We will be in REALLY big trouble if we don't take at least 350 electoral votes in 2004.
Heh, that sounds nuts to a lot of you, I know. The 'we can win without the South' chatter on this site has exploded today with Kos' post. And hey, you're all right, we
can win without pulling in the South, but...why would we want to?
The ramifications of such a narrow victory are massive.
First and foremost is that we wouldn't control either the House or Senate. While I know that Dean and Clark both have rocks big enough to push hard against a recalcitrant Congress, we need big change in this country to right the wrongs of Bush. This says nothing of the hardships we'd face in getting our Supreme Court nominees approved.
Secondly, we really need to give the media and the CW a huge smack upside the head with regard to their 'the country is so divided' shtick. Bullshit! As all the politicos like to say, Democratic positions on all of the major issues are very much in sync with the great majority of the population. Well, it's time that we have the candidate(s) and the execution to match our ideology, so we can decapitate the notion of a widespread conservative America before it becomes so ensconced in public consciousness that Lieberman is considered liberal come 2008!
Thirdly, we need to make ourselves felt -- not as Democrats, but as people capable of changing things for the better instead of being led around by the nose by the people with money and influence and the big microphones. That means getting up off our historically lazy asses in the general election, and getting down into WV, VA, NM, FL, LA, TN, AK, NC, NV, CO, MO, and OK, joining hands with our national neighbors, and (rather than singing kumbuya or somesuch) making a lasting alliance with all those folks that agree with us on so many issues but who get scared or shamed or confused or misinformed into voting for people who blatantly do not have their best interests in mind.
(By the way, I listed the states that I did just to highlight the ones I think we could take if we really, really wanted to. Again, some may say I'm nuts, but hey, you don't win if you don't play.)
Full disclosure: I'm big on Dean (I've written letters, given way too much money), but Clark would do just fine too. A secondary point I'm making here is that who our candidate is isn't really germaine -- it's what we do for him that is. You could run Jesus on the Dem ticket, and unless we get off our butts and do things we've never even thought of doing (see above), Bush would still win. WE need to be the campaign and the message come next fall, so I'll hit the road for either Dean or Clark. For now, I definitely prefer Dean (a) because he's opted out of the spending limits and (b) I'm far more comfortable with Dean's history/resume than I am with Clark.
So, that's my rant. I know that Kos and others are just playing with their electoral calculators and seeing that pinprick of light if the worst comes to pass and we don't carry a single southern state. However, as nice as that is, and as good as it is to know that we have a solid chance of squeeking out a victory, I pray that we haven't lost sight of the best endgame possible, because I think it's within our grasp.
