Is Edwards right? Is being from the South a huge advantage for a Democrat? The facts say "yes"

[draft_mario_cuomo]

The truth shall set you free. Here is the scoreboard since 1964, the year the South shifted to the repukes.

Overall record

Southern winners: Carter 76', Clinton 92', Clinton 96', Gore 2000
Southern loser: Carter 80'

Northern winners: Zero
Northern losers: Humphrey 68', McGovern 72', Mondale 84', Dukakis 88', Kerry 04'

Record in the South (defined as states of the old Confederacy)

Southerners

Carter in 76': Won 10 of 11 southern states (barely lost VA) for 118 electoral votes
Carter in 80': Won 1 southern state (Georgia) for 12 electoral votes
Clinton in 92': Won 4 southern states (LA, AR, TN, GA) for 39 electoral votes
Clinton in 96': Won 4 southern states (FL, AR, TN, LA) for 51 electoral votes
Gore in 2000: Won 1 southern state (Florida) for 25 electoral votes*


Non-Southerners

Humphrey in 68': Won 1 southern state (Texas) for 25 electoral votes
McGovern in 72': Won 0 southern states for 0 electoral votes
Mondale in 84': Won 0 southern states for 0 electoral votes
Dukakis in 88': Won 0 southern states for 0 electoral votes
Kerry in 04': Won 0 southern states for 0 electoral votes

Totals

Southerners: 20 southern states won for 245 electoral votes
Non-Southerners: 1 southern state won for 25 electoral votes (and the lone win came four decades ago!)

Given the hard reality of facts it is not surprising Edwards' comment was immediately distorted into a racist and sexist comment in order to distract people from soberly thinking about his statement. If we went past the smallness of our politics and looked at the matter rationally we would see the data backs Edwards up. This, of course, is not something they want to do, for obvious reasons...

We also need to avoid being divided, white from black, male from female. We are all Democrats; we are all Americans; we are all human. We cannot argue that a certain skin color or a certain gender provides an electoral advantage. And we should apply this equally, not argue a case based on gender or skin color for our candidate when convenient and call others bigots for making similar arguments that show your candidate in a bad light (how many times have you seen HRC's gender or Obama's color touted as an electoral advantage by their partisans?) As someone once said: "E pluribus unum: 'Out of many, one.'...there are those who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of 'anything goes.' Well, I say to them tonight...There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America."

[BeyondGeography]

1. The question is whether he can win there, starting with his home state

The 2004 campaign wasn't exactly reassuring on that score.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

3. That isn't the question. The question is whether his statement was based on reason or bigotry

That isn't the immediate question. The question is whether he was playing the race/gender card or making a rational statement based on what evidence says about southerners doing well in the South. The evidence says he, like he did in 04' and like Wes Clark did in 04', are making a rational non-bigoted argument that has zilch to do with color or biological plumbing. After all, no one is saying that Edwards' nomination will lead to astronomical male turnout or that Edwards will turn out droves of white Democrats in southern states because of his skin color...

The larger question is what you ask. The polling thus far shows him the strongest in red states...he flips VA and KY, true red states and does well in purples states...

Edwards was not the nominee in 04'. The nominee was a Yankee.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Well, you're going to get a lot of answers like mine

because your thread title suggests you actually want to discuss the importance of the South rather than Edwards' blunder on the stump today.

[BlueStater]

5. I don't see anthing remotely racist or sexist about what he said

People are twisting his words around.

[BeyondGeography]

7. It's open to interpretation

and, last week, Elizabeth compared him with Jesse Helms. So, a pattern of some sort emerges.

I choose to chalk it up to general ineptitude (which all candidates suffer from, Obama included), but, then again, I think Edwards plays the angles more than his supporters would like to admit.

On the Helms thing, I saw that Helms read an award-winning essay by Wade Edwards into the Senate record in 1996 after his car accident. I'm sure Elizabeth holds some affection for him for that, and her understanding of Helms is certainly more profound and nuanced than my own. These two little incidents combined haven't ruined Edwards for me, but a third one will.

[BlueStater]

11. The Helms comparison was a blunder, I agree

She should have picked her words better.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. I want to do both. You ignored the primary issue, his statement today nt

[jcrew2001]

43. He can turn NC against Rudy and McCain

maybe not Fred.

[On the Road]

2. The Key is to Flip Close States

If Edwards can do that, that makes him a stronger candidate. He is not the ideal Southern candidate, but if he can carry a few (NC, VA, FL), that should be enough.

