« ARG Polls Taken During the Convention | Main | It Was a Very Big Month »
Monday, August 02, 2004
Is Louisiana Lost to Us?
Posted by DavidNYCAfter an unexpected Democratic Senate victory in 2002, and another narrow Dem gubernatorial win in 2003, things started looking up for us in the Pelican State. But both Landrieu (the Senator) and Blanco (the Governor) are more conservative than John Kerry, and consequently (or so it would seem), the presidential polling tells rather a different story. Market Research International - a possibly GOP firm - showed Kerry back just six points in May. But a new poll done for a group of Republicans and Democrats (go figure) in the middle of July shows Bush with a monstrous 52-36 lead. And a different poll in May put Bush up 52-38.
These results are all quite disappointing, but of course, Louisiana is not a state we need to win. Still, I had hoped it would be a state we could force Bush to compete in, but it doesn't appear to be turning out that way - though according to the story in "The Advertiser," he has spent more money there than we have. I was also hoping that there might be a coattails effect, given that there's now an open (Dem held) Senate race in the offing, but whoever our candidate turns out to be (Louisiana has a wacky election system, if you aren't familiar with it) will likely have to stand on his own.
It's early, but right now, I'm going to say that I think LA would be a major reach for us - more so than even a state like VA or NC. But if you have a different take on why and how we can win Louisiana, I'd like to hear it.
P.S. A very big thank you to everyone who offered (via comments and e-mail) ideas for housing in DC. I'm very grateful.
Posted at 01:45 AM in Louisiana | Technorati
Comments
It didn't help when the Kerry Campaign pulled it's advertising from Louisiana and Arkansas and diverted it to North Carolina after Edwards was picked. My understanding is there was a shortage of funding and this was needed to put North Carolina into play, but that this is only temporary and they haven't given up on either state. I can't speak for Louisiana, but the press and the Republican Party in Arkansas are having a field day with the story and I have to admit that it doesn't sound too promising.
As for Arkansas, I don't think the Kerry Campaign is putting forth the effort needed to win the state -- at least as of yet. I hope I'm wrong, and I may very well be, but I continue to get the feeling that Arkansas isn't considered important enough. I won't argue about Louisiana, because I consider Tennessee, along with Arkansas and Florida, as the southern states most likely to go for Kerry. However, if the election is as close as it was in 2000, when Gore won none of these states - and I still think it could be - then Arkansas might be the difference. The margin in Arkansas is more narrow than most Bush leaning states, but I'm not sure that Kerry has any chance here unless he campaigns hard. If he does campaign hard in Arkansas, then I think he has a good chance of winning the state, but I don't get the feeling that many Democrats outside the state agree with this assessment.
The only southern states won by Clinton in the '96 election were the four named above. David Paul Kuhn, the Chief Political Writer for CBSNews.com, recently stated "Kerry-Edwards likely win the White House if they win two of the three contests in Louisiana, Arkansas or West Virginia. The Democrats also likely win if North Carolina goes for Kerry-Edwards." While I consider this election too much of a roller coaster to make such bold predictions, I think he's probably correct, although it's certainly possible that Kerry wouldn't need any of them. I'd also add Missouri to that list and I'm ecstatic by the recent poll results there. This raises the question of which of these states are more likely to go for Kerry and which deserve the most attention.
I think it would be a mistake to not campaign in Edward's home state of North Carolina, but I also think it would be a mistake to waste too much time there if it's not going produce a win. Missouri looks very promising and so does Tennessee to a lesser extent (I hope Tennessee has been receiving more attention than Arkansas.) I've often thought West Virginia received more attention than it should have, but any campaigning there will probably help in neighboring Ohio and Pennsylvania as well. The one thing that really irks me about not spending much time on Arkansas is that the margin is so narrow, Arkansas has so many high-profile Democrats to stump for Kerry in the state, and knowing that it could be the difference in a tight race. If I had to drop any state from the list it would be Louisiana. At some point the campaign will probably narrow it's list and let's hope the right choices are made when it does.
Posted by: rob at August 2, 2004 07:30 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
As if that wasn't long enough, I left something out. It hasn't seemed like the Bush Campaign has been advertising as hard in Arkansas lately either, which I find quite surprising. However, the Bush Campaign has still given Arkansas more attention than the Kerry Campaign.
Though this should probably go into the Arkansas category, Dick Cheney is scheduled to visit Fort Smith, AR tomorrow, followed Edwards in North Little Rock, AR on Wednesday.
Posted by: rob at August 2, 2004 07:52 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
As a Tar Heel who desperately wants Kerry to win this election, I wish he'd stop focusing so much on North Carolina. We've been blitzed with ads since he chose Edwards as his running mate. Edwards has given him a slight bounce, but I can tell you it will be no small miracle if North Carolina is in the blue column in November. As far as I'm concerned--and it pains me to say this--North Carolina is not in play. I wish money spent (wasted?) here was used in states like Florida, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Those Southern states are all much closer than North Carolina. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Edwards from the beginning has been much more popular outside North Carolina than in his home state.
Posted by: Pepe at August 2, 2004 09:23 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Rob: I tend to doubt TN is in play. It was only as close as it was last time because of Gore's vestigial roots to the state.
Pepe: I'm not sure we necessarily need to be able to *win* NC in order to make campaigning there worthwhile. We've put up ads in CO and VA, even though our prospects there are also slim. The idea here is to take the fight to the enemy, and force them to defend turf they didn't think they'd otherwise have to defend.
And as for Edwards' popularity, I think we can be sure that the Kerry campaign examined this issue in very close detail, and would not be foolish enough to make any mistakes about Edwards' popularity. (If one thing can be said about the Kerry campaign, it's been mostly mistake-free on a political level - I think the convention is testament to that.) Also, just because Edwards migh be more popular outside his home state than within it (is there any polling on this, btw?), it doesn't necessarily mean he is unpopular within his home state. The poll I pointed to last week showed his favorability in the mid-to-high 50s, which is not too shabby for any sitting senator in poor economic times.
