If David Brooks' op ed piece summarized some new thinking about the need to go to the middle in general elections, perhaps we can get some more new thinking about political strategies. As opposed to the political content we usually debate on this thread.
In that vein, take a look at John Harwood's piece in today's WSJ. Harwood argues that the Dem strategy of trying pick off some electoral college votes from the South not only might not work this time but might be unwise as well. Forget the south, he says, find the votes elsewhere.
Given the sharp right turn Bush evinced in his governing strategy, it might well be wise. Recall that Bush campaigned in 00 as a moderate but governed from the right. He might have a more difficult time in states outside the south this time around.
CAPITAL JOURNAL
By JOHN HARWOOD
Democrats' Woes
In Dixie Hurt Case
For Edwards, Clark
online.wsj.com
ROBBINS, N.C. -- As his party battled the Reagan juggernaut in the 1980s, the late Democratic strategist Paul Tully began exploring a different path back to the White House. Instead of fighting the currents of history in the South, he concluded, Democrats might find a presidential majority most easily by looking away from their ancestral stronghold altogether.
The party didn't embrace that analysis at the time; Mr. Tully died in the fall of 1992 as Bill Clinton neared victory under a more conventional equation that included a significant chunk of Dixie. But America's political geography has changed since then. In 2004, a non-Southern formula may not be merely the Democrats' best chance of beating wartime President Bush; it may be their only chance.
That weakens the argument for nominating Sen. John Edwards, the politically gifted North Carolinian who formally announced his candidacy Tuesday in this small textile town where he grew up. It also weakens the argument for Gen. Wesley Clark, whose Arkansas roots have contributed to the boomlet that is expected to lure him into the race Wednesday. There are good reasons why both men could be assets on the Democratic ticket. But least among them are their prospects of carrying North Carolina's 15 electoral votes or Arkansas's six, because those prospects are slim.
That is a difficult notion for many Democrats. The "Solid South" that emerged after the Civil War began crumbling with Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat challenge to Harry Truman in 1948. Still, no Democrat has won the White House without Southern electoral votes, and the party's past three presidents have hailed from Texas, Georgia and Arkansas.
But signs of a different path began showing up even when Democrats wondered if they would ever control the executive branch again. In 1984, Walter Mondale ran slightly ahead of his national performance in Ronald Reagan's California, hinting at demographic and attitudinal shifts brightening Democratic hopes along the West Coast and in moderate Northeastern and Midwestern suburbs. Michael Dukakis wouldn't bet on them in 1988, so he made Texan Lloyd Bentsen his running mate in a vain attempt to compete in the South. Mr. Clinton's 1992 gamble in picking Al Gore of Tennessee paid off with victories in both their home states, as well as in Georgia and Louisiana.
The 2000 election, however, may have marked a turning point. Fellow Democrats lament Mr. Gore's loss of Tennessee by some 79,000 votes. Yet the vice president's real missed opportunity came in the Democratic-trending Northeast. With another 8,000 votes in New Hampshire, Mr. Gore would have realized Mr. Tully's vision by assembling an electoral majority from the West Coast, Midwest and Northeast, without a single Southern electoral vote.
Today, President Bush is even stronger in Dixie, the nation's most pro-military region. There is scant reason to think Mr. Edwards or Gen. Clark, the former with a brief political track record and the latter with none at all, would significantly threaten him there.
Building a majority elsewhere "is the only way [Democrats] can win," says Mark Gersh, the old Tully colleague who is the party's foremost electoral targeter. That is why leading Republicans, including those advising Mr. Bush, cite the potential of Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri to threaten Mr. Bush by consolidating Midwestern support.
Early trends in the Democratic race reinforce the prospect of a non-Southern strategy. Current front-runner Howard Dean of Vermont "is a complete nonstarter" in the region, observes Southern political analyst Merle Black -- even if he eventually selects Gen. Clark as his running mate.
Whoever heads the Democratic ticket, the party's recent performance provides ample justification for a different strategy, placing greater emphasis on new Western targets such as Arizona and Nevada than on vestigial Southern ones such as Georgia or Louisiana. Nor would that be as risky as it might appear at first glance. Mr. Bush's negligible chance of carrying California's 55 electoral votes in a close race substantially offsets the Democrats' predicament in the old Confederacy.
Diverse, vote-rich Florida more resembles California than its Southern neighbors; Democrats remain competitive there, notwithstanding Gov. Jeb Bush's 2002 re-election. But given the political opportunity posed by manufacturing-job losses in the Midwest, Mr. Black notes, "it's much more important for Democrats to win Ohio than any Southern state."
Mr. Edwards and his strategists insist he could carry North Carolina even though Mr. Gore lost it lopsidedly three years ago. But they took note of the shifting Democratic calculus at an announcement event Tuesday that showcased the senator's identification with small-town America. That identification will prove especially valuable, Mr. Edwards's Illinois-based media consultant David Axelrod pointed out, in small-town Ohio.
Write to John Harwood at john.harwood@wsj.com1 |