That's not the only way to do it, of course. Carrying IN and OH could do it, too. But it seems to be the most likely.

[DemDogs]

8. Edwards clearly has the best chance in states that we have to flip

I would add Louisiana (he has been there a lot and there is a Dem base), Missouri, Tennessee, Kansas, Kentucky, maybe even Texas and Georgia. (Southerners don't count Florida as a southern state.) And he has the best chance of holding or increasing the lead in the House and Senate. Coattails, coattails, coattails.

[rhombus]

9. Both Carter and Clinton were Governors. Edwards isn't

So this silly argument about being from the "South" is taken out of context. You left out the salient part, which is that being a governor helps.

Edwards comments were clearly aimed at appealing to the racist and sexist base of the Democratic party. Disgraceful.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. Dukakis was a Yankee governor; Gore was not a governor

Dukakis was named--by his fellow governors--the most effective governor in the nation. How did he do nationally? How many electoral votes did he win in the South?

Gore was never a governor yet he won Florida and 25 electoral votes. That is more than McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale, and Kerry combined did in th South (0 wins and 0 electoral votes).

[NYCGirl]

15. Of course, Gore had been Vice President. That trumps Governor and Senator.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. Let's look at the record of VP's

The conventional wisdom--and the data backs this up--is that in modern times being a governor is an advantage (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush. Only Bush I became prez without being a governor since 1976). Few have argued that being VP provides a great marketing (as opposed to establishment backing and name ID) advantage. Why? The record:

Gore (2000): Won
Quayle (2000, primary): Lost
Bush (1988): Won
Mondale (1984): Lost
Humphrey (1968): Lost
Nixon (1960): Lost
H. Wallace (1948): Lost
Breckinridge (1860): Lost
Van Buren (1836): Won

From 1836 to 1988 no VP became president. That is a testament to how attractive being VP has proven to be to voters.

[NYCGirl]

22. But it certainly helps your recognition factor NATIONALLY, doesn't it? NT

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. I agree but it apparently doesn't help sell you to voters

As I said: ==Few have argued that being VP provides a great marketing (as opposed to establishment backing and name ID) advantage.==

Being VP gets you into the race with a fast car but that is about it, judging by our history. It would be interesting to examine why. My guess would be because VP's are largely out of sight, don't have any tangible role, and are seen as followers by some. It should be noted, though, that two of the last three VP's won (Bush, Gore winning while Quayle couldn't even make it to Iowa when he ran). The current VP is Cheney. If Cheney ran he would be unelectable and that should not be ignored either.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. "Edwards comments were clearly aimed at appealing to the racist and sexist base"

That Clobam fan lie is debunked by the truth: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18132558/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3325193

[geek tragedy]

10. John Kerry crushed Edwards in the South, as Hillary

and Obama are doing now.

Maybe Southerners aren't that impressed with Johnboy.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. The first issue is what Edwards meant. Was he race and gender baiting?

Was he using his gender and color to argue special electoral strength like many backers of HRC and Obama have done at DU? It is clear--from his own past comments, both now and in 04'--and the data that he was referring to his southern roots.

The second issue is whether JRE himself can win in the South. You offer this:

==John Kerry crushed Edwards in the South, as Hillary
Posted by geek tragedy


and Obama are doing now.

Maybe Southerners aren't that impressed with Johnboy.==

You mean like Dean and Holy Joe were crushing Kerry in the South at this time in 03'? ;)

[monkeyhq]

12. Mason-Dixon Poll released today...

...show JE way, way, way behind in South Carolina, a state he once carried. His trend has been downward during the last weeks of May and into June in all national polls and the newer state polls. If he were such a winner, I would think his 'southern gravitas' would at least get him over the 15% hump in his birth state. IMO, it isn't about someone from the "south" being the nominee that will improve our chances. It will be someone people a) want, b) will give campaign dollars to, c) is more competent and not a hypocrite, d) doesn't have a record of apologizing for all the 'wrong' votes they made, and e) who they trust to run the country. All day long one can tout their 'southern' roots, but to me, it doesn't mean squat if I just plain don't like the guys record and believe him unable to handle the job (which is where I think many democrats are at this point).

I am very much undecided about who will get my primary support, but I know the candidates that will not. Of course, whomever the nominee is will get my vote because even JE is better than the GOP, but only moderately so, IMO.

