Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« November 2003 »
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
foolishness
gloating
jerk fellation
LEGO
politics
schadenfreude
sports
Stinktown
work
We Three Jerks
Thursday, 6 November 2003
Dean's Southern Strategy
I had only intended to blog once today, but I feel I should respnd to today's Marc post.

First, while Dean did apologize for his remarks, or more specifically his poor choice of imagery, he did not express regret for the original sentiment behind the quote. As I blogged about yesterday, I don't think Dean was intending to warm his way into the hearts of southern voters by appealing to their cultural values, as Marc intimated in his post. If he attempted this he would alienate not only the traditional base of the Democratic party, but also large segments of his grass-roots organization. His attempt, it appeared to me, was to show to southern voters who have traditionally voted Democratic, but have been casting their ballots for Republicans in the recent past, that they should once again make their decisions based on financial, rather than cultural issues. If it's true that these voters no longer share economic priorities with the Democratic party, then Dean's strategy is moot and the South will probably be lost to the Dems forever. However, what Dean earnestly believes, and what he's been trying to say for the last few days, is that poor, white, southerners still share economic priorities with the Democratic party. Dean is hopeful that it's enough to sway their votes, but that remains to be seen. In fact, Dean may be placing false hope on a sour economy that seems to be turning itself around before our eyes, but if the economy fails to sustain growth, then Dean will still have a dog in the fight over southern votes.

I think Dean's Tallahassee comments, although painfully devoid of subtlety, were right on. The South has always been conservative, but if the Democrats are to have any chance in the south, they will need to convince voters to think with their wallets, as Bill Clinton did in 1992. Democrats cannot and should not intend to compete for the south by appealing to cultural values, and think I Dean is acutely aware of this. He knows that it is a fight that will tear at the very fabric of not only his campaign, but the party itself. The Democratic Party's success in the past has always been tied to uniting divergent segments of the population (including rural and urban poor blacks and whites, organized labor, liberals etc.) through economic issues, regardless of their varied stances on cultural values. What it will probably all come down to, as it so often does, is the economy. If the economy is weak and joblessness is still a problem, then voters will be more likely to vote Democratic regardless of their cultural views. If it stays strong, then the focus of the campaign is going to be on foreign policy and cultural values. If this happens, the Democrats will have an awfully tough time cobbling together enough states to forge an electoral victory.

Tony

Posted by thynkhard at 11:12 AM EST
Updated: Thursday, 6 November 2003 11:25 AM EST
Post Comment | View Comments (5) | Permalink

Thursday, 6 November 2003 - 12:12 PM EST

Name: Shawn

Here's a project for ya: figure out what the unemployment rate was in November of every Presidential re-election year. Give 'em to me and I'll run a regression and figure out what the highest electable unemp. rate is. You could also use other variables: GDP growth rate, prime rate, how much sitting president's hair has whitened during term, etc.

Btw, from what I've gathered, this unemp. rate isn't that high historically. Some economists last century labeled the "natural rate" of unemployment at 6%. I think part of the problem was that it was so low to start with (4%) that the change back to around 6% brought about millions of job losses. That's what made it so noticible. I guess that's obvious.

Thursday, 6 November 2003 - 12:28 PM EST

Name: Tony

I will get that information for you, but probably not today. I know 6% isn't a ridiculously high unemployment rate, both historically and relative to places like Western Europe. However, if people have lost jobs, are losing jobs or know people who have lost jobs, they will take little comfort in knowing that the unemployment number is where economists say it should be.

Thursday, 6 November 2003 - 12:37 PM EST

Name: Shawn

Well put. Another thing to think about is that if the unemployment rate hovers around 6%, there won't be as many jobs lost in the next year (though admittedly the people who still haven't found jobs will still be noticible) as in the past few years.

I don't want to jinx it or anything, though! If the rate creeps up to 8 or 10 that would indeed suck.

Thursday, 6 November 2003 - 12:47 PM EST

Name: Marc

There's a bunch of economists who predict presidential elections based on economic data. They are ususally right, but were way off last time, when they predicted a 56.2% vote for Gore.

I think this election will also be unpredictable by economic forecasting because of September 11th and the terrorism issue, although recent economic news (the 7.2% growth last quarter, today's sharp drop in unemployment claims) may make a Bush landslide more "economically correct".

Thursday, 6 November 2003 - 6:33 PM EST

Name: Shawn

"It's not even going to be close." Only from an economist.

View Latest Entries