Republicans gain back New England?

[NOT gonna be banned soon]

New England was a Republican stronghold before the 90s. In 1936, the only states which only voted Republican were in New England. Could the Republicans gain back New England?

[NOT gonna be banned soon]

Also P.S I added 2 options because if you think that New England has to be flooded with Conservatives while you think it is possible that the Republicans can gain back New England then you can choose them both

[NeverAgain]

Very hard to do, the only way I'd see it happening is if the Democrats nominate an actual communist or just a raving loon or they have a reverse coattail effect where moderate Republicans influence the GE.

[Derpist]

New Hampshire and Maine are winnable in the future. Very swingy voters. Lots of old-school yankee moderates. Lots of working-class whites too. Republicans could win both and carry ME/NH.

Vermont is just too filled with New York transplants to be winnable. Connecticut is too banker-dominated. Massachusetts has Boston, which is hopeless.

Maybe in a VERY distant future, Rhode Island becomes winnable.

[White Trash]

If my prayers come true, then the parties will change their social platforms. This will leave New England the West winnable for the GOP, and the South and Midwest winnable for the Dems.

[smoltchanov]

Only if Republicans will become much more moderate on social issues. Fiscal conservatism (reasonable) is quite acceptable there, social - very rarely...

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

not in the foreseeable future, period.

[This account no longer in use.]

Republicans clearly can win when they nominate moderates in statewide elections (Baker, Ayotte, Collins). They would have to moderate somebody very moderate if they ever had a chance, and it'd have to be a landslide, but it'd be possible.

[NHI]

New Hampshire and Maine are winnable in the future. Very swingy voters. Lots of old-school yankee moderates. Lots of working-class whites too. Republicans could win both and carry ME/NH.

Vermont is just too filled with New York transplants to be winnable. Connecticut is too banker-dominated. Massachusetts has Boston, which is hopeless.

Maybe in a VERY distant future, Rhode Island becomes winnable.

Agreed.

[smoltchanov]

New Hampshire and Maine are winnable in the future. Very swingy voters. Lots of old-school yankee moderates. Lots of working-class whites too. Republicans could win both and carry ME/NH.

Vermont is just too filled with New York transplants to be winnable. Connecticut is too banker-dominated. Massachusetts has Boston, which is hopeless.

Maybe in a VERY distant future, Rhode Island becomes winnable.

Agreed.

Generally agree. But mostly - if we speak about presidential races. Much better chances -  in state elections (especially - gubernatorial). Liberal Massachusetts has Republican governor now. Connecticut was close to electing Republican governor in both 2010 and 2014 (and held it easily with Jodi Rell even in Democratic 2006), and Republican House member even in 2012. Rhode Island had Republican governor in 2002-2010. Vermont may elect Republican a governor in 2016. Ticket-splitting tradition is strong in New England (if suitable candidate runs).

But on Presidential level - yes, about that. Right now - New Hampshire and Maine only, and even them - only under special circumstances... "Solid conservatives" are "no-no" in vast majority of cases.... (LePage was extremely lucky both in 2010 AND 2014)

[Camaro33]

At a presidential election level in the electoral college......NO.

New England wouldn't vote Republican in a presidential election even if the parties changed ideologies. You can have Trump be the Democrat and Hillary the Republican come November and the Democrats would still win handily. Very unfortunate.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

If they downplayed social issues, they could win it back at the presidential level.  But given the current direction of the national party, I doubt that will happen anytime soon.    At this point, New Hampshire looks like the only competitive state there at the national level (and possibly Maine). 

As for at the state level, they already have much of New England, or at least remain competitive. 

[smoltchanov]

If they downplayed social issues, they could win it back at the presidential level.  But given the current direction of the national party, I doubt that will happen anytime soon.    At this point, New Hampshire looks like the only competitive state there at the national level (and possibly Maine). 

As for at the state level, they already have much of New England, or at least remain competitive. 

4-6:1 Democratic majorities in Massachusetts and Rhode Island legislatures are very competitive? I doubt it. In Maine and New Hampshire - more or less, though it may change this year. In Connecticut and Vermont - permanent minority, but, at least, visible minority. In Massachusetts and Rhode Island - not so much, only some particular persons (like Baker, Avedisian, Carcieri, and so on). It's not an accident that Republicans have only 2 seats from New England in US House, and this is after a "banner" 2014. After 2016 they may have zero, as already happened in the past.

[Orser67]

Since 1992, Democrats have won every single presidential election in every single state in the Northeast with one exception: New Hampshire in 2000. In that time, I think the GOP has become less likely to win in the Northeast as it's moved to the right. So I don't think the GOP has much of a chance.

[Horsemask]

Yes only if the GOP moves towards the center on social issues but even then that may not be enough.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

If they downplayed social issues, they could win it back at the presidential level.  But given the current direction of the national party, I doubt that will happen anytime soon.    At this point, New Hampshire looks like the only competitive state there at the national level (and possibly Maine). 

As for at the state level, they already have much of New England, or at least remain competitive. 

4-6:1 Democratic majorities in Massachusetts and Rhode Island legislatures are very competitive?

Let's see.  Massachusetts and Maine currently have GOP governors.  Massachusetts previously had 16 straight years of GOP governors before Deval Patrick.  Rhode Island and Connecticut both had 16 straight years of GOP control on the governor's office until 2010.  Vermont elected Jim Douglas to four terms as governor and is poised to elect another GOP governor this year.  New Hampshire has a close race for governor that could easily go Republican.  If Republicans win both of those races, then they will have a majority of New England governors.  Maine and New Hampshire both have one GOP Senator; Maine had two before 2012, and Massachusetts had one as well.

And don't give me this crap about "but they were moderate Republicans."  A moderate Republican is still a Republican.  And I wouldn't really call LePage or Ayotte moderates, either.

[NHI]

New Hampshire and Maine are winnable in the future. Very swingy voters. Lots of old-school yankee moderates. Lots of working-class whites too. Republicans could win both and carry ME/NH.

Vermont is just too filled with New York transplants to be winnable. Connecticut is too banker-dominated. Massachusetts has Boston, which is hopeless.

Maybe in a VERY distant future, Rhode Island becomes winnable.

[smoltchanov]

And don't give me this crap about "but they were moderate Republicans."  A moderate Republican is still a Republican.  And I wouldn't really call LePage or Ayotte moderates, either.

Ayotte is a conservative, LePage - ultra-rightist. And yes, moderate Republican is still a Republican. But only moderate Republican can (and DID) win in most of the New England states, and party as a whole continues to march right, In fact - so right, that moderates will soon have no place in it even in New England. And with that any hope of getting New England back will be laid to rest.