[rhombus]

16. Good point

"Southern" Edwards should be doing far better than he's doing in South Carolina if he really wants to impress us with his "Southern" card. He's a distant third in South Carolina.

Tells you much about his appeal...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. When the votes were cast didn't he win SC in 04'?

Let's see what happens in SC when the votes are counted. Didn't Holy Joe lead there at this point in the process in 2003? :rofl:

[JI7]

19. but he lost many other southern states like Tennessee, Virgnia

etc.

and why isn't he leading in SC right now ? why are Clinton and Obama leading ? they must have some appeal if they are leading him.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. Only Kerry and Edwards won in the South (Edwards won SC and NC)

He beat Clark and Dean in the South, no small feat.

That was obviously during primaries. Edwards argument is that he would do the best in a general election (he has proven he can win in a red southern state by virtue of being elected to the senate in NC). Sticking to the primaries, though, 2004 was unique. It was basically over after Iowa, aside from Edwards 2 wins and 1 win each for Clark and Dean.

[monkeyhq]

27. Clark beat Edwards...

...in Oklahoma, which isn't the south but it's dem primary consists of very conservative voters, much like the south.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. Clark's narrow win over Edwards in OK helps prove the point

The reason Clark won was because he had a regional connection with Oklahoma voters since he was from neighboring Arkansas. Let's also not forget that Edwards barely lost OK when assessing the 04' primaries...

Location matters, as Clark and Edwards showed in 04'. Obama could argue that he is the most electable because he is from the Midwest (although the specter of Humphrey and Mondale loom over that argument). Look for that to come at some point in the next 6 months. I wonder if people will cry foul and claim he is using his gender as an advantage then...

[FrenchieCat]

41. Edwards lost Oklahoma despite the media being his echo chamber,

having a famous state "son" sports coach endorse Edwards at the 11th hour, and campaigning in Oklahoma and spending more money than any other candidates....and certainly more than Wes Clark.

Recollection of what happened sounds nice, but facts speak volume!

So Let us NOT forget!

"AND THEN THERE WERE TWO"
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/02/04/primaries/index.html
Kerry breaks into the open field, with Edwards still in pursuit -- while the Dean meteor continues to burn out.

February 4, 2004 | After a month of surprise, confusion and tumult, the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is, suddenly, much more clear: The nomination is John Kerry's to lose.

John Edwards won in South Carolina Tuesday, and he made a strong showing in an Oklahoma race that was too close to call even after all the votes were in. But Kerry, the liberal senator from Massachusetts, took the bellwether state of Missouri by a commanding margin over Edwards. In addition, he won in Delaware, North Dakota, New Mexico, Arizona, placed a strong second in South Carolina and was running strong in Oklahoma.
snip
Edwards staffers tried to make the best of their one victory, casting the race from here on out as a two-man contest. But Kerry, already in Seattle, delivered a front-runner's speech aimed at the Republican incumbent.
snip
Make no mistake -- the race is not over. The weeks ahead may demonstrate again the deep cultural and political disagreements that define the nation, and the Democratic Party. It appears, for now, that Edwards and perhaps Dean will be able to exploit that. Edwards' best hope is to peel off the South; Dean, fighting a guerrilla action, might hope to lock up the Left Coast with wins in Washington on Saturday and in California on March 2. (Oregon doesn't vote until May 18.)

NETWORKS ANOINTED KERRY, EDWARDS BEFORE IOWA DID
Study: Iowa Caucus Victors Received 98 Percent Positive Coverage
WASHINGTON, DC—Prior to their surprising Iowa caucus performances, 98 percent of the network evening news coverage of Democratic Presidential candidates John Kerry and John Edwards was positive, according to research conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). The study also found Howard Dean received more critical coverage over the same time period, at 58 percent positive.


This is CMPA’s second ElectionWatch report of Campaign 2004. ElectionWatch will provide regular updates of how the broadcast networks are covering the candidates, the issues and the campaign. This report examines the 91 stories broadcast on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening news from January 1st through January 18th, the night before the Iowa caucus.