Posted by: DavidNYC at August 2, 2004 10:12 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
David, I live in the Raleigh-Durham area of North Carolina, and while we have been blitzed with Kerry/Edwards ads here, I have yet to see a single Bush ad. The Republicans are spending very little money here to counter the Kerry ads, because they know they have this state in their pocket. Money being spent by the Democrats here is getting little to no response from the Bush campaign. Don't you think this money could be much better spent in states that are truly undecided?
Posted by: Pepe at August 2, 2004 10:40 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
BTW, the main reason Edwards is not a highly popular figure in North Carolina is that many here believe he used the state to feed his higher, national aspirations. This perception was voiced here almost from the beginning of his his recent political career, and has stuck with him up to the present.
Posted by: Pepe at August 2, 2004 10:47 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
BTW, the main reason Edwards is not a highly popular figure in North Carolina is that many here believe he used the state to feed his higher, national aspirations. This perception was voiced here almost from the beginning of his recent political career, and has stuck with him up to the present.
Posted by: Pepe at August 2, 2004 10:49 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe,
I am surprised to see your comment about being blitzed with ads in Raleigh. I live in Charlotte and we've seen very few ads from either campaign. I'll grant you, I think its good they stay out of Charlotte. The normal course of events seem to be turning people over. The economy is quickly going down hill here. Not so much for us, but everyone I've talked to in the past week knows someone who just got a pink slip. I also thinks it helps that the democrats are angry here and will be going to the polls in droves. I think the republicans are complacent and many will assume NC will go for Bush and stay home. There is no reason to upset that.
Jason - Charlotte
Posted by: Jason-Charlotte at August 2, 2004 11:36 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Jason, Well, we all know that Charlotte is the most Republican part of North Carolina. Here in the Raleigh-Durham area, the ads are preaching to the choir. Kerry & Edwards will definitely carry Orange (Chapel Hill) and Durham counties, and probably Wake (Raleigh) county as well.
While the Republicans are not advertising here, they are still making their presence felt. They are getting plenty of Tar Heel dollars from recent and successful fund-raising visits by Dubya in Raleigh and his wife in Wilmington.
Posted by: Pepe at August 2, 2004 12:10 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I live in the Raleigh-Durham area of North Carolina, and while we have been blitzed with Kerry/Edwards ads here, I have yet to see a single Bush ad.
On the state level, preaching to the choir is often exactly what you want to do, in order to drive up turnout amongst your likeliest voters. I think it's very possible that the Bush campaign realizes it would be a waste of money for them to advertise in a (relatively) liberal area like the Triangle.
Let me put it another way: In the country as a whole, it only makes sense to advertise in swing states. But once you are in those swing states, it does not only make sense to advertise in swing regions.
Now, the fact that Bushco apparently isn't advertising heavily in the more Republican parts of the state is something of a cause for concern - maybe they aren't falling for a rope-a-dope strategy. But I will say again that the Kerry campaign has earned my trust, and so far, I haven't seen them make any clearly erroneous spending decisions (helped by the fact that they've been able to raise monster amounts of cash).
Posted by: DavidNYC at August 2, 2004 12:52 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I don't think there is a scenario where we win Louisiana without winning Arkansas and maybe some other state.
Clinton won Louisiana on the strength of, among other things, his connections to the area. In _My Life_ he makes frequent reference to his experiences in New Orleans, and I think his mom's second wife was from Shreveport. He also got enormous black turnout thanks to his connections to many of the black churches in the area. I doubt that Kerry can replicate all of this; I think he has a much better shot in West Virginia than Louisiana.
Posted by: niq at August 2, 2004 12:56 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I thought LA would be close also. But, that's not the case at all. Time to write it off. I thought Kerry being Catholic might put LA in the Dem column, but it has no effect in that heavily Catholic state. Kerry has a really good shot at winning FL and WV, that's where his money should be spent.
Posted by: Rock_nj at August 2, 2004 01:08 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Kerry has a really good shot at winning FL and WV, that's where his money should be spent.
I couldn't agree more--time to write off Lousiana and North Carolina, too, for that matter and do everthing possible to tip the scales in the battle ground states.
Posted by: Pepe at August 2, 2004 01:59 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
They'll give up on NC soon enough. They'll probably run token commercials and make a few stops in NC, as Edwards is the VP. But, they need to focus on FL and WV, two key states to a Kerry win. I noticed Kerry is now ahead by 5% in WV, and he's saying the right things to win there, about clean coal and gun rights.
Posted by: Rock_nj at August 2, 2004 02:51 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think his mom's second wife was from Shreveport.
Ahead of her time.
I'm just not as pessimistic about NC as y'all are, I suppose. But one thing is definitely true: The election will not turn on North Carolina. It will hinge on PA, OH, FL.
Posted by: DavidNYC at August 2, 2004 04:55 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
IMHO, Kerry should ask Bill Clinton to campaign for him in AR for a week or so. Yes, there are people who hate him, but no one can work a crowd like Bill Clinton. He could turn AR back into the Kerry camp.
Posted by: erg at August 2, 2004 06:02 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think his mom's second wife was from Shreveport.
Ahead of her time.
Ahem. Husband. And it was her third husband.
Though, you never know with those Hot Springs ladies ...
Posted by: niq at August 2, 2004 06:47 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Clinton-Gore won Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Georgia back in 1992. Could the fact that Louisiana borders Texas play a role in Bush's higher support numbers? Kerry-Edwards are doing quite well since the convention as I've seen some of those battleground and southern states turn to ties or close Kerry. It would be nice if Edwards wins his home state. I'd give the race some more time to shake out.
