RINO Tom/Rockefeller GOP v. Santander/Southern Gothic

[White Trash]

This may be the first election in a long time where Connecticut and West Virginia are competitive

[White Trash]

Potential map:

280(R) - 258(D)

No way our economic populism and my staunch pro-union sentiment don't swing over PA

[White Trash]

Wow, couple of RINOs in this thread!

You're the third.

Gotta love when Indies anyone calls anyone at all a RINO, LOL.

There ya go!

[White Trash]

Wow, couple of RINOs in this thread!

You're the third.

Gotta love when Indies anyone calls anyone at all a RINO, LOL.

There ya go!

Touché!

But yeah, I think Rocky went crazy, haha.

He's your Thomas Eagleton.

That's usually bad news for the ticket's chances in the general.

[White Trash]

There'd be a few "switches" (AR, WV, KY come home, I might win the ever-Democratic NH), but there's just no way I flip MA, NY, RI, etc.

I think Maine, Nevada and Colorado go your way. You could also make Oregon very competitive.

[White Trash]

I just had the realization that Tom would win. Santander is a immigrant IIRC. Plus, Santander and I would clash too much to be a viable ticket.

[White Trash]

I just had the realization that Tom would win. Santander is a immigrant IIRC. Plus, Santander and I would clash too much to be a viable ticket.

Honestly I'm still trying to figure out exactly what tethers Santander to the Democratic party. His posts/views seem more Republican-ish/conservative.

Same thing that ties RINO Tom to the Pubs. Orneriness.

[White Trash]

I higgly doubt Southern Gothic would want to share a ticket with the other guy.

I like Santander. I consider a friend and all, but there is no way we would work as a ticket. The fact that I'm going to be engaged to a Black woman may or may not sit well with him. Plus, I'm much more socially moderate than people seem to think.

[White Trash]

My deepest apologies. I had just heard rumors that got me worried.

[White Trash]

Sometimes, I wonder if West Virginia didn't become a GOP stronghold in order to troll RINO Tom haha

I mean, they probably just got tired of voting for a party that had kept them poor for decades.

In that case, Mississippi should dump all their Republicans that have kept them poor for decades.

But we all know why that won't happen...

MS did dump the party that had kept it poor for decades, and it now enjoys GOP control.  If we're going to give both parties an equal shot to fix the mess that is MS, we can check back in in about 80 years.

In all my experience regarding elections in the South, economics is rarely an issue that is stressed. The social divide between Democrats and Republicans is really what it comes down to in our elections. When you look at the platforms of the individual Republican parties, there are entire novels written about opposing the President and pushing for conservative social reform. With maybe a line here or there thrown out about the free market.

[White Trash]

Sometimes, I wonder if West Virginia didn't become a GOP stronghold in order to troll RINO Tom haha

I mean, they probably just got tired of voting for a party that had kept them poor for decades.

In that case, Mississippi should dump all their Republicans that have kept them poor for decades.

But we all know why that won't happen...

MS did dump the party that had kept it poor for decades, and it now enjoys GOP control.  If we're going to give both parties an equal shot to fix the mess that is MS, we can check back in in about 80 years.

In all my experience regarding elections in the South, economics is rarely an issue that is stressed. The social divide between Democrats and Republicans is really what it comes down to in our elections. When you look at the platforms of the individual Republican parties, there are entire novels written about opposing the President and pushing for conservative social reform. With maybe a line here or there thrown out about the free market.

Aren't you a self-described socially conservative Democrat?

Socially conservative compared to the national Democrats. Socially liberal compared to Louisiana Democrats

[White Trash]

Sometimes, I wonder if West Virginia didn't become a GOP stronghold in order to troll RINO Tom haha

I mean, they probably just got tired of voting for a party that had kept them poor for decades.

In that case, Mississippi should dump all their Republicans that have kept them poor for decades.

But we all know why that won't happen...

MS did dump the party that had kept it poor for decades, and it now enjoys GOP control.  If we're going to give both parties an equal shot to fix the mess that is MS, we can check back in in about 80 years.

In all my experience regarding elections in the South, economics is rarely an issue that is stressed. The social divide between Democrats and Republicans is really what it comes down to in our elections. When you look at the platforms of the individual Republican parties, there are entire novels written about opposing the President and pushing for conservative social reform. With maybe a line here or there thrown out about the free market.

Aren't you a self-described socially conservative Democrat?

Socially conservative compared to the national Democrats. Socially liberal compared to Louisiana Democrats

Okay, but did you not just disprove your point?  If LA Democrats are socially conservative, especially compared to a Democrat who's socially conservative compared to the national party, then obviously statewide elections (which is what is relevant here) aren't completely about social issues and highlight at least some economic differences.  People seem to gloss over the '70s, '80s and '90s, but the South was effectively a battleground region.  Republicans didn't gain control of the region until into the 2000s, and they were running against Democrats and losing ... in any election, anywhere, the two candidates are going to highlight their differences.  The Republicans of 2016 I can't speak to, but the Republicans who slowly started defeating Southern Democrats were convincing voters to try something new, and both candidates were pretty much the same on social issues ... eventually, many Southerners did try something new.

