That President, of course, was JFK. Since then, Democratic Presidents have normally come from the South, as was the case with LBJ, Clinton, and Carter. Obama is the only other northern liberal in that timeframe, but he called the Midwest home, not the northeast. There have been 3 NE liberals to lose since 1960, Dukakis in 88, Kerry in 04, and Hillary in 16. Funny enough, Republicans in that timeframe have elected the same number of presidents from the northeast, one Donald J. Trump. Now we know that the Republicans will brand every Democratic nominee as out of touch, coastal elite, etc. But from a perception standpoint, sometimes it seems to help to come from the Midwest or South, even if the policies are the same. Is the northeast stigma a real thing, or is this trend mostly by chance? Is the California stigma any better or worse?
That really proves nothing. You were talking about a field of only 14 elections of which Democrats won six .
Taking the individual candidates into account, Obama would have won if he was a senator from New York or Connecticut or Pennsylvania. Lbj's Texas ties at most might have lost him one or two additional close Southern States if he was from Massachusetts, but he obviously still would have won in a landslide . Hillary won but for being completely screwed in the Electoral College to an unprecedented degree. Plus Kerry came pretty damn close, and arguably probably would have won but for Osama Bin Laden making a very targeted attack on Bush the week before the election. It's also not like George McGovern or Hubert Humphrey fared materially better by being liberals from the Heartland Midwest.
