How big an advantage is it to be from the South

Much has been made of the fact that the non Southern Dukakis lost every Southern state while Clinton carried 4 states in 92 and five in 96. But let's take a closer look, shall we.

Here is where I got my figures

http://www.presidentelect.org/

In 1988 Dukakis lost 45.6% to 53.4% (1% voted for minor candidates) margin -7.8%

In 1992 Clinton won 43% to 37.4% (19% voted for Perot)margin 5.6%

Here is how they did in the four Southern states that Clinton carried in 92 and Florida which he won in 96.

1988
Arkansas Dukakis 42 Bush 56 margin -14 difference -6.2
Georgia Dukakis 40 Bush 60 margin -20 difference -12.2
Louisiana Dukakis 44 Bush 54 margin -10 difference -2.2
Tennessee Dukakis 42 Bush 58 margin -16 difference -8.2
Florida Dukakis 39 Bush 61 margin -22 difference -14.2

1992
Arkansas Clinton 53.2 Bush 35.5 margin 16.7 difference 11.1
Georgia Clinton 43.5 Bush 42.9 margin 0.6 difference -5.0
Louisiana Clinton 45.8 Bush 41.0 margin 4.8 difference -0.8
Tennessee Clinton 47.1 Bush 42.4 margin 4.7 difference -0.9
Florida Clinton 39 Bush 40 margin -1 difference -6.6

Clearly Clinton did a lot better in those states than Dukakis did. But other than Arkansas he did worse in every single state listed than he did nationally.

In 2000 Gore won the popular vote by 48.4% to 47.9% a margin of 0.5%.

2000
Arkansas Gore 45.9 Bush 51.3 margin -5.4 difference -5.9
Georgia Gore 43.2 Bush 55 margin -11.8 difference -12.3
Lousiana Gore 44.9 Bush 52.8 margin -7.9 difference -8.4
Tennessee Gore 47.3 Bush 51.2 margin -3.9 difference -4.4
Florida Gore 48.84 Bush 48.85 margin 0.01 difference -0.51*

*Florida figures are the offical ones which we of course know are not accurate. But that is all I can use.

The 1988 and 1992 figures makes us believe that Clinton had some advantage due to being Southern. But in 2000 it is hard to see Gore having had any discernable advantage in any of the states except Florida. Arkansas was close and the rest Dukakis actually lost less than Gore did. I fail to see what good either Edwards or Clark is necessarily going to do here. It seems these figures show us that having a third party which runs in the middle and appeals to white males (Perot) is an immense help in the South. They also show that winning by 6% is a good thing. They don't show that Southerners are needed to win.

Southerners are very good politicians. They know that a little dab of populism and conservatism will defeat liberalism just about every time...at least in the South.

And win elections a lot too.

Not ANOTHER "Southern thread" today? What is this? 4? 5? 6? :puke:

(1) Electoral Votes: A little over 60% of the electoral votes required to win, you can get from Southern states. I don't know, and I may be wrong, but I doubt there's another geographic region to which one set of ideas/meta-message/candidate can appeal which produces so many electoral votes. I.e., if your message is good for the south, you only need to put together a message that gets 40%+1 of the electoral votes of any of the other distinct regions which share common industries/political thinking (west, interior west, mid west, northeast). So, it's good to appeal to the south. Also, you force the Republicans to compete there, and you’re taking away from the 60% for which the Republicans are shooting

(2) Money: Bush had twice as much money as Gore. I don't know what relative spending was like for other election years, but in 2000, Bush outspent Gore by what? Half? Twice as much? Gore had to abandon campaigning all over the southeast to focus on FL and NH. Doesn't anyone remember the last week of the campaign? All he did was fly back and forth between FL and NH (and he lost both, right?). Bad strategy.

I think if he had more money, he could have focused his attentions more broadly, and you would have seen him spending time in states which he ended up abandoning (TN, Ark). Instead, Republicans were able to outspend him into near oblivion. More money for Gore might have evened things a bit.

(3) Gore vs Bush: leaving aside for a moment whether Gore was a good campaigner, Gore was running against a Texan Bush. Forget the facts. By 2000, GWB was a Texan. In 1992, Clinton was running against a CT/ME Bush. GHWB is LITERALLY in the preppy handbook. He was NE through and through. Run two NE's against each other, and maybe the GHWB starts to look more like a Texan, or maybe we see that true Dem deficit vs. Republicans (i.e., in 88).

(4) As for comparing Clark and Edwards to Gore, we’re probably getting ahead of ourselves. But I do think that if you put Edwards next to Bush, Bush starts to look a little more like the Yale and Harvard graduate, CT Yankee that he really is.

than his father was but Reagan was from California and I bet that in 1984 Mondale did even worse. You keep saying Clinton's message played well in the South but it just didn't. He lost the South electorially in both 92 and to a lesser extent in 96. He certainly lost it in terms of percent of popular vote (he won very close victories in NC,FL in 96 and was blown out in TX). Frankly, I wouldn't have a clue Clark came from the South if I hadn't read he did. Edwards is admittedly a different story.

