The South

[Gustaf]

I would say that comparing Clinton to Bush is a little immature. You can't compare pre-9/11 stands to post-9/11 stands. Comparing Kerry to Bush is legitimate, but saying that one side is pro-terrorist is cheap. Everyone is against terrorism, and we should be able to discuss the best strategy against it without name-calling, even though I understand that people feel strongly about it.

And, on the subject, going by the MiamiU definition, the answer is an obvious yes, since the keyworrd here is CAN. Kerry won' t win any Southern state except FL anyway, imo.

[agcatter]

Hold it Gustaf.  No one said ANYTHING about anyone being "PRO-TERRORIST"

[Gustaf]

Hold it Gustaf.  No one said ANYTHING about anyone being "PRO-TERRORIST"

I know, not here and now, but it's been said before on other threads by other people. Or at least implied.

[classical liberal]

agcat-

There are some in the GOP who have called Kerry pro-terrorist.  Possibly due to the ACLU's firm pro-Kerry stance while at the same time pursuing the release of the POW's at Guantanimo.

[agcatter]

I ignore those people just like I ignore the nuts on the left who go around comparing Bush to Hitler.

The debate is what to do about terrorism, and there is a clear difference in the two approaches.

[Ben.]

Kerry could very well beat Bush and yet not win a single Southern state… Bush could add Iowa and New Mexico to his column and so long as Kerry takes Ohio and New Hampshire he wins…the south isn’t going to be a competitive region for some time to come with Dole who was a westerner or even with Reagan (had we Dems had a decent candidate in 84..hell Carter carried GA against him in 76) who was from California there might have been a shot (and with Dole there certainly was) however Bush is a Republican politician shaped very much by the south and as a result he’s very likely to appeal most to southerners….the only southern state that is really in play is FL, while at a stretch (and I strongly doubt Kerry could win any of these) Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee are all long shots but winnable with the right candidate…but back to the original post yes Kerry can win without the south and I think he may well…having said that its essential for the south to be contested because of senate and congressional races, Landrieu and Fletcher proved that by taking on Bush on policies they as moderates disagreed with they could win convincingly in the conservative South which is encouraging if not so much at the presidential level

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Question: why is everyone treating "the south" as if it was somehow monolithic?

[agcatter]

Because in it's Presidential voting patterns it is about as monolithic as it gets.  No non southern Democratic nominee has carried a single state from the old confederacy since 64.  Kerry won't either.  Too liberal.

[agcatter]

Obviously Florida has some cultural and social differences with the other Southern states and therefore that is where Kerry will attempt to direct his money.

[Gustaf]

Monolithic is maybe a stretch, but apart from exceptions such as WV and FL, voting patterns have been very similar all over the South for some time. Granted, it's on different levels, Upper South states being less 'Southern' than Deep SOuth states, etc.

To Ben: I suppose you're talking about 1980 when you say that Carter carried GA against Reagan? And for an incumbent president to carry his own home state where he used to be governor shouldn't be too impressive.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Not true though. Southern states are just as varied as non-Southern states.
More so sometimes.

[agcatter]

Differences?  Sure.  However, there is a common social and cultural strand that weaves itself through the old confederate states that account for it's preidential voting patterns.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In 1972 Nixon swept the South via blatent race-baiting... Mondale and Dukakis (who won West Virginia) were both idiots.
Kerry won't win Texas, Bush won't win New York. But Kerry might win Louisiana and I have these worries about New Jersey...

In the next 10 or so years I think differences between North and South will continue to melt away... there's a chance the "new division" might be east-west.

[Ben.]

Because in it's Presidential voting patterns it is about as monolithic as it gets.  No non southern Democratic nominee has carried a single state from the old confederacy since 64.  Kerry won't either.  Too liberal.

Johnson was from the south...if you count Texas as a southern state rather than an automatons region unto its self …

Yeah your right Gustaff it wasn’t that important but I was trying to prove a point… I mean look at 1992 when two southerners (Well whether Bush 41 was a southerner is a matter for conjecture) faced off agasit one another the Democrat Clinton won…however there you had Perot but hen again Perot did not run very strong in the south…when it comes to Bush the man is very keen to accentuate is southerness which can also be seen to play well more generally as “folksy”… I think the reason the south can be considered such a lock for the republicans at the presidential level is to a large extent based on style and personality….it is Bush’s southerness and it was also Clinton’s southerness that allowed both to do very well in the region however Bush was working from a party heartland while in both 92 and 96 Clinton was not…

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Bush doesn't play at being a Southerner (his power base is West Texas), but he plays the Western/Cowboy image extremely well.
Certainly better than his dad, G.H.W "splash of coffee" Bush...

[Nation]

Here's a probable situation -- every Bush and Gore state stay the same for Bush/Kerry, with the exception of New Hampshire and Nevada (who both switch to the Dem column)

We've got a 269-269 tie.

[agcatter]

I disagree with your assertion that Nixon swept the South in 72 thru "race baiting".  It was national security that caused thousands of moderates to side with Nixon and give him 75% in Georgia or 70% in NC.  You don't get 72% of the vote in a state like Florida by race baiting.  A percentage that big in a state like Florida with it's large influx of transplanted northern moderates means something else was going on.  It was.  The hawkish South did not trust McGovern on the issue of national security - with good reason I might add.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nice rose-tinted glasses there...

[dunn]

Here's a probable situation -- every Bush and Gore state stay the same for Bush/Kerry, with the exception of New Hampshire and Nevada (who both switch to the Dem column)

We've got a 269-269 tie.

we had couple of threads for that

[Gustaf]

Because in it's Presidential voting patterns it is about as monolithic as it gets.  No non southern Democratic nominee has carried a single state from the old confederacy since 64.  Kerry won't either.  Too liberal.

Johnson was from the south...if you count Texas as a southern state rather than an automatons region unto its self …

Yeah your right Gustaff it wasn’t that important but I was trying to prove a point… I mean look at 1992 when two southerners (Well whether Bush 41 was a southerner is a matter for conjecture) faced off agasit one another the Democrat Clinton won…however there you had Perot but hen again Perot did not run very strong in the south…when it comes to Bush the man is very keen to accentuate is southerness which can also be seen to play well more generally as “folksy”… I think the reason the south can be considered such a lock for the republicans at the presidential level is to a large extent based on style and personality….it is Bush’s southerness and it was also Clinton’s southerness that allowed both to do very well in the region however Bush was working from a party heartland while in both 92 and 96 Clinton was not…

Bush beat Clinton in the South by a clear margin, if you count EVs and don't count WV, DE, D.C. and MD as Southern. Bush won TX, SC, AL, MS, FL, NC and VA for a total of 108 EVs (of his total 168), Clinton won LA, AR, KY, TN and GA for a total of 47 EVs (of his total, 370). Even if you add the above excluded states it doesn't change.  Dole won back GA but lost FL in 1996.

[agcatter]

Race was not a big issue in the 72 campaign.  National security was because McGovern insisted on making it one.  "Come home America" was his big campaign slogan.
McGovern got blown out all over the country including states like reliably Democratic NY where Nixon got around 60% of the vote.  Pretty sure that kind of % in a lberal state like NY had very little to do with race.  Love your revisionist history however.

[opebo]

I think you Republicans need to stop trying to turn terrorism into a partizan issue...

Look... Al Qaeda et al couldn't give a f*** who the President is or whether he's a Democrat or a Republican.
If they want to attack you, they will attack you.

I grew up in a country where terrorist attacks were common and I am sick of people playing politics with terrorist attacks.

The terrorists, like anyone, are capable of recognizing that Bush would do more to fight them than Kerry.  But given that their goal is to radicalize arabs they might prefer someone who would actually fight back in the White House to a pushover like Kerry.
 

[opebo]

Not true though. Southern states are just as varied as non-Southern states.
More so sometimes.

Not really.. particularly not in their voting patterns.

[zachman]

The terrorists, like anyone, are capable of recognizing that Bush would do more to fight them than Kerry.  But given that their goal is to radicalize arabs they might prefer someone who would actually fight back in the White House to a pushover like Kerry.
 

Why do you all think Kerry will not fight the terrorists? I'm sick of this speculation, and he will do a very good job at it.

[agcatter]

Kerry has stated  that he regards terrorism as more of a law enforcement issue than a military one.  It is an approach the country took prior to 9-11.  There should be a vigorous debate on that.  Some of us think that approach was flawed and we shouldn't go there again.  Let's have that debate in the 2004 campaign.