Whether you want to deflect this or not, there is a direct relationship between Republicans gaining more power in the South and the region becoming more developed, less poor and less backward.

I didn't disprove my own point. The social conservatives in the South are ridiculously to the right regarding social issues. Look at Oklahoma and the wackiness that is going on over there. Now, I can't speak for elections in the last century, but I know that the rhetoric today in Southern elections is still centered around social issues.

While there has been plenty of work done by the SoCons in the South to push their platforms, there has actually been very little economic reform in either direction, conservative or liberal. When Southerners started casting their votes for Republicans, they didn't give a rat's behind about the free market. Southerners are the most reliant on welfare and government funding than any other Americans, and they are well aware of it. They aren't going to vote for the candidate who wants to cut Maw and Paw's Medicaid, they want the candidate who will end abortion, SSM etc.

[White Trash]

Sometimes, I wonder if West Virginia didn't become a GOP stronghold in order to troll RINO Tom haha

I mean, they probably just got tired of voting for a party that had kept them poor for decades.

In that case, Mississippi should dump all their Republicans that have kept them poor for decades.

But we all know why that won't happen...

MS did dump the party that had kept it poor for decades, and it now enjoys GOP control.  If we're going to give both parties an equal shot to fix the mess that is MS, we can check back in in about 80 years.

In all my experience regarding elections in the South, economics is rarely an issue that is stressed. The social divide between Democrats and Republicans is really what it comes down to in our elections. When you look at the platforms of the individual Republican parties, there are entire novels written about opposing the President and pushing for conservative social reform. With maybe a line here or there thrown out about the free market.

Aren't you a self-described socially conservative Democrat?

Socially conservative compared to the national Democrats. Socially liberal compared to Louisiana Democrats

Okay, but did you not just disprove your point?  If LA Democrats are socially conservative, especially compared to a Democrat who's socially conservative compared to the national party, then obviously statewide elections (which is what is relevant here) aren't completely about social issues and highlight at least some economic differences.  People seem to gloss over the '70s, '80s and '90s, but the South was effectively a battleground region.  Republicans didn't gain control of the region until into the 2000s, and they were running against Democrats and losing ... in any election, anywhere, the two candidates are going to highlight their differences.  The Republicans of 2016 I can't speak to, but the Republicans who slowly started defeating Southern Democrats were convincing voters to try something new, and both candidates were pretty much the same on social issues ... eventually, many Southerners did try something new.

Whether you want to deflect this or not, there is a direct relationship between Republicans gaining more power in the South and the region becoming more developed, less poor and less backward.

I didn't disprove my own point. The social conservatives in the South are ridiculously to the right regarding social issues. Look at Oklahoma and the wackiness that is going on over there. Now, I can't speak for elections in the last century, but I know that the rhetoric today in Southern elections is still centered around social issues.

While there has been plenty of work done by the SoCons in the South to push their platforms, there has actually been very little economic reform in either direction, conservative or liberal. When Southerners started casting their votes for Republicans, they didn't give a rat's behind about the free market. Southerners are the most reliant on welfare and government funding than any other Americans, and they are well aware of it. They aren't going to vote for the candidate who wants to cut Maw and Paw's Medicaid, they want the candidate who will end abortion, SSM etc.

This is very true. Me and my fellow white male working class blue collar Reagan Democrat coal miners were so displeased with the Republicans who passed that right-to-work law that we considered switching back to the Democrats. But then we all remembered the disgusting creature in the White House, the Democratic Party becoming an anti-white hate group, and the best presidential candidate in decades winning the GOP nomination, and dispelled that notion from our heads. We are Republicans for life now.

Please don't get involved with this. RINO Tom and I were actually having a good discussion. You really aren't adding anything to this, brother.

[White Trash]

Sometimes, I wonder if West Virginia didn't become a GOP stronghold in order to troll RINO Tom haha

I mean, they probably just got tired of voting for a party that had kept them poor for decades.

In that case, Mississippi should dump all their Republicans that have kept them poor for decades.

But we all know why that won't happen...

MS did dump the party that had kept it poor for decades, and it now enjoys GOP control.  If we're going to give both parties an equal shot to fix the mess that is MS, we can check back in in about 80 years.

In all my experience regarding elections in the South, economics is rarely an issue that is stressed. The social divide between Democrats and Republicans is really what it comes down to in our elections. When you look at the platforms of the individual Republican parties, there are entire novels written about opposing the President and pushing for conservative social reform. With maybe a line here or there thrown out about the free market.

Aren't you a self-described socially conservative Democrat?

Socially conservative compared to the national Democrats. Socially liberal compared to Louisiana Democrats

Okay, but did you not just disprove your point?  If LA Democrats are socially conservative, especially compared to a Democrat who's socially conservative compared to the national party, then obviously statewide elections (which is what is relevant here) aren't completely about social issues and highlight at least some economic differences.  People seem to gloss over the '70s, '80s and '90s, but the South was effectively a battleground region.  Republicans didn't gain control of the region until into the 2000s, and they were running against Democrats and losing ... in any election, anywhere, the two candidates are going to highlight their differences.  The Republicans of 2016 I can't speak to, but the Republicans who slowly started defeating Southern Democrats were convincing voters to try something new, and both candidates were pretty much the same on social issues ... eventually, many Southerners did try something new.

