History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
"There's been some careless talk from the Kerry camp and even from Kerry himself about winning without the South."
Great. Acting like typical arrogant South-denigrating northeasterners. That's gonna do a lot keep Kerry from looking like an evil northeastern liberal to Southerners.
To me the glaring reality is that a non-Southern Democrat has not won the presidency since 1960. I don't think it's just a matter of Southern states, but that many Americans distrust Democrats from anywhere except the South. I'll guess that these distrustful Americans feel that non-Southern Democrats, especially those from the northeast, are "too liberal."
Ralph,
Well, if you want to talk about national mandates, we need to talk about voter participation rates, and margins of victory, too, but not now.
Thanks for clearing it up, though.
Jonathan, Every Republican President from Lincoln through Eisenhower was elected without carrying any or many Southern states. Prior to the 1960s, the South was known as the "solid South" because Southern states voted consistently for the Democratic Party. The solid South crumbled slowly -- there was a break in 1948 with Strom Thurmond's States Rights Party and there was a break in 1964, when Barry Goldwater carried the deep South states and Arizona. But prior to the 1970s the Republican Party was simply not competative in the South. Some Southerners claimed not even to know a Republican. I don't claim that the South is more important than California or New York (though collectively it is, simply because it is larger). I think that if you read my comments you'd see that I'm making an argument against writing off geographical sections of the nation. Barry Goldwater in a moment of candor once said that he would be willing for New England to break off and float off into the Atlantic. A President who thinks that way doesn't have a national mandate.
Ralph,
You know more about US electoral politics than I do, but I don't really understand the logic. What makes "the South" more important than CA, NY, OH, PA, IN, MO, NJ....? Why have Republicans been able to get elected without the South (in your memory, perhaps, but not mine) but Democrats have not?
I'm sure there's a "conventional wisdom" answer, but I'm not privy to it.
There's been some careless talk from the Kerry camp and even from Kerry himself about winning without the South. It won't happen. I'd say that Florida, Louisiana, and Arkansas are just about must haves for a Democrat to be elected, but you could substitute others for these.
I didn't pay attention and HNN's wonderful new identifying software stuck my post above with a completely inappropriate title. I meant to borrow Mr. Dresner's title with Re: in front of it.
I took it to mean "has a chance in hell of beating the Republican nominee in one single Southern state."
If Kerry wins the nomination, and he doesn't do anything to distinguish himself from the stereotype of the typical northeastern liberal from Massachusetts, Southerners will loathe him on instinct and Bush will win.
The subject line says it, pretty well. Does this mean "must win more than two states" or does this mean "must force opponent to take time away from Ohio and Pennsylvania to campaign against me here"?