AAA, what happened? You took a lunch break and had Pabst ghost write for you?
I hope you are not serious. I sincerely doubt (just for example) that there are more homosexual Democrats than Republicans.
As for "welfare activists"....really, how many of them can there possibly be? What kind of impact can they have on national politics?
Environmentalist? Who IS NOT concerned with the environment? Forget the extremists. I am talking about the normal and concerned populace. I assure you the Republican party has a very substantial number of voters that is very unhappy with the very self serving positions of the Bush (oil) administration. Remember how popular James Watt was? How many people really want to see oil derricks in Yellowstone? Who wants filthy air and water? Besides, as we saw 3 years ago, the extremists voted for Nader...which was assumed to have cost Gore votes.
Unions? Yes, at one time. And I suppose in theory still. But in reality, who loved Nixon more than the hard-hats? Now they love Bush. Especially in a Navy flight suit. The unions may endorse Democrats, but the members vote in the privacy of the voting booths. And they LOVE anyone who wraps themselves in the American flag. So my best guess would be that the union members (there are less and less by the way...and more and more "right to work" states"). is that the union member's vote is pretty evenly split. Possibly more Rep union VOTERS than Dem.
"Pro Choice" again, an issue that has Dems and Reps in both their camps. And just like "welfare activists", "abortion rights activists" add up to a non factor. How many "activists" do you know regarding these issues? I don't know any. And I know a lot of very politically active people.
Affirmative action/racial quota advocates...same thing. This is a matter of law, not votes. But still, not a major issue. And definitely not a campaign issue.
The important thing is this. There are almost exactly the same number of registered Democrats and Republicans. The special interest groups you mention just aren't comprised of enough voters to make this so.
You are right about the demographics. The East Coast/West Coast vs. the central states.
Maybe it's about the typical level of education. Or maybe it's about people who like salt water fishing as opposed to fresh water fishing. Surfers? Farmers? Tradition? Whatever the reason, this just changes over time.
Barry Goldwater couldn't make a dent in the popular or electoral college vote. Just like Dukakis couldn't. Or McGovern.
But Clinton was able to win against an incumbent. So was Carter.
People vote for change when they aren't happy. They vote to keep things as they are when they are happy. It's that simple. Reagan said it best...."Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" That really is what determines the outcomes of Presidential elections. That and the debates. Nixon proved that. But the art of preparing for debates has been highly refined since then. No one will ever look as bad as Nixon did (appearance).
If the economy sees a real recovery, Bush will win.
It is really only possible at this point for Bush to lose if he self destructs. Which seems almost unimaginable. And you know what? As incompetent as I believe he is, that wouldn't bother me in the least. As long as he doesn't attempt to stuff the Supreme Court with Justices Clarance Thomas clones. One is more than enough. I would really like to see an apolitical court (if that is possible..but that is how it should be).
Peace,
RS