Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 27, 2014, 09:58:30 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Presidential Election Trends (Moderators: Mr. Morden, Bacon King)
| | |-+  New Jersey
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: New Jersey  (Read 2559 times)
Kevin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4908
United States


View Profile
« on: April 16, 2005, 11:06:27 am »
Ignore

 Why has NJ gotten so libreal it used to be a solidly coservitive state and Clintion barely won it in 92,
Logged



RIP Mayor Barry
Cashcow
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2846


Political Matrix
E: 1.63, S: -3.49

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2005, 11:26:04 am »
Ignore

We're socially liberal out here. That's important, and it's a bigger issue than the economy now, in some ways.
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16219


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2005, 04:55:18 am »
Ignore

The past 100 years of American politics can be summed up in one simple idea:

The old Republicans are now Democrats, the old Democrats are now Republicans!
Logged

muon2
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8887


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2005, 01:36:21 pm »
Ignore

The past 100 years of American politics can be summed up in one simple idea:

The old Republicans are now Democrats, the old Democrats are now Republicans!

I'm not convinced that the labor movement would agree with that statement.
Logged


Partial solar eclipse of October 23, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
Emsworth
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9081


Political Matrix
E: 8.32, S: -7.22

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2005, 02:55:21 pm »
Ignore

I'm not convinced that the labor movement would agree with that statement.
I would agree that the Democrats and Republicans have not completely switched positions in the past century. For example, the late 19th and early 20th century Republicans were imperialists, while Grover Cleveland refused to annex Hawaii. Thus, with respect to dovishness/ hawkishness, the parties seem largely the same. On the other hand, however, the parties have indeed experienced tremendous change, especially on social issues.
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16219


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2005, 09:09:22 pm »
Ignore

The past 100 years of American politics can be summed up in one simple idea:

The old Republicans are now Democrats, the old Democrats are now Republicans!

I'm not convinced that the labor movement would agree with that statement.

The urban labor movement was just barely getting started 100 years ago. At that point they were socialists as much as any other party.

2004


1896
Logged

A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 20, 2005, 09:15:53 pm »
Ignore

So you're saying William McKinley and Calvin Coolidge would be Democrats today?

I'm not sure what your point behind those maps is supposed to be. Hey look, all the Democrats became Republicans:



Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16219


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 20, 2005, 09:23:18 pm »
Ignore

So you're saying William McKinley and Calvin Coolidge would be Democrats today?

I'm not sure what your point behind those maps is supposed to be. Hey look, all the Democrats became Republicans:





If you can't understand why a near-symmetrical reversal is significant only in the non-landslide situation then it isn't worth explaining.
Logged

Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16219


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 20, 2005, 09:25:11 pm »
Ignore

Having said that, you can notice the switch-over occuring even from 1936 to 1972. In 1936, the Republicans' strongest area was the north, while in 1972 it was the south.
Logged

A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 20, 2005, 09:39:21 pm »
Ignore

There has been a shift in states. That's not quite the same thing as pointing to arbitrary maps and saying "the old Republicans are now the Democrats, the old Democrats are now the Republicans."

The parties are still exactly what they were ideologically. You seem to think that the people who voted in 1896 were the only people voting in 2004. Let me wager that no one who was 21 in 1896 is alive today.
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16219


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 20, 2005, 10:27:00 pm »
Ignore

There has been a shift in states. That's not quite the same thing as pointing to arbitrary maps and saying "the old Republicans are now the Democrats, the old Democrats are now the Republicans."

The parties are still exactly what they were ideologically. You seem to think that the people who voted in 1896 were the only people voting in 2004. Let me wager that no one who was 21 in 1896 is alive today.

When I said that quote, I meant it figuratively. The parties aren't *exactly* the same ideologically, as the issues have changed. Nor are they exactly the opposite. But the regions have completely flip-flopped, and there is an element of stable political traditions nevertheless switching the party of their loyalty, even the most extremely held ("yellow dog") loyalties.
Logged

incredibly specific types of post-punk music
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72822
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 20, 2005, 10:31:08 pm »
Ignore

I'm not convinced that the labor movement would agree with that statement.
I would agree that the Democrats and Republicans have not completely switched positions in the past century. For example, the late 19th and early 20th century Republicans were imperialists, while Grover Cleveland refused to annex Hawaii. Thus, with respect to dovishness/ hawkishness, the parties seem largely the same. On the other hand, however, the parties have indeed experienced tremendous change, especially on social issues.

that's actually because the ideological position on this issue switched. Back then, conservatives took an isolationist view, while liberals were interventionist. It's not the only issue that has switched ideologically. In the 19th century, liberals were calling for prohibition or greater restriction on alcohol, conservatives were strongly opposed.
Logged




01/05/2004-01/10/2014
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 20, 2005, 10:33:55 pm »
Ignore

Are you trying to say interventionist McKinley was a liberal?
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16219


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 20, 2005, 10:41:04 pm »
Ignore

Are you trying to say interventionist McKinley was a liberal?

"...In February two events crystallized U.S. opinion in favor of Cuban independence. First, the Spanish minister in Washington, Enrique Dupuy de Lóme, wrote a letter critical of President McKinley that fell into the hands of the Cuban junta in New York. Its publication caused a sensation, but Sagasta quickly recalled Dupuy de Lóme. A few days later, however, the Battleship Maine, which had been sent to Havana to provide a naval presence there exploded and sank, causing the death of 266 sailors. McKinley, strongly opposed to military intervention, ordered an investigation of the sinking as did Spain. The Spanish inquiry decided that an internal explosion had destroyed the vessel, but the American investigation claimed an external source.

The reluctant McKinley was then forced to demand that Spain grant independence to Cuba, but Sagasta refused, fearing that such a concession would destroy the shaky Restoration Monarchy..."

http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/trask.html
Logged

Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 57054
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 21, 2005, 04:09:43 am »
Ignore

I'm not convinced that the labor movement would agree with that statement.

Yes and no. John L Lewis was *technically* a Republican all his life.
Logged

"I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the initial idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social formula except mine."
Hitchabrut
republicanjew18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1675


Political Matrix
E: 8.38, S: 7.49

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 21, 2005, 03:03:45 pm »
Ignore

The shift in parties was not about people switching parties and parties switching platforms, for the most part. If you observe, the parties have kept their economic positions but traded soocial positions.
Logged

Brace yourselves for me.

Economic Left/Right: 7.05
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.67
Erc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4685
Slovenia


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2005, 10:31:33 pm »
Ignore

The shift in parties was not about people switching parties and parties switching platforms, for the most part. If you observe, the parties have kept their economic positions but traded soocial positions.

Ehh...I wouldn't be so sure about that...Republicans have always been the more pro-business of the two parties, certainly, but note the following aspect of economic policy:

1880's/1890's:  McKinley Tariff passed by Republicans, despite Cleveland's opposition.

2000's: Kerry expresses the need to protect our business from outsourcing and other foreign ills...

[Yes, I know it isn't perfect...Bush had the steel tariffs, and there are plenty of protectionist Republicans (but not many)].

I vote almost exclusively on economic policy, and I would have voted for the Democrats until 1896 (and not for the Republicans until 1908).
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines