Why the Democrats Will Keep Losing

Motnher Jones ^ | June 10, 2005 | Steven Hill

[kabar]

Some more Democrat rationalization on why they are losing elections.

[mainepatsfan]

It appears the author really hates the way our federal government is put together.

[stm]

This whole article could be reduced to 8 words:

"Americans don't buy their line of BS anymore"

[CT]

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.

[Paul Atreides]

This unfair structural disadvantage makes it more difficult for Democrats to win than Republicans.

It's never about them and their ideas.

[marblehead17]

Sore losers and they can't figure out why. I'll tell you why, they are out of touch with reality.

[federal]

One of these days I'm certain, the proper rearranging of the deck chairs will keep the Titanic from sinking........

/sarc

[johnandrhonda]

"Since the 2004 elections, "...

why isn't this same story true since 2000 when W beat Gore?

[mainepatsfan]

I guess they'd much rather have a parliamentary system.

[SunnyD1182]

This "rationalization" is hardly rational.

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.

[FormerACLUmember]

I am a strong advocate of the so-called "Roe Effect" (from Roe v. Wade) as an explanation.

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.

[mainepatsfan]

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!!!

[NeoCaveman]

It's hard to hold out much hope for the Democratic Party as long as it remains railroaded by structural biases built-in to our basic electoral institutions of which they appear to be blissfully unaware.

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.

[Maceman]

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.

[Texas Eagle]

I didn't click on the MoJo link because I don't want to start getting a bunch of homo-erotic porn spam. Does the recognize acknowledge the fact that RATS have been aborting millions of potential RAT voters over the last 3 decades while at the same time engaging in sexual practices that inhibit pregnancy?

Where do they think future voters come from?

[bill1952]

Nah, those pesky voters would still get in the way.

They need a good old fashioned totalitarian Socialist system.

[NewMediaFan]

too bad for the dems...

[varyouga]

To be fair, I do think that the current system favors less populated states because of the minimum 3 votes so someone could lose the popular vote but win the election.

I am in favor of having a single nationwide election decided by the popular vote. It will take some time to make it fully secure but it can be done.

[rdb3]

Yet another reason why Hitlary! makes me yawn. It's not in the cards for her in '08. The Presidential game has shifted with the power being in "flyover country" instead of the coasts. Let her take Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, California, Oregon, and Washington State. It won't get her into the White House.

Presidential power is in the midwest, plain states, and the south.

[Gritty]

"Things would be so much easier for Liberals if everyone would just let the Politburo run things!" - Mother Jones