Why are dems so out of touch with half of Americas states?

[MissCatholic]

Below is a list of states that nationally democrats have a serious problem. We have governors and senators from these states. But why is it so difficult to find a nomination for president. any ideas. very speicific. How can this be changed. 140 evs go straight away every election. what is it?

Utah
Wyoming
Alaska
Idaho
Mississippi
Alabama
Georgia
South Carolina
North Carolina
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Nebraska
Montana
South Dakota
North Dakota
Indiana

[opebo]

Because we're in touch with the other states.  Why are the Republicans so out of touch with the West Coast and the Northeast?

[MissCatholic]

I agree with you on that point. But i think its money.

I dont think the dems are organised in these states. I thought it was a huge mistake to put the convention in Massaschusetts and to elect a nominee from Massachusetts.

But we do have a problem. South Dakota was a state that should have been invested in heavily, once we had the two senators. Yes its only 3 votes, but we cant give them up. Just because we have California in the bag.

Montana is not a 60-40 state. Montana has done alot of liberal things but they do nothing.

If you go on websites for other states, the dems are so disorganised. the news is like three months ago. while republicans get an easy shot and easy votes. we ahve to do something.

We cant allow immigration to crush our base. we have to compete in other states.

[jacob_101]

Doesn't immigration help your base since most of them vote democratic?  Or do you mean migration from Northern states to southern states?

[TheresNoMoney]

Number one, Democrats need to start campaigning in some of those states. Number two, they need the right candidate. John Kerry was not the right candidate.

The Democrats are definitely not "out of touch", but they need to deliver the message better. People in these states fall for the Republican smear machine because we won't do a good enough job of battling back and playing offense.

[Rob]

Because we're in touch with the other states.  Why are the Republicans so out of touch with the West Coast and the Northeast?

Yes, the GOP is so out of touch here on the West Coast that Bush got 46 percent in Washington, 44 percent in California, and 47 percent in Oregon. And these states hate the Republicans so much that Bush won a majority of counties in all three.

Stop oversimplifying.

[J.R. Brown]

I agree with you on that point. But i think its money.

I dont think the dems are organised in these states. I thought it was a huge mistake to put the convention in Massaschusetts and to elect a nominee from Massachusetts.

But we do have a problem. South Dakota was a state that should have been invested in heavily, once we had the two senators. Yes its only 3 votes, but we cant give them up. Just because we have California in the bag.

Montana is not a 60-40 state. Montana has done alot of liberal things but they do nothing.

If you go on websites for other states, the dems are so disorganised. the news is like three months ago. while republicans get an easy shot and easy votes. we ahve to do something.

We cant allow immigration to crush our base. we have to compete in other states.

I think Howard Dean is trying to address the organization issues in a lot of the state party organizations. Hopefully, he'll be able to fix the problems we've been having in states like Montana and South Dakota.

[A18]

Because we're in touch with the other states.  Why are the Republicans so out of touch with the West Coast and the Northeast?

Yes, the GOP is so out of touch here on the West Coast that Bush got 46 percent in Washington, 44 percent in California, and 47 percent in Oregon. And these states hate the Republicans so much that Bush won a majority of counties in all three.

Stop oversimplifying.

Good point, Bob. Even in states that are considered "out of play," the other party often gets a large chunk of the vote. The Democrats got 45% here in Virginia.

[jokerman]

Number one, Democrats need to start campaigning in some of those states. Number two, they need the right candidate. John Kerry was not the right candidate.

The Democrats are definitely not "out of touch", but they need to deliver the message better. People in these states fall for the Republican smear machine because we won't do a good enough job of battling back and playing offense.

Good joke

[WMS]

Because we're in touch with the other states.  Why are the Republicans so out of touch with the West Coast and the Northeast?

Yes, the GOP is so out of touch here on the West Coast that Bush got 46 percent in Washington, 44 percent in California, and 47 percent in Oregon. And these states hate the Republicans so much that Bush won a majority of counties in all three.

Stop oversimplifying.

