More election analysis

[pegkerr]

Two articles here and here, with election analysis (strong warning: very angry and contemptuous of Republicans) with some interesting observations for Democrats. I include them because whether you agree or disagree about their recommendations (and some are definitely inflammatory) the analysis of voter breakdown (what types of people voted for which candidate) might possibly be useful to know.

Comments

[jbru.livejournal.com]

I'll take exception to the author of the piece in Seattle's The Stranger as well. I'm a member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party, thankyouverymuch, buster. Those hicks you're talking about are my family. Lay off.

I think that he has an interesting idea, however, in choosing "urban" as the focus of the national party in style and priority. I'll let him have his little bluster to bring that idea along. I think that, ironically, an "urban" strategy would attract a lot of young rural voters. Many of them are (as I and most of my classmates were) eager to get to the city. Even if it's just the "little" city down the road a piece and not the "big" city, there's an appeal that says hope and opportunity there. Many of their parents want their kids to move to the city so they can "do better" than mom and dad. That's maybe the line to take; stop dissing the rural folks, start building on the hope and opportunity of our golden cities.

[marykaykare.livejournal.com]

Hey, I never used indoor plumbing until I was six. But The Stranger's bashing didn't bother me much -- it's bile. That thing was meant as a manifesto I think and it certainly does seem to have gotten people talking. You have an interesting point about attracting the young rural voters. I'd certainly like to see it tried and I suspect both Minneapolis and Seattle (where you live and where I live and where the Stranger folks live) would be good test cases. I think the Stranger article went awry in being too dismissive of the suburbs -- I think we'll need them on our side at least somewhat.

MKK