberal image. As well as his anti-war stance(the largest and fastest growing groups of black non-dems are military and police, groups which support the war in far greater numbers than the general population. amd 3, his signing of the civil unions bill, because the black population is actually more anti-gay rights/marriage than the general population


He would also, due to his anti-war stance, AND his tax increase get fewer Jewish votes than Gore got, even though his wife and family are jewish

and he would get far fewer white-suburban, middle-class, college-educated, parents and married couples who regard themselves as independants(otherwise known as soccer moms and dads) for the same individual reasons McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis lost in landslides

agree with most of your thesis regarding the pitfalls of a Dean or Kerry candidacy where I diasgree with you is that we would lose our advantage among these traditional Democratic leaning groups. Dean or Kerry would do well among these groups but would not do as well among white voters where this election will be won or lost.

I'm sure you know the last Dem to get a majority of the white vote was LBJ. I don't think Clinton even got pluralities in his two races.

...the GOP lock on Congress.

Which really makes the Democrats winning the executive really important if they are not to be shut-out completely.

demographic trends favor the Democrats unless the Republicans are able to co opt these minority groups.

So you have two trends, the areas with the most growth are trending Republican and the groups with the most population growth are trending Democrat.

Are you concerened that the Republicans will make fodder of John Edwards' thin resume?

They nominated and voted for Bush, who did far, far, less in 6 years of office than Edwards will have done in 6 years of office

Edwards has done more as senator than many of them do in 2 terms

Hello? McCain-Edwards-Kennedy patients bill of rights, being on intelligence committee during and post 9-11, Edwards workers/shareholders bill of rights

the soon authoring of his national security act(which will contain his office of civil liberties and rights and his reorganizing of intelligence and creation of DHS intelligence agency)

his resume isn't thin, ESPECIALLY compared to what has been exposed about Bush's same amount of time as governor(deregulating enron, fuzzy math about dropouts etc)

He has washington and foreign policy experience second only to Kerry(of Edwards, Kerry, Dean, and Bush).

Graham isn't in this to win the nom. He only raised like 500 grand more than Kucinich last quarter

Graham is in this to highten his presence for VP or senate dem leader.

It's about time they stop being allowed to run the country. We get these watered down candidates because of the South, and I'm tired of it.

No offense to those fine DUers down there, of course.

that's not very patriotic. We get WINNING candidates from the south, and that doesn't mean we should only nominate southernors.

However there are only 3 candidates generating any real excitement and therefor only 3 that can win the nom

all are moderate liberals.

But 2 are sterotypical Boston and Vermont/Manhattan upper-class limousine liberal-types who wouldn't APPEAL to southernors for the simple fact of where they come from more than where they stand, and one is a southernor who can APPEAL to them just for the fact that he relates to them even more than Bush pretends he relates to them.

There is no objective argument that Edwards would govern any less progressively than Kerry or Dean overall

Many folks have chimed in on this topic with theories on why the party can or can not elect candidates in the South.

Now would one of those explain how Phil Bredesan figures into their theories? For those who don't know Bredesan is a Democrat who moved to Tennessee from Massachusetts and had previously worked on McGovern's presidential campaign and yet he thoroughly trounced a sitting Republican congressman in the Governor's race.

Perhaps the Democratic party election experts could learn a lesson from his experience. What do you think?

Look, nobody's saying it's gonna be easy. And yes, it's VERY, VERY possible that we could suffer a net loss of a seat or two. But it's also very, very possible that we could pick up a couple, and I'm not even being overly optimistic! There are going to be a LOT of competitive seats next year, and many, many tossup races. Plus, many of the states that these races are in did go to Bush, but were swing states -- a relatively slight 1 or 2 pts could well have them split the ticket -- coattails may not be too strong here. Let's quickly run through the competitive races.

Alaska: VERY COMPETITIVE. Tony Knowles is very popular, and though Alaska is a very Republican state, it has a strong independent streak and is unlikely to have major Bush coattails. Murkowski could still pull off a win -- it'll be a tossup. But it's one in which we have a VERY good chance.

Florida: VERY COMPETITIVE. For all the talk of Fla. being Republican-leaning, I say "bull." The real story is the continuing Democratic trend in the state -- it's getting more and more democratic by the year. Yes, we lost in '02, but McBride was a crappy candidate who fell apart after he underperformed in the debates. We have a LOT of good candidates this year and the Republicans have nobody impressive lined up. Mark Foley's moderate, but he's gonna be hurt by the conservative wing -- he's almost certainly gay and in the closet. McCollum's inept. On our side we have Peter Deutsh -- excellent progressive, and Alex Penelas would pull in the cuban vote and the South Fla. vote. Of course, If Graham runs again he'll win in a walk. THis is a swing state in which the presidential race likely won't have a big effect on the Senate race.

Georgia: COMPETITIVE. Andrew Young will be an excellent candidate and the race will likely be a tossup, or at least one in which the Republicans will have to poor a lot of money into. It can be won, and it'll be close. That said, it does lean to the Republicans.

Illinois: VERY COMPETITIVE. This seat decidedly leans Democratic. The Republican field is weak and as long as we run a competent campaign, we'll win comfortably, whether the nominee is Barack Obama, Blair Hull, Dan Hynes, or Maria Pappas. Chalk this up as a gain.

Pennsylvania: VERY COMPETITIVE. Hoeffel will be an exceptionally strong challenger to a weakened Specter. Of course, if Toomey wins the primary, then it's a virtually guaranteed pickup. W/ Specter, it's a race and while Specter could pull through by virtue of his incumbency, there's a good chance we'll pick this up.