Posted by: Shar at August 2, 2004 08:46 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Kerry needs to let Clinton, Clark and Edwards try to carry Ark. for him, shifting his money to WV and FL. I'm a little surprised by David's comment that results will hinge on PA,FL, and OH. It looks to me that PA is wrapped up, and that MO, FL, and OH are the keys. I think Kerry wins if he takes any one of these three. I am assuming that he will hold IA, MN, and WI, but if he doesn't things have gone so far South that he won't carry any of MO, FL,OH.
Posted by: Randy at August 2, 2004 09:39 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm not sure it makes sense to compare Clinton's 1992 and Kerry's 2004, not only because of a change in regional sentiments, but also due to our current absence of a Ross Perot (see my post in the "Perot Myth" thread). And even if the Democrats nominated a southerner and the Republicans a northerner, you wouldn't expect a Democratic South in 2004 even to the extent we had it in 1992. So let's focus on areas where evidence shows Democrats have a chance of winning today, rather than in elections of history.
Posted by: senator_shakedown at August 2, 2004 10:25 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm a little surprised by David's comment that results will hinge on PA,FL, and OH.
What I meant is that whoever wins two out of those three is very likely to win the whole thing, particularly if it's Kerry. It was more a comment on the pure math than on the likelihood of any of those states switching hands. I agree that it would be very hard for Bush to wrest PA away from us at this point.
Posted by: DavidNYC at August 2, 2004 10:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think Randy gives a good outline of where Kerry can pick up votes, instead of playing for the Deep South or believing their own PR about North Carolina and Virginia. I hope Randy is a highly placed Kerry advisor.
Posted by: senator_shakedown at August 2, 2004 11:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Sorry Schaff, I am not a Kerry advisor. My wife did get an email from him today, thanking her for the hard work she has invested into his campaign. Maybe I could get her to relay our strategic insights to him! ;-)
Posted by: Randy at August 2, 2004 11:37 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I am assuming that he will hold IA, MN, and WI, but if he doesn't things have gone so far South that he won't carry any of MO, FL,OH.
My feelings exactly, Randy. It looks to be coming down ultimately to Ohio, Florida and Missouri. If Bush carries all three, he wins. If Kerry can win any one of them, I think he will win. I worry a bit about Iowa, however. Gore only barely carried the state 4 years ago, and all signs point to it being the one state Kerry may have the most difficulty in keeping blue. Iowa won't matter, though, if Florida or Ohio are in the blue column.
Posted by: Pepe at August 3, 2004 12:34 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Having visited Arkansas many times, my impression is that it's a real Bible Belt state, and therefore unlikely to go for Kerry.
In my opinion, Clinton's a two-edged sword there. The opening of his library there may generate positive attention, but between the scandals and his New York residency, I think you're going to see Clinton's legacy essentially killing the Democratic Party in Arkansas. In fact, I could see Arkansas turning into another Utah(in terms of presidential voting) in the next several years.
Arkansas is not worth the effort. Louisiana, however is much more fluid; but with a Texan in the White House, it's probably out of reach for 2004.
Posted by: Rob at August 3, 2004 04:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
You guys are too pessimistic. It's good news that Edwards is courting Lousiana! What he and Kerry have to do is hold some Louisiana rallies with some invited Catholic clergy, jazz, and Dixieland musicians in the audience. Edwards should bring his Mom and Dad to the rallies and introduce them, the Catholic clergy, and the musicians to the crowd. After their stump speeches, Edwards and Kerry would break out drums, a guitar, and play "When the Saints Go Marching In." Someone from the Kerry campaign could rewrite a popular song with words befitting the Kerry-Edwards campaign, and they could sing it.
I say that Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, N. Carolina, S. Carolina, and Georgia are in play and I would definitely run a national campaign. Kerry's a war hero and he has all the credentials to play well in the south.
Ohio scares me. Are these Ohio SUV owning suburbanites so complacent that they desire another four years of high gas prices and endless war? Ohio has some of the dumbest voters in the country. I just don't understand why the Republicans have such a lock in Ohio. It makes for more fraud and corruption on the local and state levels. On a national level, I just can't understand voting for a Republican Congress, Senate, and White House.
Posted by: Shar at August 4, 2004 03:07 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Shar, I don't know what part of the country you live in, but it can't be the South! The only "Southern" state Kerry has a realistic shot at is Florida (which few Southerners regard as a Southern state--but that's another story).
Then you worry about Ohio?? Ohio has a FAR higher probability of voting for the Kerry-Edwards team than Louisiana, Arkansas, the Carolinas, Virginia or Tennessee! Also, calling Ohioans stupid doesn't help the cause now, does it? They may be a Republican state, but it's not like the Republicans win by huge margins in the Buckeye State--usually Ohio elections are very close. Ohio is not the kind of Republican "lock" that neighboring Indiana is and has been. In conclusion, you're way too optimistic (deluded?) about Kerry's prospects in the South while you're way too pessimistic about Kerry's chances in Ohio in this election.
Posted by: Pepe at August 4, 2004 08:58 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe - I disagree. Ohio has a long history of voting Republican and I could see it going to Bush with Arkansas or Tennessee going to Kerry. Like Shar, I've never understood why Ohio is so Republican, because it doesn't make any sense to me. However, Ohio is definitely winnable for Kerry and I suspect he will.
David - I still think Tennessee is in play. Like Arkansas, I think the majority of the nation isn't giving it the realistic chance it deserves. People tend to think of Tennessee, like Arkansas, as being more connected to the deep South than it is. Haven't the past 3 or so polls given similar results of a close race?
