Wrong-party governors?

[nonluddite]

Also, I think the question was more about why voters changed their minds, than the technical aspects of which offices the GOP took over...

But I could be wrong, it feels kind of arrogant to explain other people's intentions, but I suppose I'm a busy body...

That's exactly what I was referring to.  How did MN go from a Massachusetts to a swing state, since they voted Dem in every election from 1960 to now, except for Nixon's landslide in 1972?

[Gustaf]

Also, I think the question was more about why voters changed their minds, than the technical aspects of which offices the GOP took over...

But I could be wrong, it feels kind of arrogant to explain other people's intentions, but I suppose I'm a busy body...

That's exactly what I was referring to.  How did MN go from a Massachusetts to a swing state, since they voted Dem in every election from 1960 to now, except for Nixon's landslide in 1972?

Hah! Once again, I read someone's mind, lol

[jravnsbo]

Well one the parties shifted their policies.  Dems seem to care a lot more about the elite ideas than as they were seen for years as a party of the labor unions.  Unions are still there, but they don't seem to be the focus of the party.

Plus some migration has been happening here.  A number of factors really.

Also, I think the question was more about why voters changed their minds, than the technical aspects of which offices the GOP took over...

But I could be wrong, it feels kind of arrogant to explain other people's intentions, but I suppose I'm a busy body...

That's exactly what I was referring to.  How did MN go from a Massachusetts to a swing state, since they voted Dem in every election from 1960 to now, except for Nixon's landslide in 1972?

[Sibboleth]

Also Minnesota never really gave the Dems the huge wins they get in Massachusetts.
In 1980 and 1984 it only went Dem because of Mondale.
The state has always had an independent streak anyways.

[NHPolitico]

And John Ashcroft in Missouri, after losing his Senate race in 2000.
Yeah, it is kind of ironic in a way that losing an election can actually make you more powerful. Bush probably wouldn't have chosen Ashcroft or Abraham for his cabinet if they had won reelection, especially Ashcroft since Missouri has a Dem governor so he would've been handing the seat to the Dems. Likewise Clinton probably wouldn't have appointed Moseley-Braun since with a GOP governor he'd be giving away a Senate seat as well.

Ashcroft wanted to be the only Missouri politician to serve two terms as state AG, two terms as governor and two terms as senator.  I guess it's possible he could still do it, but he's said that he's done with elected office now.

My guess is that Bush would have chosen Racicot even though the right wasn't crazy about him. Hatch or Hyde would have been another two options, I guess.

Abraham wouldn't have been in the Cabinet either. The state needed a GOP figure like him to act as a foundation should they lose the governorship, which they did.

[NHPolitico]

I object to putting Coleman on this list. I am of the belief that MN is really heading toward a realignment.

I'm not disagreeing with you in asking this question, but how did socialist MN go over to the Republicans?

In addition to what's been said, The MNGOP also picked up the state auditor's office in addition to the 15 legislature seats. And, MN had the highest voter turnout of the states last year-- 60.65%-- so these results are likely more similar to how the state will vote in a high-turnout presidential race. Last year, 78% of independent Twin City suburban voters voted GOP. Dem strength in the state senate has fallen 7 seats since 1998.  Also, these Republicans are much more conservative as a group than the ones from the 90s (more pro-life, more anti-tax).

[acsenray]

Likewise Clinton probably wouldn't have appointed Moseley-Braun since with a GOP governor he'd be giving away a Senate seat as well.

Well, Clinton did do it with Lloyd Bentsen, giving away a Senate seat to the Republicans.

[© Tweed the Younger]

I'll make a list:

Arizona- Janet Napoliotano (D)
California- Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)
Connecticut- Whoever Replaced Rowland (R)
Hawaii- Linda Lingle (R)
Indiana- Whoever Replace O'Bannon (is it Kernan)?  (D)
Kansas- Kathleen Sebelius (D)
Louisiana- Kathleen Banineaux Blanco (D)
Maryland- Robert Elrich (R)
Massachuetts- Mitt Romney (R)
Minnesota- Tim Pawlenty (R)
Missouri- Bob Holden (D)
New York- george pataki (r)
North Carolina- Mike Easley (D)

More later

[KEmperor]

It's a combination of local politics, and the fact that a Republican in New York is not the same as a Republican in Texas.  A Democrat in Georgia is not the same as a Democrat in Massachusetts.  There are regional variations within the parties.  The two major parties are basically national alliances of several factions.

Democrats run the wide gamut from the near democratic-socialist left (Dennis Kucinich) and traditional liberals (Hillary Clinton) to the center-right (Joe Lieberman).

Republicans also consist of several factions: Traditional Conservatives (George W. Bush), the Religious Right (Trent Lott), the old Nixon/Rockefeller "centrist" or "moderate" wing (George Pataki), and Libertarians (Ron Paul).

[© Tweed the Younger]

to the center-right (Joe Lieberman).

You got almost everyline from that post from politics1.

But still, you gotta downright explain to me how Joe Lieberman is center-right!

[KEmperor]

to the center-right (Joe Lieberman).

You got almost everyline from that post from politics1.

But still, you gotta downright explain to me how Joe Lieberman is center-right!

Yes, I most certainly did.  They put it quite well enough.  And Lieberman is rather conservative, pushing for censorship laws and such.

