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.
Nah, If the Dems nominated a good old Southern democrat, they probably would have won this election. DD
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).
Not this year. Not unless he enthusiastically approved a homophobic, bigoted amendment to the Constitution.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