OTHER MAJOR FINDINGS:

Golden Boys Get Midas Touch-Not one person quoted by the networks had anything critical to say about North Carolina Senator John Edwards (100 percent favorable coverage) in the two and half weeks leading up to the Iowa caucus, while 96 percent of the evaluations of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry were positive.
http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/NetworksAnointedKerryEdwards.htm

[JI7]

28. he isn't doing so well against Hill and Obama right now in the South

it would be different if he was trailing yet still strongest in the South. then there would be a point. but this is a case where he isn't even currently doing well.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. The argument is about the GE, not the primaries. JRE has won a GE in the south nt

[JI7]

36. of course Primaries matter, there is a reason voting is mostly limited to party members

[Adelante]

63. NC should not be counted - Edwards was out of the race by then

Also it wasn't anything but a show caucus. He got about 10,000 voters out of a couple million registered Dems. NC was about him running for VP, not for the nom.

[rhombus]

20. John Edwards has close to 95% name ID in South Carolina

And yet he's trailing a distant third there. He's a known quantity now. Back in 2004, he wasn't. So that argument falls apart. I predict Edwards comes in third in South Carolina in 2008.

[loyalsister]

40. standards of influence

I hope someone from deep south posts here.
From my experience with the southerners who are a part of southern culture I have seen a strong will and a desire to sort of live by concrete standards. Things that the sun rises and sets by.

I have seen it in action. Someone can turn perfect strong financial analogies of farming on a lawyer and have them twisting and confused. It may sound stereotypical, but there is a reason for some of them.
I am referring to people who I know who live on farms that have been handed down, and there are many circles who are not hanging out on the internet.

One of my farmer friends was a big Howard Dean fan. He wanted someone who was just out with it telling it like it is. Some want someone who has a base where they see a code or standard behind what they do.

Edwards finds himself in an unfortunate position of nuance - apologizing late- and it is not going to help him.

Both of the other candidates can make position on the war as concrete as posible.

Hillary has been coached well.
Never apologizing may be an asset in the south.

Imagine how these relate to individual experiences (having to fire someone, divorce, etc.), if a person wants to relate to a candidate and measure his\her values against their own under the conditions described above.

Never apologizing. Never in favor of it. In favor of it- then apologizing.

[Texas_Kat]

49. A lot of people mistake "being from the South"

A lot of people mistake "being from the South" as automatically being a 'Southern" candidate.

They're definitely not the same thing.

The Southern gestalt doesn't have an accent, it's a populist message that demands authenticity and Edwards recent missteps and prior record tarnish his authenticity and obscure his message.

I'm not commenting about this to start an argument, but being a 'Southern" candidate isn't just a geographical anomaly. It's a 'sense of life' thing -- made up of hundreds of smaller, seemingly inconsequential things.

Southerners will understand. It was why Kerry's freshly-pressed hunting outfit just seemed so wrong somehow. Not one single thing, but all of it taken together being very out-of-kilter.

Edwards seems as though he's trying different personas on for size. It doesn't seem to be believable.

[Telly Savalas]

25. So you're suggesting that Southerners are so backwards that they'll only vote for one of their own?

That's not very nice.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. I simply looked at the data. Which facts do you disagree with? nt

[Telly Savalas]

30. I disagree with the notion that you can draw conclusions from that small a sample size

when there are so many factors in play.

[JI7]

32. the data also shows Hillary and Obama leading in the South

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. In the general election? Indepedents and repukes vote in the GE too

Leading in the Dem primary says nothing about GE strength. Ask Dukakis (who won the primary in Georgia) and others (ahem, like John Kerry who won every southern primary except NC and SC but won 0 southern states in the general election) on this list...

[venable]

44. who said that? not the OP.

so who said that?

[Hippo_Tron]

31. 1964 is a pretty arbitrary date to start the tally, don't you think?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. No. That is the year the South switched to the repukes due to civil rights nt

[Hippo_Tron]

37. I could make the case that we should start the count in 1948

When the Dixiecrats walked out of the Democratic Convention and supported Strom Thurmond. Truman (technically not a southerner by your definition) won in 1948 and JFK won in 1960, both carried southern states.. Adlai Stevenson, also not a southerner, carried 8 southern states in 1952 and 7 in 1956.

Your evidence doesn't make Edwards right by any means., especially since the dynamics have significantly changed since 1996, the last time a Democrat won southern states on a presidential ticket. Virginia is trending Democratic and Arkansas is holding steady but the rest of the south is going Republican.

