rant on what frustrates me with the democratic party

[freepcrusher]

for me its the inability to win your own party over. Looking at the 2008 election returns I saw that there was no state, where Obama got more than 19% of registered republicans. Yet there was a state where McCain got 33% of registered democrats.

Another thing is expanding the party's power. Its great to improve on what you already have, but you must keep what you already have. There are 97 counties that voted for Walter Mondale and voted for McCain. There is no excuse to lose any of those counties. There is no reason for Obama to only wins 875 counties. If the pathetic Adlai Stevenson could win 900 counties, surely Obama could win around 1500.

The second thing is the winning of congressional votes. If Bush won 255 with less % than obama, surely obama could have won 280 or 290 districts.

[tpfkaw]

I bet Obama got at least in the high 30s, if not more, of registered Republicans in Vermont (although not on the self-reported exit polls), but anyways a lot of ancestrally Democratic areas vote Republican (at least in presidential elections) due to platform shifts in the two parties.  The Democrats are intended to appeal to urban and some suburban voters, the Republicans to rural voters and suburbanites.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Party affiliation : It is rather evident that there are fare more DINOs than RINOs. Don't ask me why all those appalachia/deep South rednecks keep registering as democrats despite the fact they are solid GOP voters. Anyways that's not an electorate the dems should particularly target.

Mondale : I'm sure McCain also lost some counties that Goldwater won. So, where's the problem ? Things change in politics, and no party can grow somewhere without losing elsewhere.

Counties : The democratic vote is concentrated in a few, very populated counties. That's why democrats keep losing a majority of counties even when they win PV. But again, who cares ? Counties don't have electoral votes.

CDs : Never heard of gerrymandering ?

[memphis]

Counties are dynamic. Just because they were solid for one party decades ago doesn't mean that's still true. I think Obama did just dandy in 2008

[freepcrusher]

another thing that bothers me is the inability to win the white vote. Its been what? 45 years since the democrats won the white vote in a national election? This is getting kind of embarrassing. Hopefully this streak doesn't go on for much longer.

[Heimdal]

another thing that bothers me is the inability to win the white vote. Its been what? 45 years since the democrats won the white vote in a national election? This is getting kind of embarrassing. Hopefully this streak doesn't go on for much longer.

Sure it is, but it doesn't mean that you can't win elections. If the GOP doesn't improve their electoral performance with Hispanics and other minorities, you don't need to win the white vote. Just look what happened in 2008.

[Miles]

Yet there was a state where McCain got 33% of registered democrats.

McCain won a lot of Dixiecrats who were disfranchised when Obama beat Hillary. There are still a ton of older Dixiecrats around, especially in the south. These conservative voters who registered with the Democrats 40+ years ago, but have since started to vote Republican as the Democrats have become more liberal.
My grandparents are a good example of this; they registered Democrat back when the Dixiecrats dominated the south, but they voted Republican now.

Hillary would have carried at least AR and WV and she would have done much better with white Democrats.

[Stranger in a strange land]

There are three things about the white vote you need to keep in mind.

The first is that it's not a homogenous bloc: in 2008 outside of the Old Confederacy, the white vote was nearly tied (I think McCain won it by a point or so), but racialized voting patterns in the South push up the % for the whole country, while putting those states out of reach electorally. Let me put it this way: if Obama had done as well among whites in Mississippi and Alabama as he did among whites in Oklahoma (his worst state overall) he would have won both states.

The second is that with the ongoing demographic change, you won't need the white vote to win. Obama never needed to win the white vote: he just had to not get blown out, and he succeeded in doing that pretty well.

The third is that younger whites are more liberal than older ones, though paradoxically older whites seem to get more Republican as they age. No telling how this is going to play out in the years ahead.

[HAnnA MArin County]

What bothers me about the Democratic Party is how they don't stand strong for their views and philosophies. Take health care for example. It is a core philosophy of the Democratic Party that every single American have access to health care since we view it as a right and not a privilege. The only way this is going to happen is if we have a single-payer system, and in the disastrous health care reform bill law that was one of the many reasons why we lost control of the House, Democrats did not stand strong for the public option. I'm so sick of Democrats being the ones to compromise our values to appease the Republicans. I'll give them credit, despite that most everything they stand for is wrong and reprehensible, the Republicans do not compromise and somehow find a way to get their agenda passed. It's really time for the Democrats to grow a backbone. We had the perfect opportunity in 2008-2009 when we had huge margins in Congress, and while we're poised to win back some seats in 2012 in the House, we have to face reality: that we stand a good chance of losing control of the Senate. I'm not saying that every Democrat needs to be as liberal as Nancy Pelosi or as loud as Alan Grayson or Anthony Weiner (although that would be nice), but I just don't think you can be a Democrat and say that you do not support a public option on health care. If you don't believe that every single American has the right to high quality and affordable health care, then you might as well join the other side. Just my own personal rant.

Going on what the poster said about his rant, it bothers me that we can't win the white vote, but someone on here made a good point about the racial polarization in voting in the South. I'm sure if you'd eliminate the Deep South where McCain won 80-90 percent of the white vote that the national average would be much closer. If I were a Republican, I would find it more troubling that the GOP cannot win any minorities: African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, etc. Even crazy Mike Huckabee acknowledged that the GOP cannot be the party of "old angry white men." So yeah, keep in mind that Democrats did do pretty well among white voters in 2008 outside of the Deep South, but after the realignment in 1964, that's beyond our control. There's a white man's party and a black man's party. It's sad, but that's the way it is, I suppose. Had Hillary been the nominee (this has been discussed before), yes, she would have carried Arkansas, Missouri and West Virginia for sure, and possibly even Kentucky and Tennessee.

[freepcrusher]

you can't blame the deep south for the democrats trouble with the white vote. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson lost five southern states but still got 59% of the white vote. Even Carter got 47 percent of the white vote in 1976. Yes, its nice we have minorities to offset this, but what would happen if the demographics of 1964 stayed the same, meaning nobody entered or left the country? It would mean the democrats probably would have lost eleven straight elections. I find it disheartening that John McCain ran probably the worst possible campaign and still would have won the election if the demographics of the country were the same as it was even 25 years ago.

[Stranger in a strange land]

What bothers me about the Democratic Party is how they don't stand strong for their views and philosophies. Take health care for example. It is a core philosophy of the Democratic Party that every single American have access to health care since we view it as a right and not a privilege. The only way this is going to happen is if we have a single-payer system, and in the disastrous health care reform bill law that was one of the many reasons why we lost control of the House, Democrats did not stand strong for the public option.

Tell me about it.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

What frustrates me about the modern Democratic party is how it manages to contain all the worst aspects of American liberalism (politically, intellectually, in the type of person it attracts..) while still being essentially a very conservative institution.

[Dgov]

To the OP, both the Cd's and County numbers have to do with the fact that the Democrats are FAR more concentrated than the Republicans are.  Obama winning Los Angeles county with about 70% of the vote gave him a bigger individual county margin than something like the top 20 or so McCain counties combined.

On top of that, Democrats have black voters, who are vastly more concentrated in their localized voting habits than any other demographic in the United States.  The GOP has no parallel to say, Central Brooklyn, where the Democrats could draw a full congressional district that voted like 98% for Obama.  The best i've seen is an ugly mess in West Texas around 80% McCain, and that's only in one part of the country.  Democrats get over 90% margins in a ton of places around the US (northern Miami, Southern Dekalb, Chicago, Detroit, etc.) and this generally concentrates their voters in a way that gives the Republicans an edge in a 50/50 election, even with fair maps.  Every 80-20 District (which the democrats have like 30 or so) represents a 60% margin wasted because of concentration.

[All Along The Watchtower]

To the OP, both the Cd's and County numbers have to do with the fact that the Democrats are FAR more concentrated than the Republicans are.  Obama winning Los Angeles county with about 70% of the vote gave him a bigger individual county margin than something like the top 20 or so McCain counties combined.

On top of that, Democrats have black voters, who are vastly more concentrated in their localized voting habits than any other demographic in the United States.  The GOP has no parallel to say, Central Brooklyn, where the Democrats could draw a full congressional district that voted like 98% for Obama.  The best i've seen is an ugly mess in West Texas around 80% McCain, and that's only in one part of the country.  Democrats get over 90% margins in a ton of places around the US (northern Miami, Southern Dekalb, Chicago, Detroit, etc.) and this generally concentrates their voters in a way that gives the Republicans an edge in a 50/50 election, even with fair maps.  Every 80-20 District (which the democrats have like 30 or so) represents a 60% margin wasted because of concentration.

And that concentration of Democrats gives the Republicans a structural advantage in terms of the Electoral College and Congressional districts.

[timothyinMD]

another thing that bothers me is the inability to win the white vote. Its been what? 45 years since the democrats won the white vote in a national election? This is getting kind of embarrassing. Hopefully this streak doesn't go on for much longer.

It's because your party can only get votes these days by dividing people into minority "victim" groups (latinos, blacks, gays, etc) and telling the that Republicans are out to get them and they need the Dems to cover their back.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Party affiliation : It is rather evident that there are fare more DINOs than RINOs. Don't ask me why all those appalachia/deep South rednecks keep registering as democrats despite the fact they are solid GOP voters. Anyways that's not an electorate the dems should particularly target.

Exactly. Time to kick the DINOs out. DINO Zell Miller endorsed Gingrich. No surprise there.

[Badger]

another thing that bothers me is the inability to win the white vote. Its been what? 45 years since the democrats won the white vote in a national election? This is getting kind of embarrassing. Hopefully this streak doesn't go on for much longer.