You make a good point about the lack of the Gore factor this time around, but I'll counter with these points. The western half of the state (Memphis) is the more Democratic area, whereas the eastern area bordering Virginia and North Carolina is strongly Republican. You have made bold predictions that Virginia could go Kerry (and I wouldn't disagree with that.) All the Campaigning in those states is likely receiving some play in Knoxville and other strong Republican areas; thus it's likely to change a few minds.
Also, doesn't Tennessee have a few military bases? I suspect Bush won't receive as much support from the military votes as in 2000, which should help Kerry. Lastly, you might think the Gore factor might have some play in Arkansas as well, but so far the polls have been tighter than the final results in 2000.
Btw, I wrote my first comment before viewing the latest poll numbers for North Carolina and they look much more positive. I agree that Kerry should take the battle to Bush-leaning states, as he has done well, but he has to keep the flame burning in the swing states. At some point though he'll have to narrow his list and pick which states he wants to concentrate on.
Shar - I think Texas bordering Louisiana probably does have a lot to do with the increase in Republican support there. Despite some stereotypes, you're also getting down closer to the deep South.
Rob - Arkansas is a real Bible Belt state, however, it probably has a stronger liberal base than many realize. Also, many of those who make it a Bible Belt state are yellow dog Democrats, which are present in unusually high numbers. I can't see Arkansas ever becoming as rabid Republican as Utah, but it has been trending toward the Republican in recent years. However, I believe the tide is now turning back toward the Democrats for a number of reasons I won't go into here. In the 2002 elections, Arkansas was the only state in the nation to steal a senate seat from the Republicans and five of our six Congressmen are now Democrats. Does that sound like Utah to you?
Clinton has already stated that he's going to campaign for Kerry in Arkansas and it will help. Just last week he was here for a book signing and he used the appearance to stump for Kerry. I just hope he does enough. The 12 years Clinton spent as Governor here there was a running joke that nobody ever admitted to voting for him, even though he always won. The truth is that he's still widely admired here, even though our state-wide conservative newspaper would have you think differently. Add in Clark, who lives in Little Rock, and that should be a pretty effective team; not to mention all the respected current and former Congressmen, such as Dale Bumpers, who will stump for Kerry. The only big name politicians that will stump for Bush are one first-term Congressman and a Governor who may be more of a liability than an asset.
Posted by: rob at August 4, 2004 12:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Rob, Many people don't realize that before Ohio became a "territory" (let alone a state), most of it was part of Virginia and it settled by Virginians. The one part that did not belong to Virginia, was a part of Connecticut, and it was known as the Connecticut Western Reserve, with the city of Warren as its hub. The Connecticut Western Reserve covered the northeast quadrant of the state. Not surprisingly this quadrant happens to be the most Democratic part of the state (Warren, Youngstown, Akron, Canton, and Cleveland). If you ever visit Ohio, you will notice that towns in the northeast are all based on the New England model with a town square, while in the southern part of the state the layouts are more like what you would find in a Southern state.
Since the collapse of the steel industry back in the late 70's and early 80's, Ohio's population and political power has been shifting towards the more Southern and conservative part of the state: Columbus and especially Cincinnati. That said, Ohio's elections tend to be close and with the outcome in doubt until election day. The Buckeye State is Republican, but it's not as solidly Republican as it appears if you take the time to scratch beneath the surface. I live in North Carolina and I know the South well. I also know Ohio well, as I was born and raised there. Believe me, as a former Buckeye and long-time Tar Heel, Ohio leans more Democratic these days than your average Southern state.
Posted by: Pepe at August 4, 2004 12:59 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm glad to hear that. And thanks for the history lesson! The Ohio vote has always amused and confused me.
Posted by: rob at August 4, 2004 01:26 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Here's what rattles me the most. The democrats had what I would call an outstanding convention, and Kerry-Edwards actually loses some ground in Ohio! Go figure.. Kerry's speech was superb, A+ in my estimation, and Edwards' speech was just as good.
I guess every time the Democrats start to build some momentum, a politically motivated terrorist attack warning is issued by Tom Ridge. I agree with Howard Dean on this one.
I'm so glad Kerry-Edwards is running a national campaign as Kerry-Edwards are so talented and articulate. They should never give up the fight for those margin of error states and swing states.
Posted by: Shar at August 4, 2004 01:30 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
They should never give up the fight for those margin of error states and swing states.
That depends on which "swing" states you're referring to, Shar. Believe me, there's nothing the Republicans down South like better than watching the Democrats waste valuable Kerry dollars in states like North Carolina. Sure, it may give them a bump in the polls, but a loss is still a loss. Will you be glad that Kerry spent all the money on ads here in North Carolina if in November he winds up losing Iowa, Florida, Ohio, and Missouri by a hair? Those four states all have a realistic chance of falling into Kerry's column in November. Why not forget about making a loss in North Carolina "more respectable" and go after the states whose final outcomes are truly up in the air? By the way, the Kerry ads in North Carolina (at least in the Raleigh-Durham market) appear to have stopped. Good! I hope he's spending his dollars in Iowa, Ohio, Florida and Missouri!
Rob: Glad my last post helped to explain the complexities of Ohio. History is all about the past, but often times the past has more bearing on the present than we realize.
Posted by: Pepe at August 4, 2004 01:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe,
The race in Ohio, Iowa, Florida, and probably Missouri, isn't going to stop being competitive if Kerry diverts some money to North Carolina. Bush is already campaigning hard in these states, which I'm guessing would go to Kerry easily if he didn't. But if Kerry makes North Carolina and some other Bush leaning states competitive, then Bush has to divert some attention to those states and spend less time in Kerry leaners, such as Ohio.
If the election were held today, Kerry wins. Thus, Kerry can afford to be aggressive. I believe the latest polls have Bush ahead by five in North Carolina and I suspect this will cause Bush to campaign harder there, along with Virginia and maybe South Carolina. The point is that the more swing states there are in play, the better it fares for Kerry. Should Kerry begin losing ground in swing states where he currently leads, he can always divert attention back and hopefully regain the lead. But, I don't think Kerry is going to make any large gains by campaigning in most swing states where he currently leads, although he may pick up a state which no one expected him to.
