why didn't democrats take advantage of people's voting habits?

[freepcrusher]

It seems that as late as 35-40 years ago, you had districts that were very conservative but would vote for a rattlesnake for congress just as long as it had a D attached to its name

These areas I'm talking about are areas like the Florida Panhandle or southern and eastern oklahoma (the old 2nd and 3rd districts). What the democrats should have done is to recruit democrats similar to Jim McDermott to run in these seats if they were open seats and to campaign as a conservative in the primary. Once they got to Washington, they could have an ultraliberal voting record and because political websites weren't around back then, they could have gotten away with it and because the constituents were knee jerk democrats, they would keep electing ultraliberal democrats in conservative areas.

For the most part, the democrats weren't smart enough to realize this. Although they did successfully do this in Texas in the 1950s. Texas was/is a conservative state, but they always elected democratic senators. The liberal underground recruited Ralph Yarborough who was just as liberal as George McGovern. He campaigned as a devout baptist (which he was) and once he got to Washington, he was free to vote as he wanted, as Texas always voted for democratic senators then.

[freepcrusher]

The republicans did this in Illinois. There was a district based in Lake County that was heavily republican but was mostly moderate to liberal Chuck Percy type republicans. Yet they would vote for ted bundy if it had an R next to its name. In 1969, they voted in archconservative Phil Crane. It took the voters 35 years to realize that a nutcase was representing them.

[freepcrusher]

The republicans did this in Illinois. There was a district based in Lake County that was heavily republican but was mostly moderate to liberal Chuck Percy type republicans. Yet they would vote for ted bundy if it had an R next to its name. In 1969, they voted in archconservative Phil Crane. It took the voters 35 years to realize that a nutcase was representing them.

First of all, Phil Crane might have been conservative, but he was no "nutcase".  I am sick and tired of you so-called "progressives" labeling those with whom you disagree as "nutcases", while idolizing far-lefties like Alan Grayson and Pete Stark.   Either all on the ideological extremes are "nutcases" or none are.  Second, Illinois suburbanites were far more conservative in the 1970s and 1980s than they are today.  And when the district started to trend more liberal in the 1990s, Crane DID face primaries from moderates - and won those races.  So it's not like his constituents didn't have a choice.  Third, you know who Phil Crane succeeded as Congressman?  Donald Rumsfeld.  That should tell you everything you need to know about Crane's district in 1969.

I never idolized Stark or Grayson, both of which are nutcases. Second, Crane is the right wing equivalent of Stark. Both were disliked by the party establishment which is why both were given a "F--- You" by their colleagues in Ways and Means