John Maggs takes an in-depth look at Democratic prospects in Virginia and the Mountain West in his National Journal Cover Story. Maggs provides insightful demographic and political profiles of AZ, NV, CO and NM, as well as VA, and discusses key regional issues enroute to his conclusion, which will gladden the spirits of Dems: “the electoral map is looking bluer than it has in more than a decade.”

If there is no close U.S. Senate race in your state next year, read Nicholas Beaudrot’s piece at Ezra Klein’s blog and act accordingly. Beaudrot sees increasing the Democrat’s razor-thin majority a priority second only to winning the White House. It’s a good list, subject. of course to changes, in the months ahead. But remember, as the folks at Emily’s List say, “Early Money Is Like Yeast,” so your early contribution to any of these candidates is especially welcome now. The comments following Beaudrot’s post are helpful in making a decision as well.

Today’s edition of CQPolitics has a sobering article entitled “CQ Ratings Show South Remains GOP Firewall Against House Election Disaster.” According to the staff-written post, “Democrats’ opportunities for more Southern gains in 2008 are very limited.” The CQ study sees NC-8 and FL-13 being the Dems’ best shot at House pick-ups, with slim pickings beyond those two seats and Dems struggling to hold several of their southern seats.
Puzzling that Dems can’t do better in Southern House races, especially considering that Democrats currently hold majorities of both houses of the state legislatures in LA, MS, AL, AR, NC and WV, and one House each in TN and KY. One possible explanation: As Ed Kilgore has pointed out, “nearly half the region’s House seats are in three super-gerrymandered states, Texas, Florida and Georgia.”

Bill Berkowitz has a post up at Media Transparency that should be of interest to Democrats seeking insights about winning Catholic votes. Noting that Dems reversed a trend of a quarter-century duration in winning over Catholic voters 55-45 percent in 2006, according to NEP data, Berkowitz reveals some of the inside history behind the “Catholic voter migration” (including the scandal involving the GOP’s point man for Catholic support) and he discusses current strategies being deployed by both parties to secure Catholic support.

Continuing on with our (unplanned) theme on what’s eating southern voters, we refer you to Paul Krugman’s post “Bubba Isn’t Who You Think” at his new NYT blog. Krugman has an important addendum to the op-ed on race in southern voting he published in yesterday’s Grey Lady. Says Krugman:

In fact, if you look at voting behavior, low-income whites in the South are not very different from low-income whites in the rest of the country… It’s relatively high-income Southern whites who are very, very Republican.
…Income levels seem to matter much more for voting in the South. Contrary to what you may have read, the old-fashioned notion that rich people vote Republican, while poorer people vote Democratic, is as true as ever – in fact, more true than it was a generation ago. But in rich states like New Jersey or Connecticut, the relationship is weak; even the very well off tend to be only slightly more Republican than working-class voters. In the poorer South, however, the relationship is very strong indeed.

An important distinction, and Krugman links to statistical sources to prove his point. More and more, it appears that Dems can benefit from better understanding the diversity of the South, instead of dismissing it as hopeless territory.

Chris Bowers opens a MyDD discussion on how much policy actually matters as a factor in selecting a candidate. Noting that the top-polling Democratic presidential candidates advocate strikingly similar policies on health care, energy/global warming and Iraq withdrawal, Bowers argues that “something other than policy proposals are the driving force behind the candidate preferences of the majority of people who participate in Dailykos straw polls.” Granted, that’s a narrow universe, but perhaps it could be extended to high information voters as a broader group. Bowers cites a list of 7 other factors, including electabiilty, cultural identity and partisanship. Bowers asks his readers “do you base your vote mainly on policy distinctions between candidates, or mainly on other, non-policy oriented factors?” and he gets an interesting earful in the comments that follow.
Of course issues do matter quite a lot to many voters, and E. J. Dionne’s WaPo column makes the case that expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program is the strongest issue for Democrats looking to win broad pubic support.