Outside of Virginia and Arkansas, Democrats have been very unsuccessful in statewide Senate and Gubernatorial races in the last few election cycles. In fact, I'm fairly sure that outside of Virginia and Arkansas we've only been able to get two non-incumbents elected statewide in the south since Bush took office. Blanco as Governor of Louisiana (which will probably be re-taken by the GOP this year) and Bredesen as Governor of Tennessee.

The fact that we haven't been able to get a single non-incumbent elected to the US Senate in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Tennessee since Bush took office suggests to me that John Edwards being from the south isn't going to sway that region.

Ohio is the key to the 2008 election as it was the key to the 2004 election. The other swing states will likely be New Mexico, Iowa, Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Virginia, Florida and possibly Arkansas and Montana. Florida may once again be decided by voter fraud, as every other one of these swing states has a Democratic Governor now, except for Florida. Edwards certainly can't overcome voter fraud because he has a southern accent.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

38. It started in 1948 but remained Democratic until after 1964

1948

Truman (D) won 8 southern states
Thurmond (Dixiecrat) won 4 southern states
Dewey (R) won 0 southern states

1952

Stevenson (D) won 7 southern states (despite winning only 2 states outside the South, and both were border states)
Eisenhower (R) won 5 southern states

1956

Eisenhower (R) won 6 southern states
Stevenson (D) won 5 southern states

While a Republican carried the South for the first time ever, this is misleading as to the importance of the South to the Democrats and Democratic strength in the South. The only other state Stevenson won that year was Missouri, also a border state. In 1952-1956 the South remained the bastion of the Democratic Party, although, as you noted, a shift to the Republicans was evident.

1960

Kennedy (D) won 7 southern states (he beat Nixon in an 8th but narrowly lost to an unpledged state in MS)
Nixon (R) won 3 southern states

The South was no longer the "Solid South" by 1948 but it remained a Democratic region until 1964. Since then, aside from when we have had a southerner on the ticket, we have won only 1 southern state and that was in 1968. We won 0 southern states in 2004. Compare that to the past when Democrats would sweep the South even while losing in a landslide nationally.

==Your evidence doesn't make Edwards right by any means., especially since the dynamics have significantly changed since 1996, the last time a Democrat won southern states on a presidential ticket. Virginia is trending Democratic and Arkansas is holding steady but the rest of the south is going Republican.==

It does suggest that being from the South is a bonus in the South. While VA is trending Democratic, a southern Democrat should enter VA with a built-in advantage that a Democrat from Illinois or New York would lack.

==The fact that we haven't been able to get a single non-incumbent elected to the US Senate in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Tennessee since Bush took office suggests to me that John Edwards being from the south isn't going to sway that region.==

Well, the timeline you set conveniently leaves out 1998 when Edwards himself unseated a Republican incumbent to win in North Carolina... ;)

Florida is a swing state. I think all of our top candidates will be competitive there. The real dispute is how they will do in the rest of the South. HRC would likely win Arkansas, due to her "home court" advantage, but it is hard to see her flipping any other state in the South. Obama is unlikely to compete anywhere else in the South. Edwards could realistically win Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina.

==Ohio is the key to the 2008 election as it was the key to the 2004 election. The other swing states will likely be New Mexico, Iowa, Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Virginia, Florida and possibly Arkansas and Montana.==

Yes, but I don't see any of our top three candidates having a special built-in advantage in most swing states. Ohio and Iowa are exceptions. Obama should have an advantage in Iowa, since he is from neighboring Illinois and the Midwest regional advantage should give him an edge out of the gate in Ohio too.

Edwards also has appeal to rural voters. 16% of voters in 2004 lived in rural areas. Obama and HRC don't even talk about rural issues. Edwards has a $1 billion a year economic revitalization plan for rural America. Additionally, he has rural roots. All of this would help him in the South and rural parts of non-southern states like Iowa.

There are other advantages Edwards brings to the table but these are the advantages that relate to his background.

[Awsi Dooger]

39. I like Edwards but he wouldn't carry all those Southern states

"Edwards could realistically win Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina."

Florida is the best chance. That state leans only about 2 points red in a 50/50 national environment. It looks like 2008 will have a generic tilt our way so 2 points can easily be overcome.

Otherwise, we're an underdog in every one of those states you listed, even with Edwards as the nominee. Tennessee is the biggest long shot. Too many conservatives. Same thing to slightly lesser degree in Arkansas. I don't care about recent results in statewide elections. You've got 40% self-identified conservatives in that state and that doesn't equal a victory in a presidential vote.

