Do the Dems need the South?

Matthew Yglesias points out that Gore would have won in 2000 if he'd picked up just one more northern state (that hadn't been spoiled by Nader). This suggests that the Dems don't need to win the South in 2004. He points out that the logic still holds if you do the electoral math for Clinton's win in 1996. If this analysis is sound, then that pretty solidly demolishes the whole DLC line and the Ruy-Judis critique. Weigh in with your thoughts!

UPDATE: Ikraam Saeed draws an analogy to Quebec.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Gay Saudi Arabia

Five Things Dean Supporters Can Do Right Now to Fight Terrorism