A new "Solid South" ?

[NorthernDog]

This whole topic seems to be driving Democrats crazy.   They are, in theory, locked out of the south, Rocky Mountains, and Great Plains states.  That's over 200 electoral votes in the GOP column right off the bat, under normal circumstances.  And the supply of southern bred Democrats will soon dry up. I don't see any Bill Clintons on the horizon.  Sure they can win without the south like Gore almost did-but there's no margin for error.  Gore's error was either New Hampshire or West VA (take your pick!)

[NorthernDog]

Perhaps it is more pertinent to ask whether THIS situation (Near but not Total dominance at the national level) can be replicated for the GOP in the South. What does everyone think?

I think it's the direction everything is moving in the south.  If you are ambitious for higher up offices most white southerners will see that the GOP party label is "an advantage" (as you've pointed out) and the Democrat label is a "Disadvantage". Eventually a % of the African American voters will get tired to losing and migrate to the Republican party too, but that will take another 20 years.

[NorthernDog]

And a lot of people get into a habit of voting a certain way.  For the south that may mean 25 more years of voting GOP for President (unless they nominate a northern liberal too).

[NorthernDog]

If the south is solidly behind Bush at least this frees him up to campaign heavily in the Midwest.
The Democrats are making a mistake if they are writing off nearly 170 Electoral Votes in Dixie plus the great plains and rocky mt states.  They pretty much have to sweep the heartland-not likely.
PS-I heard Bush has a 20 point lead against any named Democrat challenger in Florida.  If Florida is that far out of reach already, where is Bush trailing? Only Vermont and Mass?