a - The Democrats will start winning 3-4 southern states in presidential elections in the future, or
b - the party will not survive.
(migration)
Bull the Dems don't need the South just like the Reps don't need the Northeast. States to win for both parties are in the Midwest and Southwest. Given Ohio's job issues and Republican corruption, it should be a fairly easy "red" state to pick off with 20 electoral votes.
Uhm, have you looked at electoral maps for the last four elections?
Yes, I have. What's your point?
The Democrats already have solid footing in the Midwest and only win a Southern state here and there. Plus, clearly NM, Nev, and Co are closer to going Dem than most any Southern state with the possible exception of Arkansas. When states in the midwest (exception: Ind and the Dakotas) and SW are closer to going Democrat than the vast majority of Southern states, how can you possibly conclude that the Dems can't win in the SW and MW if they can't win in the South? I would really like to hear what evidence you have to back up your statement.
The political nature of the midwest, first off, is certainly communitarian leaning. When I say "win in the midwest," I mean to have a strategy that would have a clear electoral victory partly resulting from the midwest. Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota don't gaurentee that. We also need to hold onto Wisconsin, and gain Ohio, Missouri, West Virginia and Iowa. Wisconsin has a natural communitarian lean, and don't forget Kerry's razor thin margin in 2004 there. Ohio can't be won by sending in gobs of money and hoping Cuyahoga county turns out big, it's going to be won by someone who has a natural appeal in towns and the rural areas in the southeast, both of which will be carried by the same kind of candidate who would do well in the South. Iowa also has a natural, slight communitarian lean, and will be won by, again, the kind of candidate who can appeal to rural voters and middle class families in the towns and cities. Missouri and West Virginia are self-explanatory.
And for the Southwest? Did Kerry win a single state there last election? Yes, it is trending Democrat, primarily because of increasing hispanic population. But the underlying trends show the solid Democratic support among these voters to be faltering, and will continue to do so if we can't get a candidate who can appeal to the average American, relate to religion, focus on economics, the same kind of candidate who does well in the south. Sure, we could keep working, keep building a strong local base in these states (which really aren't particularly libertarian leaning, as the dailykos status quo qould have us believe; look at Ritter, Salazar, Schweitzer, Richardson, or Tester.) and try to pour in tons of money and tip Nevada and New Mexico over the scales every election, and maybe even Colorado. But would it help us win elections? Not by much, and with that kind of narrow stratgey it would be very easy for the Republicans to derail us. And, the increasing hispanic population will only augment the connection between southern support and western support.
So you see, a candidate who isn't reasonably competitive in Florida, Arkansas, and Virginia, and doesn't even have a chance at all in Louisiana, Tennesee, Georgia or Kentucky isn't likely going to do well enough in the Midwest or Southwest to make up for that. On the other hand, a candidate like Clinton
does do well in those states
is going to have a good chance at sweeping the midwest except for Indiana and carrying New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and possibly Montana.