Gore was a Southerner. He did worse than Dukakis did in comparison to his national showing. Even if I were to conceed that Gore who gained 15 points in his campaign was a bad campaigner, and by no means do I conceed that, he certainly wasn't a worse campaigner than Dukakis was. I am hard pressed to see this huge advantage Southeners bring.

You have a valid point on money I would think though in 1988 Dukakis had to fight in several states that Gore didn't so I am not really sure he had more money spent in the south given that fact. Dukakis narrowly lost states like IL and PA and narrowly won CA. OF those only in PA did Gore have to spend money.

It is also hard to criticize Gore's spending time in Florida as he did win the state. He also very narrowly lost, thanks Ralph, in NH. Gore didn't come close in any other Southern state.

...think?

Mondale was a miserable choice for a candidate. That goes analysis goes way behond geography. Had Gary Hart kept his shit together, he probably would have beaten Reagain. He was smart, had good politics, was a real westerner (rather than one how played one in the movies) and he was as handsome as Reagan.

Once again with Gore, he was running against someone who probably looked like a bigger southerner than he did, Gore was a bad campaigner, lots of people thought Bush had already been president once, etc.

This issue isn't so much that Democrats should definitely run a southerner. It's more of an argument that you should run someone in the south who doesn't speak to the issues that southerners care about. Don't run a Dukakis. Don't run someone who's going to send a message that they care MORE about gay rights and the environment than you care about middle class opportunity (you can care about those issues, but you just can't care about them so much more that peopel wonder if you know how they live -- and being beaten down by the economy is the thing that the broadest coalition of Dems feels in the south, I bet).

He lost the South huge. I don't know the exact figures but Georgia was the largest state he won (NC cancelled that out), TN, AK, LA were his other three. Texas alone probably cancels out all three. That leaves around a 40 EV margin. And again he won nationally by over 5%.

Gore gained 15 points in this alledged bad campaign. Even accounting for MOE that is still atleast 10 points gained. With the exception of NH he won every state he campaigned in (that is phenominal). He got a higher percentage of the vote than every one of our losers and he also out polled Clinton twice, Truman, and Kennedy. He finished 7th in the entire century amongst Democrats. His losses were to FDR four times, LBJ once, and Carter once. Otherwise his percentage beat all of the rest. That isn't a bad campaign except on planet bizarro.

be easier to discuss this. If Clinton cuts the Republican's EV gain in half in the south, he's forcing them to have to go to Dem strongholds in the NE and coastal west to get big blocks of EVs. I don't know how you can think that's doing poorly.

Perhaps you're measuring Dem success in the south by who wins more. That's the wrong measure. It's about breaking up the south in a way that forces Republicans to go elsewhere for EVs.

On this note, talking about percentages is also misleading. It isn't vote percentages don't win elections. EVs win elections. Campaigns aim to get one more voter than half in each state, and as soon as they pass that point, they're on to the next state with lots of EVs. Also, when you have a third party candidate, it drives votes down. People vote for the third party candidate only if they think their second choice doesn't need the vote to win. Gore's third party competition appealed to CA and NY'ers, so his margin is lower there. Clinton's appealed to southerners, so that drives down margin of victory in conservative states, perhaps.

Perot got virtually nothing but white voters which had to help Clinton in the South. There is no way that Perot didn't take far more votes from Bush than from Clinton which increased his margin not decreased it.

Also campaigns can't be that precise. They will keep working on a state until they are completely sure. I literally can't imgine that Clinton didn't keep working states like Georgia to the bitter end.

People like to think southerners vote for southerners because they are local boys.

Reagan was not a southerner. Carter was.

The south is conservative / populist.

You can sell rolling back the patriot act here. Patriot act free zones are cropping up here and there throughout the south. Not because the people reject patriotism, but because they don't want government messing around with their rights.

The general public down here is quite over people from other regions telling them they don't know how to run things. (true or not doesn't matter)

Bring in a candidate from any other region with big federal ideas on how things should be run and absolutely count on losing the south. Yes, I am thinking Kucinich here.

Bring in a candidate that says "states rights" particularly when it comes to guns, education, civil unions, talk about rolling back the patriot act, and supporting veterans, and you may have a chance of picking a few states. Yes, I am thinking Clark, Dean, and maybe Edwards here.

I think he really did help by being a Southerner. He won every Southern state in 76 and did decently there in 80. I will give exact results on edit. On edit I am half right. He did lose all states there but GA (my bad) but his margins were way better in the South than over all. He lost MS by under 2% while losing nationaly by 10%.

:kick:

:nuke:

sweep it, and it's about being competitive in the south.

Anyway, did anyone feel like Hope, Ark native Bill Clinton was out of touch with NE liberal values?