The demographic has obviously shifted against us in Louisiana. North Carolina tilts about 10-12 points red. Edwards as favorite son can make up some of that and a national tilt a bit more, but I'd be very surprised if he carried North Carolina.

Virginia is the second best shot other than Florida. It continues to move our way and figures to be only about 3-4 points red on the federal level in '08, everything being equal. But the national mood is not equal so we make further gains into that 3-4 point deficit. A strategic VP pick and Edwards atop the ticket could put Virginia into our column, which changes the entire margin for error in November. There are very few logical permutations for the GOP to get 270+ electoral votes minus Virginia.

I have no idea why posters in this thread are referencing primary results or primary polls. Hopelessly irrelevant. The question is who fares best in general election balloting in the South, when it's a 1-on-1 race vs. a Republican. I don't think there's any question it's Edwards and he's correct to emphasize it.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

46. Sure. He would give us a shot in those states and win a couple, though

Even Clinton never won a majority of southern states. The key is making inroads into the GOP's stronghold. If we begin the election down 138-0 by ceding the South we need to be nearly perfect elsewhere to win. We weren't in 2000 and 2004 and look at what happened.

The difference is that Edwards puts all those states in play, forces the GOP to spend time and money there. I think he could win four of them, like Clinton did. Any Dem will have a shot in Florida so let's put that aside for it is a purple state. HRC only brings Arkansas to the table and Obama brings no southern states into play.

==I have no idea why posters in this thread are referencing primary results or primary polls. Hopelessly irrelevant. The question is who fares best in general election balloting in the South, when it's a 1-on-1 race vs. a Republican. I don't think there's any question it's Edwards and he's correct to emphasize it.==

Exactly.

[nealmhughes]

60. One of the reasons that noone seems to be able to successfully challenge Sessions and Shelby in Ala.

is the national party's own decision to continue to "write them off as hopeless." The state party is about as useful as teats on a boar, and run by a clique of Birmingham and Montgomery attorneys and bankers.
Not a single viable candidate is being "groomed" by the state or national party to take on either the simpering idiot that is Sessions or the moron Quisling that is Shelby.
The last time we even had a primary challenger against Bud Cramer in the AL 5th was when? It seems that it is assumed in the Democratic districts that the state legislators will be reeelected, the lone non-challenged Democrat will be reelected, and that the one untainted Democrat in a contested election for the House, Artur Davis will now have the Hilliard stink removed and be in the House like Bud forever.
On a larger scale, Southern Democrats are as varied as any group that is formed from 1/3 of the nation's population. Every region within the South is different. The South is a convenient geographic term and not a cultural one per se, as aspects of "cultural southern" run a continuum from Delaware to California. Pretty hard to stereotype, save for accent and classic regional food choices, to be honest. Does immediately wincing when hearing "youse" or "you guys" make someone a Southerner? How about thinking hot biscuits with butter and sausage is the ultimate breakfast? That BBQ is a hog meat and served with slaw and a vinegar based sauce? That "right" is a perfectly good adjective, along the lines of "Rt. Honourable" or "it is meet and right so to do", as in "it rained a right smart bit yesterday"?
And as for Florida not being "southern," one would be rather hard pressed to make a good point of that, as the state is being rapidly "southernized" by the natives, and the children of the Michigan and NJ natives who moved south are now growing up hearing "y'all" and other southernisms in school. I even know a family who were all from East Harlem then moved to Ocala and now the children wear cowboy boots and have southern accents and have lost their Puertorican identities save for family reunions!
No, the South is not all Southern Baptist and voter of Republicans, no more than everyone in the Five Boroughs are either Jewish or Catholic, live in high rises and vote Democratic.

[FrenchieCat]

42. Without National Security as part of his resume, John Edwards will not win

the General Election....no matter how "southern" he is.

John Edwards is not as electable as he portrays based on what the election issues will be....and him being a White Male from the South will simply not be enough! He may the Dem nomination by default....because it is obvious that many will buy into the fact that he can somehow win over a woman, a Black man and an Hispanic man, but unfortunately, that will not be enough to win the GE, which will be what counts.

I'm not sure why folks are forgetting the state of our current affairs, but John Edwards will easily be painted as weak on defense, and the fact that he has had to apologize for his judgement on the war over and over again will be used against him when all is said and done.

