General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If Democratic candidates ran on progressive ideas on a consistent basis... [View all]MADem
(135,425 posts)It's not about "liberals"--it's about people who share the culture and history and sensibilities and (!!!!!!) religious beliefs of the majority of the people in the state having a HUGE leg up over someone who doesn't share those things. It's about people who priorities those things, too, and make it clear that they understand what their constituents are facing in their daily lives.
Liberals do just fine in San Francisco, and Boston, and Montpelier, but they have a harder time in Houston and Baton Rouge and Birmingham. That's just FACT. The culture is more conservative in those cities, and all of the snark in the world isn't going to change that. People won't vote for "liberal ideas" because they aren't comfortable with them. They are comfortable with people who respond to their needs.
The bottom line is this--if you are a candidate who is telling the voter how you will help them, they will respond to you. If you are a candidate wagging your finger at a constituency and telling them that the jobs that put food on their tables are "evil," that they don't need to worry about their electric bills because "in the future" everyone will have solar panels that cost more than the house they live in, that their religious beliefs are stupid or wrong, they're just not going to get much play. People don't like to be talked AT, or DOWN to.
If you think that's a "sellout strategy" to appeal to the wants and needs of a constituency, you have a rather warped idea of what "representative government" is all about. Tip had it right--all politics is local. I'm astounded how many people chalk up failures to other things, but that's your bottom line, right there.