Is the Republican's problem that they're too Southern?

[All Along The Watchtower]

The South definitely is the one region where the really hard-right brand of Republicanism is politically dominant in most of its states (and it's hard to separate it from right-wing evangelical Christianity-another liability for the GOP nationally in the 2010s).

Sure, Kansas or Michigan or whatever have elected a lot of Republicans into office, but the Plains and certainly the Upper Midwest  are not totally dominated by "Teavangelicals" to the extent much of the  the South is. And arguably, Southern-style Republicanism incentives other states'  Republicans to move to the Right (since the South has a lot of gravity in the Republican primaries).

[Indy Texas]

The South definitely is the one region where the really hard-right brand of Republicanism is politically dominant in most of its states (and it's hard to separate it from right-wing evangelical Christianity-another liability for the GOP nationally in the 2010s).

Sure, Kansas or Michigan or whatever have elected a lot of Republicans into office, but the Plains and certainly the Upper Midwest  are not totally dominated by "Teavangelicals" to the extent much of the  the South is. And arguably, Southern-style Republicanism incentives other states'  Republicans to move to the Right (since the South has a lot of gravity in the Republican primaries).

You're telling me the Kansas GOP isn't dominated by right-wing Christian nutjobs? Who is their governor, again?

[All Along The Watchtower]

The South definitely is the one region where the really hard-right brand of Republicanism is politically dominant in most of its states (and it's hard to separate it from right-wing evangelical Christianity-another liability for the GOP nationally in the 2010s).

Sure, Kansas or Michigan or whatever have elected a lot of Republicans into office, but the Plains and certainly the Upper Midwest  are not totally dominated by "Teavangelicals" to the extent much of the  the South is. And arguably, Southern-style Republicanism incentives other states'  Republicans to move to the Right (since the South has a lot of gravity in the Republican primaries).

You're telling me the Kansas GOP isn't dominated by right-wing Christian nutjobs? Who is their governor, again?

Well, OK, I'll give you Kansas.

[New_Conservative]

No, our problem is that a lot of people in the party, and those running the party are still stuck in 1980.

[GOON]

The worst thing that happened to the Republican Party was the infiltration of Neo-Conservatives into leadership and influential positions.  They're one of the few ideologies that is absolutely abhorrent on almost--if not all--potential positions.  They pander to social conservatives and the Military-Industrial Complex.  Their rhetoric of social conservatism and jingoism might have worked a few decades ago, but it's not a winning strategy in the 21st Century.

The problem, however, is that this ideology and others like it seem to still be winning on the state-level.  Hell, one is about to replace Pryor in Arkansas.  These victories allow those who follow this misguided ideology to maintain their power over the national Republican Party.  Nationally, the Neo-Conservatives cannot win the Presidency and they probably realize that. 

For the Republican Party to be competitive nationally, they need to purge the likes of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton, and others out of their party.  Those in the GOP who follow this ideology are a cancer upon Conservatism.  Once their influence within the GOP have been significantly decreased, only then can the Republican Party compete nationally.

[illegaloperation]

*cough* religious right *cough*

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yes and no.  Although I agree that it's part of the problem, it's only one of a myriad of problems the GOP has.

No, our problem is that a lot of people in the party, and those running the party are still stuck in 1980.

This is another one.

[GAworth]

Well has someone who has lived in the South my entire life. I can say that yes, the GOP is heavily Southern, probably to a fault. However, I think the Democrats have alienated the South by being closely tied to the North East and West Coast. I remember when Democratic candidates said they could win without the South, that made a lot of Southerners turn away from him (I believe it was Kerry). However, I think the South is changing and the GOP is changing with it. In GA, my home state, the division between Metro GOP and Non-Metro GOP is growing. Florida Panhandle v. non-panhandle. The Party is moving, slowly (emphasize that), from the religious right.

[Skill and Chance]

Well, the fundamental problem is that demographic change in most of the South means that Republicans are more, not less reliant on the white Evangelical vote for their electoral college strategy with each passing year.  Even a modest drop from the high 70's to the mid 60's would flip NC, GA and FL for good and make VA likely D.  It also probably would hurt more than help in OH.  MS and SC might even flip as well. 

That's almost 100 EV of problems they don't need.  And they would have to worry about Texas much sooner.  You can't make that up unless you can start competing for IL/CA/NY and they rightly aren't confident they can do that.

