how long will it take for the democrats to match the republicans in terms of (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 29, 2024, 12:19:23 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  how long will it take for the democrats to match the republicans in terms of (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: how long will it take for the democrats to match the republicans in terms of  (Read 4383 times)
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


« on: May 05, 2011, 02:41:00 PM »

it seems that in the new deal era, turnout was never an issue, and it helped FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson to victory. During the 1933-1969 era, the democratic party averaged about 260 seats in the house

"We lost the south for at least a generation". That quote is why the Dems have had trouble getting us young voters and minorities to vote.

That generation ended a while ago, and it wasn't entirely true, as Democratic dominance of the South endured for a while at the state/local level.

Nancy Pelosi succeeded where Lyndon Johnson failed. The Democrats have lost the South for another generation.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2011, 10:01:52 PM »
« Edited: May 05, 2011, 10:06:31 PM by krazen1211 »

what does Pelosi have to do with losing the south. Weren't most of the congressional losses fairly distributed throughout the country krazen?

Not really. In the Northeast, the Great Lakes, and the Plains areas, the GOP mostly just won back the same seats they held 4 years ago, along with a couple flukes like PA-11. There weren't too many new seats, and there was proof that some seats like CT-05 were permanently gone.

It's in the South, and areas bordering the South, that the Democrats lost seats that they've held for 100 years. Guys like Spratt and Boucher were once considered invincible.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2011, 10:45:15 AM »

That's like saying four years ago that its because of Dennis Hastert that the republicans were killed in the midwest and northeast.

"Its in the northeast, and the eastern midwest, that the republicans lost seats that they've held for 100 years. Someone like Jim Leach or Nancy Johnson were once considered invincible"

Tom Delay, actually, but its mostly true. The GOP isn't really competitive in IA-2 anymore.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2011, 09:36:46 AM »

Less people care about Pelosi than Republicans might think, especially know that she's the Minority Leader. You couldn't find five random people in public that even know who she is.

That wasn't the conclusion of one of the other former invincibles, Allen Boyd, who dropped from 62% in 2004 (and was unopposed basically in 2006/2008) to getting a meager 41%.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 12 queries.