> If we want to play that game, the Democrats have only won a majority of the popular vote twice in the last 30 years. > What is it about the Democrats that doesn't resonate with a majority, right?
" Not obtaining a majority popular vote" is a bit more, shall we say, refined than "Loosing the popular vote.". there are third parties and "other" categories to consider. 5 out of 6 times some other guy got more votes than the republican. That 5 out of 6 goes back to Clinton, but that's not an artificial line, drawn by my cunning to pump my stats. Before Clinton, we're talking Reagan era Republicans (as bush Sr. rode his coat tails) . Now, how is Reagan era Republicanism different than the current era? There are probably lots of ways, but the most evident to me is the reliance on social conservatives as a ground force.
> But consider this exit:
Source please?
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 13/11/12 04:02 (UTC)> What is it about the Democrats that doesn't resonate with a majority, right?
" Not obtaining a majority popular vote" is a bit more, shall we say, refined than "Loosing the popular vote.". there are third parties and "other" categories to consider. 5 out of 6 times some other guy got more votes than the republican. That 5 out of 6 goes back to Clinton, but that's not an artificial line, drawn by my cunning to pump my stats. Before Clinton, we're talking Reagan era Republicans (as bush Sr. rode his coat tails) . Now, how is Reagan era Republicanism different than the current era? There are probably lots of ways, but the most evident to me is the reliance on social conservatives as a ground force.
> But consider this exit:
Source please?