Disregarding Dixie
By David Paul Kuhn,
CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer
Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were all from the South yet in the six presidential elections since 1980, Democrats have won only nine Southern states (six by Mr. Clinton). How can they hope to have a chance at number ten with Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts as their standard bearer?
The better question, however, may be, "Do the Democrats need to win in the South?"
The Southern ineptitude of the blue party is nothing new. It's an old story since the civil rights movement, since Hubert Humphrey in '68 and George McGovern in '72.
Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas all hold primaries tonight on so-called "Southern Tuesday." With Kerry the presumptive nominee, the second highest one-day delegate total of the primary season has been relegated to irrelevancy; Kerry will carry all four states.
Early in the primary season, while campaigning in New Hampshire and hoping his Iowa caucus comeback would be seconded, Kerry said, "Everybody makes the mistake of looking South," adding, "Al Gore proved he could have been president of the United States without winning one Southern state."
The comment was vintage Kerry, intellectually accurate yet impolitic. He's improved on that matter, not speaking as much in a muddle of highbrow gray. But the brutal honesty of the statement, a la Howard Dean, remains mathematically correct.
In 2000, George W. Bush won Florida by 537 votes and New Hampshire by 7,211 votes. Of the remaining top-six battleground states that year, Gore won Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin by totals of less than 6,800 votes each (New Mexico was won by a miniscule 366 votes).
"Kerry may be able to do what Gore attempted to do – win without the South," said Larry Sabato, a professor of political science at the University of Virginia. "Gore didn't even need Florida; he could have done it with just New Hampshire."
When pundits speak of the divide between red states (Republican-leaning) and blue states (Democratic-leaning), they focus on Ohio or Missouri. Excluding 1956, Missouri has gone with the winner in every presidential election and no Republican has won the presidency without winning Ohio.
Either party could win those two states this year, although both went to Mr. Bush in 2000.
Kerry also stands a good chance at taking Florida and West Virginia, which usually votes two-to-one Democratic; Sabato calls it "absolutely amazing that Bush carried it" in 2000.
At the same time, the president stands an equal chance of winning Wisconsin (not as liberal as it once was) and Pennsylvania, where Mr. Bush narrowly lost in 2000 and has campaigned hard ever since.
Even if the Democrats don't need a Southern state to win, a victory in just one would make it "virtually impossible for President Bush to win," Sabato says.
As for North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who banked and then bankrupted his candidacy on his Southern appeal, it is unclear how much weight he would lend to the Democratic ticket. Having spent his entire life in the South, Edwards calls it his backyard, "Not George Bush's." But even with Edwards on board, the Democrats may be unable to carry a Southern state. And again, the party clearly does not need to.
However, Edwards' appeal could translate to states like Ohio and Missouri (and hold in states like Wisconsin and Oregon), the true scale-tippers of 2004. His optimism and youthful charm to some extent compensate for Kerry's stiff, yet presidential demeanor (at least as much as a vice president can compensate for a president). But worth noting is that Bill Clinton chose Al Gore for the very same reasons in 1992.
Gore had won several Southern states in the 1988 race, only to be defeated conclusively by Massachusetts liberal Michael Dukakis after not contesting states like New York. Gore was youthful then, liberal, and although he was privileged and no son of a mill worker, he was perceived as both progressive and optimistic.
But eight years is an eternity in politics and by the time Gore ran for president he had all but lost this image. If Kerry wins, what will the same eight years do to Edwards, the man who both sides of the aisle widely agree is the great hope for the Democratic Party?
"Edwards appeal in the South is generalized but he is very unlikely to carry any Southern states. South Carolina is certainly not going to vote Democratic," Sabato said, disregarding the conventional wisdom that Edwards is the best choice for Kerry's ticket. "Say Kerry picks Sen. John Breaux from Louisiana, Kerry could easily win there and Bush probably can't win this election without Louisiana."
By David Paul Kuhn