No one is talking about the Democrats trouble with white, rural voters (Harry Reid, campaign)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What do electoral votes have to do with the Senate? New flash: America is more than the presidency.
And you need to Senate to pass anything. There are two houses in the American legislature: the Senate, and the Congress. Again, elementary school civics.
You need 60 Senate votes, the House, and POTUS. It isn't happening for either party. Who has 51-59 Senate votes is strictly ceremonial, or the House majority..unless they have all 3 of the aforementioned.
You need 60 Senate votes, the House, and POTUS. It isn't happening for either party. Who has 51-59 Senate votes is strictly ceremonial, or the House majority..unless they have all 3 of the aforementioned.
But if one party controls the Senate, and seems to have control for the next few years, they don't need the house or the presidency and can just block everything they don't like...sound familiar?
For the Democrats to win back the Senate, they have to win again in places like the Dakotas, the South, Idaho, the heartland etc.
And not too long ago their were Democratic Senators in North Dakota, Arkansas and Tennessee. That is not going to happen again anytime soon, and no one is talking about it. Hence the title of this thread.
In my humble opinion, the real wildcard, is white male working class voters. A voting bloc that once voted solidly Democratic, but whom conventional wisdom suggests now cast their ballots for Republicans.
Majority of my white male friends vote Republicans, especially the working class. Then I have another group of liberal white male friends only like Libertarian party or maybe Bernie.
But if one party controls the Senate, and seems to have control for the next few years, they don't need the house or the presidency and can just block everything they don't like...sound familiar?
For the Democrats to win back the Senate, they have to win again in places like the Dakotas, the South, Idaho, the heartland etc.
And not too long ago their were Democratic Senators in North Dakota, Arkansas and Tennessee. That is not going to happen again anytime soon, and no one is talking about it. Hence the title of this thread.
You do realize the Republicans have a lot more seats to defend this election than the Democrats do. We are going to see an influx of Democrat senators this election, as well as another Democrat president.
So Idaho and Montana don't have enough voters to make a difference in the Senate or Congress?
The two states only send 3 Representatives and 4 Senators to Washington. In straight party line votes, they don't make much of a difference.
But in terms of seniority, they may make a difference; one of Idaho's Representatives is a senior house member who sits on several of the most important house committees, and the same is true with one Idaho senator.
In the past, some Montana senators were very prominent in the same fashion. Max Baucus, a senior senator from Montana, for example, was the senator who steered Obamacare through the senate. Montana senator Mike Mansfield was a real force in the senate for over 30 years, from the 50s through the 70s. Mansfield was the Senate Majority leader for well over a decade.
Seniority is the most important reason why the rural states don't become irrelevant in Congress. Other reasons are agriculture, defense (most rural states have important military bases), and all the extracive industries; mining, logging, etc.
Most of the west is federal land, which also tends to make those states relatively important.
But when it comes to population, the OP is generally correct; rural residents tend to be conservative, largely due to the vagaries of nature, the loss of their young people, and other factors. Neither party actually concentrates on them. The Republicans take the rural red states for granted, and the Democrats have little to gain from spending time and money on them during elections.
Especially in the west, one city can make all the difference. Las Vegas, for example, has more residents than the rest of the state combined. Democrats in Las Vegas can make a big difference in Washington, but much less difference in State government.
Even so, not all the west is reliably Republican. Many have swung to either party and in many, the Republicans only have a narrow majority. Western Democrats are often almost as conservative as Republicans as well, but there are a lot of areas that are traditionally very liberal, especially all the mining districts in the west. Mines were some of the first industries to unionize, and some areas are still very liberal as part of their tradition.
The west is also changing in some states due to immigration. All kinds of folks are moving westward for all kinds of reasons and bring their politics with them when they move.
There are some on this thread who would like to portray Liberals as everyone's best friend. The fact is if you are not on board you are consider enemy of the party. They speak of rights of all, but purposely go after the 1st and 2nd Amendment of the Constitution,
Libs want big Gov to fund all the free stuff they claim they are giving you out of the goodness of their tiny liberal hearts. Please do not be fool by "we are going to take care of you" The biggest lie since Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that women".
And all but Vermont are pretty Republican (One of the two Senators from Maine is independent, but he caucuses with the GOP) And Vermont is known for having a bunch of retired hippies, and is a fluke on the election map, just as the city of Fort Worth is a fluke, being bigger than Seattle but being a Republican stronghold.
Yes and there are significantly fewer black people then white people in America, so should a party ignore them too?
The suburban vote is going GOP too. Hell, like I said, in a few years they will have nothing but minorities and inner-city white hipsters voting for them. Look at the South: just twenty years ago it was still competitive. Now, with the exceptions of Virginia and Florida, it's lost. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/up...html?_r=0'
But I guess nobody lives in Tennessee, Kentucky, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, or Arkansas? Awful of empty space in the US...
Angus King of Maine is an Independent who caucuses with the Senate Democrats.
On the second point highlighted, if he had won the suburban vote, Mitt Romney would have elected. He won the Southern suburban vote. In most of the Deep South there is very little difference between the white college and white non-college vote. (The exceptions in the South were North Carolina and Virginia, where the splits in the white vote were 14% and 17% respectively). Outside of the South, whites historically don't vote in racial lockstep. If and when the rest of the country votes like Mississippi, the Democrats are dead, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
FYI, here's a listing of states from the most to least urban, courtesy of Wiki:
18 Red States in bottom half:1. Louisiana (27), 2. Nebraska (28), 3. Indiana (29), 4. Idaho (30), 5. Missouri (31), 6. Tennessee (33), 7. South Carolina (34), 8. Oklahoma (35), 9. Alaska (37), 10. Wyoming (38), 11. North Dakota (42), 12. Alabama (43), 13. Kentucky (44), 14. South Dakota (45), 15. Arkansas (46), 16. Montana (47), 17. Mississippi (48),
18. West Virginia (49).
4 Blue Wall States in bottom half: Minnesota (26), Wisconsin (32), Maine (40), Vermont (50)
3 Swing states in bottom half: North Carolina (36), Iowa (39), New Hampshire (41)
Last edited by Bureaucat; 10-01-2015 at 09:15 AM..
But if one party controls the Senate, and seems to have control for the next few years, they don't need the house or the presidency and can just block everything they don't like...sound familiar?
.
Block what? Dems got ACA through when they had the trifecta. The GOP Congress accomplished NOTHING. It is unable to reverse what BO got through his first few years, when DEms ran Congress.
Everyone talks about demographics and the GOP. The GOP has a problem with attracting Latinos and blacks, but some are at least trying to change that. The liberal media mocks them, but at least it's an attempt...granted, with people like Trump running, it makes it hard for them sometimes.
But the Democrats have the same problem with rural, white voters. The white working-class as a whole is essentially off limits to Democrats. They have urban whites and a big chunk of the suburban middle-class white vote, but NONE of the blue collar whites, especially in the country.
Thing is, there just isn't enough of them to win elections. The GOP's problem in urban centers is a much bigger deal because that is where elections are won.
Thing is, there just isn't enough of them to win elections. The GOP's problem in urban centers is a much bigger deal because that is where elections are won.
Quantity rules!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They really Do!