Those following obvious Conventional Wisdom will be proved wrong.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

45. What is your obsession with Edwards being a white male?

Are white males unqualified to run for office or something? :eyes:

==Without National Security as part of his resume, John Edwards will not win==

Fortunately, he does have national security on his resume. He has also presented a national security strategy, unlike his chief rivals.

Carter and Clinton had 0 national security experience when they won, so that claim doesn't hold water.

==because it is obvious that many will buy into the fact that he can somehow win over a woman, a Black man and an Hispanic man==

No one has made that argument. Only HRC and Obama supporters have made arguments for electability based on gender or skin color.

==the fact that he has had to apologize for his judgement on the war over and over again will be used against him when all is said and done.==

That will prove to be refreshing after 8 years of "the decider" never admitting a mistake./

[Donna Zen]

62. Does it count?

Carter was a graduate of Annapolis and served in the Navy. I think that counts.

As for Clinton, his military non-record nearly did him in; however, the year was 1992 and there was not a war going on.

The South holds many electoral votes, and simply handing them over to the republicans without a fight is dumb politics. I don't think that the nominee must be from the South, but it does need to be someone who can realistically campaign to win there.

It really comes down to the ability of Democrats to count. Can they? When you concede the South, you leave yourself with needing to win a high percentage of the remaining electoral votes. The collary also applies; by "gifting" the republicans with so many electoral votes, they need to win a smaller percentage of those remaining. And it is not just the deep south in question, but the border states as well.

And we need to think about the actually how the message campaign plays out. When republicans don't have to campaign in the South, they are free to leave their most nutty values and ideas on the shelf. Thus, they campaign as moderates which attracts the northern-midwestern suburban swing voters. We saw a little of this distaste in play when Harold Ford was attacked in TN. There may be no way to quantify this, but my guess is that many moderates hated that mess.

As for Edwards' claims, I can't be sure if Southerns will buy his posture. I don't see Edwards' foreign policy creds. as worthy of consideration. There is not a doubt in my mind that given current events and current polling, Iraq is the biggest issue out there. And it will remain the biggest issue in 08 no matter what happens between now and then. That's why the republicans are soooo hungry for their grade B actor...he's tough on crime.

[monkeyhq]

50. I agree with you.

Waves.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

52. So you believe Obama is unelectable? nt

[monkeyhq]

53. I don't have an opinion on Obama.

I don't know nearly enough about him to make such a decision. He has some things that are a big plus, like how he energizes people. But I don't know all that much about him. In fact, with the exception of Gravel and Dodd, he is the candidate about which I know the least.

On paper, there is no more 'qualified' candidate in the race than Richardson. I read he was terrific today at the AFSCME forums, but his debate performances thus far have been lack luster. It's still early, and only the die hards are watching, so that doesn't really matter all that much right now. He is damn sure qualified for the job, though.

All of the candidates have their pluses, imo, but I have yet to find a single plus (that matters to me) in Edwards. I just can't get over all his mistakes, plus the lack of qualifications, for him to ever earn my support or to think him qualified for the job. You gotta be a lot more than just a Senator from the south to earn my vote. I'm sure he is a nice person, but I am not voting for nice. I am voting for who I think would best handle the job of President.

[ieoeja]

47. Is having facial hair a huge advantage? The facts say "yes"

Dateline: 1912

Only one man not sporting facial hair was elected president since the Civil War.

Record in the United States

With Facial Hair

Grant in '68: mustache and beard
Grant in '72: mustache and beard
Hayes in '76: mustache and beard
Garfield in '80: mustache and beard
Cleveland in '84: mustache only
Harrison in '88: mustache and beard
Cleveland in '92: mustache only
Roosevelt in '00: mustache only
Roosevelt in '04: mustache only
Taft in '08: mustache only

With Facial Hair

McKinley in '96: clean-shaven

[NYCGirl]

48. BRAVO!

:yourock:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

51. Is there a geographic bloc, culture based on facial hair?

Was a civil war fought based on facial hair?

