The jinx of the north

[GaryC 7]

Clinton and Obama are doomed to failure in a presidential race, for they are not from the south

Sarah Churchwell

Friday August 31, 2007

The Guardian

As an American who yields to none in her loathing of the incumbent president, I am frequently invited to enthuse over the presumptive 2008 Democratic contenders. But I'm unconvinced that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is electable. Perhaps it's time to consider the dark horse.

US papers report that John Edwards has gone on the attack; one of his advisers just opined that a Clinton nomination would lose blue states. A recent poll agreed: more than half of Americans would never vote for Clinton, which shouldn't surprise anyone who remembers the first Clinton presidency. Obama presents a similar problem. I'm a fan, and from his home state, but I don't think he can win the presidency yet. Moreover, the dark horse has an overlooked advantage, and given that none of the nominees has offered anything so divisive as actual ideas to help us choose among them, Democratic strategists might consider Edwards for one reason alone: history.

The election of the first Republican president, in 1860, precipitated the US civil war. His name was Abraham Lincoln, and his new party represented the urban north, federalism, and abolition. The party of the rural south, the Democrats, supported agrarianism, states' rights, and slavery. After Lincoln's election, southern Democrats seceded from the union, formed the Confederate States of America, and declared war on Republicans.

The entire south - the 11 confederate states plus five border states - voted as a block for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election for the next 60 years. There were only two, quite extraordinary, exceptions: the election of 1872, in which the Democratic candidate actually died between the popular and the electoral vote - and six southern states still chose a dead man over a Republican; and the election of 1928, when a Roman Catholic, pro-immigration, pro-civil rights, anti-prohibition New Yorker proved too much for the south - although once again six intransigent holdouts still voted Democrat.

In 1948 everything changed. Harry S Truman, a southern Democrat, endorsed a strong civil rights platform. The deep south nearly seceded again, as four "Dixiecrat" states followed white supremacist Strom Thurmond. Truman won the rest of the south, but civil rights proved the deal-breaker. The Democrats had always represented the workers, and the Republicans big business (plus ça change). The rural southern working man had two traditional claims to power: gender and race. He may have been white trash, but by God he was superior to women and "negroes". As the Democratic platform liberalised, the conservative south began turning Republican, and electoral maps of ensuing elections show the subsequent contest for the south in the 14 presidential elections since 1948.

The neglected fact is this: with one notable exception (see below), since the 1944 election of Franklin D Roosevelt, no Democratic president has come from a northern state. Not for 60 years - the exact same amount of time that the solid south voted for Democrats. Since Roosevelt, all the Democratic presidents but one were southern: Truman, Johnson, Carter and Clinton. Conversely, the list of failed Democratic presidential candidates from the north since Truman is a catalogue of humiliating routs: Stevenson, Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry - the most successful.

As Gore proved, being from the south is not sufficient for a Democrat to win the presidency. Or even his own state. But for 60 years, being from the south has been necessary. The only exception - John F Kennedy - had two significant edges. First, running mate Lyndon Johnson, an enormously popular old Texan campaigner who successfully lobbied much of the south. Second, alleged voter fraud in Illinois and Texas. Even assuming the 1960 election win was legitimate, it was by the smallest margin in the 20th century: a mere 113,000 votes separated Kennedy and Nixon among 68 million ballots. By comparison, Gore's 500,000-vote margin among 100 million ballots resembles a landslide.

Is George Bush's current unpopularity sufficient to goad the deep south into voting for northerners like Clinton or Obama? Hard to imagine. In theory a Democrat could win the election without carrying the south. But here's another forgotten fact: no Democrat since the civil war who lost more than half the southern states has become president.

If the Democrats want to win, they need to think hard about nominating someone from the south. It won't guarantee them the election, but if they nominate another northerner I fear they can kiss the White House goodbye for another four years - and the rest of the world can weep into its history books.

Sarah Churchwell is a senior lecturer in American literature and culture at the University of East Anglia s.churchwell@uea.ac.uk

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/co...2159642,00.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Which current Republican Presidential Candidate is from the South?

It's a free-for-all...or John Edwards is our next president based on those statistics.

[GaryC 7]

Which current Republican Presidential Candidate is from the South?

It's a free-for-all...or John Edwards is our next president based on those statistics.

Try reading the story this time. No DEMOCRAT has been elected president that wasn't from the south. (except JFK)

ETA..

And BTW Thompson is conservative AND from the south. I think some surprises are in order next year.

Edited September 4, 2007 by GaryC

[Mags 112]

*looks around for Devilette*

Oh my.

[Caladan 19]

Which current Republican Presidential Candidate is from the South?

It's a free-for-all...or John Edwards is our next president based on those statistics.

Not to mention our current President, for that matter. He's not really from Texas.

Thompson, Thompson... claim to fame is that he was on Law & Order... sort of the poor man's Schwarzenegger.

