Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradisecity
I agree with you and I disagree with you. I DO believe that there are some states where it is pretty close to a lost cause- Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma. I believe that its better to Focus on Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Arizona, NM, Tenn, WV, Nevada, Florida, etc.
I agree that John Edwards could win over the south better than a non-southerner for the democratic party, but I'm not sure he could hold some of the states outside the south. Guiliani would beat Edwards in a lot of the northeast, IMO.
|
I am not sure that getting a southern candidate means the Dems will get Southern votes. People is South certainly has different issues than us - and they look at the republican party for some reason for their issues. If Gore could have carried Tennesse - then probably there would have been no GWB and no Iraq war. Edwards for that matter was the running partner of Kerrie - how did that work out in south? He could not even carry South Carolina.
The election time always reminds me how deeply divided we are. I think of the election map - blue in the coasts and the north east. Red in south and center. Apart from 2-3 swing states - that ain't gonna change irrespective of who is running for which party.
To me it will come down to swing states. Only good thing for the dems - there is no Rove to make the evengellicals rally or make anonymous phone calls to voters - at least till now.
Edit - It's just me but I still don't see Southerns lining up to vote for a woman or a black. In that way - Edwards may have an edge