DEMS CEDE THE SOUTH VIA PRIMARIES?
I go back and forth on the "only Southern Dems win the White House" argument, especially this year in an election that could be more policy/experience-based than character/accent-based. But the south is, indeed, part of the USA, and irrevocably part of the presidential campaign.
This got me thinking about the primaries next week, which will be in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida. All indications are that Kerry has the nomination wrapped up, particularly if reports of an all-but-Vermont sweep for him are accurate.
So my question is this: By scheduling a big chunk of southern primaries after the nomination will have been decided (not to mention Georgia which missed out on most of the candidates), isn't the Democratic Party de-emphasizing the South? If Edwards gets out this week, certainly turnout in next tuesday's primaries will head downward.
It is true that the electoral map shows that a Democrat can win without a single Southern state (if a combined 7,000 Californians and New Yorkers had "traded" their votes with New Hampsire Greens...). And I agree with the basic premise of this Tim Noah piece calling the South "the spoiled brat of presidential politics". But taking a big chunk of the South and sticking it after the contested primaries are essentially over (the accelerated schedule created by the DNC was in the interest of a quick nomination) doesn't seem like good politics to me. Sure, we're not going to win Texas and Mississippi, and Flordia will probably go to Bush for the first time. But we have a Senate seat to hold in the Sunshine State, and some crucial House battles in Tex, so we shouldn't shortchange these races by removing the enthusiasm from the Democratic electorate in those areas.
The effect of this scheduling will probably be negligible by the time the general campaign really heats up. But in the meantime, I don't know about this timetable. TFM would like to see a randomly-ordered regional primary campaign develop, as opposed to the current system.
(Speaking of good ol' votetrader.com, I wonder how many Greens who traded their Nader votes from Florida to Cali or Texas went ahead and voted for Ralph anyway. Would that be the Greens' faults for being liars or the Dems' faults for being gullible?)
I go back and forth on the "only Southern Dems win the White House" argument, especially this year in an election that could be more policy/experience-based than character/accent-based. But the south is, indeed, part of the USA, and irrevocably part of the presidential campaign.
This got me thinking about the primaries next week, which will be in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida. All indications are that Kerry has the nomination wrapped up, particularly if reports of an all-but-Vermont sweep for him are accurate.
So my question is this: By scheduling a big chunk of southern primaries after the nomination will have been decided (not to mention Georgia which missed out on most of the candidates), isn't the Democratic Party de-emphasizing the South? If Edwards gets out this week, certainly turnout in next tuesday's primaries will head downward.
It is true that the electoral map shows that a Democrat can win without a single Southern state (if a combined 7,000 Californians and New Yorkers had "traded" their votes with New Hampsire Greens...). And I agree with the basic premise of this Tim Noah piece calling the South "the spoiled brat of presidential politics". But taking a big chunk of the South and sticking it after the contested primaries are essentially over (the accelerated schedule created by the DNC was in the interest of a quick nomination) doesn't seem like good politics to me. Sure, we're not going to win Texas and Mississippi, and Flordia will probably go to Bush for the first time. But we have a Senate seat to hold in the Sunshine State, and some crucial House battles in Tex, so we shouldn't shortchange these races by removing the enthusiasm from the Democratic electorate in those areas.
The effect of this scheduling will probably be negligible by the time the general campaign really heats up. But in the meantime, I don't know about this timetable. TFM would like to see a randomly-ordered regional primary campaign develop, as opposed to the current system.
(Speaking of good ol' votetrader.com, I wonder how many Greens who traded their Nader votes from Florida to Cali or Texas went ahead and voted for Ralph anyway. Would that be the Greens' faults for being liars or the Dems' faults for being gullible?)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home