Yet another analysis on why we lose elections (big pic inside)

Introduction:

This analysis is based on polls by the Pew Research Center that can be found here: http://typology.people-press.org/data/
They divvy up the political landscape in 9 ideological groups based on opinions on the most well-known political issues. The poll is based on a relatively large target group of 2000 people.

Analysis:

Below is the summation of the results from the Pew research. Because percentages are often deceiving, I also included the translation to actual head count. The split between dems, reps and indies is based on the personal opinion of the interviewed (i.e. what they consider themselves to be).

Conclusion:

Surprisingly (to me at least) liberals form the single largest "typolitical" group, followed by wealthy democrats. Together they make up 31% of the population and 34% of the registered voters.
Based on ideology alone, no less than 41% of the population leans blue. Compare that to a meager 29% red.
When we look at affiliation however (what people consider themselves to be), we see a nice three-way split.

Therefore, I will say it one more time: The DNC does a lousy job in communicating their positions.
We should have won those elections by a landslide, but we didn't. Bad, bad, bad! We need to work on making those two graphs look pretty much the same. The question is not "What's the matter with Kansas?", the question is "Why can't we prevent the US from turning into Kansas?"

message and of course our Prez candidate was a flop on message delivery.

we will have a hard time getting our message out.

This study once again demonstrates that we missed for open goal.

The media has its faults, but with some exceptions they are not affiliated with either side. We pay people a lot of money for their so-called media expertise. Their job was a lot easier than their Republican counterparts but still they failed.

We can't continue to blame this on circumstances or we will continue to lose the game. We HAVE the advantage and we NEED to cash in on it!

The media has its faults, but with some exceptions they are not affiliated with either side.

The 'side' the corporations are on is their own. And the GOP is also on the side of the corporations.

It isn't a matter of 'blaming circumstances' but recognizing reality.

Networks don't sell news, they sell advertisement. They will bring whatever news draws the biggest crowd.

Unfortunately runaway brides make for better ratings than Downing Street memos.

As Bush's approval ratings continue to drop, you will see more negative stories.

But it's not a chicken and egg situation. We won't see a change in approval ratings as long as the majority of the dems does not put up a fight or use whatever available channel to communicate the Democratic agenda (whatever that is).

And yes...it is (slowly) getting better.

If the repubs decide to use the :nuke: option then we are going to get a huge boost in '06 and '08. The American public won't want to see the senate go down the crapper.

Brandon

So IF we manage to get a huge boost in 2006 we will have the Republicans to thak for it?

What's wrong with that picture?

We don't let them win. IF they win this, there will be such a public backlash that they will lose hardcore. If we win this then we will show strength and solidarity. We can show how we defended the senate against a coup-de-ta. Either way, we win.

Brandon

These pictures also show that the red voter base is much more fractured than the blue one (41% solid).

If you, like so many others, asked yourself how it is possible that religious fundamentalists have so much say in this country, then here is your answer.

They form a crucial part of the red coalition. Although they represent only 9% of the population (and only 5% considers themselves Republican), the red coalition cannot, I repeat CAN NOT win an election without them.

They are therefore a political powerhouse and apparently they know it and manage to exploit their position to the fullest.

It might be good to remember this the next time you hear Falwell squawk.

1. There is a conflict of interest when the Democratic Party, which claims to represent the people, takes corporate cash from interests that sometimes have interests diametrically opposed to the people's interests.

2. The corporate news media has its own interests, and they don't necessarily coincide with the interests of the people, especially when it comes to trust-busting and the issue of media consolidation.

3. The Republicans have supporting them a massive network, the Republican apparat or the "labyrinth," that essentially serves as a government outside government for them. Think tanks, foundations, organizations--all channel their money into honing policy and directing their campaigns at every level from academic and commercial to political levels.

Democrats have been losing because of poor organization/management but also because of conflicts of interests that prevent the party from moving ahead. This is just addressing internal concerns within the party. The biggest external concern is the news media.

constituency. Because they are poor and often minorities there is little effort (except for some last minute canvassing)to support and organize tougher neighborhoods. I saw it first hand as a poll monitor in the last election. There was a close race for state senate and the party had an attractive candidate that the demographic suggested should have overwhelmed the incumbent yet half of the voters were not even familiar with her name. I dropped into the campaign's headquarters and found a disorganized, two-person staff with no minority presence. Yet at the last station I visited I met a local volunteer who complained at length that he no longer enjoyed the 'perks' that he had enjoyed in the 70's.