2008 Legacy: Marginalization of the South

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The South may not be critical, but Democrats shouldn't abandon it.  Plenty of Democrats can do well in the South - Warner, Clinton, Bayh, and others can still do well in Dixie.  That Obama could win without the South doesn't mean we don't need it; Southern states are growing rapidly, while states like NY, MI, IL, etc. are shrinking.  Eventually, Democrats will need the South, and they don't want to be at any more of a disadvantage when they do than they are now.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

In 2012, the South will have 181 electoral votes, while New England will have only 98.  Three Southern states gained electoral votes, while two in New England lost them.  The Democrats cannot afford to give up on the South.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

In 2012, the South will have 181 electoral votes, while New England will have only 98.  Three Southern states gained electoral votes, while two in New England lost them.  The Democrats cannot afford to give up on the South.

Uh...New England has 33 electoral votes on that map.

The south is not important.  Democrats are competitive naturally in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Missouri already and are making huge gains out west.  They can, have, and will win without the south.  Obviously neither party should abandon entire regions like the GOP, but it's certainly not a priority.  Democrats will retain a presence there for years to come.  But please, by all means take it back.

I think when he says New England, he's including the Mid Atlantic states as well.

Yeah, I was.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Ahh the South... Not a good place for new England liberal people in a normal election (2004)
So I've heard...

Then we should stop nominating New England liberals.