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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
