Are the Democrats a NATIONAL Party

[J. J.]

I posted this under history, a got little response, so I'll post it here, with some modifications.  It is a serious question.

I want to put up a distubing statistic.

Since a ailing Franklin D. Roosevelt won a fourth term in the middle of World War II, Democratic nominees for President have won a majority of the of the popular vote for president precisely twice, in 1964 and 1976.

Republican noninees for President won a majority of Popular votes in 1952, 1956, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988 and 2004.

Democrats won a plurality in 1948, 1960, 1992, 1996, and 2000.  Republicans won a plurality in 1968.  Based on this, can the Democratic Party legitimately claim to be a national party?

Legislative election don't count, because, by their very nature, they are regional.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes
Besides, Clinton would have cracked 50% in 1996 were it not for Perot.

[J. J.]

Yes
Besides, Clinton would have cracked 50% in 1996 were it not for Perot.

Possibly, but three (saying 1996) times in 60 years is not an exceptionally good record.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes
Besides, Clinton would have cracked 50% in 1996 were it not for Perot.

Possibly, but three (saying 1996) times in 60 years is not an exceptionally good record.

But three (inc. '96) in 40 years, while not brilliant, isn't terrible. It all depends where you draw the line.

[elcorazon]

yes.  J.J. - I think even you have to admit that the dems in the last 2 presidential elections, taken as a whole are within 2% of the republicans.  How can a party whose popularity is that close to the other party NOT be a national party?  Ridiculous thread.

The numbers are interesting, but the conclusion is ridiculous.

[minionofmidas]

yes.  J.J. - I think even you have to admit that the dems in the last 2 presidential elections, taken as a whole are within 2% of the republicans.  How can a party whose popularity is that close to the other party NOT be a national party? 

Unless neither party is.
Define what a national party is, maybe. I'd have thought it's a party active in every part of the country, making the Libertarians a national party but the Mountain Party not so.

[AStanley]

The Republicans hadn't won the popular vote in 3 straight elections until now.

[Erc]

The Republicans hadn't won the popular vote in 3 straight elections until now.

And the Democrats haven't won it since 1976 (50.08%).

[elcorazon]

The Republicans hadn't won the popular vote in 3 straight elections until now.

huh?  I think they won 3 straight in 80, 84 and 88.  2004 makes 1 straight I think.  What are you talking about?

[minionofmidas]

The Republicans hadn't won the popular vote in 3 straight elections until now.

huh?  I think they won 3 straight in 84, 88 and 92.  2004 makes 1 straight I think.  What are you talking about?

He was talking of the factoid that in 92, 96, and 2000 the Dems were ahead of the Reps in the PV. Not a very impressive point, but then this is not a very impressive thread.

[J. J.]

Well does the GOP have a national base, not just running up numbers in certain regions; does the Democratic party just basically do the same thing.  I'm picking on the Democrats (sort of) because they have not had a national PV victory for a lot longer that the Republicans, even before 2004.

[DFLofMN]

There needs to be some well done soul searching here.  However, it is harder to see red and blue states if one looks at a county by county breakdown, there are very few states in the country that do not have red and blue counties. 

[JNB]

  Neither party is really a national party anymore. In 1980, Reagans popular vote percentage was around where Bush is now, but it was distributed in quite brodly. Reagan won urban neighjborhoods such as South Philadelphia and Bay Ridge in Brooklyn, he won suburban Chicago in an overwhelming fashion, and of course he did well in rural areas. Bush on the other hand can not even crack 30% in most urban areas, and many suburban areas went for Kerry(albiet slightly), while Bush depends heavily on the South,  the mountain west and the rural and exurban areas of the Midwest.

[opebo]

No, and neither are the Republicans.  Each has about half, and each half of the country despises the other half.

[patrick1]

All of this is a little bit of an oversimplification.  Bush won 40% of New York and 45% of California.  Kerry won 40% in states like Kentucky and Mississippi.
People are acting like Bush wins Nothing in New York and Kerry nothing in the South

[Giant Saguaro]

I think the Democrats appeal to a lesser degree than Reublicans on a broad scale. I wouldn't say they aren't a national party, but the Democratic message and agenda is largely directed at a fairly narrow range of people right now, narrower than it used to be certainly - liberals, academics, cultural theorists, etc. are who the message is directed at primarily because I think that's who is running the show. If there's change in the party, many of their views may come closer to mainstream public opinion.

I mean 11 of 11 states, including MI and OR, voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. OH went so far as to ban civil unions. That marriage should be between a man and a woman certainly seems to constitute mainstream public and legal opinion. Democrats should agree. Because you are opposed to gay marriage does not make you an extremist; it might be the other way around actually, and until people in the Dem party realize that, there will be more repeats of 2002 and 2004. It's that simple. Some people just lash out at rather large groups of people, labeling them as extreme when maybe they should take a long, long look at themselves and their own prejudices and narrow views. Just some thoughts.