Regions, Hopelessness, Oratory

Ed Kilgore rights that the South isn't hopeless for Democrats and makes a surprisingly strong case. He also says he "not believe we have to nominate a southernor for president to become competitive there, though it clearly helps." In all honesty the "need we nominate a southerner" debate has tended to take place at a shockingly shallow level. As I see it, the basic lay of the terrain is very simple. When a candidate is a governor or senator representing State X, the mere fact that he has won statewide there gives you a strong (though defeasible) reason to believe that he would be able to win that state in a presidential contest. When the state in question is a contested one in presidential politics that fact gives you an advantage. As it happens, George W. Bush has proven in 2000 and 2004 that he can sell himself in Ohio. As of the 2000 GOP primaries, however, this was far from certain. If the Republicans had picked George Voinovich, things might have turned out worse for them, but they could have been reasonably assured ex ante that their man could win Ohio. Ex ante reason to believe that Candidate Y can win State X also gives you reason (though even more defeasible this time) to believe he can win states that are similar to State X.

So give me a Democrat who can win in Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, or Florida with an ideological program that reasonably approximates the Democrats' national agenda, and I'll say that his proven ability to win in the more winnable southern states should be counted as a plus in his favor. But it doesn't necessarily outweigh everything else.

One thing that I think tends to get neglected here because it's so desperately un-quantitative is the notion that rhetoric matters. I don't know much about Michael Dukakis' speaking skills, but I think it's telling that in 1980, 1984, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 the better rhetoritician won each time. Bush -- due to his fumbling in extemporaneous contexts -- is easy to underestimate as a public speaker, but he delivers a set-piece well, and has some damn good speechwriters working for him. Clinton, though not a classic rhetoritician by any means, was also an excellent public speaker. This stuff isn't, I think, decisive, but it matters. One good thing about Southern Democrats is that simply because it's harder to win in the South, any Democrats who do win there -- especially with the aforementioned "ideological program that reasonably approximates the Democrats' national agenda" -- are likely to be above-average campaigners. It's basically a Darwinian mechanism. It's no coincidence that some of the GOP sends us absurd people like Sens. Bunning and Coburn from places like Kentucky and Oklahoma respectively. A lousy Republican candidate would have a hard time winning in a more competetive environment. A conservative Republican like Rick Santorum who can make it in Pennsylvania is likely to be a sharper dude and, indeed, Santorum is a sharper dude that most of his ideological fellow-travelers from Dixie.

But not every Southern Dem is going to have the speaking skills of a Bill Clinton. I heard Mark Warner talk once and was distinctly uninspired. Maybe he was just having a bad day, so I wouldn't right him off just like that. But maybe not. A couple of correspondents have suggested that Governor Easley in North Carolina isn't all that. Again, I'd like to see for myself. If one of those two really does have the skills, I think it's worth looking at such folks. If not, a more talented politician from a northern state would make more sense.