The South and Midwest are booming, and if Democrats hope to build a plan to win elections not just in 2008, but in 2012, 2016, 2020, and onward into the future, they're going to need to forge a relationship with the people who live there. Over the next 25 years, the population of the South alone will grown by some 40 million people, increasing its portion of the U.S. population from 32 to 40%. Think about that: just under half of the American people will be living in the 13 states South of the Mason-Dixon line.

And it's already begun. The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the changes of the 2000 census, when the South and Midwest gained multiple Congressional seats in Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Colorado, North Carolina, and Nevada. George W. Bush won all of them.

The 8% increase over the next 25 years is significant not just for population totals or Congressional seats. You know what else will be proportionately adjusted? Electoral votes. 8% of 538 is 43. That's a number that should concern Democrats. The 2004 election was decided by just 35 electoral votes. In 2000, the margin was even smaller.

The Democratic strategies over the past two presidential contests were essentially the same: count on the South and Midwest going Republican. Count on the West, North, and New England going Democrat. Then, pour all the money in the world into Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, effectively forcing the GOP to do the same. The winner of two of those three states takes the ultimate prize. The problem is, that plan hasn't worked too well for Democrats. In 2004, Democrats lost Florida and Ohio. In 2000, Democrats lost...Florida and Ohio. And although they won Pennsylvania both times, the margin of Democratic victory there has shrunk considerably and consistently over the years, taking the Keystone State from a reliable blue to a tossup purple. If things continue to go as they have, Democrats won't win there either.

And that's not the only problem with the current Democratic approach. Let's say Democrats do manage to win two of the three battleground states. If Republicans pull a surprise and pull a few upsets in states like New Jersey (which is razor thin as it is), they may still end up with fewer electoral votes than the Republican candidate.

Something has got to give. The future of the Democrats will depend on the ability to win in the South. That means Democratic voters are going to have to look at the two candidates of 2008- Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton- and decide not just who will be competitive in the typical battleground states, but who will be able to challenge Republicans on their own turf, forcing them to spread themselves so thin that vulnerabilities begin to pop up like holes in a cheap sweater.

And judging from the way the Democratic primary has gone, Barack Obama is that candidate. I'll give it to her, Hillary Clinton may pose a significant chance to win the State of Arkansas, where she was First Lady for upwards of a decade. But beyond that, it's doubtful. Barack Obama has dealt her crushing blows in states like Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and South Carolina. And consider that new swing states like Virginia- which in the past four years has elected a Democratic Senator, a second straight Democratic governor, and is about to elect another Democratic Senator- gave Obama an overwhelming majority.

The reason is that not only has Obama found a way to connect with rank-and-file voters in these areas who have been long abandoned by the Democratic Party, but also that he's invigorated a new base of African American voters whose turnout prior to today had traditionally been sparse. This resurgence of American voters has potentially put the South back on the map for Democrats in a way that it hasn't been since Lyndon Johnson.

Hillary Clinton has demonstrated her ability to be competitive in some of the reliable Democratic strongholds like California and New York, but has failed to open new electoral markets in the way that Obama has. The fact is, Obama will win most- if not all- of the states that Clinton has secured for herself in the General Election. That's not to say that Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida won't still be important states. But with the state demographics and the regional concerns, the Democratic Party will continue to be competitive there. What Democrats need is a candidate who can possibly attract a little insurance by threatening the GOP not just where there expecting it, but in places they take for granted as well.

Plus, the relationship that Democrats begin to build in the South by not only campaigning there, but by truly addressing the concerns of the hard working Americans there is likely to last far beyond 2008.

As the South begins to rise again, the Democrats need to be there with them. And if the primaries have told us anything, it's that Barack Obama is the candidate most fit to take the lead.

...

Thanks to Steve Jarding and Dave "Mudcat" Sanders for some of the facts and figures. Their book, Foxes in the Henhouse is a must-read for anyone who wants to know more about the Democrats' future (and past) in America's Heartland.

Read jwilkes’s Last Article: Beau Biden Not Getting the Prince Harry Treatment