I believe the ad revenue for North Carolina was coming from Arkansas and Louisiana, which I said I regretted in my first comment. I don't regret it any longer, but I wish it could have come from someplace less competitive. However, I suspect Kerry, Clinton, Clark, etc will slam Arkansas with campaign speeches at some point in the future.
I'd guess that the reason why the ads have stopped in North Carolina probably have more to do with Kerry pulling his advertising for August. What should be interesting to see is if Bush begins hitting North Carolina with a barrage of ads soon.
Posted by: rob at August 4, 2004 02:15 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
then Bush has to divert some attention to those states and spend less time in Kerry leaners, such as Ohio.
Rob, Bush has not advertised at all in NC, at least not on TV. The Republicans have completely ignored the barrage of Kerry ads. Bush was in Raleigh last month for a fund raiser and his wife was in Wilmington a week ago for the same. Bush is up by at least five percentage points--I think it will be possible double that come election day. Every Kerry dollar spent here is a Kerry dollar that cannot be spent in the states that are truly up for grabs. I'm afraid the Bush and the Republicans understand this better than the Democrats, which is why Bush has not spent money to counter the Kerry ads here. He's doing the opposite here in NC--rather than spend $$ here, he's taking money--lots of it--via some very successful fund raisers.
Posted by: Pepe at August 4, 2004 02:37 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I would have completely agreed with you yesterday, but this poll has me thinking otherwise. Do you not think that there is any way Kerry could win North Carolina? If it's as bad as you say, then I definitely agree. There are many states that would greatly benefit by added exposure.
The impression I've received regarding North Carolina is pretty much what you just said. However, I did run into someone the other day who had recently moved to Little Rock from North Carolina. He actually lived in the same neighborhood as the Edwards, but didn't know them personally. He told me that he never really followed Edwards politically, but that he greatly admired him for the numerous contributions he had made to the state.
I'm not sure if this is relevant to our conversation, but I wish this view were more common in North Carolina.
Posted by: rob at August 4, 2004 03:21 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
He told me that he never really followed Edwards politically, but that he greatly admired him for the numerous contributions he had made to the state.
I would be very interested in hearing what the "numerous contributions" are that this person said Edwards has made to NC since being our senator. This question was randomly asked to people in a recent newspaper article, and no one was really sure what Edwards had done for NC during his brief tenure in the US Senate. This is no small part of the problem down here, Rob. You see, (and I've stated this several times already), a large number of North Carolinians were suspicious of Edwards from the start--that he was using NC as a stepping stone for the national stage. This suspicion has followed him almost from the start of his career as a NC politician. This is what keeps him from being as popular here as he may be outside of NC.
Posted by: Pepe at August 4, 2004 03:32 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I see. I just have one response.
When Clinton announced his decision to run in '92, many people in Arkansas didn't think he would even carry his home state, but he did easily. Of course Edwards isn't running on the top of the ticket and it's not unusual for the veep to not carry his home state, but I would bet that they often do better then the locals expect. However, you seem pretty sure that Kerry won't carry NC and you, no doubt, would know better than I.
The contributions (donations would have been a better word) I mentioned were not political in nature. Unfortunately, I can't recall the examples he gave, but they consisted of things like community centers paid for out of his own pocket. And although he didn't know much about Edwards politically, he did mention wanting to get rid of Bush.
FWIW, I just saw a new Kerry commercial here, but it was paid for by the DNC. It's the first one I've seen in at least a couple of weeks.
Posted by: rob at August 4, 2004 03:55 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Actually, I have something else to add. What's wrong with North Carolinians?
If Kerry wins the election, there will probably be some dividends for North Carolina and particularly if Edwards one day becomes President himself. I mean, Edwards is a first term Senator, so it's not like they're losing a life long representative for NC. Am I missing something here?
Posted by: rob at August 4, 2004 04:05 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
If Kerry wins the election, there will probably be some dividends for North Carolina and particularly if Edwards one day becomes President himself. I mean, Edwards is a first term Senator, so it's not like they're losing a life long representative for NC. Am I missing something here?
That's a great question, Rob, and I wish I had an answer for you. You know, North Carolina was hit very hard in job losses in manufactoring. The state's economy hasn't been as bad as some, but it's far from the "boom years." South Carolina was hit even harder.
Yet for for a Democratic presidential candidate to win down here, it's an uphill battle. I read a fascinating article on the BBC website about Montana and why it's so strongly Republican. The gist of it was this: Montana is a relatively poor state that doesn't trust outsiders and whose people will often vote against their own economic interests in favor of someone who they feel shares their values. When I read that article, it made me think that Montana sounds a lot like much of the South.
I believe on anyone's list of the poorest states in the USA nearly everyone will include Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and perhaps South Carolina and Alabama. I've been through all of these states, and Louisiana, for example, had some of the worst poverty I've ever seen in this country--even in New Orleans, the amount of poverty was staggering to me. Yet the majority in these states don't buy into the Democratic mantra of "we are for the disadvantaged of this country." Even the Democrats from here are almost always far more conservative to their Democratic brothers and sisters in New England and California. You could say that many folks here vote against the very party that has their own economic interests at heart. Why? I think deep down it has to do with people here thinking of the role of religion, guns, the UN, capitol punishment, gay marriage. . .in a very different way from New England Democrats. Thus these types of issues will often supercede concerns about the economy. Bottom line--people in many of these so-called "red" states get more worked up about gay marriage than they do about a plant closing down in their state and laying off a thousand people. It's sad, but all too true.
Posted by: Pepe at August 4, 2004 04:35 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Have been following this thread, and I appreciate the reasoned discussion. Just want to make a couple of points.
