Why don't Republicans make more of a play for Maine?

[smoltchanov]

[Really?  I thought New England was notorious for its fiscal conservatism and independent streak.

Yes, but even that fiscal conservatism wasn't very stringent - more of moderate pragmatic variety. I already mentioned names of former Congressman Stanley Tupper (who openly called himself a "liberal Republican" in his interviews) and Congressman and Senator William Cohen. How many such republicans (essentially - moderate on economy, liberal on social and enviromental issues, and so on) hold office NOW in Maine?

[smoltchanov]

I'd rather have most Democrats over a degenerate piece of waste such as Nelson Rockefeller.

Well, you are a fool. That happens.

[Sol]

It's unlikely that the GOP will nominate a presidential candidate moderate enough to win Maine in the near future.

What if that candidate campaigns on economic issues and downplays the social issues?

You are aware that a significant section of Maine's voting base is closely tied to unions, right? Particularly in ME-2, which has a lot of old industrial towns like Lewiston/Auburn. Emphasizing economic issues is a recipe for disaster in Maine too.

[smoltchanov]

It's unlikely that the GOP will nominate a presidential candidate moderate enough to win Maine in the near future.

What if that candidate campaigns on economic issues and downplays the social issues?

You are aware that a significant section of Maine's voting base is closely tied to unions, right? Particularly in ME-2, which has a lot of old industrial towns like Lewiston/Auburn. Emphasizing economic issues is a recipe for disaster in Maine too.

In short - "proper Republican" in Maine must be at least economic moderate and social liberal. But in such case most likely he is a Democrat...

[Smash255]

It's unlikely that the GOP will nominate a presidential candidate moderate enough to win Maine in the near future.

What if that candidate campaigns on economic issues and downplays the social issues?

You are aware that a significant section of Maine's voting base is closely tied to unions, right? Particularly in ME-2, which has a lot of old industrial towns like Lewiston/Auburn. Emphasizing economic issues is a recipe for disaster in Maine too.

In short - "proper Republican" in Maine must be at least economic moderate and social liberal. But in such case most likely he is a Democrat...

Basically.  Can such a person win a GOP Primary in Maine?  Yes.  However, they can't win a GOP Presidential Primary.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'd rather have most Democrats over a degenerate piece of waste such as Nelson Rockefeller.

I understand that you may not like him, or may disagree with him, but what exactly makes our 41st Vice President, one of our country's most outstanding leaders and philanthropists, a "degenerate piece of waste"?

Perhaps he takes issue with his personal life choices.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's unlikely that the GOP will nominate a presidential candidate moderate enough to win Maine in the near future.

What if that candidate campaigns on economic issues and downplays the social issues?

Someone who is socially conservative is not winning Maine period, no matter how little they bring it up in their campaign. 

Not to mention, someone who can win a GOP primary is not going to be moderate enough on economic issues to win Maine.

Really?  I thought New England was notorious for its fiscal conservatism and independent streak.

I know you like to mock this belief, but socially liberal (not moderate, liberal) and fiscally conservative candidates do just fine in New England.  Despite what revisionists (or reactionaries in the case of Tea Party Republicans) say, people like Snowe, Collins, Rockefeller himself ARE/WERE pro-business fiscal conservatives, at least compared to Democrats.

In the case of Collins and Snowe, yes.

As for old Rocky, Pro-business yes (in the sense that he thought businesspeople were the natural sort to run things as opposed to social planners and professors, the standard critique of the Eastern Establishment GOP of the New Deal administration), fiscal conservative maybe (if balancing the budget is the only consideration and jacking up taxes to effect that end is acceptable). New York was and is a wild place and one where someone who can climb to the top of the food chain deserves their credit, but typcially most who find there way up usually end up without much semblense of principle or ideology left and a huge list of enemies screwed and friends to be repaid once you have arrived. I mean look at Cuomo today for instance. His father was consider an idol by the party and he is considered a traitor.

