Democratic Party: A National Party No More

[r35352]

The last two elections have shown that the Democratic Party is no longer a national party but a regional party. It is basically a Northeastern and West Coast Party that can only compete and can win barely (just barely) by a thread in the Great Lakes Midwest. It is still possible to win as a regional party but it is extremely difficult to do so.

The Solid South (Old Confederacy minus Florida) and Solid Great Plains (Nebraska, Oklahoma, Dakotas, Montana, etc) are now firmly Republican and vote nearly 3 to 2 Republican. But this solid block represents a whopping 211 electoral votes!

Now the Democratic stronghold of the Northeast (minus NH) and West Coast (CA, WA) represents 183 electoral votes. These are not nearly as solidly Democratic as the Solid South and Great Plains are Republicans but some (like NY and CA, especially DC) are solid enough.

This means, though, that the Democratic Party is spotting the Republican Party 211-183=28 electoral votes from the very start which is quite huge. Republicans only need to win 40% of the remaining electoral votes while Democrats need to win 60% leaving much less breathing space for Democratic campaigns.

The trend will like continue far into the future. All that the GOP needs to do is make slight inroads into the Great Lakes. If they do so, then then the Democratic Party will be completely marginalized and destroyed as a political force. It is a party on the brink and on the verge of destruction.

[DaDakota]

Nah,

If the Dems nominated a good old Southern democrat, they probably would have won this election.

:)

DD

[GreenVegan76]

Fifty-six million Americans would disagree.

[Deckard]

Originally posted by DaDakota
Nah,

If the Dems nominated a good old Southern democrat, they probably would have won this election.

:)

DD
What he said.



Keep D&D Civil!!

[halfbreed]

Not trying to be confrontational, but its funny how when Bush lost, Democrats didn't mention that 49 % of voters didn't vote for Gore, they only cared about the majority, saying that the country had spoken. Now that they lost, they stress the importance of the minority vote (albeit a large minority).

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by DaDakota
Nah,

If the Dems nominated a good old Southern democrat, they probably would have won this election.

:)

DD

Not this year. Not unless he enthusiastically approved a homophobic, bigoted amendment to the Constitution.

[GreenVegan76]

2000:

51% to 49%, Gore

2004:

51% to 49%, Bush

[DaDakota]

Originally posted by GreenVegan76
2000:

51% to 49%, Gore

2004:

51% to 49%, Bush

Yep, a Southern democrat....Clinton, LBJ, Carter...etc..etc..etc...

DD

[Trader_Jorge]

Originally posted by GreenVegan76
2000:

51% to 49%, Gore

2004:

51% to 49%, Bush

What statistics are those??

2000:
Gore: 48.38%
Bush: 47.87%

2004:
Bush: 51%
Kerry: 48%

[GreenVegan76]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
What statistics are those??

2000:
Gore: 48.38%
Bush: 47.87%

2004:
Bush: 51%
Kerry: 48%

My mistake. I stand corrected.

[Saint Louis]

I only thought Kerry had a slim chance of winning mainly because he is a New England democrat. I though it would be nearly impossible for Kerry to win anything more then Gore did. Dukakis was another no shot of winning northeastern Dem. The Dems need to stop picking candiates from the Northeast and look to the South, West or Midwest for future candidates.

[Sishir Chang]

I think regional candidates might not be as important as before. Kerry from Massachusetts still did very well when compared to Dukakis also from Massachuesetts. In the end he still came within a 150K votes from winning the Presidency and only lost by 3% points the popular vote. This was only a landslide in comparison to 2000.

I think Kerry showed that a Northerner Democrat can be very competitive and think it has more to do with the person and the issues rather than where they're from.

[nyquil82]

Originally posted by Saint Louis
I only thought Kerry had a slim chance of winning mainly because he is a New England democrat. I though it would be nearly impossible for Kerry to win anything more then Gore did. Dukakis was another no shot of winning northeastern Dem. The Dems need to stop picking candiates from the Northeast and look to the South, West or Midwest for future candidates.

agreed, when the dems picked Kerry, they pretty much gave it to Bush. In an election where they have to try to win and beat a very strong incumbent, they aren't going to get much out of a guy from a very blue state unless they are very high profile. What they needed to do was get a strong Dem out of a possible swing state with neighboring important states. They will always pocket NY, CA, NJ, MA, their priority is getting those middle states.

edit rephrase: I won't say they gave it away, more like they made it a more difficult uphill climb.