It's because your party can only get votes these days by dividing people into minority "victim" groups (latinos, blacks, gays, etc) and telling the that Republicans are out to get them and they need the Dems to cover their back.

Yes, Tim, that's exactly why Democrats won convincing victories in 2008 and 06; by ginning up the votes of blacks, gays and latinos.

And that worked in states like Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Iowa, why again? And Obama tied McCain among white women and all non-southern whites how again?

Such a shame: If it weren't for Democrats saying such nasty things about the GOP to minority voters, I bet blacks, gays and Latinos would just swoon over the Republican Party and its platform.

[Horus]

another thing that bothers me is the inability to win the white vote. Its been what? 45 years since the democrats won the white vote in a national election? This is getting kind of embarrassing. Hopefully this streak doesn't go on for much longer.

It's because your party can only get votes these days by dividing people into minority "victim" groups (latinos, blacks, gays, etc) and telling the that Republicans are out to get them and they need the Dems to cover their back.

Are you kidding? And with gays when one party generally tries to deny them equal rights, and one party generally pushes for it, of course we will flock to one party.

[freepcrusher]

Despite Obama's win in 2008, I feel like the democrats are still stuck in a rut that they've been in since about 1968. Too often they are on the defensive as they have been accused of (among other things): being soft on crime, not being patriotic, lacking moral fiber etc.

Its time that the democrats start going on the offensive. They need to think of a strategy similar to what Nixon did when he made a comeback in 1968. He basically co-opted dem talking points (such as populism) and used it to his advantage. Its time for democrats to do the same. Instead of being the attacked, we can attack them in commercials. We can run commercials similar to Willie Horton talking about how (insert Republican governor) was soft on crime or run a commercial accusing a republican of not being a patriotic, god-fearing American. 

Ever head the story of Kent Hance? He ran for congress in a republican district in 1978 (which was a decent year for republicans nationwide) against the young but well-funded man by the name of George W. Bush. So how did he win? He co-opted the arguments that Bush often spoke of, and used it against him claiming that he was a yankee carpetbagger who was out of touch with the christian values of west Texas.

[Niemeyerite]

Despite Obama's win in 2008, I feel like the democrats are still stuck in a rut that they've been in since about 1968. Too often they are on the defensive as they have been accused of (among other things): being soft on crime, not being patriotic, lacking moral fiber etc.

Its time that the democrats start going on the offensive. They need to think of a strategy similar to what Nixon did when he made a comeback in 1968. He basically co-opted dem talking points (such as populism) and used it to his advantage. Its time for democrats to do the same. Instead of being the attacked, we can attack them in commercials. We can run commercials similar to Willie Horton talking about how (insert Republican governor) was soft on crime or run a commercial accusing a republican of not being a patriotic, god-fearing American. 

Ever head the story of Kent Hance? He ran for congress in a republican district in 1978 (which was a decent year for republicans nationwide) against the young but well-funded man by the name of George W. Bush. So how did he win? He co-opted the arguments that Bush often spoke of, and used it against him claiming that he was a yankee carpetbagger who was out of touch with the christian values of west Texas.

kent hance wasn't even a DINO. he was aconservative republican who said he was a democrat... but when he left congress, he switched parties.
yeah, maybe democrats could have won every state in 2008.. with a candidate as liberal as kent hance, bobby bright or zel miller.

[HAnnA MArin County]

another thing that bothers me is the inability to win the white vote. Its been what? 45 years since the democrats won the white vote in a national election? This is getting kind of embarrassing. Hopefully this streak doesn't go on for much longer.

It's because your party can only get votes these days by dividing people into minority "victim" groups (latinos, blacks, gays, etc) and telling the that Republicans are out to get them and they need the Dems to cover their back.

Time to turn off Glenn Beck. If you wanna talk about parties being "owned," your party can't seem to get votes without kissing the teabaggers' nasty, greasy, hemorrhoid-ridden @$$e$. You all are too afraid to stand up to them and tell them to stop with their ridiculous conspiracy theories like Obama is a Muslim/not born in the United States, etc. For your party, it seems like if you dare cross the Tea Party, you might as well expect a crosshair on your district or to be teabagged in a primary.

Although you are correct. Republicans are out to get blacks (ever hear of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965), Latinos (Arizona Senate Bill, deportation, anyone?), and don't even get me started on the gays. Why would any gay person in his/her right mind vote for a party that doesn't want to give you any rights and labels you a pervert/sinner/immoral, compares you to pedophiles and says how you choose to be this way and could change if you prayed to be cured? Sure, there are some gay Republicans who say "We aren't single-issue voters." I can see that point. Even if the Republican Party were pro-gay, I still wouldn't vote Republican because I'm not a single-issue voter, either. But even the mainstream Republican Party doesn't want to have anything to do with the Log Cabin Republicans. I just don't understand it, but it wouldn't be the first time Republicans brainwash people to vote against their own self-interests.