Rockefeller came from old money, earned the old fashioned way, that being where the most dishonest and cut throat of robber barrons got rich while the lawn is strewn with the bodies of the people crushed to get there. Being less bad than the Democrats was the common theme for mucho f the GOP whilst it was reacting to the New Deal, but that era is done. Being fiscally conservative means keeping spending down and being pro-business requires a tax rate a hell of lower than 90% (though the numerous subsidist oriented tax carve outs remain unless you are more of a Cleveland style pro-business type), fewer regulations, fewer lawsuits (which is bad for business for the high end attorneys on the Upper East Side) and opposing the unions (something that Rocky never could have done since he was Governor of a highly unionized state in the era of high unionization, so he did his best to buy them off at the expense of the treasury). In short, being pro-business or fiscally conservative, did not mean very much at the time.

Also I am pretty sure the future of the GOP in Northern New England and even northern NY, will probably be of a Libertarian bent, as it is the best avenue to advance a less conservative approach whilst maintaining the necessary level of bottom up energy that is critical to a place with a lot of small towns like ME or Vermont.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'd rather have most Democrats over a degenerate piece of waste such as Nelson Rockefeller.

Well, you are a fool. That happens.

And how did you make this discovery?

And when it comes to Rockefeller, obviously I'm not a fan of the decisions he made in regards to his personal life. As well, I'm not quite a fan of his policies. His social policies were in many ways an exact opposite of the type I'd favor--meaning that while he cracked down on drugs and legalized abortion, I'd like to say I'd prefer laxer drug laws and outlawed abortion. As well, he and his good ol' boys were practically running a center-wing cabal of sorts in trying to block Goldwater from the nomination in a way that, when I read it, struck me as some paternalistic, condescending bullsh#t.

Party of my dislike of him comes, however, from the general idea that this weird group of moderates out there has that he counts as the sort of model of "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" when in fact he was hardly conservative with the state's money and he was as non-liberal as several of his party's conservatives on a few social issues. In general, I don't like when this certain group of people is always talking about how we need to "get back" to being a party of upper-class, WASP technocrats who speak condescendingly about social conservatives and Southerners and pat themselves on the back for being so enlightened while boldly (and moderately) staring out the window of whatever skyscraper they happen to be in. While I might oppose certain contemporaries of his time such as George McGovern more on policy issues, McGovern was in the right party, was to my knowledge faithful to his wife, and was an honest man who wouldn't have led us down the path of economic self-destruction that Nixon used and that I believe Rockefeller would have emulated had he been in charge.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Also, as I pointed out, it's easy to find fiscally moderate and socially liberal politicians, they just happen to be Democrats right now. If you're not happy about that, you're entirely free to change parties at any point (in theory). There are enough Democrats out there that aren't your old "labor lefty" or "blue collar social conservative" (another stereotype) that I'm sure you could find a primary candidate or two that meets your fancy.

A final point is that if you want to refer to some ages-old politician that could win in a blue (atlas red), was a genuine moderate, and might be able to be called "libertarian" from time to time, Mark Hatfield might be your best bet, though he of course is on the other side of the country.

[Mechaman]

I must say that I find myself in a certain kind of strong agreement with the posts Cathcon just put on here.  The "Rockefeller Republicans" were quite the plutocratic scum who if they lived just a few decades earlier would've been fretting incessantly about the UnPatriotic socialism of lowly papist union right activists while reminding everybody that they think all men are equal.  There is very little admirable about them, other than they were smart enough and opportunistic enough to pick the right causes to deflect any inquiry into what they really thought of the common masses.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Also, as I pointed out, it's easy to find fiscally moderate and socially liberal politicians, they just happen to be Democrats right now. If you're not happy about that, you're entirely free to change parties at any point (in theory). There are enough Democrats out there that aren't your old "labor lefty" or "blue collar social conservative" (another stereotype) that I'm sure you could find a primary candidate or two that meets your fancy.

A final point is that if you want to refer to some ages-old politician that could win in a blue (atlas red), was a genuine moderate, and might be able to be called "libertarian" from time to time, Mark Hatfield might be your best bet, though he of course is on the other side of the country.

So I've gathered you want the GOP to be this folksy, anti-elite bastion of populism?  No thanks.