[Citizen Hats]

I wonder how many votes, say Monica Wehby in Oregon, lost when she opened her mouth and Oregonians discovered that she had a southern accent?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Yes, that's part of it.  We always used to hear about Democrats and the South.  Why can't they win the South?  Ummm... how about the Republicans and the Northeast.  Since 1992 (six elections), in Northeastern states (plus Maryland and Delaware, because let's be real here) the Republicans are 1 for 66 in the Northeast.  One win, sixty-five losses.  That one win was Bush in New Hampshire in 2000.  Meanwhile, the Democrats in the same time frame have been able to win 16 times out of 84 in the South.

Maybe if the GOP would embrace their Northern roots they would do a little better?  No mention of that, but the Democrats are always supposed to be remembering their Southern roots and try to pander to the ridiculous crap ultra-conservative voters in the South prioritize.

[hopper]

Well too Deep South yes. The Deep South is so socially conservative that it ties into their belief of getting no immigration reform bill done I believe.

Virginia-Is more part of the Northeast or Mid-Atlantic region politically now because most of the growth in that state is in NOVA which that part of the state borders Maryland which is very Dem.

Florida-I don't even remember Florida even being deeply Southern even 20 years ago. I used to go to Florida every summer from 1990-1993 to visit relatives in Gainesville. My uncle(not from my side of the family) he grew up in Tampa he doesn't have a southern accent really at all.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I think there is some truth to what Voinovich said.  To be honest when I hear a southern accent I can't help but find it really funny.  It's kind of hard to take someone seriously when they say "y'all".  I also knew southerners when I lived in the Northeast who would mask their accent because they felt discriminated against in the job market if they spoke with their own accent.

[Person Man]

I think there is some truth to what Voinovich said.  To be honest when I hear a southern accent I can't help but find it really funny.  It's kind of hard to take someone seriously when they say "y'all".  I also knew southerners when I lived in the Northeast who would mask their accent because they felt discriminated in the job market if they spoke with their own accent.

So, that and playing a banjo basically kills your chances?

[hopper]

Maybe if they went back to their 1968-1988 style of governing they could be competitive in both the North and South when their presidential candidates basically won both regions. The exception was 1968 when Democrat George Wallace ran as an Independent an won a few Southern States(in The Deep South)and Carter swept The South with the exception of Virginia which Ford carried. Carter only carried his home state of Georgia in his 1980 defeat to Reagan.

Than again people don't want a governing style from the 70's or 80's. They want the GOP to modify their policies on the presidential level and stop pandering to The Bible Belt Conservatives so much on the Presidential Level.

[bobloblaw]

Hello?

The GOP has more elected representatives than at anytime since 1928. How delusional is this site?

[bobloblaw]

Every Midwestern state except MN has a GOP Gov. MA and ME have GOP govs.

Yes, Bruce Rauner is too southern
Yes, Charlie Baker is too southern.

Id say the Dem party is too New York and too California.

[bobloblaw]

Every Midwestern state except MN has a GOP Gov. MA and ME have GOP govs.

Yes, Bruce Rauner is too southern
Yes, Charlie Baker is too southern.

Id say the Dem party is too New York and too California.

You literally picked two moderates that most likely will expand Medicaid in their states and be socially liberal. Basically, you realize how destructive gay hating conservatives can be.

Hey, how is Senator Akin doing?

So what? My point is the premise of the GOP being too southern is absurd. BTW why didnt IL and MA already expand Medicaid with their Dem governors?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

They are still reaping the benefits of the census data prior to 2020, where it will change and benefit the Democrats, finally, where the country will be a minority majority country.

States with the fewest electoral votes combined with the governors we elect in WI, MI, IL, MD, MA, ME and FL or OH will give us the electoral strength to break the GOP in the House, finally.

[bobloblaw]

They are still reaping the benefits of the census data prior to 2020, where it will change and benefit the Democrats, finally, where the country will be a minority majority country.

States with the fewest electoral votes combined with the governors we elect in WI, MI, IL, MD, MA, ME and FL or OH will give us the electoral strength to break the GOP in the House, finally.

The country will NOT be minority majority in 2020 youre over 20 years too soon.

IL is already gerrymandered to the maximum benefit of Dems. When IL loses 1-2 seats, it will be Dems seats. MD, MA, ME have nearly no GOPers to begin with, so I dont know why you bring up thoses states.