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

58. Of Course, haven't you ever heard of the Mustache belt, and the Beard Region?

I think ieoeja's point was that your title sounds more like a Faux News headline than anything else. You are not interested in discussing electoral strategy, you are interested in supporting Edwards and smearing everyone else. That was some call to unity, simultaneously bashing Obama. Edwards is a great candidate. I support Obama, but Edwards comes in a close second for me. I will take any Democrat but I want Obama and will be happy with either Obama or Edwards. What I'm saying is if Obama doesn't win, I want Edwards to, so stop giving his supporters a bad name with hit pieces on Obama. Again, I've posted these links in this thread at a different point, but I think draft_mario_cuomo's "unity" message should be seen by all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3326371&mesg_id=3326371
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3326881&mesg_id=3326881

[ieoeja]

61. Muslims, Amish, Hillbillies and Hippies! n/t

[waiting for hope]

54. Nice Work Mario -

"We are all Democrats; we are all Americans; we are all human." Now That's John Edwards. :thumbsup:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

56. Thanks

:hi:

[Clark2008]

55. Yes - but not him.

He's not macho enough for the swing Bubbas.

Clinton was a Bubba.
Hell, even Carter was sort of a Bubba and had a VERY Bubba brother.

Edwards, ehhhh... not so much.

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

57. We are all Democrats, we are all Americans, which is why you should stop posting Obama hit pieces!

Here are links for those of you who are interested in truly disgusting smears: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3326371&mesg_id=3326371

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3326881&mesg_id=3326881

I give Edwards the benefit of the doubt that he was talking about the South vs. North rather than being racist. Because he just doesn't seem like a racist to me and there is a more sensible reason for what he said. I only wish you would come to the same conclusion about Obama and not smear him.

As long as we are on the issues of North vs. South, Clinton won the South with a third way Clinton DLC strategy. Carter won, as much as I love the guy, because of Nixon, and because he talked about family values in a progressive way. Johnson won because he was from the south. I think all three have a decent shot at the South, Edwards because he is southern, Obama because he has some of the same appeal as Carter, and Clinton because she is Clinton. Now the polls tell us that Edwards is struggling in his home state, let alone the south, but I am going to be honest with you, I think any Democrat can win in the south. Bush has tanked the Republican brand in the same way Nixon did. It will be hard to lose in 2008. Now stop posting attack pieces and then calling for unity. This is not an argument for Edwards strengths, of which there are many. It is a race horse argument, which doesn't say anything of value about the horse.

[sampsonblk]

59. We need a real leader to break this cycle!

nt

[illinoisprogressive]

64. since Edwards failed to carry his state I'd say NO

[draft_mario_cuomo]

65. Another meme bites the dust

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3331405

ohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Jun-21-07 01:54 PM
Original message
Poll: Edwards only Dem candidate to beat all 4 top Repubs in NC (15 electoral votes) Updated at 2:54 PM

Edited on Thu Jun-21-07 01:57 PM by JohnLocke
15 Electoral Votes.

Here's the actual poll: Public Policy Polling (545 likely North Carolina voters, June 19).

And here's the story on it:
----
Poll: Edwards Fares Best Against GOP Rivals
Thursday, June 21, 2007--WRAL
----
Raleigh — Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards stands the best chance of any Democratic front-runner of carrying North Carolina in the 2008 presidential election, according to a new poll.

Public Policy Polling, a nonpartisan group, surveyed 545 likely voters statewide on June 19. The poll, which has a margin of error of 4.15 percent, shows Edwards as the only leading Democratic candidate to top four GOP candidates if the election were held now.

Edwards and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani were in practically a dead heat, with Edwards capturing 46 percent of support to Giuliani's 45 percent.

Edwards' lead over other Republicans in a hypothetical head-to-head contest is greater. He would beat senator-turned-actor Fred Thompson 47 to 43 percent, U.S. Sen. John McCain 48 to 40 percent and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 51 to 37 percent, according to the poll.

Meanwhile, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would lose North Carolina to either Giuliani or Thompson, the poll shows.

Giuliani would top Clinton 47 to 43 percent and Obama 46 to 42 percent, according to the poll, while Thompson would win 46 to 43 percent over Clinton and 45 to 44 percent over Obama.

The poll showed Clinton would beat McCain by 45 to 44 percent and Romney by 47 to 41 percent. Obama would beat Romney by 47 to 43 percent but would narrowly lose to McCain, 45 to 44 percent.
(...)

[jcrew2001]

66. Elections are always won through the South

Perot handed the South to Bill Clinton - which was a GOP stronghold.

If Bloomberg enters the race, he will fight Hillary in the Northeast - leaving the South open to the GOP nominee. If its Bloomberg/Hagel - they'll take the mountain states like Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, Nebraska; and also Ohio/Florida.

I think Bloomberg hurts Hillary more than the GOP - even if Rudy is the nominee.