The split in the Democratic Party will deliver the White House to the Republicans in 2004, barring some major changes.
I recently returned from a five day GOTV effort in Kentucky. We failed miserably. Throughout the day all the reports from polling places suggested that the Chandler-Owen ticket would squeak by to win the election. By 5pm, an hour before the polls closed, the good news all turned sour. Democratic turnout in West End Louisville, though high, could not counteract equally high turnout on the East End, a Republican stronghold. The deathblow came when Western Kentucky, a former Democratic stronghold, came out for Fletcher and the Republicans expanded their lead to 10 points. Thirty years of Democratic control of the governor's mansion came to an end begging the great question: why? How could an anti-gun control, nominally pro-life, grandson of a very popular governor, conservative Democrat lose so badly in Kentucky?
The answer is very simple. The Republicans have grown adept at ground efforts and no longer rely solely on money to win. They have the money to make "Democrat" an evil word and now they have the organization to further push it home. More importantly, they are an incredibly disciplined party that quells dissent and closes ranks when it faces an election. The last thing Republicans want before an election is Trent Lott saying Strom Thurmond would have made a great president. In the specific case of Kentucky, the Democratic Party had to please far more varied opinions on its left and in its center: it had to respond to white Kentuckians fear of losing their guns while attempting to curb gun violence in inner-city Louisville. They had to cater to more conservative Democrats on the abortion issue while not losing the support of Lexington liberals. On the whole they were their own worst enemy because of the influence of "the groups." Reader you may not like Zell Miller for his endorsement of George W. or his conservative stances on many issues but what you must pay attention to is the fact that he is RIGHT.
If I lived in Massachusetts everyone would call me a Republican. I am a pro-rifle (anti-handgun), pro-abortion ban in the last trimester, pro-Iraq war (anti the way it is being fought) moderate Democrat and I have a revelation for many on this board: I'm still far more to the left than the voters we need to win the White House in 2004. Zell Miller was right to point to the Electoral College instead of the popular vote when he appeared on Hardball last night. The Electoral College places power squarely in the Southern States (which have added EV's) and the small Mountain states which despite their low population have at least 3 EV's.
Not so fast, many will say, we only need to hold the Gore states and add any one state to win. They are dead wrong. The problem however is that the many of the Gore states like Wisconsin (10), Michigan (17), Oregon (7), Iowa (7), New Mexico (5) and Pennsylvania (21) are competitive. Together they total a whopping 67 Electoral Votes. Meanwhile, the Bush states have become far less competitive with the exception perhaps of West Virginia (5), Arkansas (6), Louisiana (9), Nevada (5) and Arizona (10) but even these would be hard very hard battles; together they total 35 Electoral Votes. Now here is a big fact: due to reapportionment the 2000 score 271-267 (Bush-Gore) will in 2004 be 278-260 (Bush). This presents the eventual Democratic nominee a very serious dilemma: How do you defend those 67 Electoral Votes and pick up at least 10 from the Bush column? Bush's problem is vastly different: Where do you strike and how do you protect those 35 Electoral Votes? The scenario obviously favors Bush.
We have to win in the South. Since the political realignments in the South during the 50's and 60's the only Democrats to win are JFK, LBJ, Carter and Clinton. Kennedy barely won and Johnson certainly helped him in it. LBJ only won one election but was so badly damaged by Vietnam and civil rights legislation that he refused to run for a second time. Carter was a conservative Democrat whose public faith, and Georgia drawl led him to a marginal victory over a very damaged Republican party in the wake of Watergate. Clinton was the head of a two-Southerner ticket and had an unusual charisma and political discipline rarely seen in American politics.
How do the current candidates stack up? Clark has military credibility for the "security dads." Dean has the support of the NRA. Lieberman has his public faith. Gephardt has working class support and an up-by-the-bootstraps story to tell. Edwards has the drawl and a wonderful message of college education for all. Kerry, to be completely frank, has nothing to offer in the South. Period. When Kerry hunts he hunts pheasant, most working class folks in the South have no idea what a pheasant is I know I didn't for a very long time. On the other hand, Clark has no significant political experience or even a real platform. Dean was opposed to the war that all of these folks support and continue to support. Lieberman is a Jew (and believe me this does matter to many of the "good Christians" in the South [note the bitter sarcasm]). Edwards is a "scummy trial lawyer." Gephardt while he has no unique weakness in the South has the same serious problem that all the other candidates have. They support civil unions. The issue will be a killer for the Democrats in the South.
Personally, I believe it is not the governments place to tell me what to buy, what to do with my body or whom I choose to love and want to build a meaningful life with but there I am vastly different from most Southerners and perhaps these views have been informed by my attendance at a "Yankee" school. That said we need a candidate who can win. All our more progressive sensibilities will come to nothing if we allow Bush to win another four years. We cannot forget "the groups" but they must understand that we cannot embrace them publicly for the rest of the election year. When we are safely ensconced in the White House with some healthy gains in both Houses and a left-leaning Supreme Court appointment then we can talk about righting the wrongs in society. But if George Bush wins again, he will do so much damage that it will take us till 2050 to get back to where we were in 2000.
Solution: run from the center like in 2000 but the difference is that we have Bush's record to tar and feather him with. We can run as the consensus candidate who will work for the average American and paint George W. as the extreme right nut-job who wants to turn the U.S. into a feudal society. That is who George Bush really is and if we grab the center and force him to show his true colors we will win in the South, we will win the White House and grow large enough coat-tails to ensure that the Democrats can do something for a change. Howard Dean is partially there when he speaks of the guys who drive pick-up trucks but he really comes off as someone who has no idea what we really are all about when he paints us as white trash.
At this moment though no one has grabbed the centrists reins and instead they are all just providing sound-bites proving that we are lefties and George Bush is the center.