1. Sure agree with the poster who said that 1992 had no real application to the current situation. Heck, Clinton carried Kentucky and Montana in 1992!
2. I don't think that Louisianans give two hoots that Bush is from a neighboring state. As a longtime Texan, I would like to emphasize that culturally, Louisiana is very, very different from Texas (with the exception of extreme SE Texas around Beaumont where I actually once saw a local TV ad in French). Folks from Louisiana don't look to us as something to be emulated. In fact, Texans are not warmly admired in any of our adjoining states.
That said, there are many people who love the way that man drives a white Ford pickup and chops brush and is Born Again. And these people are all over the country.
Posted by: allmaya at August 5, 2004 01:44 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe - That was a very good analysis. To sum it up, the South votes Republican for the party's moral values.
allmaya - You're preaching to the choir when you tell me that Texans are not admired by those in adjoining states. However, I've always considered it a love/hate relationship, meaning that while Arkies, Okies and Cajuns "hate" Texans, they actually sort of admire them and will normally support a Texan before someone from the North or West (I have no idea how New Mexico feels or what their people are called. New Mexicalians?)
Afterall, Texas is the New York or the California of the Southwest. Despite it's redneck image, there's a lot of diversity and culture in Texas and it's now the second most populated state in the nation. But now I'm preaching to the choir. I just wish Texas wasn't controlled by wealthy rednecks (or is it wealthy arabs?)
Posted by: rob at August 5, 2004 07:03 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Yes, Rob, the South by and large votes Republican for the party's supposed moral values. The irony of all of this is, however, that the Republicans claim to be anti-Washington. They want "states' rights" and more "local control" for people. All of this strongly appeals to their supporters, who view Washington in a very negative light.
Yet on issues of morality, it's the exact opposite, isn't it? These same folks who are so mistrustful and suspicious of Washington think nothing of imposing their own moral views on everyone. To take one example, how can a Republican, who "wants Washington out of his business" then support adding an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning gay marriage? As a result, no states would be permitted to recognize such a thing! How is this giving more power to the states? Can you imagine in this day and age, adding an amendment to our Constitution to take away rights from one group? Yet this is what George Bush and the Republicans hope to do.
It's "moral" issues like this that rally a large portion of the Republican base. For many Republicans, the moral issues supercede everything else, including economy and the war in Iraq. Why does all of this matter? Because if George Bush wins re-election, it will be due to these people in the swing states of Missouri, Iowa, Ohio, and Florida.
PS Texas is the most "foreign" state I have ever visited. That "Republic of Texas" mentality truly does exist, and it ain't subtle! I really did feel like an outsider there! I've never lived in Texas, but I would imagine that for an outsider it would be harder trying to "fit in" than in just about any other state. I think Texas' neighbors feel about Texas the same way California's neighbors feel about it--highly ambivalent!
Posted by: Pepe at August 5, 2004 09:16 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I read the thread this morning and I am a little disappointed in the pessimism expressed about NC. I live in (arguably) the reddest part of this red state and people here, while supporting Bush right now, are keeping an eye on Kerry. There is a lot of bottled up anxiousness here. I moved here four years ago from Upstate NY and was amazed at the number of jobs available. Those days are LONG gone. It's starting to remind me of home and that's an economy these people aren't prepared to live in. The number of decimated industries here are staggering (manufacturing, textiles, furniture, insurance, banking etc.).
Don't get me wrong; it'll be a tough battle for us. Democrat is a dirty word here so I don't think you'll see anyone admitting to thinking that way until Election Day. It's a big deal that NC is only 5% for Bush. The people voting Bush that I've talked to or overheard talking are voting for Bush for only two reasons:
1.) Fear of terrorism and the take no prisoners vibrato Bush evokes. This mostly comes from the ignorant people thinking that Charlotte will be attacked because it���s the second largest banking center of the country (NYC being #1). I can't seem to get them to understand that if they are planning on attacking Albany, NY then they probably haven't heard of Charlotte. Even if they had they don't think there's anything here.
2.) The "lifestyle" issues particularly the gay marriage thing. You can't swing a cat here without hitting a devout something or other. Enough said.
If Kerry can make a coherent, planned pitch on the terrorism argument and keep the "lifestyle" stuff quiet, then I think NC turns. Living here tells me NC is definitely purple this year.
Posted by: Jason-Charlotte at August 5, 2004 10:19 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I can't seem to get them to understand that if they are planning on attacking Albany, NY then they probably haven't heard of Charlotte.
Thanks for my laugh of the day, Jason! And even if they have heard of Charlotte, people are always confusing Charlotte, NC with Charlottesville, Virginia. On top of that, few Americans can tell the difference between NC and SC! Some of my relatives in Ohio still think I'm living in SC!!
I've lived down here a lot longer than you (nearly 20 years) and I don't think I'm a pessimist--just a realist, when it comes to what makes this state tick. Based on what you write, I think deep down you realize it, too. North Carolina is far more red than it is purple or blue, though I live in the bluest part of it by far, thank goodness! I feel like the western half of the Triangle (it gets redder the closer you get to Cary and Raleigh) is pretty much a blue oasis surrounded by a vast red desert. The only reason NC is as close as it is at the moment is due to Edwards. He will not be enough to push NC into the blue column, however, and in the end, Bush will probably win NC by 7% to 8%--hardly a nail biter!
