So, it appears that Edwards has a southern strategy

Keep in mind that John Edwards has managed to avoid a lot of the infighting that Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, and Clark have gotten themselves in. Edwards is running a fairly small operation in Iowa and New Hampshire. A strong fourth in either state would be considered a success. If he manages a third, it would be a tremendous success.

But how could Edwards win the nomination without Iowa or New Hampshire? Well, Bill Clinton didn't win either of those states. Keep in mind the states that follow NH. South Carolina. Arizona. Oklahoma. Virginia. Georgia. North Carolina.

It seems like there could be a lot of momentum for Edwards coming into Super Tuesday.

Your thoughts?

Perceptions get shaped early on. Edwards would have to totally blow the otehrs out of the water in the south if he loses big in the north/midwest primaries first.

Also, I am sick to death of the "southern strategy." If people are oonvinced that only a southerner can win, why don't we just go back to pre-1860, and have two damn seperate countries again?

i'm not supporting a southerner, but i do think it helps. it's just the way things are. just like an atheist would most likely not win.

And, FYI, there was a rule in the Democratic Convention up until 1940 that required a two-thirds vote to win the nomination--widely termed the "Southern Veto" rule. It was struck down when it was seen as a handicap to the nominee--winning the "Solid South", and not much else.

Today, the electoral tables are pretty much turned. But it IS worthy of note, again, that the only Democrats to win the White House--and the popular vote for president--in the last forty years have been from the South--Texas, Georgia, Arkansas, and (counting Al Gore) Tennessee. Without at least SOME of the South next year, our nominee can't do it. Which is why it's refreshing to see a guy like Howard Dean insist that he WILL campaign actively for Southern votes (yes, Dean-supporting DUers, I just heaped some praise on your man, which I'll continue to do whenever I think he's said or done something good).

For my money, I'd rather be in THIS country, and have a Democratic president heading it up!:kick:

B-)

Nevermind, I found it.

If you consider California southern, then it's Hoover (as Ford wasn't elected). If not, Reagan.

I was making a historically inaccurate point...My family is from Virginia and NC and relatrives were steeped in that stuff. But we were "defacto" practically two different nations befoe that.

My basic point was that we shouldn't place all of our political assumptions on pandering to perceptions of any particular region at the expense of the rest of the country. If Edwards is a good candidate, he ought to win or lose based on that -- not on the fact that he says 'y'all." Similarly with Dean or Kerry -- they should be judged by their own qualities, not being dismissed as unelectable because they are Yankees.

i agree, bill clinton didn't win. but he did better than expected, or at least that's how they took the results. which helped him win other states rather than being seen as a loser. i think this was around the time he was getting a bunch of crap from the media and they considered his campaign to be over. i think edwards or any other candidate could probably do the same. it's how they deal with the results that would matter in later states. like with clark not trying to win iowa, if he still came in third, or even fourth, they can take that as a victory.

that's some strategy of his.

then he probably believed that it would be enacted with or without him, but that it will not survive a court challenge, even in today's conservative-stacked judicial system.

if every D didn't show up because the vote was stacked against him, none of the D;s would have to show up for work. IF he was against the ban, it was his job to represent ME, regardless of how the vote went. He had a responsibility to be there and express MY point of view as a constituent. I don't appreciate his absense.

he is running for president and had to make a decision about whether it was more important for him to be in Iowa or New Hampshire than to be present for this particular vote. I think it is very important for the nation that he do well in the early primaries. Most of his Dem colleagues are not running for president. It's not as if he was lying around watching Oprah. In my opinion, he has to balance these things and be there for votes for which he deems his presence critical, with the understanding that he may displease some voters.

if there's no provision for the mother's health. If he's ducking it, he's doing a terrible job, because he's provided plenty of ammunition to be used against himself, and done so in public. He answered this very directly on Hardball just recently.

I posted this yesterday in another thread; did you not see it? What are your thoughts?

not a bad strategy if you want to come to the table
with Southern votes.

I am Dean supporter, and I have to admit, I underestimated John Edwards until about a month ago. I see him as a "real" presidential candidate. He has a good chance of winning in the South, and that is something that will make this Democratic Primary even more interesting. I have this gut feeling that the Dem Convention in Boston will end up choosing the nominee.

However, Dean is polling ahead in Arizona as of now. I can see Edwards winning Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and North Carolina. Clark could also eat away at Edwards also though.

Clark could win Arkansas, Tenessee, Kentucky, and other states.

Dean will probably win the NorthWest.

I guess Edwards took Clinton's advice and studied the issues while all the other Democratic candidates were bickering and competing. Smart move.

Super Tuesday is in March, and the NC primary is in May.