[Keystone Phil]

to the center-right (Joe Lieberman).

You got almost everyline from that post from politics1.

But still, you gotta downright explain to me how Joe Lieberman is center-right!

Yes, I most certainly did.  They put it quite well enough.  And Lieberman is rather conservative, pushing for censorship laws and such.

Yes but look at his views on aborition, affirmative action, taxes...he's not the conservative Dem that people make him out to be.

[KEmperor]

to the center-right (Joe Lieberman).

You got almost everyline from that post from politics1.

But still, you gotta downright explain to me how Joe Lieberman is center-right!

Yes, I most certainly did.  They put it quite well enough.  And Lieberman is rather conservative, pushing for censorship laws and such.

Yes but look at his views on aborition, affirmative action, taxes...he's not the conservative Dem that people make him out to be.

Those are what make him a Dem in the first place.

[cwelsch]

Lieberman is just an example of typical interventionist politics.  The government should do something here, and there, and over there, and more here, and another law here, throw more spending here, etc.  The difference between him and the common title "populist" is that Lieberman appeals to middle class interventionists and the conventional "populists" prefer a more working class interventionism - which is usually a much more involved brand (both socially and economically).  I'd say center-right isn't a horrible definition, but on social views, yeah, he's not moderate at all - he's pro partial-birth abortion, not just pro-choice.


You've got two huge big tents, that's how they hold power across such a diverse country.  We have more than 100 million voters, they're gonna want different things.  But ultimately if a Utah Democrat (hah) or Massachusetts Republican ran for office, they'd be too weird a fit for their own parties.

[English]

I quite like the idea of vote splitting. Monopolies are invariable bad news, they just lead to corruption and stagnation.
I always split my vote, Labour in general elections, anyone but Labour in local elections.

[ijohn57s]

New York and Massachusetts, states which voted over 60% for Gore, have Republican governors. Mississippi elected a Democratic governor in '99, then went on to vote 58% for Gore. (All according to the main site, of course.) What's going on here?

I believe you mean Mississippi went 58% for Bush

As for Mississippi having a Democrat governor: a Mississippi Democrat politician is not your average national Democrat politician. Mississippi Democrats are a lot more conservative.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Lieberman is a foreign issue moderate but is a liberal on social and economic liberal.

[Nym90]

Likewise Clinton probably wouldn't have appointed Moseley-Braun since with a GOP governor he'd be giving away a Senate seat as well.

Well, Clinton did do it with Lloyd Bentsen, giving away a Senate seat to the Republicans.

No, because Texas had a Democratic Governor at the time who appointed a Democrat to the seat. The GOP did go on to win the Special Election for the seat, but Clinton had no way of knowing at the time that they would.

[bullmoose88]

Yeah. Bensen became secretary of the treasury in what 1993?

W didn't win the governorship until Nov 1994...

Ann Richards (D) appointed his replacement.

[RomneyGekko Situation Hairgel]

   The Democrats were quite competitive in local Utah elections up till the 80s. The populist William Jennings Bryan style Democrats held sawy among many rural and small town voters in Utah for quite a long time.

  As for PA, I would not consider it a Northeastren State, despite its location. Even the area that Gore did best in, Philadelphia, does not share the zeal for social liberalism that the rest of the area has, also the Philadelphia metro area is the biggest metro area to have the least amount of demographic changes in the last 20 years. Excellent Democratic GOTV efforts in the Philadelphia area combined with Bush DUI stink in the weekend before election drove up Gore performance there.

Contrary to what you just said Philadelphia is socially liberal.  Maybe not as much as NYC or Boston, but still FAR greater than the rest of PA where abortion is very unpopular and guns are popular.

[Keystone Phil]

   The Democrats were quite competitive in local Utah elections up till the 80s. The populist William Jennings Bryan style Democrats held sawy among many rural and small town voters in Utah for quite a long time.

  As for PA, I would not consider it a Northeastren State, despite its location. Even the area that Gore did best in, Philadelphia, does not share the zeal for social liberalism that the rest of the area has, also the Philadelphia metro area is the biggest metro area to have the least amount of demographic changes in the last 20 years. Excellent Democratic GOTV efforts in the Philadelphia area combined with Bush DUI stink in the weekend before election drove up Gore performance there.

Contrary to what you just said Philadelphia is socially liberal.  Maybe not as much as NYC or Boston, but still FAR greater than the rest of PA where abortion is very unpopular and guns are popular.

I agree. We are the most liberal part of the state (unfortunatley) but we are no San Fransisco.

[nclib]

New York and Massachusetts, states which voted over 60% for Gore, have Republican governors. Mississippi elected a Democratic governor in '99, then went on to vote 58% for Gore. (All according to the main site, of course.) What's going on here?

Local politics.

In conservative areas Democrats run to the right of the presidential nominee (and Republicans in liberal areas run to the left of the nominee), so "wrong-party governors" and congresspeople can easily happen.

But many "wrong-party" politicians are not moderates. They include...

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Rep. Jim Nussle (R-IA)
Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS)
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA)
Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT)

Does anybody know of any others like these....

[© Tweed the Younger]

Nclib,

I would disagree and say Fitzgerald and Matheson are indeed moderates.

[classical liberal]

Add Coleman to the list and keep Fitzgerald on it.