Is Maine the Arkansas of New England?

[Thunderbird is the word]

Maine seems to be something of an outlier in New England the same way that Arkansas (until 2008) was in the South. Arkansas had two Democratic senators and a Democratic governor at the same time it voted Republican for president whereas Maine used to have two Republican senators and now has a Republican, independent and Republican governor while it votes Democratic for president. When King and Snow retire if they are replaced by Democrats the trend will probably complete itself. Actually my hope is that Bellows runs again in 2018 and unseats King.

[Free Bird]

We'll have to wait until 2016 for a definitive decision on that. The last few GOP nominees haven't been a good fit. Maine is very elastic, and I can see at least the Second District flipping for the right Republican

[VPH]

Maybe a Rand Paul type could perform well in Maine.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Maybe a Rand Paul type could perform well in Maine.

That is a distinct possibility but do remember that he is the most conservative Republican running for president (according to Crowdpac).

[Thunderbird is the word]

Maybe a Rand Paul type could perform well in Maine.

That is a distinct possibility but do remember that he is the most conservative Republican running for president (according to Crowdpac).

I don't buy that, only if you define conservatism on the basis of economic issues and even there he's just tied with the rest of the field. A guy who actually talks about the racism in police profiling and wants to end the war on drugs is not someone I would consider to be the most conservative.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Not really, it's a different dynamic.  Arkansas was strongly Democratic, but starting voting Republican in Presidential years, before finally the identification of the state with the increasingly unpopular national party, as well as demographic changes, led to the erosion of Democratic power at the state level.  Maine on the other hand has a tradition of political independents when it comes to both the state and national level - the last time there was a consistent domination of the Republicans in the state level/statewide elections was in the 1950s, whereas in Arkansas the state Democratic party dominated up to the late 1990s.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Maine is the Maine of the United States.  No state like it politically.

[TDAS04]

No.

[hopper]

Maybe a Rand Paul type could perform well in Maine.

That is a distinct possibility but do remember that he is the most conservative Republican running for president (according to Crowdpac).

I don't buy that, only if you define conservatism on the basis of economic issues and even there he's just tied with the rest of the field. A guy who actually talks about the racism in police profiling and wants to end the war on drugs is not someone I would consider to be the most conservative.

I I agree.

[smoltchanov]

Maine is the Maine of the United States.  No state like it politically.

Absolutely. One of my favorite states - it loves Indies almost as much as i do....

[Türkisblau]

Maine is the Maine of the United States.  No state like it politically.

Absolutely. One of my favorite states - it loves Indies almost as much as i do....

Oh give it a break smolty.

[smoltchanov]

Maine is the Maine of the United States.  No state like it politically.

Absolutely. One of my favorite states - it loves Indies almost as much as i do....

Oh give it a break smolty.

Why? I really dislike "major political parties" as they exist NOW. Party partisans stress their party allegiance and faithfulness, i - vice versa....

[Antonio the Sixth]

HEY LOOK AT ME IM SO MODERATE!!!

[smoltchanov]

HEY LOOK AT ME IM SO MODERATE!!!

Well, i don't need anyone to look at me. Otherwise - yes.

[Sol]

The issue is though, Smoltchanov, that having clearly defined parties is good because it acts as a heuristic for voters who don't follow politics very closely--which doesn't work if each party is an ideological mixed bag.

[Mechaman]

Is California the Texas of the Pacific?
Is Alabama the Massachusetts of the South?
Is Wisconsin the Ohio of the Upper Midwest?
Is Wyoming the Delaware of the West?

Fine out the answers to these question and more at www.uselectionatlas.org/forum!

[smoltchanov]

The issue is though, Smoltchanov, that having clearly defined parties is good because it acts as a heuristic for voters who don't follow politics very closely--which doesn't work if each party is an ideological mixed bag.

I don't belong to "voters who don't follow politics very closely", so, obviously, it's not good from my point of view. I have a lot of other arguments against having "ideologically pure" parties in case (as in US), with strong President and only 2 major parties, but they will take a lot of space here, so i will not go into details...

[Sumner 1868]

If anything, Maine is a more centrist version of Vermont.

[TNF]

The issue is though, Smoltchanov, that having clearly defined parties is good because it acts as a heuristic for voters who don't follow politics very closely--which doesn't work if each party is an ideological mixed bag.

I don't belong to "voters who don't follow politics very closely", so, obviously, it's not good from my point of view. I have a lot of other arguments against having "ideologically pure" parties in case (as in US), with strong President and only 2 major parties, but they will take a lot of space here, so i will not go into details...

Ideology isn't something you can just turn off. Objectivity is a myth, and you're probably one of the biggest ideologues on this forum because of your uncritical embrace of 'moderate-ism.' To pretend that people like Mark Pryor or Susan Collins aren't deeply committed to Wall Street and are instead some kind of principled moderates is an exercise in delusional political masturbation.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

just updating the thread title

[Sumner 1868]

just updating the thread title

Unfair. I never said anything one way or the other.

[smoltchanov]

The issue is though, Smoltchanov, that having clearly defined parties is good because it acts as a heuristic for voters who don't follow politics very closely--which doesn't work if each party is an ideological mixed bag.

I don't belong to "voters who don't follow politics very closely", so, obviously, it's not good from my point of view. I have a lot of other arguments against having "ideologically pure" parties in case (as in US), with strong President and only 2 major parties, but they will take a lot of space here, so i will not go into details...

Ideology isn't something you can just turn off. Objectivity is a myth, and you're probably one of the biggest ideologues on this forum because of your uncritical embrace of 'moderate-ism.' To pretend that people like Mark Pryor or Susan Collins aren't deeply committed to Wall Street and are instead some kind of principled moderates is an exercise in delusional political masturbation.

Well, i am not obliged to agree with your opinion, isn't i? In fact - i am not even obliged to respect it. You may think what you want about me - i REALLY don't care. But i reserve a right to stick to my opinion...

[Sol]

To be clear Smoltchanov, I'm not saying that the parties shouldn't nominate moderates necessarily--though it wouldn't be my first preference for other ideological reasons. Honestly, something like the Canadian system, where the parties all sit very close to each other near the center would be acceptable from the heuristics perspective. But every Democrat in national office should still be to the left of every Republican.

[smoltchanov]

To be clear Smoltchanov, I'm not saying that the parties shouldn't nominate moderates necessarily--though it wouldn't be my first preference for other ideological reasons. Honestly, something like the Canadian system, where the parties all sit very close to each other near the center would be acceptable from the heuristics perspective. But every Democrat in national office should still be to the left of every Republican.

Not sure about even the last sentence. Henry Wallace was initially a Republican.  And a lot of Republican Senators and  congressmen in 1950 - 1970 were much more liberal then at least some Democrats. In fact - Connie Morella in 2002 was much more liberal then Ralph Hall. And if you think that republican candidate for House, say, in CT-04, must be to the right of Democratic candidate in MS-04 - i will wholeheartily disagree... That Democratic candidate in CT-04 must (in MOST cases) be even more liberal, then republican one - well, yes, in MOST cases it's so..

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

To be clear Smoltchanov, I'm not saying that the parties shouldn't nominate moderates necessarily--though it wouldn't be my first preference for other ideological reasons. Honestly, something like the Canadian system, where the parties all sit very close to each other near the center would be acceptable from the heuristics perspective. But every Democrat in national office should still be to the left of every Republican.

America has these things called state parties, and they like to win a Senate or House race once in a while.