And socially liberal, fiscally conservative people are Democrats now for the most part?  News to me.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Not necessarily. However, I am definitely annoyed by any obsession with the Rockefeller family (bar, of course, the original) and, as well, the apparent obsession a vague group of more moderate voters have with the phrase "fiscally conservative, socially liberal"--I am annoyed as well, though not as much, by those obsessed with the "fiscally liberal, socially conservative" obsessees--and whatever voters might happen to be that. Assuming that if you just drop half of your platform, you're going to win an election, or that you can tell a region of the country to screw off, and it's not going to hurt your party, is absurd. When you combine obsession with absurdity, I'm not particularly fond of seeing it. I would have the same reaction to someone saying "we need to run more and more ultra-conservative candidates!" while also stating that the GOP would be a shoo-in for victory if it did that.

Regarding whether or not "socially liberal, fiscally conservative people are Democrats", not necessarily. However, since at least the days of Nixon, there has been a strong part of the GOP's electoral strategy geared towards attracting blue collar workers to this. Nixon did this by demonizing the alleged "toryhood of change" that seemed to be in place, practically stealing Johnson's economic policies, and working to gather union support for his re-election. I've come to the idea that this resulted in a shift of sorts among the parties. Obviously, the Democrats are still to the left of the GOP on all issues, however, the Democrats seem to have been forced to moderate, and especially in more recent years, it's been on the economic front. While Clinton was, of course, executing people to show off his "socially conservative" credentials, he's largely remembered for his concessions on economic issues, and you can see some similar things with Carter and Obama. I think that, these days, if you're in an upper-scale suburban area and have social views a certain peg or two to the left, you're probably a Democrat, though you might not like unions as much or have certain amount of hypocrisy on some issues. As well, you can look at some Democrats like Jerry Brown and Andrew Cuomo who have reoriented to be more fiscally conservative than previous generations of Democrats.

[smoltchanov]

I'd rather have most Democrats over a degenerate piece of waste such as Nelson Rockefeller.

Well, you are a fool. That happens.

And how did you make this discovery?

Only fools make such sweeping general statements. They (statements) are always false..

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'd rather have most Democrats over a degenerate piece of waste such as Nelson Rockefeller.

Well, you are a fool. That happens.

And how did you make this discovery?

Only fools make such sweeping general statements. They (statements) are always false..

Thank you for your sage advice, good sir. However, I typically (not "always") cover my back with somewhat-less-than-absolute terms, such as "most" instead of "all".

[SNJ1985]

As you pointed out, New Hampshire is already a swing state. Republicans would be better off intensifying their effort in New Hampshire than trying to swing Maine. New Hampshire has given the Republican presidential candidate a higher percentage of the vote than any other state in New England since 1972, and is the only state in the entire Northeast to have voted for the Republican candidate in any of the last six presidential elections.

In addition, the state routinely elects conservative Republicans who closely match the national platform to state and federal offices - something Maine doesn't do nearly as often.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I'd rather have most Democrats over a degenerate piece of waste such as Nelson Rockefeller.

I understand that you may not like him, or may disagree with him, but what exactly makes our 41st Vice President, one of our country's most outstanding leaders and philanthropists, a "degenerate piece of waste"?

Not to mention a crusader for civil rights.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I'd rather have most Democrats over a degenerate piece of waste such as Nelson Rockefeller.

I understand that you may not like him, or may disagree with him, but what exactly makes our 41st Vice President, one of our country's most outstanding leaders and philanthropists, a "degenerate piece of waste"?

Not to mention a crusader for civil rights.

Exactly.  If you strongly dislike ole Nelson, I'd wager there's a descent chance you're what's wrong with the GOP voting base today.  The Party of Lincoln will become the old Southern Democrats (culturally and economically populist) over my dead body.

[Goldwater]

I'd rather have most Democrats over a degenerate piece of waste such as Nelson Rockefeller.

I understand that you may not like him, or may disagree with him, but what exactly makes our 41st Vice President, one of our country's most outstanding leaders and philanthropists, a "degenerate piece of waste"?

Not to mention a crusader for civil rights.

Exactly.  If you strongly dislike ole Nelson, I'd wager there's a descent chance you're what's wrong with the GOP voting base today.  The Party of Lincoln will become the old Southern Democrats (culturally and economically populist) over my dead body.

A large number of Rockefeller haters, specially on this forum, are libertarians of some variety. Not exactly what I'd call "culturally and economically populist", if you are using the term "populist" the way I think you are.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I'd rather have most Democrats over a degenerate piece of waste such as Nelson Rockefeller.