Can't speak for all the many minorities that comprise the Democratic Party, but as for gays, it's not about victimization. If you haven't heard, most LGBT people are highly educated and affluent (characteristics that tend to favor Democrats), and smart people don't listen to Fox News or buy into the right-wing lies of how it will be Republicans who give gays their rights. The only right Republicans want to give us is no rights at all with all of their homophobic rhetoric and exploitation and lies about the community to pander to and gain votes among the hillbillies and Bible-thumping rednecks that constitute their base. NOT ALL Republicans are like this, I realize, but it does seem to be the status quo of today's Republican/Tea Party.

And I'm sure that most of these GOP politicians are not as homophobic/anti-gay in their personal lives; it's just politically popular for them to beat up on the gays to get votes. I'm sure many of them have gay friends that they keep on the downlow

[Mechaman]

another thing that bothers me is the inability to win the white vote. Its been what? 45 years since the democrats won the white vote in a national election? This is getting kind of embarrassing. Hopefully this streak doesn't go on for much longer.

It's because your party can only get votes these days by dividing people into minority "victim" groups (latinos, blacks, gays, etc) and telling the that Republicans are out to get them and they need the Dems to cover their back.

Time to turn off Glenn Beck. If you wanna talk about parties being "owned," your party can't seem to get votes without kissing the teabaggers' nasty, greasy, hemorrhoid-ridden @$$e$. You all are too afraid to stand up to them and tell them to stop with their ridiculous conspiracy theories like Obama is a Muslim/not born in the United States, etc. For your party, it seems like if you dare cross the Tea Party, you might as well expect a crosshair on your district or to be teabagged in a primary.

Although you are correct. Republicans are out to get blacks (ever hear of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965), Latinos (Arizona Senate Bill, deportation, anyone?), and don't even get me started on the gays. Why would any gay person in his/her right mind vote for a party that doesn't want to give you any rights and labels you a pervert/sinner/immoral, compares you to pedophiles and says how you choose to be this way and could change if you prayed to be cured? Sure, there are some gay Republicans who say "We aren't single-issue voters." I can see that point. Even if the Republican Party were pro-gay, I still wouldn't vote Republican because I'm not a single-issue voter, either. But even the mainstream Republican Party doesn't want to have anything to do with the Log Cabin Republicans. I just don't understand it, but it wouldn't be the first time Republicans brainwash people to vote against their own self-interests.

Can't speak for all the many minorities that comprise the Democratic Party, but as for gays, it's not about victimization. If you haven't heard, most LGBT people are highly educated and affluent (characteristics that tend to favor Democrats), and smart people don't listen to Fox News or buy into the right-wing lies of how it will be Republicans who give gays their rights. The only right Republicans want to give us is no rights at all with all of their homophobic rhetoric and exploitation and lies about the community to pander to and gain votes among the hillbillies and Bible-thumping rednecks that constitute their base. NOT ALL Republicans are like this, I realize, but it does seem to be the status quo of today's Republican/Tea Party.

And I'm sure that most of these GOP politicians are not as homophobic/anti-gay in their personal lives; it's just politically popular for them to beat up on the gays to get votes. I'm sure many of them have gay friends that they keep on the downlow

Not taking anything away from what you said (and don't take this as an endorsement of the Democratic Party or anything) but using the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as the Republicans out to get the blacks is not really a good example:

Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Original House Version:
Democratic: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic: 44-23 (66%-34%)
Republican: 27-6 (82%-18%)
Senate Version:
Democratic: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican: 27-6 (82%-18%)
Senate Version, voted on by the House:
Democratic: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Voting Rights Act of 1965:
Vote Count:
Senate:
Democratic: 47-17 (73%-27%)
Republican: 30-2 (94%-6%)
House:
Democratic: 221-61 (78%-22%)
Republicans: 112-24 (82%-18%)

Conference Report:
Senate:
Democratic: 49-17
Republican: 30-1
House:
Democratic: 217-54
Republicans: 112-20

Using two landmark Civil Rights Acts that over 80% of the Republican Party voted for isn't a really good example of how the Republicans are out to get blacks.  If you are going to attack the Republican Party on how they approach the black vote it's a good idea not to bring up legislation that is almost fifty years old that a higher percentage of their party voted for than the Democratic Party did.  Unless your point was that Republicans now days would consider repealing such acts............

[nclib]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the bold part was his point. Also, the only reason Republicans fifty years ago had a higher percentage of Reps/Senators voting for it, was because of the Southern Democrats. Non-southern Dems were more likely to support it than non-Southern Reps. And of course, almost all of the southern Dems who voted against it, would be Republicans today if they were still in office.