Presidential politics and tribalism

[erudito]

In a recent post, I noted that the Democrats have not won a Presidential election with a Northern liberal as their candidate since FDR died, apart from JFK in 1960. With that sole exception, all the successful Democratic Presidential candidates since the death of FDR have been Southerners-Truman (Missouri) 1948, Johnson (Texas) 1964, Carter (

Comments

[etfb]

I read somewhere that the 1960 Kennedy/Nixon election was as close as the 2000 Bush/Gore one, so your theory may be more complicated than necessary. My theory is that Americans associate northern politicians with dishonesty, and southern ones with corruption, and corruption has never been a particular liability for presidential candidates...

Theories

[erudito]

If one does not actually bother with evidence, theorising is real easy.

Re: Theories

[etfb]

Yes, well... snark aside (only for a moment, I promise) -- it's worth checking up on the details behind the election wins before you theorise, since in this case it may be that your one and only exception (the one that's proving the rule) is a matter of electoral college shenanigans, and therefore doesn't have the same influence.

Me, I think you can't go past our old friend coincidence, especially when comparing two beasts as utterly dissimilar and unrelated as Kennedy's Democrats and Obama's Democrats. But that's just me.

Re: Theories

[erudito]

But the fact that JFK only won so narrowly is surely the point. He provides the only example of a Northern liberal winning and was such a narrow victory. So the best Nothern liberal effort came from someone young, charismatic and steeped in a form of tribal politics.

Yes, politics has changed a lot, but Northern liberals losing is a pattern that has just kept marching on. So if Obama wants to win, he had better not repeat the losing patterns, surely.

[jordan179]

I read somewhere that the 1960 Kennedy/Nixon election was as close as the 2000 Bush/Gore one ...

To the point that if Nixon had challenged the Illinois returns (which were heavily ballot-stuffed) he would have won the Presidency in 1960. This might have been a good thing for America, as he almost certainly wouldn't have fumbled the Bay of Pigs and (as a Republican) would almost certainly have signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (I'm assuming that it is improbable he would have been assassinated, since butterfly effects would have made it unlikely for Oswald to have gotten him).

Not quite true

[erudito]

Illinois alone would not have been enough to give Nixon an Electoral College majority.

[enrobso]

Gosh! I can't wait to read next week's installment of your analysis of what's important in a Presidential candidate.

I'm having to ignore the comments of my pet goldfish who keeps suggesting that your priorities have changed over time though.