May 3, 2003
From the desk of Jane Galt:Department of awful statistics
I happen to agree that John Edwards is the only Democrat with a realistic chance of carrying the election in 2004, unless things turn badly south for Bush. But I hate statistics like this:
The last Democratic candidate to win the presidency from north of the Mason-Dixon line was John F. Kennedy in 1960. Edwards was the only southerner in the race until Sen. Bob Graham of Florida joined the crowded field. Edwards isn’t shying away from touting his southern roots and its importance to Democratic competitiveness in 2004.
There have been ten presidential elections since 1960. Three featured Southern Democratic incumbents. Two featured Republican incumbents with good economic conditions. In other words, half those elections faced loaded dice against any Northern Democrats. The other five are hardly adequate to make generalizations absent some other reason to think that non-Southern Democrats have trouble winning national elections. I mean, I think they probably do, because non-Southern democrats tend to have a record of very liberal positions that don't play well in the red zone. But the quote above is not sufficient evidence for the proposition. Posted by Jane Galt at May 3, 2003 11:56 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links
No, it isn't.
I do think, though, that one can draw a finer distinction: Democrats can only win the presidency if they carry a few Southern states. Democrat nominees from the Northeast tend not to do well in the South because the northeastern electorate who are their constituency are comparatively leftist.
I dunno, I think the evidence is a little better than that. 10 elections isn't too bad as a starting place, and a simple count of electoral votes shows that Dems have to win a few Southern states to carry an election.
Could a moderate northerner do it? Maybe, but there's at least some underlying reasons aside from the statistics themselves to think it would be pretty hard.
I'm from North Carolina and I don't think Edwards has a chance in hell against Bush. The guy is a fake, postering, ambulance-chasing, trial lawyer with no experience except in frat parties and fleecing big corporations. People expect him to be the next Clinton because he's somewhat charming and young and from the South, but he isn't. He's got the charm of Clinton without the intelligence, resume, or well-publicized interest in policy. If Edwards wins the Democratic nomination, Bush will serve a second term.
Byron: I thought "posturing fake" was the definition of a successful politician.
Well, whatever the rhetoric, it is extremely difficult for a Democratic presidential candidate to get elected without winning a southern state or two. Play around with an electoral college calculator; Missouri's something of the tipping point for the entire country.
I think that the evidence comes from looking at the performance of Dem candidates who were not from the South -- Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis.
An opponent from the Northeast would be like B'rer Rabbit in the briarpatch for Bush and the GOP.
I'm from NC too (though I now live in Denver) and I don't know too many people who are all that crazy about him.
I missed the broadcast of the debate last night, but caught the beginning of it this morning on CSPAN...right up until the point where Edwards started mouthing off about his vision for the debate...and I turned it. I can watch any of those other bozo's all day long but not Edwards. As soon as he starts up with the bullshit, I have to change channels.
He may be a Carolina boy, but Edwards is dumber than dirt. His whole purpose in life is to babble until his audience glazes over to about the consistency of a Krispee Kreme donut.
The only people who will vote for him are the sheer idiots and the misguided Carolinians who are just proud that one of their own actually made it this far.
oh, and one other thing. If Edwards is elected, I'll permanently move to Baldwinia to live out the rest of my days.
The only people who really like Edwards are the trial lawyers all over the country. I read recently that about 60% of Edwards' campaign money has come from such people. God forbid he should win the presidency.
I thought "posturing fake" was the definition of a successful politician.
Heh, most of them. Compared to bumbling but folksy & determined Bush, he will look even more so, which was my unstated point.
When Edwards' name first emerged as a possible challenger--basically last spring or summer--I thought he might have a chance, you know: fresh face, Southern, etc. However, he made an appearance on MTP and came across as "Not Ready for Prime Time" and nothing he has done since has improved my impression of him.
Further, he would have a very hard time against the President given the clear importance that national secutity is going to play in this election--Bush is the incumbent CINC, who has overseen two successful wars, while Edwards is a one-term Senator whose previous job was being a trial lawyer. How could he possibly have a chance?
Also, the brewing campaign finance scandal story, if it gets traction, will spell some trouble for Edwards.
If that blows over he may have a shot at the VEEP slot.
And James is right--to win a Democrat has to be able to win a decent number of Southern states, or face going home. That's true of Republicans, btw (even moreso, actually).
Comments are Closed.