RINO Tom/Rockefeller GOP v. Santander/Southern Gothic
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:38:06 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Forum Community
  Forum Community Election Match-ups (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, YE, KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸)
  RINO Tom/Rockefeller GOP v. Santander/Southern Gothic
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Poll
Question: Who do you vote for?/Who wins?
#1
RINO Tom/RINO Tom
 
#2
RINO Tom/Santander
 
#3
Santander/RINO Tom
 
#4
Santander/Santander
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 51

Author Topic: RINO Tom/Rockefeller GOP v. Santander/Southern Gothic  (Read 4046 times)
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: May 23, 2016, 12:02:07 PM »

It is WAY too important to you guys' self-inflated images of yourselves and your party to believe what you currently do about Southern realignment, and I'm fine with letting you continue to believe that.

Your social PM score is disgusting! I think you should probably join the Demoncrats. You'd fit in much better with their deviancy.
Logged
SATW
SunriseAroundTheWorld
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,463
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: May 23, 2016, 01:05:52 PM »

It is WAY too important to you guys' self-inflated images of yourselves and your party to believe what you currently do about Southern realignment, and I'm fine with letting you continue to believe that.

you know IceSpear is trolling right?
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: May 23, 2016, 01:16:35 PM »

It is WAY too important to you guys' self-inflated images of yourselves and your party to believe what you currently do about Southern realignment, and I'm fine with letting you continue to believe that.

Your party is going to nominate Donald Trump but I'm fine with letting you continue to believe that people support the GOP because they are fiscal conservative.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: May 23, 2016, 01:29:21 PM »

It is WAY too important to you guys' self-inflated images of yourselves and your party to believe what you currently do about Southern realignment, and I'm fine with letting you continue to believe that.

you know IceSpear is trolling right?

That doesn't make what I said less true.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: May 23, 2016, 05:09:20 PM »

It is WAY too important to you guys' self-inflated images of yourselves and your party to believe what you currently do about Southern realignment, and I'm fine with letting you continue to believe that.
I'm glad you managed to point out the blatant nonsense implied in IceSpear's satire.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: May 24, 2016, 09:57:58 AM »

Sometimes, I wonder if West Virginia didn't become a GOP stronghold in order to troll RINO Tom haha

I mean, they probably just got tired of voting for a party that had kept them poor for decades. Wink

In that case, Mississippi should dump all their Republicans that have kept them poor for decades.

But we all know why that won't happen...
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: May 24, 2016, 10:37:39 AM »

Sometimes, I wonder if West Virginia didn't become a GOP stronghold in order to troll RINO Tom haha

I mean, they probably just got tired of voting for a party that had kept them poor for decades. Wink

In that case, Mississippi should dump all their Republicans that have kept them poor for decades.

But we all know why that won't happen...

MS did dump the party that had kept it poor for decades, and it now enjoys GOP control.  If we're going to give both parties an equal shot to fix the mess that is MS, we can check back in in about 80 years.
Logged
White Trash
Southern Gothic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,910


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: May 24, 2016, 10:45:05 AM »

Sometimes, I wonder if West Virginia didn't become a GOP stronghold in order to troll RINO Tom haha

I mean, they probably just got tired of voting for a party that had kept them poor for decades. Wink

In that case, Mississippi should dump all their Republicans that have kept them poor for decades.

But we all know why that won't happen...

MS did dump the party that had kept it poor for decades, and it now enjoys GOP control.  If we're going to give both parties an equal shot to fix the mess that is MS, we can check back in in about 80 years.

In all my experience regarding elections in the South, economics is rarely an issue that is stressed. The social divide between Democrats and Republicans is really what it comes down to in our elections. When you look at the platforms of the individual Republican parties, there are entire novels written about opposing the President and pushing for conservative social reform. With maybe a line here or there thrown out about the free market.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: May 24, 2016, 10:47:11 AM »

Sometimes, I wonder if West Virginia didn't become a GOP stronghold in order to troll RINO Tom haha

I mean, they probably just got tired of voting for a party that had kept them poor for decades. Wink

In that case, Mississippi should dump all their Republicans that have kept them poor for decades.

But we all know why that won't happen...

MS did dump the party that had kept it poor for decades, and it now enjoys GOP control.  If we're going to give both parties an equal shot to fix the mess that is MS, we can check back in in about 80 years.

