Talk Elections

A socially left wing(-4.0) and economically centrist(0.0) Republican versus the exact opposite Democrat. Who do you vote for?/Who wins?

Discuss with or without maps.

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

Potential map:
()
280(R) - 258(D)

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

Id vote for Santander and actively campaign for him.

Needless to say, I wouldn't love either ticket.  But, I guess I would go with Santander because social issues are most important to me.

Wow, couple of RINOs in this thread! :P

You're the third.

I think Tom may need a new running mate. Rocky seems to have disappeared into the abyss ever since Trump and Cruz have taken over his party. He must be taking the news pretty badly.

Santander of course! we are the majority!

I'll take the position. :P

Gotta love when Indies call 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.

I'm willing to be RINO Tom's Sargent Shriver, in that case.

I'd probably hold my nose and vote for Santander, but I think RINO Tom would win.


Yeah, PA should be safely Democratic in this sort of election.

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.

Santender would win because the Democratic base is much less likely to defect to another candidate, especially minority and urban machine voters. The only problem is turnout, but not many would sit out on a presidential election. I'd be willing to vote for Santender strategically, but otherwise I'd support the Green candidate.

I was being sarcastic, you stupid son of a rhino. ;)

(P. S.: That was sarcasm, too.)


As for RINO Tom/Goldwater, I think Goldwater's libertarian and healthcare views are pretty fairly at odds with Tom's neoliberalism.

In this election, I'd probably support Tom, but his support of people like Bloomberg and Clinton would make it somewhat difficult. Santander's personality is probably a bit more charismatic.

Only if the ticket (I think you know who I mean) put me in the cabinet.

All the way with Santaday!

Awful Rockefeller Republican >White supremacist

Probably Tom, but I think Santander would win.

Now that I know Santander more, I think I'd vote for Tom.

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.

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.

Let me assure you, I have absolutely no problem with that. Still, I agree that I'm too much of a culture warrior for us to fit on the same ticket.

It's complicated. Long story short(ish), I once lived a comfortable life as a suburban conservative who attended private schools, but life took a turn for the worse and I ended up with nothing, working blue-collar jobs 60+ hours a week, paying own way through college. I became a union steward, I saw how fragile and difficult life was for so many people and I became committed to workers' rights and organized labor. If it weren't for a union, I would not have been able to support my parents at that age. When I went to business school a few years ago, I was again surrounded by Republicans and I got dragged to the right on just about every issue. I've lived enough years of my adult life among blue-collar folks that I consider myself to be one of them, and I'm a Democrat because I cannot bring myself to identify with a party that busts unions, attacks teachers and deifies "job creators".

Fair enough :)

This was one of the first major issues I had with them years ago when I started focusing on politics more. They almost always come down on the side of businesses. There is a difference, to me, between being pro-business and anti-worker. Nowadays, it does not seem to matter what the issue is, as they can very reliably be expected to side with businesses. Quite frankly, I don't understand how anyone can really say that they are on the side of the working man, especially given their economic policy over the past 25+ years.

How socially conservative are you?

I'm basically a paleocon on social issues, but I happen to be moderate on abortion and same-sex marriage. I'd feel very comfortable in a room full of Republicans talking about social issues.

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

Everyone right of center has rumours about them on Atlas. I'm a far-right Neo-Nazi 'centrist' who is only sane compared to the Republicans. ;)

He's yet to realize the days of John W. Davis are over.

He explained himself perfectly well a few posts up, but whatever you say.

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

I fully admit that when I wrote my thread in the Political Geography/Demographics subforum, I had RINO Tom in mind. :P

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

I like RINO Tom, so I'll vote for the GOP in this. Santander and So. Gothic are chill too. Don't know Rockefeller Repub well enough to take an opinion.

I can't wait to see his reaction when WV is the most Republican state in the country. :)

I don't hate entire states of people, so I won't really care and will appreciate how remarkable of a shift the state has made politically and not chalk it up to some lame reason like "it just took them a while to change their registration" or "they were racist conservatives all along!"  WV was a stronghold for progressive economics for a long time, and after it failed the state year after year after year, they're willing to try something different, I guess. :P

Do you seriously believe WV has become a GOP state because they find the free marketer part of the GOP programm appealing?

Hahaha

If the Crook County RINO wants to know why we REALLY switched parties, he can PM me.

It is WAY too important to you guys' self-inflated images of yourselves and your party to believe what you currently do about Southern realignment, and I'm fine with letting you continue to believe that.

Your social PM score is disgusting! I think you should probably join the Demoncrats. You'd fit in much better with their deviancy.

you know IceSpear is trolling right?

Your party is going to nominate Donald Trump but I'm fine with letting you continue to believe that people support the GOP because they are fiscal conservative.

That doesn't make what I said less true.

I'm glad you managed to point out the blatant nonsense implied in IceSpear's satire.

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.

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.

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.

In case you're looking for proof of this, remember that the Rockefellers were extremely successful as progressive Republicans in Arkansas as late as 2006.

lol at WV being Southern.

A recent poll showed a majority consider it a Southern state. :)

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_WV_50416.pdf

Question 18.

It is so beyond discussion that WV can be considered a Southern state.

()

That is my personal definition of "South".

I have to admit, Maryland and Delaware are a stretch.

()

With Blue being deep south
green being by extension
red being a stretch

the south was NOT a battle ground region rino tom.

look at it this way man.

1964-lbj signs voting rights act, loses all deep south states but arkansas. loses the confederate cradle.
1968-humphrey a liberal does well in the north and loses ALL southern states BADLY but west virginia and and texas. west virginia was only dem for a long time because of the unions unlike texas which voted for humphrey because of the lbj machine.
1976-carter wins the south, but ONLY because he is a southerner. any other dem would have lost it badly just look at hubert. and lets not forget carter only won mississippi by 2points! he only won the deep south (besides georgia and arkansas) because of the black vote. he lost the white vote badly in mississippi.
1980-carter despite being a native of the region loses the entire south besides georgia! by todays standards this looks good because of the county map but at the time it was a SHOCK everyone had expected it to go hard Carter! I was alive during those times, this proves its not a battleground region AT ALL!
1988-dukakis does TERRIBLE in the south worst region of the country.

dems only did well in the south when they nominated local boys like clinton or carter, EVERY other dem did horrible there including al gore (who was a southern native!) if jerry brown, franklin church, or any other liberal western/northern dem was nominated in those years the south would NOT have voted dem. the south is just a very conservative region except for some sates like west virginia (historically) and louisiana (huey long) and the north is always liberal look at new york (free college early on, just ask jon stewart!) this is backed up with the study i linked earlier in this thread from the experts. I know you want the south to be liberal but it was not, is not, and NEVER was.
also southern democrats were really not pro-new deal, look up the conservative coalition man! I remember watching the 1968 election as a kid with my parents and mike wallace himself stating "the south that long old democratic region, has finally turned. the south is no longer democrat, its all conservative tonight, nixon or wallace" (!). u can look it up on youtube just type in 1968 presidential election night returns.

Actually, his first name was just Frank.

If northern Arkansas is red, Missouri is red.

well i will say franklin

Do you go to Franklin Church (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Regular_Baptist_Church)?