My biggest concern about the debates is discussion of gay marriage--you don't think that the Republicans are going to let that issue go by unmentioned now, do you? Kerry and Edwards will both have to state their position on it, and it will be attacked. My understanding is Kerry and Edwards are against gay marriage but in favor of leaving gay civil unions up to the individual states. Somehow, I don't think that's going to go down very well in places like Charlotte. And to be honest, it won't go down well in liberal areas like the Triangle, either, where the feeling is we should already have legalized gay marriages. I see where two days ago 71% of Missouri voters voted to ban gay marriages in their state constitution. Missouri is a pivotal swing state, and Kerry-Edwards will have to be very careful with what they say about gay marriage/gay issues in the upcoming debates. This is because many Republican and conservative-leaning voters will vote against their own economic interest whenever they feel the Democrats are threatening the nation's moral fiber. It's sad, but true.
Posted by: Pepe at August 5, 2004 11:01 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm from Louisiana we care about issues that concern our state. Blanco and Landrieu won because the people of Louisiana do not care for people from Washington, like President Bush, pushing candidates down our throats. Louisianians are very unique,they have never cared for outsiders telling them how to vote.The main thing John Kerry has to do is open offices in New Orleans, Shreveport and Baton Rouge. If you carry the major cities, you carry the state. Louisiana is the largest minority state per capita in the U.S. Bring his wife here to speak French in South Louisiana and he needs to make commercials talking about the sugar cane,the expansion of I-49 and coastal erosion. We have not received the federal funding that was promised for our wetlands. Bill Clinton is very popular in Louisiana, bring him and Teresa. Get the minorities and the women out to vote in Louisiana and he will win Louisiana.
Posted by: Brenda at August 24, 2004 10:19 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
One simple thing could put LA in play and possibly swing it blue.
Supporting Arthur Morrell for Senate. He's the only one who's not a "republican-lite" candidate.
That will bring out the urban vote.
http://actblue.com/list/africanamericans
Pass this URL around.
Posted by: Dusty at September 3, 2004 03:54 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Forget about LA, and focus on not letting the former Gore states of PA, WI, MN, and IO from turning red. Also, focus on winning one of the previous Bush states of MO, OH, or FL.
If Kerry loses PA, it will be a VERY LOOOONG evening November 2.
Posted by: Pepe at September 3, 2004 06:30 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I thought Kerry being Catholic might put LA in the Dem column, but it has no effect in that heavily Catholic state.
I don't know what Catholics in other states are like, but virtually all Louisiana Catholics are strongly, strongly pro-life. The fact that Kerry claims to be Catholic, despite his pro-choice stance, just makes them angry. If Kerry were pro-life, on the other hand, I think he would stand a good chance of winning Louisiana.
Posted by: cs30109 at September 11, 2004 04:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
As a Catholic, I'm voting for Kerry. Being pro-life means you protect life and that goes for war, too. How can the hypocritical pro-life Bush justify the fact that he killed thousands of Iraqis in this optional war and that includes the thousand plus U.S. civilians/soldiers and those wounded or maimed for life? The young soldiers and Iraqis who died for Bush will never be able to see their families or bring their own children into this world.
If someone wants to terminate a pregnancy, that's their loss. You can counsel them not to, but ultimately that's their decision to live with, not ours.
Sorry for the opinion piece. I just wish that more Catholics could see it my way.
Posted by: Shar at September 11, 2004 04:35 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
This is in response to the 9/11/2004 post by Shar.
As a strongly pro-life Catholic myself, perhaps I can give you my perspective. First, let's assume that the war in Iraq was completely unjustified���that's not what I believe, but I don't want to argue about it right now. There have been on the order of 10,000 deaths in Iraq, which is awful, but doesn't begin to compare to the 2,000,000-plus babies killed by abortion in the U.S. alone every single year. I will vote for Bush even for the tiniest chance stopping abortions.
You also say that "If someone wants to terminate a pregnancy, that's their loss." From my point of view, this is like saying "if someone wants to kill their child, that's their loss." Clearly, it's the child's loss as well, not to mention the rest of society's loss of a valuable life. I don't see any important distinctions between a fetus and a young baby.
I don't think George Bush is the ideal candidate, by any means. He supports many policies, like the death penalty, and a federal ban on gay marriage, which I do not agree with. There is no candidate running right now who would really represent everyting I believe---Bush is merely the best approximation for the most critical issues, like abortion.
Posted by: cs30109 at September 16, 2004 05:18 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think it comes down to pricipal. If find it hard to swallow that conservatives stand on principal against abortion, but also support this ghastly war. It's a matter of respecting human life, no matter where it is, what nationality, etc. I do respect your opinion though. You have a good point that the number of abortions hardly compares to the deaths in Iraq. But, I think any person of prinicpal who's against abortion on the basis that it destroys the sanctity of human life, should be just as oppossed to the dreadful wars that our world can't seem to stop engaging in, especially our own country.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 16, 2004 08:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I believe, tentatively, that going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do. It's really just a question of costs and benefits: over the next couple of decades, will there be less suffering or more in Iraq? It's true that many people were killed, and are still being killed, in the fighting. But, I'm not so sure that Saddam wouldn't have killed even more. Let's not forget, either, that he had two healthy and sadistic sons ready to take over once he was gone. Had we not gone in, Saddam and his sons could have been in power for the next fifty years. Would that situation be better or worse than the U.S. invasion? I don't know that it would have been worse, but that is my feeling. Even the 10,000+ deaths in Iraq so far could easily have been surpassed by a few more decades of Saddam & co.
Posted by: cs30109 at September 16, 2004 09:18 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
cs, I'm an abortion opponent myself, but I see absolutely no chance of the Republican Party paying anything more than lip service to the prospect of overturning Roe vs. Wade. It would be political suicide if they did, as you seem to be a perfect testimony of. You are not supportive of Bush on a wide number of issues and would likely vote against him....except he has you convinced he's the guy to enact a prohibition against abortion even though he's essentially confirmed he has no intention of overturning the 1973 Supreme Court ruling. The Republican Party has a stranglehold on the $6 an hour Wal-Mart clerks throughout rural America who vote against their personal interest based very heavily on the abortion issue. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, why would most of these voters continue to support Republicans, particularly white Catholics?
