Social Issues have really helped the Democrats

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

1976
Carter beats Ford 50.08%-48.02% nationwide

CA: Ford beats Carter 49.35%-47.57%, winning several bay area counties
VT: Ford beats Carter 54.34%-43.14%, winning every county in the state


2004
Bush beats Kerry 50.73-48.27% nationwide

CA: Kerry beats Bush 54.31%-44.36%, winning every bay area county, landsliding most of them
VT: Kerry beats Bush 58.94%-38.80%, just a couple hundred votes away from winning every county in the state

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Typical of jfern.  He looks at on or two points (doesn't even nessesarily get those right) and totally ignores the bigger picture.

What?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, sh**t.  California and Vermont must represent the whole damn nation, then!

Why are they less important than anything else with 58 electoral votes?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Big deal, Social issues cost the Democrats the South.

1976: Carter wins every state in the South but Virginia.

2004: Kerry loses every Southern state.

Correct, PBrunsel - tolerance wins on the coasts, intolerance in the South. 

Not exactly big news.

By that logic, morality wins the South and immorality wins on the coasts.

'Morality' is just subjective preference, Brandon H.  You prude.

Wrong. Morality, at least ideally, is a code which allows for a proper functioning of society.

Yes, it is someone's subjective preference imposed on others.

Umm... I'm not describing alternate or different moralities. Just the base concept of morals. And some morals aren't subjective.For instance, 'thou shalt not murder' is very much not subjective (Although some might argue the definition of murder).

So you oppose the Iraq war?