Missouri: COMPETITIVE. Bond will probably win, though not by a hugely impressive margin. It'll be quite close and competitive like all Missouri senate races, and a win isn't out of the question.

North Carolina: VERY COMPETITVE. This has become a swing state in state elections. Whether it's Edwards or Bowles or Etheridge, it'll be a tight race -- tough, but very competitive, and we CAN win. If Edwards is the presidential nominee, it could be even better for us b/c the state will be very competitive in the pres. race and lots of money and time will be invested here. A very possible win.

South Carolina: COMPETITIVE. DeMint won't walk it. It'll be competitive, and a win is possible, though slim. At the very least, they'll have to put money and effort into it.

Other possible competitive races include Colorado, Kansas (if fmr. agr. secr. Dan Glickman runs), and Arkansas.

Let's look at an optimistic scenario: Dems pick up Illinois, Alaska, Pennsylvania, and Missouri and keep Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina -- net gain: 4. Senate: 53:47

Ok, let's look at some more realistic scenarios.
1) We pickup Illinois, Alaska, and Pennsylania (+3), and lose SC and Ga. (-2), keep the rest. Net gain: 1 -- Senate: 50:50

2) We pickup Ill., Alaska, Pennsylvania, lose NC, Ga, and SC: net gain: 0, senate: 49:51

In short, the senate's a tossup

Georgia is leaning GOP

They have some VERY, VERY, strong candidates. You can bet that Rove wants the black conservative, and thats who it'll probably be. If I was a betting man, I'd say they get this one.

SC

Our best shot is the school superintendant, a woman who's name I can't recall, but the GOP still has a pure advantage. Not as much as in GA, but still the upper-hand

NC

You are spot on about us having a better chance if Edwards is the pres. nominee. He can carry the state in the general and energize either Bowles or Blue (or Etheridge?) with his coattails.
but pragmatically speaking it's a toss-up

also
Kentucky could be competative for one of the dem state officers against Bunning

Gephardt could beat Bond in MO if he wanted to stay in Washington, but in the senate

Sherrod Brown or Ted Strickland could beat Voinovich in Ohio, or at least cause the Ohio repubs to use valuable resources they'd need to carry the state for Bush

the GOP is also after both Dakotas

despite the conservatism of both states, the Dem senators are pork extroidanaires. People love them for that. With Schaffer not running Dorgan is completely safe. In 2000 Conrad got a higher percentage of the vote than Bush did, so don't worry about any coattails effect on Dorgan. If Thune couldn't be a vulnerable first termer he won't be able to beat a sitting Minority Leader.

I oughta pay more attention to the names, I keep clicking by thread title and this stuff gets old. The trials of a DU newbie I guess eh?

hate the playa.....


hate the game.....

We have ~41 solid D's in the Senate, a couple of minor problem cases, 2 major problems (the two Nelsons), and the R-in-all-but-name Zell Miller. So, 47 Democrats plus Zell.

Basically, 2004 means that numbers may go down some but quality should continue to improve overall. If we have the Presidency then we don't need the solid filibuster, that's worth noting. But I think we should stay around 47 or 48, maybe to 49. We could be looking at getting rid of one or both Nelsons in '06 and there are quite a bunch of vulnerable Republican incumbents then.

The House is a problem. We've pretty much winnowed down Republican House Reps in the Blue states to long time incumbents in rural areas and lost a lot of conservative House Democrats all over. Our real problems are not really the districts per se, though everyone wants to blame gerrymanders for not making it easy enough. It's the state parties and money and the lack of real quality and experience of the people we put up in the marginal states. Florida, Kentucky, Ohio, Arizona, Colorado would be some decent examples.

The DNC should admit that Democrats cannot win in those places by just being competitive enough. What it takes is that the Democratic candidate has to be at least a tier higher in quality than the Republican and then run a campaign to equal.

We're losing a couple of the most conservative House Democrats in 2004- Lucas, Hall, maybe Stenholm, Alexander- if turnout is as expected. But the Democratic drift and turnout should tip about a dozen seats to Democrats, just about all of which we expected to win in the '02 elections. So there's a gain of 5-10 seats to be had there in '04, to around 210-215. But to listen to the DCCC closely, they're actually working ahead in about 35 more districts for the '06 elections. Finally.

I wish I could foresee better results in the event of Edwards becoming the nominee. But I can't find credible basis for it. Indeed, I don't see any '04 nominee on either side much affecting the overall results in Congressional races. People will imho vote along the same biases they did in the 2000 elections, biases tempered by their assessment of the credibility and relevance of the various candidates. IOW, cautious voting for uncertain times.

How can ANYONE vote for the GOP and this president is completely beyond me to start with. There should be not one single seat, in any house in any state or federal house or senate that should be considered safe. The truth needs to be spread about what a abysmal failure this president and his administration are. During the 45 minutes after the intentions of the hijackers became clear the fucking retard didn't do his job, he read to children, then he disappeared. The Congress and the Senate have done nothing but rubber stamp the most hateful, hypocritical, one-sided, damaging legislation that they could.

They have proven themselves time and time again to be mean spirited, petty, hypocrites. They lurch ever rightward towards complete facism protecting the few the deem worthy and claiming to care about those whose votes they want, but whose lives they couldn't care less about. Don't worry about the polls, campaign everywhere expose the lies, open the can of worms and expose these leaches for what they really are, and the people can decide on their own just don't concede anything, don't back down and tell the truth.

If the president will only agree to a strictly controlled debate ambush him. Put him on the spot, force him to justify his policies, his agenda, and his rather pathetic record. But don't just give up and not even try "cause the polls say we can't win", fight harder too win. If the south is lost, sobeit, but don't give it up without a fight. There are plently of good decent people down there that, if given all the facts, will make the right choice.