Saturday, November 06, 2004


I've been reading Matthew Yglesias more lately. He's a Democrat, but doesn't seem to follow the usual Democratic folly. That doesn't mean he's always right mind you. Take this quote from here:
Kevin's assertion that "the South is lost to the Democratic party," however, seems off-base. Most notably, Florida certainly isn't lost to the Democratic Party.
I'd just like to point out that Florida is not a Southern state. Oh its pretty far south, but culturally Florida is like Texas, a rule unto itself.

Here is another bit from further on in the same post:
One consequence of Bush's victory-through-regional-polarization should be that Democrats don't need to put up with Republican governors in California, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, etc.
Yes because it is not like the Democrats are at fault for contributing to the polarization of American. No that is something Bush created despite the fact that the vote in 2000, before he was elected, was similar to 2004. In any case, the truth is that the party that becomes dominant is going to be one that broadens its base and overcomes the current pigeonholed status both parties are suffering from. I think the Republicans are doing a much better job of this currently and the election backs this up. But its just currently.

Several of his commenters are pointing out that to overcome their regional problems, Democrats should start bringing more candidates forward from the West. They are of course missing the true regionalism of both parties. It has nothing to do with east, west, etc. It has everything to do with the urban/suburban/rural divide. Remember this post? Look at the map and notice the cities are blue and the suburbs/country is red. Democrats are still going to have trouble no matter where their candidate is from.

No comments: