New Jersey

[Kevin]

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

[Cashcow]

We're socially liberal out here. That's important, and it's a bigger issue than the economy now, in some ways.

[Beet]

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!

[muon2]

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.

[Emsworth]

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.

[Beet]

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

[A18]

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:

[Beet]

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.

[Beet]

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.

[A18]

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.

[Beet]

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.

[So the Heroes Fall]

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.

[A18]

Are you trying to say interventionist McKinley was a liberal?

[Beet]

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

[Sibboleth]

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.

[Hitchabrut]

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.

[Erc]

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).