Quote:
Originally Posted by das11209
I am not sure that getting a southern candidate means the Dems will get Southern votes. People is South certainly has different issues than us - and they look at the republican party for some reason for their issues. If Gore could have carried Tennesse - then probably there would have been no GWB and no Iraq war. Edwards for that matter was the running partner of Kerrie - how did that work out in south? He could not even carry South Carolina.
|
Gore ran one of the worst campaigns in recent history. He should have won easily. As for Edwards having no effect, the bottom of the ticket rarely does. The fact is that in the last 30 years two democrats have won the presidency. Both were southerners and Clinton ran right down the middle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by das11209
The election time always reminds me how deeply divided we are. I think of the election map - blue in the coasts and the north east. Red in south and center. Apart from 2-3 swing states - that ain't gonna change irrespective of who is running for which party.
|
Close elections do not mean that the nation is divided. The Republicans have been better at national campaign strategy in presidential elections. In only a handful of years has a Presidential candidate won more than 60% of the vote-- Nixon in 1972 and LBJ in 1964. Did that mean that we were less divided? I don't understand what people mean by saying that the country is divided. The solid south has been an electoral reality for a long long time.