Its increasingly impossible for the democrats to win the House

[Grummgug]

Its increasingly impossible for the democrats to win the House

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/up...abt=0002&abg=0

Democratic voters are increasingly fleeing rural and suburban areas and packing themselves like sardines into major cities. This makes winning the White House easier. But the House is won across the entire state, district by district, and all those democrat votes just get wasted because they are all in the same district.

Obama won Pennsylvania by winning 83% of the vote in Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania. But a look at the districts show that democrats are only elected from 5 of its 18 districts. Republicans own the other 13.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsyl...onal_districts

That's the problem the democrats are having. Rural voters are increasingly turning hostile to the democrat party as well, making things ever tougher for the left. The democrat party has absolutely no message to win over rural voters. Why would a rural voter vote democrat? There's no reason for one to do so. In fact, the democrat party increasingly mocks rural America, driving the wedge between them deeper and deeper.

The democrats need to change their party platform. If they don't, their best-case scenario is what they currently have. A democrat president that cannot push forward any domestic policy agenda because the GOP House will block it.

-------------

Republicans have a different problem. The white house is typically won by people with charisma. Voters will look beyond party ID and pick the person they'd like to have a beer with. But the GOP presidential field is basically a bunch of stiffs. Its a problem, but at least it is conceivably fixable.

I will bet that the GOP finds a charismatic candidate that can sell the GOP platform to the American people before the democrats figure out how to win over rural voters.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

So the democrats need to go more right-wing to win over voters that vote for whomever Fox tells them to vote and will thus never vote Democrat anyway?

Exactly what are the Republican policies that appeal to "rural" voters, anyway?

[fumblz]

Its increasingly impossible for the democrats to win the House

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/up...abt=0002&abg=0

Democratic voters are increasingly fleeing rural and suburban areas and packing themselves like sardines into major cities. This makes winning the White House easier. But the House is won across the entire state, district by district, and all those democrat votes just get wasted because they are all in the same district.

Obama won Pennsylvania by winning 83% of the vote in Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania. But a look at the districts show that democrats are only elected from 5 of its 18 districts. Republicans own the other 13.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsyl...onal_districts

That's the problem the democrats are having. Rural voters are increasingly turning hostile to the democrat party as well, making things ever tougher for the left. The democrat party has absolutely no message to win over rural voters. Why would a rural voter vote democrat? There's no reason for one to do so. In fact, the democrat party increasingly mocks rural America, driving the wedge between them deeper and deeper.

The democrats need to change their party platform. If they don't, their best-case scenario is what they currently have. A democrat president that cannot push forward any domestic policy agenda because the GOP House will block it.

-------------

Republicans have a different problem. The white house is typically won by people with charisma. Voters will look beyond party ID and pick the person they'd like to have a beer with. But the GOP presidential field is basically a bunch of stiffs. Its a problem, but at least it is conceivably fixable.

I will bet that the GOP finds a charismatic candidate that can sell the GOP platform to the American people before the democrats figure out how to win over rural voters.

I bet this thread wont last very long.

There are FAR more things wrong with the GOP party, and republicans as a whole; besides being "stiffs". I'd rather not go on about it, as im sure i'll get this thread locked and/or infracted.

[Grummgug]

So the democrats need to go more right-wing to win over voters that vote for whomever Fox tells them to vote and will thus never vote Democrat anyway?

I think the democrats need to shift to the right. Its either that, or they will be eternally blocked by the GOP house until the GOP finds a charismatic person to win the White House. Then they'll have all 3 branches once again.

[Kaleredar]

Exactly what are the Republican policies that appeal to "rural" voters, anyway?

They aren't democrats. That's the appeal.


Districts in this country should be completely redrawn anyway.

[SpcGuts]

G-g-g-gerrymandering....

(Yes I know both sides gerrymander)

[Crissi]

I think the democrats need to shift to the right. Its either that, or they will be eternally blocked by the GOP house until the GOP finds a charismatic person to win the White House. Then they'll have all 3 branches once again.

I dont think AMerica as a whole is getting more conservative, so moving toward the right would be rather silly.

Not to mention for the Republicans to take the WH, they will need someone thats acceptable to most of the people, which means being more moderate than what is being offered right now.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

I think the democrats need to shift to the right. Its either that, or they will be eternally blocked by the GOP house until the GOP finds a charismatic person to win the White House. Then they'll have all 3 branches once again.

Right now, the House Republicans are blocking everything that a Democrat puts forward, simply because it is a Democrat putting it forward. If the Democrats move much further right, you'll have the moderate-right party (Democrat), the extreme-right party (Republicans) and the nutjob-right party (tea party).

[Nihilist74]

The rural population has almost always been conservative.
The question should be, why is it that the rural populations have so many more districts all to themselves?
It should be a federal law that every district has to have an equal amount of the population in there state as every other district does.
Its not just that the smaller rural populations have more representation than the larger populations.

[Kaleredar]

G-g-g-gerrymandering....

(Yes I know both sides gerrymander)

That's burying the lead. Republicans gerrymander districts FAR more heavily than democrats. Gerrymandered districts favor Republicans at a rate of 9:1.

[Stormspellz]

seeing how many districts are so rigged, a rebranding won't help. Furthermore the ACA discusions have shown how out of touch many people in general are with politics. "We hate obamacare, but we like the affordable Care act." and such.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

They aren't democrats. That's the appeal.


