The rule of the South and the Midwest

There's been an interesting shift in recent American politics, and one we should take into account when examining John Kerry's defeat as well as what's ahead for 2008.

As we have seen in this election, Democratic country is mainly composed of the West Coast states, the New England states as well as a few Great Lakes states.

However, my research has led me to find the following:

- Since Spiro T. Agnew in 1972, no New Englander has been on a winning national ticket.

- Since Ronald Reagan, no Californian has been on a winning ticket.

It seems that since 1968, the only way California or New England can be on a winning presidential ticket is by having a Republican candidate on the ballot.

Both parties seem to play a lot more to the South and the Midwest since 1989. George H.W. Bush, although from Connecticut, was associated with Texas, while his running mate was from Indiana. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were both from the South. George W. Bush is also from the South, and Dick Cheney is from the Midwest.

Both parties know the importance of balancing the ticket - there's always someone with a recognizable Southern accent running for President or Vice President.

Interestingly enough, two of the most-spoken names for 2008 represent New York - Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. But with what I've stated above, can they win? Or should the parties go with Bill Frist and John Edwards?

No the country is not ready for a women president yet, this is a male dominated society.

Giuliani, has a shady past and he is to liberal on his views, for the "conservative" america.

America is unconcerned with region when it comes to politics, except as attitudes and political convictions are influenced by region.

I think that values means a lot and the South and Midwest are known for this.

Otts:

I believe its the media

If the media stopped showing republican/democrat stuff- and started showing just as much libertarian stuff- libertarian would win


Controll the media and you controll the public

As the baby boomer �me� culture dies out so will the bulk of the liberal element in this country. Don�t think the new immigrant population is liberal, it�s very conservative. Kerry had a large problem with the Hispanic vote because of his support of abortion, which is a big no-no in the largely Catholic Hispanic minorities.

Sorry folks, it�s only going to get worse for the liberals. They�ve peaked in America and you can expect diminishing results appealing to this group.

I am thinking that if the influx if Mexican immigrants keeps up, that even CA will turn into a conservative base.

Originally posted by MrNice
Kerry had a large problem with the Hispanic vote because of his support of abortion, which is a big no-no in the largely Catholic Hispanic minorities.

Ha, ha, ha, you should come to my littler catholic rule spanish Island and see, women prefer midwifes to do the abortions is more "quiet" and "private" Then you always can go on sunday and confess your sins for redeption after the deed is done.

Plus is helps when the young girl is just a child her "reputation" can be kept clean.

marg:

wait...its coming.....



BAM! Upper left hand corner..WOMAN!!!!!! We're ready, we just won't admit it yet.

Otts: i Understand your reasoning. But there have been only 8 elections since the two you described. There's always some mass conspiracy controlling the South, I agree, but where have the past 8 presidents and their VP's been from, other than NOT being from California or New England? I can't do the research- my computer is acting up. Ha!



[edit on 11-6-04 by Scat]

Scat - if I ever fall in the "well the Democrats have lost two elections" discourse, someone please slap me behind the head. The Democrats were out of office from 1860 to 1884 and still came back. So did the Republicans after 20 years out of power, in 1952.

What I mean to say is, do the regions the presidential and vice-presidential candidates represent reflect a deliberate political move in view of the big cultural divide in America?

If you notice scat, in this nation women has been kept out of key positions that can help women's cause. The two main parties does have women but they are on places that does not help women issues at all.

Oh I forgot we do have an old maid in the supreme court but I bet that none of the next 4 appointees are going to be women.

And yes the republican and democrat are two parties that are hard to kill they always come back like the phenix.

Originally posted by marg6043
Ha, ha, ha, you should come to my littler catholic rule spanish Island and see, women prefer midwifes to do the abortions is more "quiet" and "private" Then you always can go on sunday and confess your sins for redeption after the deed is done.

Plus is helps when the young girl is just a child her "reputation" can be kept clean.

If ever there was evidence of the lack of a soul, this statement has to be it.

And, moreover, it's a laughing matter to kill a human child.

This kind of cold-blooded mentality isn't even approached by the Islamic terrorists.

This is far more repulsive and sickening.

Grady - you've just accused someone of lacking a soul. It's completely unwarranted. Apologize now.

Originally posted by Otts
Grady - you've just accused someone of lacking a soul. It's completely unwarranted. Apologize now.

Don't worry Otts since Grady has been in ATS with the some of threads has opened I wonder about his soul I guess he most be in denial.

Grady elections are over you are old news now get use to it you lost your soul a long time ago.

[edit on 093030p://666 by marg6043]

Originally posted by marg6043
If you notice scat, in this nation women has been kept out of key positions that can help women's cause. The two main parties does have women but they are on places that does not help women issues at all.

Oh I forgot we do have an old maid in the supreme court but I bet that none of the next 4 appointees are going to be women.

And yes the republican and democrat are two parties that are hard to kill they always come back like the phenix.

Women aren't "kept out" of positions that could help women. Women simply haven't reached positions in which they can help EVERYONE yet. To say that because there as not been a female president yet means that women are being kept out of the position in which they can help women is degrading to the female gender. Why? Because it gives the impression that if a female was president, her gender would be the deciding factor in her decisions. She would go easy on females simply because she is one. Can't women be unbiased too? You can use the same plane of thought for a black or latino president.

Women should help with "women issues" at a local level- woman to woman. A higher position will only make this exclusive help more biasedand unfair. But maybe everything I'm saying doesnt make sense, who knows. I'm angry. Ha!

you got me wrong scat I was not talking about the president seat but other brances in the government that women can reach out to women.

Guys - I'm not a mod and have no wish to be... but could we quit the soul-less accusations and get back to the topic at hand?