Good point, Bob. Even in states that are considered "out of play," the other party often gets a large chunk of the vote. The Democrats got 45% here in Virginia.

Go and see this map here for a good look at the fact that each party does have some strength in the other's strongholds.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Below is a list of states that nationally democrats have a serious problem. We have governors and senators from these states. But why is it so difficult to find a nomination for president. any ideas. very speicific. How can this be changed. 140 evs go straight away every election. what is it?

Utah
Wyoming
Alaska
Idaho
Mississippi
Alabama
Georgia
South Carolina
North Carolina
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Nebraska
Montana
South Dakota
North Dakota
Indiana

And at the start of the election, the GOP might as well throw out

California
Hawaii
Washington
Illinois
Maryland
Delaware
New Jersey
New York
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Vermont
Maine (3 of 4 anyway)

That's 182 electoral votes.  Not only that, but even with Bush's 3 point national victory, Michigan (17), Pennsylvania (21), Minnesota (10), and Oregon (7) were still solid victories for Kerry.

And how are Democrats "out of touch".  They got most of the vote in 2000, and NARROWLY lost last time.  Two close losses do not make a dead party. 

You could make the argument that the GOP is going to have the tougher task next time around.  They are, for all intensive purposes, owned by the religious right.  You think the GOP nominee is going to be Arnold or Rudy?  Get real.  You'll get a Southern home boy, and those guys might as well write off the Northeast and West Coast again.  Doubt they'd do very well in Minnesota, Michigan, or Illinois either.  Do you think the GOP are going to sweep the swing states every year (with the exception of PA)?  The Dems don't really have to do all that much.  The Northeast including PA and NH is locked in for the Dems.  If PA goes GOP, it's over anyway.  The West Coast even more so, Oregon was Kerry +4, Washington Kerry +7.  The Democratic Midwest (MI, MN, IL) isn't going anywhere.  All the Dems have to do is win Florida and it's over.  With the booming Hispanic population and whatnot, shouldn't be too tough as long as the canidate is decent.  And if they lose there, so what, go out west.  Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico all go Dem next time aorund, mark my words. 

[J.R. Brown]

The Democratic and Republican party are excellant examples of the extreme cultural differences between urban and rural America. Look at the counties the Democrats win and look at the counties Republicans win.

The Democrats clearly win most of the urban counties and the Republicans win a huge majority of the rural county. If the Democratic party wants to win and win big they need to create a message that not only appeals to city voters, but rural voters as well.

[TheresNoMoney]

Number one, Democrats need to start campaigning in some of those Good joke

Then specifically how are the Democrats "out of touch"?

[2952-0-0]

I think the electoral maps (red/blue states) are doing nothing but disunifying the country. I mean, does anyone care whether a state is 55-45 for Bush or Kerry? It's not like ALL New Yorkers are hippies or ALL Texans are rednecks or anything...

[opebo]

I think the electoral maps (red/blue states) are doing nothing but disunifying the country. I mean, does anyone care whether a state is 55-45 for Bush or Kerry? It's not like ALL New Yorkers are hippies or ALL Texans are rednecks or anything...

Very few New Yorkers are 'hippies', but most Texans are rednecks.

The country is disunified.  And polarized. I don't see that changing as long as the intolerant social agenda is front and center for the GOP. 

[MissCatholic]

Dont change whats not broken.

[Joe Republic]

I think the electoral maps (red/blue states) are doing nothing but disunifying the country. I mean, does anyone care whether a state is 55-45 for Bush or Kerry? It's not like ALL New Yorkers are hippies or ALL Texans are rednecks or anything...

Very few New Yorkers are 'hippies', but most Texans are rednecks.

The country is disunified.  And polarized. I don't see that changing as long as the intolerant social agenda is front and center for the GOP. 

Well of course this country is polarized when people like you make statements like your first sentence right there.

[Joe Republic]

Anyway, as has already been said, looking at the electoral college map waaay oversimplifies things.  You might want to consider that there were more Republican voters in California in 2004 alone than there were Democratic voters in Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Hawaii put together.

