RethugAssKicker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-20-05 11:04 AM
Original message |
Do we really need the South.. in order to win in 2008 |
|
Becuase if we do, we're fucked... The south is never going to vote democratic.. The republicans have the south locked up completely!
Does anyone have any figures and or strategies to win without the South?
|
atre
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-20-05 11:07 AM
Response to Original message |
1. No, not necessarily, but it will be exceedingly difficult without a couple |
|
I really don't understand all the South-bashing here. The Democratic Party performs significantly better in the South than in the Midwestern states (where the candidate is lucky to break 30%).
|
newsguyatl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-20-05 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. how is this south-bashing? |
|
seems it's just opinion about how the south will vote -- and i pretty much agree with the sentiment...
|
atre
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-20-05 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. Obviously, you haven't been party to many such discusssions |
|
Edited on Tue Sep-20-05 11:16 AM by atre
... and I'm sorry to see that you agree with this guy.
|
Lexingtonian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-20-05 11:09 AM
Response to Original message |
|
The electoral college math is not exactly beyond anyone who's been taught simple arithmetic, btw.
And 'forever' in politics can be a few years.
|
WilliamPitt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-20-05 11:13 AM
Response to Original message |
|
It is technically possible to win without taking any states in the South. It would require winning:
New England New York New Jersey Maryland Delaware DC Pennsylvania Michigan Illinois Wisconsin Minnesota Oregon Washington California New Mexico
...outright. Most of these are solid blue states, though Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Wisconsin are getting too close for comfort.
Any money potentially earmarked for Florida and other Southern states would need to be spent on:
West Virginia Arkansas or Missouri or Iowa
...with special emphasios on OHIO.
This would bring an Electoral College win. The problem is the popular vote, and the securing of a mandate. Money would need to be spent on raising turnout in the southern states. If a Dem candidate could win between 40% and 45% in most of the southern states, this would be enough to secure a popular vote win.
I don't like the idea of a campaign strategy that ignores almost half the goddam country, nor do I like any plan that dismisses the south outright as a land of benightened boobs.
But you asked, and this is the answer.
|
wuushew
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-20-05 11:14 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Gore + CO + NH
or Ohio + anything
|
tsuki
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-20-05 11:17 AM
Response to Original message |
7. They will vote General Wesley Clark if he is in either spot. The man |
|
strikes a chord down here. His talking points are simple and clear.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 19th 2024, 04:11 PM
Response to Original message |