Are you honestly so conceited as to believe that this laughably superficial, rather naive assessment counts as some kind of insight? There is literally nothing new in there. Plus, Democrats usually win in urban areas, where, as pretty much everywhere, bad governing is usually not the intended outcome.
You mistake federal campaign strategies and rhetoric for government policy.
True, there is nothing new here which is exactly why it is a good question why this isn't implemented better. It doesn't matter that bad governing isn't the intended outcome, however it evidently happens.
Therefore campaigning and actual policy should be closer to one another. Because otherwise you are just opening hole for the GOP and people are just tired of "rhetoric". If the campaign strategies and policies don't match too well you well probably be seen as fraud, what evidently isn't too good for campaigns down the road. When you take a look at the map the GOP in this cycle increased the number of seats in the house and quite a good chunk of that were pretty urban or blue state seats: LA, NYC, Salt lake city, Oklahoma city, towns on South Carolina coast, half of new Mexico, a decent chunk of Central valley in California ... etc. What almost tilted the house.
ABC news - house map
The fact is that some blue areas are quite dysfunctional and that is opening the gaps for GOP, or at least you have to spend money there because "it will be close". Which you could have saved for the actual swing state.
I am simply saying that parts of blue sates shouldn't look like this. Especially since I think this is avoidable.
Even if you throw politics out of the window they shouldn't look like this (what is evidently bad governing).
Plus you should treat my post more as a rant. Since that is what it really is.
