The ongoing debate in Democratic Party circles over whether our presidential nominee should even think about winning southern states has a new participant: John Kerry. Unfortunately, I think Kerry may be making the same mistake Howard Dean made when he got the ball rolling on this issue several months ago.
Over the weekend, Kerry casually laid out an electoral strategy similar to the one Dean’s campaign articulated months ago: a northern Dem is capable of winning nationally, even if he ignores the South.
“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.”
I understand Kerry’s perspective, but I think it’s the wrong approach.
As a practical matter, Kerry’s timing wasn’t helpful. The South Carolina Dem primary is next week and early polls show the Massachusetts senator competing for the lead. For Kerry to effectively describe emphasizing the South as a “mistake” may hurt him in a state he’d love to win.
The comments have already drawn a sharp rebuke from Dick Harpootlian, the former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, who said this was “the wrong message to be saying at this point,” and added that he is “shocked [Kerry] would be talking about a strategy of avoiding the South.”
I realize Kerry’s analysis of the South’s significance had a political angle, outside of the practical concerns of the Electoral College. John Edwards and Wesley Clark are emphasizing their appeal as Southerners, reminding voters that no Dem has won the White House in 40 years without a Southerner at the top of the ticket. Kerry was essentially hoping to rebut that message by saying, “Don’t worry, we can win without the South.”
Kerry’s right to an extent; a Dem can win the general election by winning all of the states Gore won in 2000, plus six more.
But to reiterate a point I raised over a month ago, I think it’s a mistake for the party and its nominee to effectively spot the entire region to the GOP.
First, there are several Southern states that can (and should) be competitive to a Dem candidate, including Arkansas, Louisiana, Florida, and Tennessee (combined electoral votes: 53).
Second, if the Dem at the top of the ticket discounts the South, the effects will be felt down ballot, as congressional and state candidates rely on resources from the national level to remain competitive, and those resources may dry up if the party’s presidential ticket is ignoring their state.
And lastly, the long-term implications of ignoring the region altogether raise serious and troubling questions. As the estimable Ruy Teixeira recently said, it’s wrong to write off Southern voters “because many southern voters are, in fact, reachable by Democrats and becoming more so over time.” He adds that “Democrats need to cultivate these voters, not abandon them. Otherwise, Democrats will throw away the longer term opportunities created by demographic and economic change in the south.”
The irony is, I’d argue that Kerry is better suited to compete in the South than, say, Howard Dean is because of his background. The guy is a war hero, rides a Harley, is athletic, and goes hunting. There’s no reason Kerry should just write off the South in advance — he may be ignoring a region where he has more appeal than he realizes.