[waran007]

Originally posted by Saint Louis
I only thought Kerry had a slim chance of winning mainly because he is a New England democrat. I though it would be nearly impossible for Kerry to win anything more then Gore did. Dukakis was another no shot of winning northeastern Dem. The Dems need to stop picking candiates from the Northeast and look to the South, West or Midwest for future candidates.


I agree, but it's also disheartening that all Northeastern/Pacific democrats are essentially now lame duck presidential candidates due to the makeup of our nation. Democrats have to nominate someone who can masquerade as a dixiecrat to get into office before he can then promote their agenda? There is definitely a distinct regionalist sentiment in our country today in on both sides of the equation.

[RocketMan Tex]

The ONLY way the Democrats can win the White House is by running a candidate that runs as a centrist, and is from either the South or the Sun Belt.

If they would have nominated a candidate like that, I am convinced they would have won this election. The only candidates that came anywhere close to this description were John Edwards and Wesley Clark, and each of those had their own unique downsides.

By selecting a liberal-leaning Senator from the Northeast, the Democrats sealed their fate.

[ArtV]

I read an exit poll that said that the highest category (22%) of the people thought morals was the most important thing in choosing a candidate - more important than the war or terrorism (18%). People are becoming more conscious of these issues than the have in the past. I'd say that a lot of people don't vote for the Democratic Party because of it's stance on abortion and gay marriages. Personally, my ideal party would be pro-life, pro-man and woman marriage, pro-gun control, pro-peace, pro-helping the poor who want to work. The Democrats are all of them but those 2. I think a majority of the people can live with the current laws, though they prefer some changes, but I don't think the majority want abortion or gay marriages. I think when you look at the states, you'll see that the large majority of states in the middle voted for Bush - and Bush was ripe for losing. The "blue" states were on the west coast and NE coast - neither area known for their high morals - no offense, there are immoral people all over and moral people all over, but as a majority rule.

IMO, those 2 issues keep the majority of people from voting for the Democratic Party. They are "protecting" the minority, but alienating the majority - hence the slip that's been going on for some time.

[Chance]

Without resorting to rhetoric...the problem I see with the Democratic Party is the leadership has forget the base. They have catered to the lobbyists and are pushing the agenda of groups that are frankly alienated from the base.

I know you can say the same thing about the Republicans but we're not talking about them. I think a more centered democrat would have faired much better than Kerry.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by ArtV
I think a majority of the people can live with the current laws, though they prefer some changes, but I don't think the majority want abortion or gay marriages.

I haven't seen recent polling data but I recall that most polls have shown a majority of Americans are still in favor abortion. The results from the anti-Gay marriage ammendments speak for themselves.

[ArtV]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
I haven't seen recent polling data but I recall that most polls have shown a majority of Americans are still in favor abortion. The results from the anti-Gay marriage ammendments speak for themselves.

So why do the Democrats keep losing more seats in the House and Congress as well as the White House? I mean, the Republicans haven't been doing such a bang up job that the keep gaining votes.

[giddyup]

My liberal friend at lunch today suggested our NC Governor Mike Easley. He beat his Republican opponent by 8-10 points in a state that went heavy for Bush and also voted a Republican, Richard Burr, to take John Edwards' seat.

I don't think so. He's not dynamic or charismatic. He doesn't like to campaign. He's more of a civil servant than a politician.

[JayZ750]

Originally posted by r35352
The last two elections have shown that the Democratic Party is no longer a national party but a regional party. It is basically a Northeastern and West Coast Party that can only compete and can win barely (just barely) by a thread in the Great Lakes Midwest. It is still possible to win as a regional party but it is extremely difficult to do so.

The Solid South (Old Confederacy minus Florida) and Solid Great Plains (Nebraska, Oklahoma, Dakotas, Montana, etc) are now firmly Republican and vote nearly 3 to 2 Republican. But this solid block represents a whopping 211 electoral votes!

Now the Democratic stronghold of the Northeast (minus NH) and West Coast (CA, WA) represents 183 electoral votes. These are not nearly as solidly Democratic as the Solid South and Great Plains are Republicans but some (like NY and CA, especially DC) are solid enough.

This means, though, that the Democratic Party is spotting the Republican Party 211-183=28 electoral votes from the very start which is quite huge. Republicans only need to win 40% of the remaining electoral votes while Democrats need to win 60% leaving much less breathing space for Democratic campaigns.

The trend will like continue far into the future. All that the GOP needs to do is make slight inroads into the Great Lakes. If they do so, then then the Democratic Party will be completely marginalized and destroyed as a political force. It is a party on the brink and on the verge of destruction.

