Changes

''Why'' is the Senate more [[liberal]] than the House?  Reasons include:

''Why'' is the Senate more [[liberal]] than the House?  Reasons include:

*Natural changes in voting patterns.   Over the past 154 years of the Senate, the Senate has been a Republican institution 53% of the time.

*Natural changes in voting patterns. Over the past 154 years of the Senate, the Senate has been a Republican institution 53% of the time.

*Senate elections are statewide, and thus are more easily influenced by [[liberal]] media organizations than local House elections are.

*Senate elections are statewide, and thus are more easily influenced by [[liberal]] media organizations than local House elections are.

*Senate election races are less dependent on grassroots activism than on money, which tends to shift the focus away from the social views of the voters

*Senate election races are less dependent on grassroots activism than on money, which tends to shift the focus away from the social views of the voters

*Gerrymandering and voter distribution.   There are House seats that are totally safe for Democrats, and some totally safe for Republicans. The Charles Rangel’s seat is a perfect example of one the Democrats could not lose unless they ran a convicted child rapist.With no fear of losing in an election, you only fear is base. There are lots of Republican candidates that could never lose to a Democrat, but could be ousted by the Tea Party. They therefor have to appeal to the Tea Party and not the centrist voter.  Same idea with the Democrats.Now, a certain number of these safe seats occur naturally. Inner city ridings will tend to be highly Democratic while certain rural areas will always go Republican.  Politicians increase the number of these seats through Gerrymandering. Its in a Democrats best interest to have conservative areas of his district removed and liberal sections added. Its in a Republican’s best interest to go along with it - because his seat becomes safer as well. The Senate is different. You can’t Gerrymander a Senate seat and the laws of probability will give you a much tighter race that is decided by independent voters and not the base. Senators therefore need to appeal to the independent voter over the base. Just look at the last election. The Republicans were supposed to win in Nevada, Delaware and Alaska.In all three cases the candidates focused more on the base than the independent voter and lost.   

*Gerrymandering and voter distribution. There are House seats that are totally safe for Democrats, and some totally safe for Republicans. Charles Rangel’s seat is a perfect example of one the Democrats will not lose for the foreseeable future. With no fear of losing in an election, you only fear is base. There are lots of Republican candidates that could never lose to a Democrat, but could be ousted by the Tea Party. They therefore have to appeal to the Tea Party and not the centrist voter.  Same idea with the Democrats. Now, a certain number of these safe seats occur naturally. Cities will tend to be highly Democratic while certain rural areas will always go Republican.  Politicians increase the number of these seats through Gerrymandering. It is in a Democrat's best interest to have conservative areas of his district removed and liberal sections added. It is in a Republican’s best interest to go along with it - because his seat becomes safer as well. The Senate is different. You can’t Gerrymander a Senate seat and the laws of probability will give you a much tighter race that is decided by independent voters and not the base. Senators therefore need to appeal to the independent voter over the base. Just look at the last election. The Republicans were supposed to win in Nevada, Delaware and Alaska. In all three cases the candidates focused more on the base than the independent voter and lost.   

{{Add to list}}

{{Add to list}}