Or forget Jimmy Carter was the first "Born Again" President. It's all very complicated, but it's mostly about the Dems beingspendthrift elitist darkie appeasing homosexuals who are soft on crime and America's enemies.

take a look at his positions, center-left if you ask me

I find it virtually impossilbe to believe his vote was evenly spit from Clinton andd Bush. There just aren't enough white voters down there who would vote for Democatic Presidential candidates. Perot got close to 20 percent in most of those states. For him to have taken evenly from Clinton and Bush that would be 10%. But Clinton got enough white vote to count as 10% of the total electorate. That just isn't possible.

His horrible record on gay rights coupled with his choice of Gore made many gays very suspicious. I voted for, but didn't work for, Clinton in 1992. I am glad to say I was wrong.

what is it about "the South" that makes it necessary to have somone from there on the ticket?

them unable to vote for non-locals.

I'm hard pressed to think of an incident of racism or intolerance that occured west of the Mississippi or north of the Mason Dixon line
:eyes:

but "The South" is a general term that describes attitudes prevalent in other areas

1964

1972

1976

1984

1988

1992

1996

that region can matter but it could equally be said that Carter was a poor choice for us in 76. He lost states that no one dreams we will lose in 2004 barring a blow out. He lost CA, IL, and upper New England. If we nominate a Southerner who does as well as Carter did in the South in 76 only to have that person lose those states we won't be ahead.

against Kerry, Bush could very likely win every blue state and every light red state,

against Dean, every state that isn't dark red

First,

You are forgeting that Clinton was running against two other Southerns. Bush and Perot. That can make a difference.

Second, you forget that Dukakis has a Southern on his ticket. This are factors.

Third, you are forgetting the bottom line. All winning Democrats came from the South all losing Democrats came from elsewhere--period.

That is the fact. Gore won remember.

Let me remind you

Winners!

Gore
Clinton
Carter
Johnson

Losers!

Dukakis
Mondale
McGovern
Humphrey

All the winners came from the South. All the losers did not. How much clearer can it be.

Now look at the Republicans

Winners:
Bush
Bush
Reagan
Nixon
Eisenhower

Losers:

Dole
Ford

Winners are from Texas and California and losers are from elsewhere.


Said fact is, the winners need to come from the South unless they are Republican that come California.

Those are the facts. I am sure you can get around them. But I would not nominate a non-southern unless you want Bush to win.

You don't have to like it, and you can play with numbers until you are blue in the face. But it is not going to produce a victory in 2004.

Yes, southerns can LOSE. But a non-southern can NOT win. Understand the difference?

Mike

in 1980 and he was still a Georgian. It should be noted that if Bentsen was good enough as VP then we can use Graham now for VP negating your argument. You also leave out Truman, FDR, and Kennedy but I guess that is OK.

The simple fact is having a Southerner, other than Carter, seems to have done us no discernable good.

1) 11 Southern Democrats have become President, starting with Thomas Jefferson.
2) There has been no elected Democratic president since the 1930s without a Southerner on the ticket.
3) Every Democratic president in the 20th century carried Georgia.
4) The last Northeasterner to win was Kennedy, who barely won with Texas' large electoral votes using Johnson's coattails.

Given this history, it is an asset, though perhaps not absolutely necessary. It's just easier for a Democratic presidential candidate to carry Southern States than other rural areas, like the rural North (excepting Iowa) and West (except New Mexico, perhaps?) which are much more Republican.

The reasons are:
a) it is easier to form a coalition with conservative Democrats than it is to form one with conservative Republicans.
b) the South contains a HUGE amount of black Democrats, whereas the other above regions do not.

to simply count the Presidents is sort of lame. Especially since for most of the history of the party the party was in the South. I fail to see any reason that if Kerry or Dean were to win by 6 points (and both would have a Southerner on the ticket of that I have no doubt) that they would carry some number of Southern states.

I understand you're upset that the South hates your candidate. But here is the rest of my post that you didn't read:

"Given this history, it is an asset, though perhaps not absolutely necessary. It's just easier for a Democratic presidential candidate to carry Southern States than other rural areas, like the rural North (excepting Iowa) and West (except New Mexico, perhaps?) which are much more Republican.

The reasons are:
a) it is easier to form a coalition with conservative Democrats than it is to form one with conservative Republicans.
b) the South contains a HUGE amount of black Democrats, whereas the other above regions do not."

which is my point. Clinton who won by nearly 6 points nationally (vastly better than any Dem in my life time) lost all but four states in the South both times. In 92 he carried Georgia, Lousiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee. In 96 he carried Florida, Lousiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee. Aside from Arkansas he carried them far less persuasively than his nationwide margin. Carter is the only exception here and he lost states that no Democrat would think of losing now (CA, IL, MI, and upper New England). Now of the states that Clinton won Georgia is hopeless. Tennessee is probably hopeless. That leaves Florida which Gore won, Louisiana and Arkansas. Of those we could win all three with Clark, Landrieu, or Lincoln on the ticket. Other wise only one. And any of the three could cost us places up here. It could well be a trade off.