You answered your questions yourself. Both parties are extremely regional. If Ohio went to the Democrat, which it almost did, then they would have one. So we're talking about a one state swing.

Both parties need to do a better job of representing people from differing regions.

A strong third party would be nice, imo.

[Hippieloser]

Originally posted by nyquil82
I won't say they gave it away, more like they made it a more difficult uphill climb.

No, they did give it away. Not only was Kerry from stereotypical Liberal-land, he was also chosen in part because of his military service. Well, while I happen to believe that protesting a war after you've served in it is perfectly reasonable, especially a war as pointless as Vietnam, you'd be a total fool to believe that his protest wouldn't COMPLETELY negate the sway his service might have had on swing voters. To the segment of Americans who might be attracted by a candidate's service, the military is a sacred institution; any criticism of it is seen as an attack. What an incredibly stupid miscalcuation on the party's part that was.

To top it all off, Kerry is ugly. He's just a gangly, ugly dude. It shouldn't matter, of course, but the more attractive candidate ALWAYS wins. Let's not get into his laughable lack of charisma. I mean, if you can't muster more charisma than George freakin' Bush, you've got no business running against him or anyone else. This is the PRESIDENCY, not a senate race.

Kerry was a pathetic attempt at a candidate.

[Chance]

Just out of curiosity...If EVERY state was to issue it's electoral votes in proportion to their pop vote what would the electoral board have looked like?

[Supermac34]

Originally posted by Chance
Just out of curiosity...If EVERY state was to issue it's electoral votes in proportion to their pop vote what would the electoral board have looked like?

That might be a good idea. You still keep the state's right in an election, but you don't disenfranchise entire regions of certain states.

You would have to have ALL the states do it though.

[solid]

Originally posted by ArtV
I read an exit poll that said that the highest category (22%) of the people thought morals was the most important thing in choosing a candidate -

IMO, those 2 issues keep the majority of people from voting for the Democratic Party. They are "protecting" the minority, but alienating the majority - hence the slip that's been going on for some time.

You are on target. As a southern dem, I believe my party is on the wrong side of the culture war, too alligned with issues associated with the radical left. And they don't learn from their mistakes, ie. touting Hillary Clinton as the next candidate in the media today. She is clearly an ideological liberal and the most polarizing political figure in the US. Brillant! :rolleyes:

[Zac D]

Originally posted by Supermac34
That might be a good idea. You still keep the state's right in an election, but you don't disenfranchise entire regions of certain states.

You would have to have ALL the states do it though.

This would ensure Republican victories in every national election until the end of time.

[Oski2005]

Originally posted by Chance
Just out of curiosity...If EVERY state was to issue it's electoral votes in proportion to their pop vote what would the electoral board have looked like?


It would probably come out to about the same.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by ArtV
So why do the Democrats keep losing more seats in the House and Congress as well as the White House? I mean, the Republicans haven't been doing such a bang up job that the keep gaining votes.

Because abortion isn't the only issue. If you look at the parties there are more pro-choice Republicans like Schwarzenegger and Giuliani than there are pro-choice Democrats. The Republican party as it currently is a coalition between traditional fiscal conservatives, people big on defense and social conservatives. IMO without the War on Terror this coalition would completely fracture in a schism between the Schwarzeneggers and Christian conservatives.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by Hippieloser

Kerry was a pathetic attempt at a candidate.

You're falling into the trap of treating this as a landslide which it in no way was. Kerry certainly had his minus but he was also faced with the task of unseating an incumbent President during wartime he very well might've suceeded if just a few small things broke his way.

From you previous posts I get a sense of where your politics are and while it might seem obvious to you, and to me, how many failings Bush had there were many out there who thought he was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Given an already adulant base, a war going on, a general unease and the incumbancy GW Bush already had a lot of advantages but Kerry still made it very close.

If Kerry had truly been the pathetic candidate this race wouldn't have been close in the electoral college because every swing state and some of the Dem base like CA and Illinois would've gone Red while their would've been at least a 10% difference in the popular vote.

Its only because of 2000 that people act like this was a blowout when forgetting what '88 and 84 and even 96 were like.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
i than there are pro-choice Democrats.

Correction:

I meant to say "Anti-Abortion Democrats"

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by Oski2005
It would probably come out to about the same.

That's hard to say given that many congressional districts in urban and suburban areas went Kerry's way in red states like CO, AZ and MO. At the same time many rural districts went Bush's way in states like MN and WI. I think things still would've been close but without a breakdown state by state I can't say for sure. My own feeling is that with proportionate electorates though this race might've been very different.