Districts in this country should be completely redrawn anyway.

So there is nothing that the Democrats could do to gain those votes? Why would they then risk losing votes to the Greens (an actual left-wing party with social-democrat policies) by trying to appeal to people that would never vote Democrat on principle?

Their money would be much better spent trying to convince these voters that the Republicans are screwing them over and making their lives more expensive and less comfortable (I'm sure they can work something out along those lines).

seeing how many districts are so rigged, a rebranding won't help. Furthermore the ACA discusions have shown how out of touch many people in general are with politics. "We hate obamacare, but we like the affordable Care act." and such.

You mean those people?

[braeldiil]

The Democrats have held the House as recently as 2008 election, so let's not jump too far here. It's a little harder for the Democrats to win now, because the Republicans got a well-timed wave to redistrict everything in 2010. That redistricting is probably most of the margin in the House, and it's up for grabs every 10 years, so it cannot last.

And rural voters, along with trending Republican, are trending to decline. That is, the rural voters are declining, as a share of the population. So building on them is a bad long-term plan, as that block will just get weaker in every successive election. The same goes with the Republican dependence on the elderly and white voters - all declining as a vote share. That's actually why the Republicans have gone so hard line - they're losing and they know it, so they want to lock in as much as they can before they have to find a new coalition to compete.

[Grummgug]

Exactly what are the Republican policies that appeal to "rural" voters, anyway?

Lots of things:

1. Rural voters are more religious, and the democratic party is acquiring a reputation as the party of atheists. So that will put off rural voters.
2. Rural voters don't need big government programs as much as urbans. So that message is much less effective.
3. The perception is that republicans have more respect for rural America.

Bill Clinton had a message that said "the era of big government is over." The democrats might want to go back to that idea.

[Kaleredar]

So there is nothing that the Democrats could do to gain those votes? Why would they then risk losing votes to the Greens (an actual left-wing party with social-democrat policies) by trying to appeal to people that would never vote Democrat on principle?

Their money would be much better spent trying to convince these voters that the Republicans are screwing them over and making their lives more expensive and less comfortable (I'm sure they can work something out along those lines).

Democrats need to go knocking down politician-by-politician through the Republican party with very specific examples of how said republican representatives have failed their constituency. I get the feeling some rural voters are too incensed by "the man" to just jump on the democrat train. They need to get off the republican train first.

[SpcGuts]

I think the democrats need to shift to the right. Its either that, or they will be eternally blocked by the GOP house until the GOP finds a charismatic person to win the White House. Then they'll have all 3 branches once again.

No way, the problem with the GOP is that the Tea Party started a runaway chain "rightaction" (Like reaction but with right, I just made it up). Basically, the farther right you can go, the better your chances. Some of the Tea Party incumbents and challengers are pushing their rhetoric into the realm of fascism. This is also causing a lot of the gridlock in congress. Where American democracy is supposed to be about compromises, Republican's have no room to give a little because there is some unknown Tea Party challenge lurking in the shadows ready to say he would "Never EVER compromise on [insert talking point]."

Eventually this chain reaction ("rightaction" didn't catch on) is going to fizzle out. You can only go so far right until people start noticing how crazy it is.

The Dems moving to the right isn't going to stop the reaction.

[Grummgug]

The Democrats have held the House as recently as 2008 election, so let's not jump too far here. It's a little harder for the Democrats to win now, because the Republicans got a well-timed wave to redistrict everything in 2010. That redistricting is probably most of the margin in the House, and it's up for grabs every 10 years, so it cannot last.

And rural voters, along with trending Republican, are trending to decline. That is, the rural voters are declining, as a share of the population. So building on them is a bad long-term plan, as that block will just get weaker in every successive election. The same goes with the Republican dependence on the elderly and white voters - all declining as a vote share. That's actually why the Republicans have gone so hard line - they're losing and they know it, so they want to lock in as much as they can before they have to find a new coalition to compete.

They held it for a couple cycle in a major wave election, but that was clearly not the norm. And it clearly didn't stick, as once the reasons for that wave election subsided, the House quickly flipped back to the GOP. If the democrat plan is have wave elections in their favor every cycle, they don't have a plan. The truth is, The House has been republican for almost all of the past 20 years. And its getting worse for the democrats, not better, as more democrats move to urban centers.

[Kaleredar]

They held it for a couple cycle in a major wave election, but that was clearly not the norm. And it clearly didn't stick, as once the reasons for that wave election subsided, the House quickly flipped back to the GOP. If the democrat plan is have wave elections in their favor every cycle, they don't have a plan. The truth is, The House has been republican for almost all of the past 20 years. And its getting worse for the democrats, not better, as more democrats move to urban centers.

As I said, that's why they need to redraw districts to adequately reflect immediate population, and not drawn around minority groups or other such things.

[Independent voter]

Voter fatigue is where voters are tired of the party in office, Democrats now. They'll vote out Obama's fellow Democrats in Congress. Same thing happened when Bush was in office.

[Miyani]

The problem i keep seeing is that democrats are being sensible and having smaller families now days but republicans are having larger families in tie with their religious beliefs, so democrats will start to lose by default by shear population unfortunately. =[