I understand that you may not like him, or may disagree with him, but what exactly makes our 41st Vice President, one of our country's most outstanding leaders and philanthropists, a "degenerate piece of waste"?

Not to mention a crusader for civil rights.

Exactly.  If you strongly dislike ole Nelson, I'd wager there's a descent chance you're what's wrong with the GOP voting base today.  The Party of Lincoln will become the old Southern Democrats (culturally and economically populist) over my dead body.

A large number of Rockefeller haters, specially on this forum, are libertarians of some variety. Not exactly what I'd call "culturally and economically populist", if you are using the term "populist" the way I think you are.

Fair enough, and I apologize for generalizing.  But populism is something I NEVER want to see enter the GOP, especially economically.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I'd rather have most Democrats over a degenerate piece of waste such as Nelson Rockefeller.

I understand that you may not like him, or may disagree with him, but what exactly makes our 41st Vice President, one of our country's most outstanding leaders and philanthropists, a "degenerate piece of waste"?

Not to mention a crusader for civil rights.

Exactly.  If you strongly dislike ole Nelson, I'd wager there's a descent chance you're what's wrong with the GOP voting base today.  The Party of Lincoln will become the old Southern Democrats (culturally and economically populist) over my dead body.

Me too, man!

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Because it's unwinnable for them, like the rest of New England.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'd rather have most Democrats over a degenerate piece of waste such as Nelson Rockefeller.

I understand that you may not like him, or may disagree with him, but what exactly makes our 41st Vice President, one of our country's most outstanding leaders and philanthropists, a "degenerate piece of waste"?

Not to mention a crusader for civil rights.

Exactly.  If you strongly dislike ole Nelson, I'd wager there's a descent chance you're what's wrong with the GOP voting base today.  The Party of Lincoln will become the old Southern Democrats (culturally and economically populist) over my dead body.

A large number of Rockefeller haters, specially on this forum, are libertarians of some variety. Not exactly what I'd call "culturally and economically populist", if you are using the term "populist" the way I think you are.

Fair enough, and I apologize for generalizing.  But populism is something I NEVER want to see enter the GOP, especially economically.

Have you heard of Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and Richard Nixon?

Also, you're using the Nolan Chart definition of "populism" which could more correctly be referred to as "authoritarianism".

Finally, regarding what's wrong with the Grand Ol' Party, people that spell "decent" as "descent" are the main problem, I'd say.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yeah, populism is an ideological and rhetorical tactic, not an ideology itself as such, and as a tactic it's been lodged in the Republican Party in some form or another since its foundation--and in the Democratic Party, in a different way and to a historically overall somewhat greater extent.

[Mechaman]

I'd rather have most Democrats over a degenerate piece of waste such as Nelson Rockefeller.

I understand that you may not like him, or may disagree with him, but what exactly makes our 41st Vice President, one of our country's most outstanding leaders and philanthropists, a "degenerate piece of waste"?

Not to mention a crusader for civil rights.

Exactly.  If you strongly dislike ole Nelson, I'd wager there's a descent chance you're what's wrong with the GOP voting base today.  The Party of Lincoln will become the old Southern Democrats (culturally and economically populist) over my dead body.

A large number of Rockefeller haters, specially on this forum, are libertarians of some variety. Not exactly what I'd call "culturally and economically populist", if you are using the term "populist" the way I think you are.

Fair enough, and I apologize for generalizing.  But populism is something I NEVER want to see enter the GOP, especially economically.

Have you heard of Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and Richard Nixon?

Also, you're using the Nolan Chart definition of "populism" which could more correctly be referred to as "authoritarianism".

Finally, regarding what's wrong with the Grand Ol' Party, people that spell "decent" as "descent" are the main problem, I'd say.

Freudian slip much?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Because it's unwinnable for them, like the rest of New England.

What about New Hampshire?  That's winnable for them.  Most people there get Boston TV stations, and I'm sure they share much of that audience with Maine as well.  Making ad buys in the rest of Maine (and New Hampshire, for that matter) would probably be pretty cheap.  (Of course, they would have to downplay their social conservatism as well.)  Maine may lean D, but I don't think it's out of reach for the GOP by any means.