I could be wrong about this, but the occasion of Bobby Jindal dropping out of the presidential race has caused me to consider my theory again. Basically, I don’t think any Republican from the South can win the presidency. Now, I know that we just had George W. Bush who at least won one out of two of his elections, but he was the son of a Connecticut Yankee. I don’t think Tom DeLay or Dick Armey or Pete Sessions or Ted Cruz could ever win over enough Americans to get themselves into the Oval Office.
Florida is a special case, so let’s put that aside, and I think maybe a Virginian might be able to win. But if you’re from the Deep South, from Louisiana or Mississippi or Alabama, I just don’t think most Americans are going to trust you.
This is why I never took Jindal’s candidacy seriously, even though he obviously isn’t the prototypical white Southern conservative politician. I don’t take Lindsey Graham seriously, and I didn’t take Ron Paul seriously, and I wouldn’t take Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III seriously if he chose to run for the presidency.
The guys who scare me are the ones that come from blue states. Romney never had a chance but he had the right profile. Govs. Walker and Kasich (or even Christie) are much dangerous general election candidates than anyone representing the Old Confederacy.
It used to be that the Democrats needed to be Southern to have a chance. I think it’s flipped now and the Republicans need to be northern. And, maybe Virginia and Florida are really northern enough these days to be exceptions.
What do you think?
And, maybe Virginia and Florida are really northern enough these days to be exceptions.
I have a friend convinced Rick Scott will run in 2020. If this friend is right, it will test your thesis.
Interesting thoughts. It’s clear that Kasich is the most dangerous of the Republican candidates and Walker, if nominated, might have been dangerous too. On the other hand, I don’t imagine that Trump would gain any advantage in being from New York.
If there aren’t any true southerners who can win, I’d attribute it not to a general distrust of the region but rather the fact that, to win in the south anymore, a politician has to be so extreme. Kasich would not have won a single race in Texas or Alabama or Mississippi or Louisiana or Georgia. By the time one goes far enough out into right-wing fantasy world to win in the south, he’s become Rick Perry or Ted Cruz. Either that or alienated his own base of support like Lindsey Graham.
Of course, Repub cogs would tell you they tried the Blue State Repub gambit last time, although Mitt the Mass. Mormon was a pretty exotic concoction—but still, they took your advice and lost (again). Kasich would seem the traditionally “scary” Repub here—on paper. But is the “paper” worth anything any more?
Even at this point in the Conservative Era, we’re dealing with some pretty small data sets to draw any real conclusions, it seems to me—It’s St Reagan the Californian, Daddy Bush (the Texan?) and fellow Tex-assan Dubya jr, who did appear to have won once; he seems to have won the popular vote in 2004, and (maybe) the electoral college. That’s it for actual winners over the past 35 years, the sorta Arizonan lost in a quasi blowout.
I can’t really think of any reason that America wouldn’t trust a Southern Repub more than a northern one today. It’s not like either version is going to be in any way acceptable to America’s minority voters, circa 2016. Nor does the Fascist Party care much about that, ha-ha.
Fidelity to the Modern Conservative Religion of self-retardation is critical, as even the so-called establishment candidates must be seen to tear eagerly into the red meat, which is why it seems Jeb 🙁 is doomed, he just doesn’t seem to want to swallow–which is weird, he was happy being a “severely conservative” guv’nor.
Texans sell, although I suppose one can make an argument that Dubya tainted the Ranchin’ and Brush-clearin’ brand. And Peabrain Perry didn’t help matters any. But I don’t think bein a Texan is going to be the main thing weighing down Cruz, and Trump is from a Blue State, after all. But I guess the theory doesn’t apply to him….
Romney was running against a sitting president. that’s not impossible to win, but the deck is stacked against the challenger. Same applied Kerry in 2004.
But, as I said, not impossible, Clinton in 1992 Reagan in 1980. The public’s mood needs to be real ugly though.
As I recall, there was a large falloff in votes from 2008 to 2012, generally attributed to Fundamentalists not warming to the Repub Mormon on offer. Obama hatred and ugliness of mood seemed pretty high in 2012, IMO. But Repubs can’t run against him again, although they seem to want to, with Cruz challenging him to a duel with pistols at 30 paces!
The upside to giving the Fundies the candidate they want frankly seems to outweigh the downside for Repubs. Hence the potential strength of Cruz. But maybe after Dubya there is indeed a lack of (northern) trust for the fundamentalist candidate. God knows…
I’m not sure any of the fringe/radical republicans can ever expect to win.
The remnants of the old GOP will need Mainstream Milquetoast types to have at it.
Yep; and probably it will be one of those that get the Nom.
I agree that the a southern president looks pretty unlikely right now. Bus is still fresh in our mind, and Obama has more or less driven a lot of southerners insane.
My parents lived in New England for many years, New Hampshire. Traditionally a core GOP state, and the general sense among republicans in that area was that the Southerners were destroying the Party.
