Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: hawaiian
I'll bet the Kerry people are starting to wonder if southern politician John Edwards brought anything to the ticket. The Dean campaign used the following as an axiom (from The New York Times, although the link leads to a verbatim quote of it)
Forget the South
by Ryan Lizza
December 14, 2003

(originally www.nytimes.com/2003/12/14/magazine/14FORGET.html)
Al Gore's failing in 2000, they say, was not that he couldn't win in the South, but that he couldn't nail down New England. If Gore had been able to muster a few thousand more votes in New Hampshire, he would have won the presidency without a single Southern state. For some Democrats, this insight has led to a heretical theory about next year's presidential election: Forget the South. The Forget-the-South argument has little to do with anti-Dixie bias. Instead, it is based on simple mathematics. Consider the numbers. Democrats and Republicans agree that Bush and his eventual rival will each start the race with an ironclad base of states that are virtually unwinnable for the other party. Bush's base is rooted in the South, plains and interior West of the country, while the Democratic nominee can take for granted most of New England, the West Coast and a smattering of the Midwest.
Forget-the-South has *everything* to do with anti-Dixie bias. The foundation was laid in Newt's 1994 strategy that won the House for the Republican party. Immediately thereafter, the so-called Democrats began their war on tobacco producing states and everyone whose job depends on tobacco production and distribution. That's not a coincidence, that's what's known as quid pro quo. As long as Southern Democrats retained the correct brand name, the health problems associated with smoking (and identified at least as long ago as the 1930s) were ignored, subsidies and other favorable policies remained in force, and federal excise taxes on tobacco weren't considerable.
George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent

68 posted on 09/09/2004 9:05:13 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Unlike some people, I have a profile. Okay, maybe it's a little large...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: SunkenCiv
The Democrats are employing what I would term the "Big State" strategy. They recognize that the former Confederacy and the "border" states of MO, OK, and KY are lost for the present. The Democrats' supporters are concentrated in the large cities and (in the Northeast, the Great Lakes region, and the West Coast) their suburbs. Four of the 11 most electoral vote rich states (CA, NY, IL, and NJ) are virtual "locks" electorally for the Democrats, representing 122 electoral votes, 45% of what is needed to exceed a 270 vote majority in the Electoral College. The Republicans only have "locks" in three states out of the top 11 (TX, GA, NC), representing 54 electoral votes. If we add the next ten states in electoral votes, four (MA, WA, MN, MD) are usually Democratic wins in Presidential elections, for another 43 votes, while only three (IN, TN, VA) are GOP-safe, for 35 electoral votes. The remaining four of the top 11 states (FL, PA, OH, MI) and the remaining three out of the next tier of 10 states (MO, AZ, WI) are considered competitive. If the Democrats carry FL, PA, MI, and WI, they would have an additional 75 electoral votes. Added to the Democratic "locks" of 165 electoral votes, they will have 240 electoral votes, about 89% of the goal. They thus need fewer of the remaining 29 to win: VT, ME, DE, DC, HI, RI, and CT are Democratic "locks" totaling 28 electoral votes. From there, all the Democrats have to win is one state like NM, NH, CO, OR, or NV to achieve the "magic" 270 electoral votes.

Due to Kerry's failing campaign, it is likely Bush will win, and may even achieve 350 electoral votes. However, the Democratic strategy for winning Presidential elections is a sound one. For all their bellyaching about the Electoral College, the Democrats clearly benefit from this ancient method of electing presidents.

75 posted on 09/09/2004 10:48:06 AM PDT by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson