January 26, 2004
Kerry Disses the South
John F-word Kerry doesn't think a Democrat needs the South to win.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is discounting notions that any Democratic candidate would have to appeal to Southern voters in order to win the presidency, calling such thinking a "mistake" during a speech at Dartmouth CollegeWell, sure, of course a president doesn't need a southern state to win the election. Southern states (including FL) only account for 168 votes in the electoral college, so it's a reasonable position from a mathematical POV. It's probably not the brightest observation for a guy on the campaign trail who's headed for South Carolina in a week though.{snip}
During a town hall meeting on the Dartmouth campus, Kerry noted that former Vice President Al Gore would be president if he'd won any number of other non-Southern states in 2000, including New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Ohio.
"Everybody always makes the mistake of looking South," Kerry said, in response to a question about winning the region. "Al Gore proved he could have been president of the United States without winning one Southern state, including his own."
In the old days, he could probably get away with pandering to New England liberals with a comment like that, but why would he think that this won't come back to haunt him now? Maybe he wasn't pandering, and actually feels this way. I guess Zell Miller was right when he said that Democratic leaders look at the South and say "go to hell".
Link via Instapundit.
Posted by at January 26, 2004 10:54 AMWhile mathematically speaking one can put together a winning election that includes no southern states, has anyone ever done this?
Kerry citing Gore is bizarre. Gore lost in large part precisely because he didn't carry any Southern states. (All the folks who argue that he would've/should've carried FL need to remember that FL is a southern state, no matter how many northerners move there.) Again, while he could've won by carrying some of the northern states that Dubya carried, that's not the same as arguing that Gore didn't NEED any southern states.
Moreover, if you're uncompetitive for 168 electoral votes, you're starting in the hole. Imagine if CA were in play for the GOP---that alone would divert a fair amount of Dem $$ and manpower to shore it up---and that's nowhere near 168 electoral votes.
Posted by: Dean on January 26, 2004 11:06 AMI've done a lot of reading on this subject. Gore's two biggest errors seem to be largely ignoring Ohio in the last month or so, a state he lost by less than 4%, and allowing Bush to let people in states like West Virginia think that he was going to take away their guns.
Anyway, if I had to make a guess, I would say Kerry's really just trying to add a little more optimism to the Democratic party's chances in 2004. If party activists and the like are focused on the notion that doing well in the South is virtually the only way to go to the White House, it could damage the campaign in a number of ways.
As for how his comments are going to hurt him in the South should he be the nominee, there's really no way to know. In any event, it doesn't seem like he was telling the South to "go to hell."
I hate to try and speculate on any hidding meaning, which is what everyone seems to be doing, so enough with that.
Posted by: Brian on January 26, 2004 01:54 PM