Whether you want to deflect this or not, there is a direct relationship between Republicans gaining more power in the South and the region becoming more developed, less poor and less backward.

I didn't disprove my own point. The social conservatives in the South are ridiculously to the right regarding social issues. Look at Oklahoma and the wackiness that is going on over there. Now, I can't speak for elections in the last century, but I know that the rhetoric today in Southern elections is still centered around social issues.

While there has been plenty of work done by the SoCons in the South to push their platforms, there has actually been very little economic reform in either direction, conservative or liberal. When Southerners started casting their votes for Republicans, they didn't give a rat's behind about the free market. Southerners are the most reliant on welfare and government funding than any other Americans, and they are well aware of it. They aren't going to vote for the candidate who wants to cut Maw and Paw's Medicaid, they want the candidate who will end abortion, SSM etc.

I guess my question, then, is why did Southerners stop voting for STATEWIDE Democrats who also opposed those things?  And why were emerging Southern suburbs, areas far less dependent on federal expenditure, start supporting local Republicans long before rural areas?

I can't speak to federal elections, which do seem to be dominated by social issues in the South, and my argument loses all of its weight BY NOW (now that Republicans dominate state governments), but I think when you look at county results of governor's races across the region, Republicans were only able to make inroads in wealthier, more suburban areas at first, leading me to believe they were able to pitch a message of "hey, we're just as socially conservative as that rural Democrat guy (i.e., we're no Yankee Republican), but it's about time you stop voting for these liberal economic reforms!"  I mean, going back to the '50s, Republicans stood no chance in the South until wealthy Southerners and the Southern business community started voting like their Northern counterparts.

Today might be a different story, but I think there's evidence that the GOP's first real inroads in the South were indeed fiscal-oriented.

I can't contest that, I haven't done my research on the past few decades while you evidently have . All I can say is what I know from the most recent elections.

[White Trash]

Sometimes, I wonder if West Virginia didn't become a GOP stronghold in order to troll RINO Tom haha

I mean, they probably just got tired of voting for a party that had kept them poor for decades.

In that case, Mississippi should dump all their Republicans that have kept them poor for decades.

But we all know why that won't happen...

MS did dump the party that had kept it poor for decades, and it now enjoys GOP control.  If we're going to give both parties an equal shot to fix the mess that is MS, we can check back in in about 80 years.

In all my experience regarding elections in the South, economics is rarely an issue that is stressed. The social divide between Democrats and Republicans is really what it comes down to in our elections. When you look at the platforms of the individual Republican parties, there are entire novels written about opposing the President and pushing for conservative social reform. With maybe a line here or there thrown out about the free market.

Aren't you a self-described socially conservative Democrat?

Socially conservative compared to the national Democrats. Socially liberal compared to Louisiana Democrats

Okay, but did you not just disprove your point?  If LA Democrats are socially conservative, especially compared to a Democrat who's socially conservative compared to the national party, then obviously statewide elections (which is what is relevant here) aren't completely about social issues and highlight at least some economic differences.  People seem to gloss over the '70s, '80s and '90s, but the South was effectively a battleground region.  Republicans didn't gain control of the region until into the 2000s, and they were running against Democrats and losing ... in any election, anywhere, the two candidates are going to highlight their differences.  The Republicans of 2016 I can't speak to, but the Republicans who slowly started defeating Southern Democrats were convincing voters to try something new, and both candidates were pretty much the same on social issues ... eventually, many Southerners did try something new.

Whether you want to deflect this or not, there is a direct relationship between Republicans gaining more power in the South and the region becoming more developed, less poor and less backward.

I didn't disprove my own point. The social conservatives in the South are ridiculously to the right regarding social issues. Look at Oklahoma and the wackiness that is going on over there. Now, I can't speak for elections in the last century, but I know that the rhetoric today in Southern elections is still centered around social issues.

While there has been plenty of work done by the SoCons in the South to push their platforms, there has actually been very little economic reform in either direction, conservative or liberal. When Southerners started casting their votes for Republicans, they didn't give a rat's behind about the free market. Southerners are the most reliant on welfare and government funding than any other Americans, and they are well aware of it. They aren't going to vote for the candidate who wants to cut Maw and Paw's Medicaid, they want the candidate who will end abortion, SSM etc.

This is very true. Me and my fellow white male working class blue collar Reagan Democrat coal miners were so displeased with the Republicans who passed that right-to-work law that we considered switching back to the Democrats. But then we all remembered the disgusting creature in the White House, the Democratic Party becoming an anti-white hate group, and the best presidential candidate in decades winning the GOP nomination, and dispelled that notion from our heads. We are Republicans for life now.

Please don't get involved with this. RINO Tom and I were actually having a good discussion. You really aren't adding anything to this, brother.

But it was my post that initialized the discussion.

Even fellow Southerners look down on us West Virginians.

Your post did initialize it, but that last post was just another chance to showcase your parody account, which didn't help the discussion.