The Dems best hope is in FL, OH, PA and MI. But it is not as much as you think given the Dem vote in those states is heavily concentrated in urban areas. To create a Dem House majority in MI would require even more absurd gerrymandering than the GOP has there now. The entire Dem vote in MI comes from basically four counties. Wayne, Genessee and Washtenaw and Ingraham but even that is less Dem than the first three. Without thoses counties MI is a deep red state. So winning the State Legislature and redrawing a majority Dem House in MI is near impossible. Same is true for OH and PA.

It works in IL because Chicago and Cook has proportionally more population in the state than Wayne in MI  or Cuyahoga does in OH.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yes, among other things.

[Türkisblau]

with the governors we elect in  MI,  MD, MA, OH will give us the electoral strength to break the GOP in the House, finally.

Um.. who?

Democrats arent winning OH

They probably cant win MA with Baker

Michigan is a stretch

Maryland's Democrat Party is not seriously contesting 2018.

I find your optimism brightening, though.

lol I agree with Ohio and Massachusetts but your dismissal of dem chances in Michigan and Maryland is hilarious.

[pikachu]

with the governors we elect in  MI,  MD, MA, OH will give us the electoral strength to break the GOP in the House, finally.

Um.. who?

Democrats arent winning OH

They probably cant win MA with Baker

Michigan is a stretch

Maryland's Democrat Party is not seriously contesting 2018.

I find your optimism brightening, though.

lol I agree with Ohio and Massachusetts but your dismissal of dem chances in Michigan and Maryland is hilarious.

It's a bit far out to make any reasonable predictions anyway. 4 years ago, I don't think any of us assumed that Corbett would be the only defeated GOP incumbent and Brownback was heavily at risk. If we have a GOP President, I don't see how we don't have at least a 50/50 shot in Michigan and Ohio. (Maryland and Massachusetts are more dependent on how Hogan and Baker's terms go.)

[Türkisblau]

with the governors we elect in  MI,  MD, MA, OH will give us the electoral strength to break the GOP in the House, finally.

Um.. who?

Democrats arent winning OH

They probably cant win MA with Baker

Michigan is a stretch

Maryland's Democrat Party is not seriously contesting 2018.

I find your optimism brightening, though.

lol I agree with Ohio and Massachusetts but your dismissal of dem chances in Michigan and Maryland is hilarious.

It's a bit far out to make any reasonable predictions anyway. 4 years ago, I don't think any of us assumed that Corbett would be the only defeated GOP incumbent and Brownback was heavily at risk. If we have a GOP President, I don't see how we don't have at least a 50/50 shot in Michigan and Ohio. (Maryland and Massachusetts are more dependent on how Hogan and Baker's terms go.)

My point is that 2018 would be, generally, a very hard year for dems in Ohio and Massachusetts has a history of liking Republican moderates as Governor while Maryland has no indication of liking Republicans, incumbents especially, and Michigan is very strongly democratic statewide so saying that it's a "stretch" for them to win there is just downplaying their chances.

[hopper]

with the governors we elect in  MI,  MD, MA, OH will give us the electoral strength to break the GOP in the House, finally.

Um.. who?

Democrats arent winning OH

They probably cant win MA with Baker

Michigan is a stretch

Maryland's Democrat Party is not seriously contesting 2018.

I find your optimism brightening, though.

lol I agree with Ohio and Massachusetts but your dismissal of dem chances in Michigan and Maryland is hilarious.

It's a bit far out to make any reasonable predictions anyway. 4 years ago, I don't think any of us assumed that Corbett would be the only defeated GOP incumbent and Brownback was heavily at risk. If we have a GOP President, I don't see how we don't have at least a 50/50 shot in Michigan and Ohio. (Maryland and Massachusetts are more dependent on how Hogan and Baker's terms go.)

My point is that 2018 would be, generally, a very hard year for dems in Ohio and Massachusetts has a history of liking Republican moderates as Governor while Maryland has no indication of liking Republicans, incumbents especially, and Michigan is very strongly democratic statewide so saying that it's a "stretch" for them to win there is just downplaying their chances.

No, the GOP has had a majority in the State Senate since 1982. The Dems and Republicans have basically alternated control of the Governors Mansion by decade since the 80's.
Yes in Presidential Elections MI has voted D in every Presidential Election since 1982.