Dems interested in winning southern votes should take note of Tom Baxter’s article in the Southern Political Report, “For an overweight, underinsured South, the health care debate matters.” Baxter links to Kaiser Family Foundation statistics indicating that the south is the region most damaged by the lack of a responsive health care system, and adds:

…The South is the epicenter of the nation’s health care problems, with the highest rates of chronic ailments like diabetes and heart disease, the most uninsured and the highest percentage of state populations on Medicaid. A good deal of polling also indicates voters here care deeply about the issue.

What makes health care such a cutting edge issue for southern Democrats, Baxter suggests, is the thinness of GOP candidates’ health care ‘reform’ ideas. Baxter quotes Jonathan Oberlander, associate professor of social medicine and health policy and administration at UNC-Chapel Hill. “If you looked at the health care plans on the Republican side, you really wouldn’t have much to write about.”
Baxter doesn’t present polling data to bolster the case, but it nonetheless looks like a promising issue for Dems wanting to make inroads among southern voters.

Kos has a nice little upper for Dems bummed out by the Petraeus ad vote. He points out that eight of the League of Conservation Voters’ “dirty dozen” pollution supporters got whipped in the last election. Two of the four survivors were the only Dems on the list, and both GOP survivors were elected “by a sliver.” May ’08 bring even better news for the defenders of Mother Earth.

Sue Sturgis of Facing South flags one of the better strategy ideas being kicked around in her post “Help Bring a Presidential Debate to New Orleans.” It’s a simple idea, and Democrats have everything to gain by debating in the Big Easy. They can showcase their specific policies for revitalizing the Gulf Coast, in very stark contrast to the GOP candidates’ vague, insubstantial boilerplate. It’s also a great way for Dems to show the South they care about the region’s future.
The campaign for a Big Easy Debate is being sponsored by “Women of the Storm,” a coalition of Louisiana women whose lives were affected by Hurricane Katrina and Rita. The group is working with Dillard, Loyola, Tulane and Xavier universities to persuade the Commission on Presidential Debates to hold a presidential debate at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center in New Orleans. The proposed New Orleans debate has been endorsed by the Washington Post, New York Times, New Orleans Times-Picayune and the six U.S. Senators running for president.
Friends of New Orleans, which also works to support rebuilding the Gulf Coast, is conducting an e-mail campaign supporting the debate on its website. Sending a message takes about 30 seconds.

Thomas F. Schaller has a provocatively titled Salon post “So Long White Boy,” in which he all but urges Democrats to write off the white male voter, or as the article subtitle asks “Could 2008 be the year that Democrats finally admit an old sweetheart is never coming back, and stop pandering to the white male voter?” Schaller trots out some interesting numbers to bolster his argument, including:

In 2004, according to New York Times exit polls, Democrat Kerry won 38 percent of the total white male vote, confirming a familiar pattern. Kerry’s share was basically the same that every Democratic presidential candidate has received since Michael Dukakis. In the four elections between 1988 and 2000, in fact, using New York Times exit poll results, the Democratic nominee won 36 percent, 37 percent, 38 percent and 36 percent, respectively, of votes cast by white men. Because white men cast between 33 and 36 percent of all votes in 2004, that means a mere 12 to 13 percentage points of Kerry’s 48 percent nationally came from white men — about one vote in four. Nevertheless, and despite running against an incumbent in the first post-Sept. 11 presidential election, Kerry still came within one state of winning the Electoral College. Four years earlier, Al Gore also came within one state of reaching the magical 270 electors, and actually won the popular vote nationally — while, like Kerry, receiving only about one-fourth of his support from white men.

Schaller concedes that Dems are still “competitive” among white women voters and that unionized white male voters are still pro-Democratic. He compares demographic trends and voting patterns for white male and African American voters and concludes:

Democrats are able to neutralize their white male voter problem with votes from African-Americans — even though the latter group is only about one-third the size of the former….today, the black vote fully compensates for the Democrats’ deficit among white men.

Schaller doesn’t say anything about what possible effect discontent over the Iraq war, GOP scandals or other issues may have on white male votes in ’08. And Democratic presidential candidates may be less eager than he to write off one out of four of their voters. But it’s an important article in terms of political strategy, and one which merits the attention of Dems concerned about the Party’s future.