[TX_1824]

I think the electoral maps (red/blue states) are doing nothing but disunifying the country. I mean, does anyone care whether a state is 55-45 for Bush or Kerry? It's not like ALL New Yorkers are hippies or ALL Texans are rednecks or anything...

Very few New Yorkers are 'hippies', but most Texans are rednecks.

The country is disunified. And polarized. I don't see that changing as long as the intolerant social agenda is front and center for the GOP.

You have such a simplistic yet detached view of the world. I try to agree with you with regards of a secular country, but then find myself appalled with your consistent rants regarding those of religious persuasion and of those from the "red states". You seam to forget, as do many on the right as well, that the world is made up of different cultures, and yet you appear to have an ethnocetric view when it comes to  these different cultures. What kind of social liberal are you?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Anyway, as has already been said, looking at the electoral college map waaay oversimplifies things.  You might want to consider that there were more Republican voters in California in 2004 alone than there were Democratic voters in Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Hawaii put together.

But you can also look at it this way.  Those Republican voters in California are probably more liberal than most Southern voters who went for Kerry.  It's oversimplified somewhat, but overall Northeast+West Coast=liberal, South+Midwest=conservative.

[Citizen James]

Anyway, as has already been said, looking at the electoral college map waaay oversimplifies things.  You might want to consider that there were more Republican voters in California in 2004 alone than there were Democratic voters in Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Hawaii put together.

But you can also look at it this way.  Those Republican voters in California are probably more liberal than most Southern voters who went for Kerry.  It's oversimplified somewhat, but overall Northeast+West Coast=liberal, South+Midwest=conservative.

Plus, there are even more Democratic voters in California than Republicans.  It's a big state - about a tenth of the US population.   Republicans curently ignore it because they have a counterballance in the 'solid south' (which has enough EVs to counter both CA and NY, thanks to the extra 2 evs per state), and the mountan states counter much of the northeast the same way.

We may be stuck having the next several cycles running on the edge of a knife, with only a few battleground states fought over each time and the bases taken for granted.

[A18]

But you can also look at it this way.  Those Republican voters in California are probably more liberal than most Southern voters who went for Kerry.

That's not really true at all. Maybe you think John Ford is more liberal than Frodo.

[opebo]

I think the electoral maps (red/blue states) are doing nothing but disunifying the country. I mean, does anyone care whether a state is 55-45 for Bush or Kerry? It's not like ALL New Yorkers are hippies or ALL Texans are rednecks or anything...

Very few New Yorkers are 'hippies', but most Texans are rednecks.

The country is disunified. And polarized. I don't see that changing as long as the intolerant social agenda is front and center for the GOP.

You have such a simplistic yet detached view of the world. I try to agree with you with regards of a secular country, but then find myself appalled with your consistent rants regarding those of religious persuasion and of those from the "red states". You seam to forget, as do many on the right as well, that the world is made up of different cultures, and yet you appear to have an ethnocetric view when it comes to  these different cultures. What kind of social liberal are you?

Well I do despise them for their intolerance.  But if they would stay in their box and stop taking over the country I wouldn't bash them.

[Joe Republic]

But you can also look at it this way.  Those Republican voters in California are probably more liberal than most Southern voters who went for Kerry.

That's not really true at all. Maybe you think John Ford is more liberal than Frodo.

You can't base an argument on two specific cases.  Not every CA Republican is like John Ford, and not every VA Democrat is like Frodo, and you know it.

[A18]

But you can also look at it this way.  Those Republican voters in California are probably more liberal than most Southern voters who went for Kerry.

That's not really true at all. Maybe you think John Ford is more liberal than Frodo.

You can't base an argument on two specific cases.  Not every CA Republican is like John Ford, and not every VA Democrat is like Frodo, and you know it.

Take a look at any of the southern Democrats here. They're not exactly conservative.

If they voted for Bush, they obviously supported Bush. How liberal can they be?

If they voted for Kerry, they obviously supported Kerry. How conservative can they be?

No, the state divide is very minute.