I don't believe we're saying to write off South completely. But you have to choose target very carefully since the resources are limited in an election.

If Hillary is the nominee, I fully expect her to be competitive in Arkansas, Florida or maybe West Virginia. I'm confident she'll have a smart campaign in these states. She polls very strong in Florida due to her popularity among latinos, Jews, and NY snowbirds. She obviously has a deep connection with Arkansas. There's a chance she can flip that state.

To be frank, I really don't know which Southern state Obama can flip...

Interesting analysis. There's something for each of the candidates to learn from your diary. I hope our nominee pays attention.

I think the only Southern states that Democrats can consider to be competitive is Florida. If Hillary is the nominee, then Arkansas, Missouri, West Virginia and Virginia come into play. Arkansas because of her connection; Missouri because of the single women vote, West Virginia because of its inclination towards Democrats and sensible ones; Virginia because of its Independent voters and rural Virginians who are suffering due to Iraq.

As for Edwards, I am not sure he can put any Southern state besides FL into play, because his left turn on many issues will hurt him. Economic populism might be appealing to voters in TN, NC and VA, but ultimately, the GOP will convince them to come home.

As for Obama, unfair or not, due to his skin color, we can say goodbye to the South and welcome to the Southwest!

Only one Democrat has become President without winning at least half of all southern states:  Bill Clinton won 6 of 13 in both 1992 and 1996.  The states that went to Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats (1948), Barry Goldwater (1964) or George Wallace (1968) are pretty much hopeless but the rest of the states are at least somewhat in play.

Stretching the field has three positive outcomes.  First, we can win some of these states (should include VA, NC, FL at the top of the list).  Second, by making Republicans defend their own turf, we will get less of a challenge in states like PA or MI because they won't have the resources.  Third, we build the brand and help elect more "national" Democrats specifically and more democrats as a whole.

Florida is a scenario where any Democrat has about an equal chance of winning based on demographic groups each are strongest with. Hillary would likely do best in Southeast Florida (particular among Cubans), Obama would probably do well in Central Florida, and Edwards would do the best in Rural/Northern Florida.

Also, each Democrat has a very strong chance of picking up Arkansas regardless, Obama having the smallest chance and Hillary having the best chance.

For the rest, advantage is towards Edwards: North Carolina, Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia (and possibly Tennessee), all with large amounts of rural voters, all have a good chance of going to Edwards against Guiliani/Romney/McCain, and maybe half of these would be put back to the red column with Thompson. Hillary/Obama may be competitive in some of these too (Missouri, West Virginia, maybe even Virginia), but not to the level Edwards would be.

Georgia is a lost cause. And Louisianna is simply to hard to determine at this point, really 2007 and polling for 2008 Senate race will give us a better idea.

For South Carolina, Mississippi and Alabama, all 3 contain large numbers of blacks (30%), (37%), (26.5%) respectively. It's hard to determine who would do the best here, but my guess is that Obama has the best chance of high turnout among blacks while Edwards will probably recieve the most white rural votes. I think this is a lost cause for Hillary, and would be tough for any candidate regardless.

Texas is a very tough cookie to crumble, and it's very hard to determine who would have the best success here. The population is very young, which seems to benefit Obama, and Independents are small but rising rapidly. Hillary presumably will do the best among Mexican-Americans/Hispanics, but Edwards poses to gain lots of votes in East Texas. Plus, it'll be very hard to determine how Edwards' Poverty message will resonate among Mexican-Americans, and they could end up to be as strong of a bloc for Edwards as they are for Hillary.

I, too, am a Southerner. Raised in Georgia, college in New England, back to Georgia for another ten years. Campaigned for Jimmy Carter in New Hampshire in my rebel flag ski cap (before the days of political correctness).

You are being extremely rosy about electoral politics in the south. Since the Civil Rights Act was passed by LBJ, the Republicans have failed to carry Miss, Al, SC, and NC exactly twice. Once in 1968 when George Wallace carried them as a racist independent. And in 1976, when favorite son Jimmy Carter carried them.

It is easy to understand the politics of the deep south if you read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Two-Reconstruction s-Struggle-Enfranchisement-Political/dp/ 0226845303

The book looks at the racial patterns of voting in the south since the Civil War, dividing it into three periods:

a) Reconstruction. After the Civil War, the Republicans barred Confederate land owners from voting and franchised freed slaves. Black turnout was very high.

b) By 1880, the Republicans had made sufficient gains in the new western states that they no longer needed the black vote. They stopped enforcing black voting rites and re-franchised white Democratic southern voters. The combination of Jim Crow laws and physical violence (KKK, etc.) drove black voting to essentially zero across the south. This continued to 1960, with the South being 100% white Democratic...a vital part of the Democrats dominating Southern strategy.

c) That all changed the day LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and blacks were allowed to vote again for the first time in 75 years. The cost of doing the right thing was heavy for the Democratic Party. The white voters simply changed parties and the Republican party became the anti-black party across the south. We saw it immediately with George Wallace's racist campaign in 1968. We saw one abberation with Jimmy Carter. But since then, the margins for the Republicans have been staggering across the deep south.

Don't believe me? Ask me how a feel about Sam Nunn not being electable as a Democrat in Georgia. Ask me about the kick in the groin of seeing Max Cleland booted out of the Senate: his only sin? Being a Democrat.

I don't like it. I wish it weren't true. I firmly believe that the white suburban race-baiting strategy will be the undoing of the Republic Party as they fail to adapt to 21st century Demographics (see the hatred being expressed towards Latino/a voters). But, it's reality.

This site allows you to see the electoral college breakdown for every election back to 1789:

http://www.270towin.com/

Read it and weep.

I think that KY, TN, NC, SC, GA, MS, AL, LA, TX should NOT be given any attention

Yep. The only asterisk might be Louisiana. I don't think anyone really knows what the demographics of the state are right now.

It's really hard to talk general election strategy with the Republic Party nominee so up in the air. Each of their candidates has different dynamics. For example, Guiliani puts some purple states in play, but has the evangelical machine sitting on its hands. Thompson fires up the base, but shoves the Republicans deep into their southern corner.

Plus, Iraq is a trump card issue. There are heavy military districts that will vote for the Devil if they think she'll bring their sons and daughters, husbands, and wives home from Iraq.

I think Clinton has the best shot at any pickup opportunities in the South. Polls have shown there is the potential she could do well in FL, KY, WV, TX, and others states as the nominee. One poll even showed her at 44% in AL. I don't see any Southern states where Obama or Edwards would potentially be competitive.