I also try to be a pragmatist on the abortion issue, recognizing that the majority of pro-life ideologues are not of the mind that the Catholics are...that there will be serious consequences to a prohibition against abortion that will require attention and financial sacrifice AFTER the umbillical cord is cut. Most Pat Robertson types waiting by their mailbox for tax cuts every week are only pro-life before delivery. Furthermore, the strain on our criminal justice system trying to enforce yet another ill-fated prohibition would be a very steep challenge as well.
I don't buy into the "pro-choice" ethos on the abortion issue, but have a hard time aligning myself with pro-lifers on abortion until they're willing to show a commitment towards addressing the serious consequences that will arise if they get what they want. Let's just say I'm not expecting to discover such a commitment any time soon.
Posted by: Mark at September 16, 2004 09:30 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I lean towards pro-life, but I am not committed to either side of this issue. I am an adoptive parent and that tends to make me lean towards pro-life.
As far as the war in Iraq, that is Bush���s biggest screw-up. He is a stubborn fool that refuses to listen to the people who know the situation best, the people in the field in Iraq, on how to fix the mess he created. Anyone seen Senator Biden this morning on Imus? He was telling it like it is with Iraq. Senator Kerry needs to take some lessons from Biden. My big problem with Kerry is that he is being too careful walking a tightrope on Iraq. He needs to come out and state the massive problems that Bush has created in Iraq and how he will solve them. As of September 17, 2004 it does not matter whether or not we should have attacked Iraq. What matters now is that we need to clean up our mess. This was my opinion when we invaded in 2003: We were dumb to not go in with the commitment of our allies. The president put too much emphasis on WMD when we went into Iraq. Also, Bush should not have burned bridges after stage one of the war was over. He let his big ego get to him by basically telling France and Germany to screw off. He should have sent out an olive branch instead he gave them the finger by saying no contracts to countries not involved in the fighting.
People who think that we are now safer for invading Iraq annoy me. The only thing the invasion of Iraq has done is inspire new people to join Al Qaeda. Instead of invading Iraq Bush should have been more concerned with North Korea���s nuclear program. What is a bigger threat: Saddam Hussein building WMD with inspector breathing down his throat or North Korea, a country working on nuclear weapons with no inspectors in the country?
Posted by: DFuller at September 17, 2004 09:33 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
We helped to install Saddam in the late 1960s and supported him through some of his most brutal episodes. So, this whole arguement about the U.S. going into Iraq to remove a brutual dictator is just shallow propaganda on the part of our government. Look at the history, don't listen to the latest propaganda coming out of Washington. Another thing that amazes me about conservatives, they're suppossedly so distrustful of government, but are also so willing to believe whatever the government says and support any government action like this dubious military action against Iraq that has been based on half-truths and misrepresentations about connections between Saddam and 9/11 and Al Queda. If we're going to go to war, it should be done by an official declaration of war, as stipulated by the U.S. Constitution. If we followed the Constitution in declaring war and actually went to war over truthful information, perhaps I could support it, out of the necessity of defending our country. But, the fact is we might be creating terrorism blowback from this misguided war against Iraq. It's very questionable whether the war against Iraq is actually lessening our chances of being hit by terrorism in the future.
On top of all this, Bush isn't even fully funding Homeland Security. Three years after 9/11/01, we still don't have the proper bomb screening security in our airports and ports.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 17, 2004 09:58 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The Homeland Security department is a horrible mess. Congress should never have created it, and Bush should have stuck to his guns when he initially opposed it. The general idea isn't too bad, but they created and funded this agency way too early. They needed to spend a couple of years developing a plan for it before they threw money at it.
Rock_nj:
Another thing that amazes me about conservatives, they're suppossedly so distrustful of government, but are also so willing to believe whatever the government says and support any government action...
It seems to me that conservatives and liberals both want a powerful government, just in different areas. Conservatives (and I consider myself one) tend to believe that they want a small government, but they are mistaken.
Posted by: cs30109 at September 18, 2004 02:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
sonnerie sonnerie nokia sonnerie polyphonique logo sonnerie sonnerie portable sonnerie ericsson sonnerie gratuite logo et sonnerie sonnerie pour natel sonnerie de natel sonnerie mobile sonnerie samsung sonnerie logo sonnerie siemens nokia sonnerie sonnerie pour nokia sonnerie panasonic sonnerie et logo sonnerie gratuit sonnerie polyphoniques sonnerie sony sonnerie motorola natel sonnerie logos sonnerie sonnerie pour portable sonnerie pour ericsson sonnerie sony ericsson sonnerie telephone ericsson sonnerie sonnerie de portable sonnerie t68i sonnerie natel nokia logos et sonnerie sonnerie t��l��phone sonnerie pour samsung sonnerie polyphonique nokia sonnerie poliphonique sonnerie midi sonnerie natel gratuit sonnerie et logos sonnerie gsm sonnerie t68 sonnerie gratuites sonnerie natel gratuite sonnerie natel suisse sonnerie pour motorola sonnerie pour siemens samsung sonnerie sonnerie polyphonique gratuite logo sonnerie natel sonnerie nokia 7210 suonerie loghi suonerie suonerie nokia suonerie polifoniche loghi e suonerie suonerie gratis suonerie ericsson suonerie natel suonerie samsung suonerie e loghi suonerie per nokia loghi suonerie suonerie siemens suonerie cellulari suonerie panasonic suonerie motorola suonerie per cellulari suonerie per natel suonerie per ericsson nokia suonerie suonerie ch suonerie sony ericsson suonerie cellulare loghi e suonerie gratis suonerie nokia gratis loghi loghi nokia loghi gratis loghi natel loghi per natel loghi per nokia
Posted by: logos at November 3, 2004 01:02 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment