In my previous post I argued that since (1) the only Dem candidates who’ve been able to win the presidency in the past 4 decades have been white, Protestant, southern males; (2) the country strongly prefers a Democrat for Pres in ’08; and (3) most Americans regret invading Iraq, the Dems should have selected an antiwar, white, Southern, Protestant male candidate — & should keep this in mind next time. I received some good replies to the 1st post, so in this post I’ll continue the discussion & reply to some of the replies.
In writing the 1st post I stumbled on “Why the GOP’s Southern Strategy Ended” (Part I & Part II) by (the late) Jim Chapin, which is full of interesting, relevant info. (The strategy ended because it was a complete success.) Chapin wrote: “[I]n the entire post-Civil War period, the only candidates who required Southern electoral votes to overcome a loss in the rest of the country were Grover Cleveland (twice), Woodrow Wilson (once), Jimmy Carter in 1976 and George W. Bush” [in 2000 & 2004]. This surprised me. Even though the Dixie Rules rule applies to past 40 years, it’s only been in the past 2 elections that Dixie reversed a GOP loss in the rest of America. This suggests a few things to me. First, as has been widely noted, Dixie’s electoral power has risen with the population shift to the Sun Belt. Second, the Democrats’ selection of a white, Southern, Protestant candidate signals to swing states outside of Dixie that the candidate is less beholden to the party’s constituency of Yankees, cosmopolitans, ethnic minorities and union workers. Third, Dixie’s new power has freaked out Democrats, thereby pushing them to select a demographically anti-Dixie candidate — nonwhite, non-Southern, semi-foreign, Muslim dad, secular upbringing, liberal, etc.
On to the replies:
Eugene Costa wrote:
“Actually it much simpler than that and boils down to Ohio, which was stolen twice. That will be harder to do this year.”
Reply to reply:
McCain is very popular in New Hampshire. If he wins New Hampshire, loses Ohio, and gets all of the other states Bush won last time, McCain will win.
—
SubHuman wrote:
“Clinton and Obama are pro-corporate, pro-AIPAC and pro-WAR candidates, Kucinich, Gravel and Dr. Paul were the ONLY anti-WAR and pro-America candidates.”
Reply to reply:
I believe that war & empire hurt most corporations’ profits — though they certainly enrich politically connected parties — so it’s not necessary to be anti-corporate to be antiwar, and it’s entirely possible to be anti-corporate and pro-war. I haven’t seen anything that suggests that Obama is pro-war. (I don’t buy the Obama wants to attack Pakistan meme.) But, sure, if Clinton is the Dem’s candidate, any anti-imperialists who don’t believe in voting for the lesser evil should register a protest vote. My view is that the Dems are complicit but less responsible for Iraq, Guantanamo, torture, etc., so all things being equal, the Repubs should be voted out as punishment.
—
Eugene Costa wrote:
“Obama … already has a built-in Southern Strategy, as both the Republicans and their bellicose and born-again Southrons know very well.
“Thus the fantasy and distraction of the above mapping and prediction as any longer pertinent …
“Kucinich apparently sent an early feeler to Paul about an independent run. Paul rejected it.
“Kucinich is now more important out of the race than in.”
Reply to reply:
I don’t know what the Obama Southern strategy is. If it’s to rally the African-American minority, seems to me that’s a losing strategy, as the majority is likely to win any racially charged contest.
Kucinich = Nader. In 2000 I thought there wasn’t much difference between Gore & Bush, & I now think I was wrong.
—
Dmaak112 wrote:
“McCain will win. In spite of what we Americans like to believe about ourselves, we love war.”
Reply to reply:
Polls show that Americans regret invading Iraq, dislike the president that ordered the invasion, & want to replace his political party. I don’t know why people would be lying to pollsters about this — & the Dem takeover of Congress supports it.
—
Nuttyone wrote:
“Those of us who support Obama because we dislike Clinton will vote for him but will stay away, or even worse, vote for McCain if Hillary is the other choice. Polls or not, I’m telling you what the people on the street are feeling, not the party-faithful, but keep pushing Hillary if Democrats want to lose again. “
Reply to reply:
I’m not pushing Hillary. I said that the Dems should have selected an antiwar, Southern, male, white, Protestant (being a military vet wouldn’t hurt either). Hillary is a semi-Southern, female, more-or-less pro-war candidate.
—
Thanks for your politeness — we’re showing the blogosphere how it’s done.
Â