Time was you couldn’t win without the South. But right now it looks like if you have the South, you can’t win (the presidency).
I would posit that it’s been the M$M – or, really, the funders/owners thereof – who’ve driven Southerners and their fellow travelers crazy over Obama. True, it was an easy push bc blah, after all. But all I’ve seen is an unending stream of lies, bs, hype and spin about Obama – how he’s a fascistKenyanNaziMuslim, how he’s “dividing” the nation like no one else, how he and the D-Team are total “socialists,” etc. Yet nothing is ever said to clarify what these jingoistic phrases even mean. No facts, just hype and bigoted, mean-spirited hatred.
Disclosure: I don’t like Obama very much and regret my original vote for him in 2008. That said, the way he’s portrayed by the rightwing bigots is deplorable and disgusting and totally unmerited. I would rather see Obama criticized for what he’s actually done or not done, rather than an unceasing stream of bigotry, hatred and unfettered nastiness. Sigh.
Easy to rile up the rebels still attempting to “win” the Civil War, but it’s sort of amazing how many others in the GOP are willing to go along with the bigoted, chauvinistic nuttiness. It’s not just a southern problem, but certainly the Southern Strategy is what’s driving the ship.
What seems to be happening, from my viewpoint, is that more or less rational GOP voters are jumping ship to the semi-rational and ever more “conservative” D-Branch of the UniParty. And et voila – NeoLibs hold sway.
That said (I digress), do I think a Southerner can win as POTUS? Maybe some day again someone from Texas. Someone from the “deep south”? Probably not. Have to be too certifiable to actually win. JMHO, of course.
Seems to me that in spite of not liking Obama very much you’ve pointed out his legacy; sending Southerners nuts and driving moderates toward the Democratic party. As leader of the Democratic party that’s one of his major objectives and he’s done remarkably well, perhaps provoking generational change as a consequence. We’ll see.
You’ve also articulated a progressive dilemma; neoliberals ascendant. It’s not going to be easy.
Well again I would say that it’s not Obama, himself, who is “driving southerners nuts.” It’s the propaganda Wurlitzer – funded by Rupert Murdoch and his brethren in the media (possibly encouraged by others behind the scenes, aka Kochs, et al) – who continue to do a lot of manipulating and spinning and lying to strongly “encourage” southerners to go nuts.
And then, as well, drive the more rational amongst professed conservatives to vote “D,” which is nothing more than a party of somewhat more intelligent and better spoken Republicans these days. What’s Neoliberalism anyway? It’s certainly not what the D party stood for 3 decades ago, but it’s what it stands for today. And it’s every bit as NeoCon as any R-Team member is. Geez HRC out NeoCons even that Dick Cheney.
Obama, from my perspective, is simply a conservative Republican but with too much melanin for the likes of some. He’s done nothing but carry forward the Bush legacy, as HRC (should she win & she’s got a good chance) will do, as well.
It’s simply that the PTB play divide and conquer with the little people, and clearly, that game works very very well with a significant segment of the US populace and most especially with conservatives who are easily led into believing that being unfettered outloud racists & chauvanists who are encouraged to throw temper tantrums 24/7/365 over nothing is the height of good living (or something).
Would someone who has “done nothing but carry forward the Bush legacy” have reached an accommodation, of any kind, with Iran?
Is a president from Arkansas considered from the South? Not so long ago.
It was sometimes suggested only a Southern Democrat could win; eg Carter.
He was talking about Southern REPUBLICANS.
There are some candidates less plausible than others, but I think a GOP southerner could win (after all, Bush did). It would help a southern candidate if he had an elite educational background – which is important in some places in the North.
Any of them can win given the economy.
Even Trump? Can he pull off a Ross Perot type movement?
Trump’s from a blue state. That’s part of what makes him dangerous, the ability to mobilize Republicans in blue states or swing states.
Bush did not win; the Supreme Court anointed him.
Running as an incumbent President is a different situation and that was still a close election that came down to Ohio — with a sketchy Secretary of State and Diebold voting machines. Not to mention shenanigans in the reconfiguring of precincts.
Bush won like Landslide Lydon won Congress.
Bush basically tied Gore in 2000. It’s hard to believe that there is no universe in which he could have increased his percentage of the popular vote by 0.25% or his total in Florida by a few hundred votes. And he certainly won in 2004.
Not really.
I suspect it is going to be difficult for any candidate from a one-party state to become President, given the red state-blue state nonsense that the GOP has given the country and the Democrats have absorbed as general wisdom.
I think any Republican who can win the nomination has a 50/50 shot of becoming president. South, North, West, doesn’t matter. And excluding Florida and Virginia is a pretty big exception to your rule. You’ve basically said that you don’t believe Cruz or Paul can win. Graham and Huckabee are close enough to zero support that you’ve got a safe bet against them. Personally, I don’t find Cruz any crazier than Trump and Paul is the least “southern” of the bunch.