Those Who Do Not Understand Their Gaffes...
Are condemned to repeat them. Sen. Kerry shows his commitment to recycling by telling the South, again, to drop dead.
Via the InstaPundit, we get this from ABC News:
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is discounting notions that any Democratic candidate would have to appeal to Southern voters in order to win the presidency, calling such thinking a "mistake" during a speech at Dartmouth College. . . .
"Everybody always makes the mistake of looking South," Kerry said, in response to a question about winning the region. "Al Gore proved he could have been president of the United States without winning one Southern state, including his own."
Let's flashback to March 2003, when NewsMax broke this from a Kerry fundraiser:
Democratic Party presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry is apparently ready to write off a huge chunk of flyover country in his quest for the White House, boasting to a California fund raiser this week that he can lose the entire South and still beat President Bush in 2004.
And I stood three feet from the Senator when he made similar remarks at a fundraiser in NYC. Yes, I was much younger.
With five Southern Democratic Senators retiring, writing off the South is absurd.
Kerry's March gaffe was noticed in South Carolina; the Prospect explains the strategy. Wyeth Ruthven comments.
MORE: Gratuitous Kerry bashing from the archives.
STILL MORE: Now we have a song dedication. Hmm, that didn't work the last time we tried it.
Well I heard Mr. Kerry talk about her
Well I heard Ol' John put her down
Well I hope John Kerry will remember
A Southern man don't need him around anyhow.
Posted by: Stephen Gordon | January 27, 2004 at 11:09 AM
"With five Southern Democratic Senators retiring, writing off the South is absurd."
I can't abide anyone who wants to be President, but doesn't want to actually do anything with the position.
It's like he's saying "as long as I get to be President, who cares if the Republicans control Congress."
Flash assessment: self-centered (stupid) creep.
Posted by: mark | January 27, 2004 at 11:16 AM
Unless I've missed the first three years of his administration, Gore proved he couldn't be president without winning a Southern state.
Posted by: Hucklebuck | January 27, 2004 at 11:46 AM
Hucklebuck, I think Kerry was trying to be clever by insinuating that Gore really was the winner. This falls before the fact that Florida is a southern state, disproving the premise of his joke, but that's the only explanation I've come up with.
Posted by: Sage | January 27, 2004 at 03:49 PM
What Kerry misses is this: the South isn't that politically different from the rest of the nation. The South is pro-life, and the nation now leans pro-life; the South is pro-2A, and so is the nation as a whole; the South supports the war, and so do the rest of us. The South is pro-death penalty; so are 70% of Americans. Economically the country is more liberal--though not as much as it was in 1993,the last year we were 4 years removed from the beginning of a recession--but so is the South.
If Kerry runs a hard left campaign, he will not only lose the entire South; he'll also lose swing states like Missouri, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Maine as well. Remember, New Hampshire, Missouri and Ohio went against Gore over his anti-gun record--and they're not southern states.
Posted by: Ken Norlie | January 27, 2004 at 05:03 PM
Frankly, Here's how it boils down:
Total Votes in the Electoral College: 537
You need at least half to win: 269
Total Votes in the South: 153 (counting texas).
If my math's right, that's about 28 or 29 percent.
You need 51 percent to win. There's just one problem: the republicans have had a lock on the fly over states, especially the mountain regions.
A few flip states also turned to bush's camp: Missouri, Pennsylvania, Ohio. at 21, 20, and 11 votes apiece, that's something. Especially when you only have 384 votes left if you supposedly wrote off the south.
IF the dems were to write off the south, this statistically sounds stupid. If they ran seriously in all 50 states, they would only have to fight for 51 percent of the vote. NOW in order to get the presidency, and the 269 of all 537 votes, you would have to win 71 percent of the remaining votes. Especially the swing ones, because they're the big prizes (except for New York and California, which are almost write offs).
When's the last time we saw a 71-29 percent election? That's JUST the south.
Worse still is that some say the Democrats are failing even in key 'base' demographics and states. Imagine if the dems lost California or New York? Let's just say California for pete's sake. After writing off the south and losing
California, there are only 329 votes left. Now you need to win 81-82 percent of the remaining votes.
It's statistical idiocy. It's also political suicide. It is STILL a game of numbers folks!
Posted by: Chaz | January 27, 2004 at 05:45 PM
Kerry shouldn't have said it out loud but I can see why he is sick of the "southern question". Edwards has been in New Hampshire saying that New Hampshirites should vote for him because he can do well in the south. Can you imagine a Republican campaigning in South Carolina saying he is best qualified because he can do well in the north? Somehow the conventional wisdom says that the fact Democrats can't win Alabama and Mississippi is more important than the fact that Republicans can't win New York and Massachusetts.
An earlier poster is right in emphasizing that the border states, as well as the southwest and west, will be key in the next election. The Dems need to win places like Missouri, Ohio, and Colorado. They should spend as much time campaigning in South Carolina as Bush does campaigning in New Jersey.
Posted by: BC | January 27, 2004 at 08:11 PM
Writing off the south is suicide. While it is technically possible to win the election without the south, to ignore it is to ensure that the Republicans take not only those electoral votes but the Dem Senatorial and Congressional candidates, as well as state and local candidates will be out on a limb, alone. You can take it to the bank that Dubya will be campaigning with and for the Republican candidates in the south.
Ah-nuld's win in California has changed the dynamic of the election in ways not yet clear to most in the media, at least it seems from my reading. California is not a lock for Bush by any means but it is no longer a lock for a Dem, either. This will force the Dem nominee to spend time and money in California that is badly needed elsewhere.
Posted by: Peter | January 27, 2004 at 08:20 PM
BC you're right, the dems would need states like Missouri, Ohio, & Colorado if they give up the south. And NM, AZ, NV, MT, OR, WA, ID, SD, ND....and from what I see, they don't have a prayer here in Colorado. Not a prayer. Not a whisker. Not a tooth skin. I think Colorado (Denver notwithstanding) will go all GW all the time, even if he is too liberal.
Betcha at least a couple of those states I listed are as "conservative" as Colorado....
Nitro Nora
Grand Junction, Colorado
Posted by: Nitro Nora | January 27, 2004 at 08:52 PM
http://www.massinc.org/Commonwealth/new_map_exclusive/beyond_red_blue.html
Posted by: N Denial | January 28, 2004 at 12:44 PM
dual penetrators dual penetrators
rabbit vibrators rabbit vibrators
male sex dolls male sex dolls
sex dolls female sex dolls
butt plugs butt plugs
anal beads anal beads
sex toys online Sex toys online
Medical Toys Medical Toys
Posted by: toy | October 07, 2007 at 05:14 AM