For a few reasons:

1. Liberal Republicans (aka big money) in Kansas has proven over and over and over that they

   are more than willing to compromise women's reproductive freedom and Darwin for the big money

   contracts and tax cuts that Republican majorities bring.

2. Liberal Republicans in Kansas are despised even more than Democrats, and courting them

   will ultimately cost center-conservative Democratic farm votes from Iowa to Missouri for ever

   Republican country-clubber vote they TRY to gain.

3. Law of numbers - there are a lot more traditional populists in Kansas than big monied Republicans, and therefore pursuing those voters is a much better option - precisely why the GOP did so.
4. The battle of abortion and Darwin is going to be fought in Bush's supreme court anyway

LISTEN to me. The Democrats are much better off to recapture traditional Democratic voters in Kansas by stearing clear of social issues and exposing the GOP as the charlatans they are (ie, people who talk cultural conservatism but DELIVER tax cuts for billionaires , deregulation, record deficits with China and outsourcing) than to paint themselves furhter in a corner as out of touch social liberals in an area where that doesn't appeal to many. Indeed let's go after the farmers in Decatur, the machinists in Wicheta, and the hispanics meatpackers in Dodge city rather than a few richey-rich's in Overland Park that probably aren't ever going to vote Dem anyway.

After all, the very heart of traditional Democratic populism began in Kansas. If we ever want to see the light of majority again, THAT's the vote we need. It's past time to ourselves if we really want to be the party of legal abortion - or if we want to be the party of working families.

I've wished for years that the "social conservative" (aka reactionary fundamentalist christians) would go away so that the republican party could be conservative again. Actual conservatives tend to be pro choice, etc. We just think the govenrmant needs to leave people alone unless help or joint action is really needed. Issues like abortion, gay marraige, evolution, and flag burning are not conservative issues, but seem to define the republicans.

Conservatives have understood for years that conservative does not equal republican. Now, in Kansas, maybe liberal does not equal democrat. Cool.

I can understand the liberals getting mad when wrong thinkers obtain power as democrats. Its natural. Conservatives feel that way about the christian fundamenalists having republican power. Regardless, let the crazies own a marginalised republican party. Then the democratic primary becomes the real election. Wouldn't it be super cool if he republicans lost major party status?

There is no Decatur, Kansas. And if you can't spell Wichita, it's clear you don't know enough about Kansas or politics to be taken seriously.

Here's a tip: come strong or go home.

Party affiliations are so easily swapped because there is little real difference in the candidates of both parties. We have been operating this country on the singular "pro business" party for a long time. The divide between "conservative" and "liberal" is a fiction.

I couldn't have said it any better....even though I've tried in the past.

Good post.

Thank you for your trite, yet substanceless, flame.

However, I actually DO know quite a bit about Kansas (Decateur is a county darlin) and more importantly, unlike you, know quite a bit about how the GOP came to take what always had been solidly Dem territory over the past 25 years. It's social conservatism, honey, in an aging and rural state whose largest infux of newbies are hispanic cultural conservatives .

Therefore getting a few country-club Republicans to switch to Dem in the richest districts in Kansas City, may temporarily gain a seat or two, but in the long run it is NOT going to turn Kansas blue. Not according to me - and not according to others either ( who you'd no doubt claim no nothing about Kansas, such as author Thomas Franks.) Rather all it does is reinforce the idea that the Democrats are a collection of Godless liberal out of touch elitists - something you no doubt like the idea of, but hardly works out when trying to build an electoral majority.

So, in closing, my advice to YOU, is if you don't have anything of substance to counter this with, than please just sit in the corner and be vulgar.

Donna may have not "come strong", but she makes a very valid point. The article itself states that Johnson county accounts for 20% of Kansas residents. Throw in the other "affluent suburbs" sprinkled around the state, and we're talking about a small minority of voters in the state who actually vote with their own fiscal best interests at heart. Fiscal conservatives, a.k.a. "lower my taxes - now", a.k.a. I've got mine, so everyone else can go 'F' themselves.

The middle class Republicans of Wichita, Halstead and Dodge City, wooed to the GOP by the siren call of social issues, are even less likely to come back to the Democrats now that the party is being populated by the 'Boat shoe' and 'Alligator shirt' set that live in cushy gated communities and play 'Weed Hockey' (farmer-ese for Golf). Until the Democrats do a better job of explaining why they should come back, the farmers, machinists (if there's any left) and meat processors will continue to vote against their own best interests fiscally, or just stay home on election day. The government's job is to take care of people's physical and fiscal well being. It's the job of the Church and the family to take care of people's souls. Let's stop getting these confused.

In the 60 years since WWII, employment has been higher, wage growth has been better and even the stock market has gained more when there's been a Democrat in the White House.

This once prompted someone to say, "If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic".

The tides are turning. Even in Cupcake Land the crazy Right Wing ideology is starting to wane.

Kansas Democrats evolve into Republicans. The radical right and it's Taliban-like fundamentalism has so moved the political center (at least as the media is concerned) that Democrats running to the right of 70s Republicans are commonplace. A party that once championed the non-elite wage earner or small farmer now is almost totally in synch with the GOP on economic issues (yes, they spar over some tax cuts, but do not essentially challenge the GOP economic framework). So now all it takes to be a Democrat/liberal is to be for teaching science, or other equally bold initiatives.

I thought Nader was full of it when he said the parties are the same, but I may have been wrong. The GOP could not get away with being so right wing had the Democrats not moved so far to the right that the GOP looked within the realm of sane.