<<Bush is ahead, and we continue to expect him to win. Among other reasons, no Democrat from outside the South has won the presidency since Kennedy. This is not an accident. The view that Kerry has expressed is a quintessentially northeastern, Atlantic perspective. It is not received sympathetically in the rest of the country.>>
[Of course what they don't report is that Kennedy didn't really win the 1960 election, either, due to the widescale voter fraud in Texas and Illinois, so no Democrat since FDR has been elected from outside the south (we can stipulate that Missouri and Harry Truman are sort of south).
Actually, the Democrats tried to rescue this campaign when they dodged one bullet in avoiding a Howard Dean candidacy, which would have been shades of the 1984 Mondale debacle, but their base would only support Kerry who, as the article points out, is not from an electable demographic, or so it would appear. Dean would have appealed to almost no one, imho, and the electoral college numbers would be running in the 400s for Bush at this time. And rising.
The Dems most attractive candidate for 2008 will be Edwards, I would think, provided he can do things to move himself to the center on many issues between now and then. He will be hampered as a senator, so his wisest move might be to wait, become governor, and then run from there. Unless the country is in a complete "anyone but the ruling party" mindset in 2008, then Hillary would repeat or even worsen the Mondale record for losing a presidential election, assuming she could actually get the nomination. In that primary season you could expect to see Fox and conservative talk radio ratings go through the roof.
Kb |