I think we're in for some surprises because this administration seems to be ramping up for Iran.

[GaryC 7]

Which current Republican Presidential Candidate is from the South?

It's a free-for-all...or John Edwards is our next president based on those statistics.

Not to mention our current President, for that matter. He's not really from Texas.

Thompson, Thompson... claim to fame is that he was on Law & Order... sort of the poor man's Schwarzenegger.

I think we're in for some surprises because this administration seems to be ramping up for Iran.

Thompson is the only true conservitive on the rep side. Very soon he will gain ground on the Giuliani and pass him up.

If Bush has any political brains left he will take care of Iran after the general election and before the next president comes into office.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Which current Republican Presidential Candidate is from the South?

It's a free-for-all...or John Edwards is our next president based on those statistics.

Not to mention our current President, for that matter. He's not really from Texas.

Thompson, Thompson... claim to fame is that he was on Law & Order... sort of the poor man's Schwarzenegger.

I think we're in for some surprises because this administration seems to be ramping up for Iran.

Thompson is the only true conservitive on the rep side. Very soon he will gain ground on the Giuliani and pass him up.

If Bush has any political brains left he will take care of Iran after the general election and before the next president comes into office.

He's not the Conservative Poster Boy you're hoping he'll be, Gary. Sorry, but you're in for a big disappointment.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

How is it that Thompson is a "true conservative" but Romney is not?

[GaryC 7]

How is it that Thompson is a "true conservative" but Romney is not?

I don't like Romney, flip-flopping all the time.

Steven, How would you know who is conservitive or not. You wouldn't know a conservitive if he came up and kicked you in the nads.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

How is it that Thompson is a "true conservative" but Romney is not?

I don't like Romney, flip-flopping all the time.

Steven, How would you know who is conservitive or not. You wouldn't know a conservitive if he came up and kicked you in the nads.

How does he flip-flop? Is it about abortion? Because Thompson's got some problems there from his lobbyist days.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How is it that Thompson is a "true conservative" but Romney is not?

I don't like Romney, flip-flopping all the time.

Steven, How would you know who is conservitive or not. You wouldn't know a conservitive if he came up and kicked you in the nads.

You're cute, Gary. I think it's funny that even you think of yourself as a true conservative when I'd venture to say that I don't think you are as conservative as you wish you were. Erekose talked about this a long time ago...what you think of a traditional conservatism is really very liberal, at least on the economic end of things. The point is, nobody is anchored to specific, rigid ideology and if they are, they're not electable. It is the great conundrum of the political process. Hillary (whom you love), is probably the most centrist of all candidates...followed by Giuliani. The American people had their taste of 'compassionate conservative' and have been suffering from botulism for the last 6 years. Time for change.

How is it that Thompson is a "true conservative" but Romney is not?

I don't like Romney, flip-flopping all the time.

Steven, How would you know who is conservitive or not. You wouldn't know a conservitive if he came up and kicked you in the nads.

How does he flip-flop? Is it about abortion? Because Thompson's got some problems there from his lobbyist days.

Exactly. Gary is going to be awfully disappointed if he thinks Thompson is going to rekindle his fond memories of Reagan.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Which current Republican Presidential Candidate is from the South?

It's a free-for-all...or John Edwards is our next president based on those statistics.

Not to mention our current President, for that matter. He's not really from Texas.

Thompson, Thompson... claim to fame is that he was on Law & Order... sort of the poor man's Schwarzenegger.

Tallest (6'6") potential candidate so far. would "usurp" the position of tallest president (Lincoln, holder so far, was 6'4") if elected.

I think we're in for some surprises because this administration seems to be ramping up for Iran.

Depends; those who expect it to be a total mess will not be disappointed.

[no name 1]

*looks around for Devilette*

Oh my.

I'm so NOT worried about what the Guardian says. Or GaryC.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Which current Republican Presidential Candidate is from the South?

It's a free-for-all...or John Edwards is our next president based on those statistics.

Not to mention our current President, for that matter. He's not really from Texas.

Thompson, Thompson... claim to fame is that he was on Law & Order... sort of the poor man's Schwarzenegger.

I think we're in for some surprises because this administration seems to be ramping up for Iran.

Thompson is the only true conservitive on the rep side. Very soon he will gain ground on the Giuliani and pass him up.

If Bush has any political brains left he will take care of Iran after the general election and before the next president comes into office.

On the plus side - its rather unlikely that Bush will be able to secure support for a strike on Iran, which is tougher and better equipped than a toothless Saddam Hussein. Regardless - what would he use to fight that 'new' war? Farts and strong language!?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Exactly. Gary is going to be awfully disappointed if he thinks Thompson is going to rekindle his fond memories of Reagan.

Reagan was also a flip-flopper in one sense, due to the open-secret (not admitted by many American Christians--but still there) of his oft consulting mediums.