Posted on 06/12/2005 4:28:41 PM PDT by kabar
Since the 2004 elections, many have been debating "why Kerry lost," and more broadly "why the Democrats have been losing ground." Much of the debate has focused on the never-ending seesaw of "swing voters vs. base voters," or cultural/religious/"What's the Matter with Kansas?" issues, even George Lakoff-type "reframing" of key concepts and themes.
But what has been completely missing from the conversation is the fact that even when the Democrats win more votes, they don't necessarily win more seats. That's true in the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, and the Electoral College. That's because there is a structural disadvantage for Democrats resulting from regional partisan demographics in red versus blue America that now are strongly embedded into our fundamental electoral institutions. This unfair structural disadvantage makes it more difficult for Democrats to win than Republicans. It's like having a foot race in which one side begins 10 meters in front of the other, election after election.
Yet practically no one is talking about it. Even though this bias undercuts any attempts by liberals and Democrats to gain control over the government, and will continue to do so for years to come, no matter how many volunteers Democrats mobilize or how much money they raise, these sorts of structural barriers are being ignored.
(Excerpt) Read more at motherjones.com ...
It appears the author really hates the way our federal government is put together.
Its just not fair. Republicans get more votes in areas they already control. And democrats are concentrated like rats in places where they don't need so many votes.
It's never about them and their ideas.
Sore losers and they can't figure out why. I'll tell you why, they are out of touch with reality.
One of these days I'm certain, the proper rearranging of the deck chairs will keep the Titanic from sinking........
/sarc
why isn't this same story true since 2000 when W beat Gore?
The moron who writes this article alleges that there is an anti-urban bias, which makes absolutely no sense at all. In the electoral college, their urban areas give them California, with 55 votes, New York, with close to 30, and most of New England, which totals a pretty high sum right there. It's their own fault for not connecting with the voters of non-urban America why the Democrats continue to lose.
Democrats run on a platform that only works with those who they can trick through their demagoguery- for instance, minorities in urban areas and the idealistic naive youth. Anyone who raises a family, has responsibility, or understands the issues instead of the emotions behind politics tends to vote Republican, and that's why the Democrats lose.
It's their policies, not some "anti-urban bias" in our election system that accounts for Democratic failure. I'm also curious as to where all this "anti-urban bias" whining from the Democratic left was back prior to the 1990s GOP takeover of Congress, when Democrats dominated Congress. This writer is just an opportunistic whiner.
Democrats murder their babies in vast numbers, ultimately depleting the population of replacement democrats since 1973. Republicans tend not to murder their children, having a larger future population of Republicans.
Proof? Bush carried 24 of the 25 states with the highest fertility. Kerry carried 15 of the 16 states with the lowest fertility.
The democrats recognize this. They dominate and corrupt the schools and the media to indoctrinate children.
These hypocrites whine about the Electoral College when Gore lost and then in the same breath they talk about Kerry only losing the Presidency by 100,000+ votes in Ohio which was because of the very same Electoral College!!!
Since they can't win under the current rules, they want to change the rules instead of changing their policies and positions to become electable under the current rules.
They are losing because 150 years of progressivism have led to a dead end, and they have nothing viable with which to replace it.
After 150 years, they cannot point to any country where progressivism has not led to economic failure, political corruption, and social disintegration. Where it has been tried a little, it has failed a little. Where it has been tried a lot, it has failed a lot. When it has been iimplemented in totality, it has failed totally.
The mythical "third way" has proven to be an illusion.
They are losing elections because they have nothing to offer, and are trapped forever in their glory days of the early and mid-20th century.
Where do they think future voters come from?
Presidential power is in the midwest, plain states, and the south.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.