With the exception of the south, the GOP has lost strength nationally

[WI_DEM]

Postmortems declaring the democrats dead are common place by the national media. But they fail to take into account that the Democratic party has won the popular vote in three of the last four presidential elections and even though we lost it in 2004--it was by only 2.5% (and even that is disputable). If you take the south out of the equation, John Kerry won the popular vote.

While the south has become more conservative and republican the rest of the country has become more moderate and democratic in the last twenty years.

California was Republican in every presidential election from 1968-1988. It is now one of the most solidly blue states in the country in presidential races and has given the Democratic nominee million vote plus pluralities from 1992-2004.

The same can be said of the other pacific states of Oregon and Washington. Oregon was Republican from 1968-1984 and Washington was only slightly more Democratic going to Hubert Humphrey in 1968, but otherwise also voted for the GOP presidential nominee from 1972-1984.

Illinois, "The Land of Lincoln" and one of the birthplaces of the Republican party is now one of the most solidly democratic states in the country--certainly the most democratic in the middle west. It voted Republican in every presidential election from 1968-1988.

Wisconsin--similarly was strongly Republican voting Democratic only twice from 1960-1988.

On the East coast--Maine and Vermont used to be among the most Republican states in presidential elections--until 1992. Now they are strongly Democratic. Remember the old saying (from FDR's 1936 re-election triumph) "As Maine goes, so goes Vermont?" the only two states to vote for Alf Landon that year.

What of New Hampshire, for years the most republican state (still the most republican state) of New England. It has voted Democratic for president now 3 out of 4 of the last elections.

Connecticut and NJ used to be "Swing" states in presidential elections. NJ, for instance, voted Republican from 1968-1988 in presidential elections.

What of the results in other western states? Kerry gained ground for the Democrats in Arizona, Montana, Colorado and Nevada and only lost NM narrowly. In another election cycle, I think Democrats will win at least two of those four states and perhaps all of them.



So what does this mean? It says that the "moderate" republican is dead. The republican party is made up, by and large, of conservatives of various stripes. The most extreme seem to be the ones who control the party. They have turned off their more moderate base which either have turned Independent or Democrat.

Democrats need to figure out a way to pick up support in the south, but we can't do it by compromising principles. It is clear that over the past 15-20 years that the party which has gained the most ground electorally is not the GOP--which is now a sectional party--but the Democratic party.

[Justyce]

1. One way to pick up

the south is to keep the focus on the economy, which did not get near enough attention this last election IMHO.

[blm]

2. Here's more proof, in battleground or swing states, Kerry won by over 2%.

That's crucial because the states aren't necessarily red or blue.

[Warpy]

3. If you look at the maps that were done by county

and again by population, you'll see that Dixie is to the blue side in a lot of areas.

The real moron corridor is Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas.

Democrats will pick up support in all these areas if they develop a cohesive message about putting working class issues back on the table, and I'm not talking about the GOP's stupid wedge issues. I'm talking about how we share wealth with the people who create it, something the GOP has worked very hard to destroy. I'd also suggest using the message Clinton dropped into Kerry's lap, but that the DLC handlers rejected: "Their way DOESN'T WORK!"

For too long the GOP has offered the working class illusory tax cuts while the Democrats have offered them nothing. This is what has to change to get them out of power in the South and elsewhere.

[somnior]

7. Yeah...

Democrats have often simply failed to offer solutions. Republicans at least offered solutions, regardless of whether they would harm people's own self-interests or not.

[calimary]

14. And you'll notice that Dean headed straight for the heart of that "moron

corridor," Kansas, just a few days ago. He's often said that Democrats lose there because they already (and very unwisely) wrote them off and figured there wasn't any point fighting for them. Great attitude, 'eh? I am SO glad Dean is turning things around, and going by a different playbook.

[Arugula Latte]

15. Bwaa! "The Moron Corridor"

Doesn't that overlap with the Bible Belt quite a bit?

(Apologies to non-moronic DUers living in such states.)

[coloradodem2005]

4. Carter didn't get California or Illinois in 1976?

[dsc]

5. Not sure about Illinois

but he definately lost California. Carter won every southern and border state in 76.

[WI_DEM]

8. He lost Illinois in '76

and California, Oregon and Washington. Infact, outside of winning every southern and border state except Virginia and Oklahoma, Carter won only the following states:
New York
Pennsylvania
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Delaware
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Ohio
Hawaii

Carter won, thanks to the South. Several states were close, but Ford came on strong in the end of the '76 election.

[somnior]

6. It's still going on

The drift that began under FDR and really kicked in during the 60's is still happening, and I haven't seen any predictions as to when it may slow.

Most of the states listed that used to vote Republican did so while the Republican Party still possessed remnants of what Lincoln and Roosevelt embodied - strains of such a Republican Party (mostly progressive and liberal) continued to exist in the northeast even into the 70's and 80's, many known as Rockefeller Republicans.

The modern Republican Party consists of the remnants of what used to be southern Democrats (exemplified by Strom Thurmond), in coalition with diverse elements that have little to do with each other (social conservatism has little to do with fiscal restraint, and certainly nothing to do with liberalism/libertarianism!).

It could be pried apart - if it doesn't fracture over the course of the next four years. A lot of strain has already shown under the weight of proposed policies that much/most of the Republican coalition only support out of unity (in order to put their party into office, local, state, or national).

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. The problem is that the red states are growning much faster that the blue

states.

[JI7]

11. if only those under 30 voted than Kerry would have won some southern

states. if the trend continues then the future looks good for democrats in the south. unless people switch to republican as they get older.

[leyton]

12. This is true.

The 2000 red states picked up I think eight or so electoral votes; I suspect that those same states will gain in the 2010 census. This will hurt us by shifting votes from New England to the sun belt - though we might do well to focus our energies on the Southwest.

Also, I believe that of the 100 fastest growing counties, Bush won 98 or so. This should be a frightening statistic for us.

[Arugula Latte]

13. True. On the other hand,

as these states become more urbanized, they tend to produce mega-regions where progressive/liberal views are the norm. These urban areas can start to outvote the Dumbass Jethros.

[woosh]

10. nice post