In all my experience regarding elections in the South, economics is rarely an issue that is stressed. The social divide between Democrats and Republicans is really what it comes down to in our elections. When you look at the platforms of the individual Republican parties, there are entire novels written about opposing the President and pushing for conservative social reform. With maybe a line here or there thrown out about the free market.

Aren't you a self-described socially conservative Democrat?
Logged
White Trash
Southern Gothic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,910


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: May 24, 2016, 10:48:54 AM »

Sometimes, I wonder if West Virginia didn't become a GOP stronghold in order to troll RINO Tom haha

I mean, they probably just got tired of voting for a party that had kept them poor for decades. Wink

In that case, Mississippi should dump all their Republicans that have kept them poor for decades.

But we all know why that won't happen...

MS did dump the party that had kept it poor for decades, and it now enjoys GOP control.  If we're going to give both parties an equal shot to fix the mess that is MS, we can check back in in about 80 years.

In all my experience regarding elections in the South, economics is rarely an issue that is stressed. The social divide between Democrats and Republicans is really what it comes down to in our elections. When you look at the platforms of the individual Republican parties, there are entire novels written about opposing the President and pushing for conservative social reform. With maybe a line here or there thrown out about the free market.

Aren't you a self-described socially conservative Democrat?

Socially conservative compared to the national Democrats. Socially liberal compared to Louisiana Democrats
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: May 24, 2016, 10:58:07 AM »

Sometimes, I wonder if West Virginia didn't become a GOP stronghold in order to troll RINO Tom haha

I mean, they probably just got tired of voting for a party that had kept them poor for decades. Wink

In that case, Mississippi should dump all their Republicans that have kept them poor for decades.

But we all know why that won't happen...

MS did dump the party that had kept it poor for decades, and it now enjoys GOP control.  If we're going to give both parties an equal shot to fix the mess that is MS, we can check back in in about 80 years.

In all my experience regarding elections in the South, economics is rarely an issue that is stressed. The social divide between Democrats and Republicans is really what it comes down to in our elections. When you look at the platforms of the individual Republican parties, there are entire novels written about opposing the President and pushing for conservative social reform. With maybe a line here or there thrown out about the free market.

Aren't you a self-described socially conservative Democrat?

Socially conservative compared to the national Democrats. Socially liberal compared to Louisiana Democrats

Okay, but did you not just disprove your point?  If LA Democrats are socially conservative, especially compared to a Democrat who's socially conservative compared to the national party, then obviously statewide elections (which is what is relevant here) aren't completely about social issues and highlight at least some economic differences.  People seem to gloss over the '70s, '80s and '90s, but the South was effectively a battleground region.  Republicans didn't gain control of the region until into the 2000s, and they were running against Democrats and losing ... in any election, anywhere, the two candidates are going to highlight their differences.  The Republicans of 2016 I can't speak to, but the Republicans who slowly started defeating Southern Democrats were convincing voters to try something new, and both candidates were pretty much the same on social issues ... eventually, many Southerners did try something new.

Whether you want to deflect this or not, there is a direct relationship between Republicans gaining more power in the South and the region becoming more developed, less poor and less backward.
Logged
White Trash
Southern Gothic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,910


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: May 24, 2016, 11:07:04 AM »

Sometimes, I wonder if West Virginia didn't become a GOP stronghold in order to troll RINO Tom haha

I mean, they probably just got tired of voting for a party that had kept them poor for decades. Wink

In that case, Mississippi should dump all their Republicans that have kept them poor for decades.

But we all know why that won't happen...

MS did dump the party that had kept it poor for decades, and it now enjoys GOP control.  If we're going to give both parties an equal shot to fix the mess that is MS, we can check back in in about 80 years.

In all my experience regarding elections in the South, economics is rarely an issue that is stressed. The social divide between Democrats and Republicans is really what it comes down to in our elections. When you look at the platforms of the individual Republican parties, there are entire novels written about opposing the President and pushing for conservative social reform. With maybe a line here or there thrown out about the free market.

Aren't you a self-described socially conservative Democrat?

Socially conservative compared to the national Democrats. Socially liberal compared to Louisiana Democrats

Okay, but did you not just disprove your point?  If LA Democrats are socially conservative, especially compared to a Democrat who's socially conservative compared to the national party, then obviously statewide elections (which is what is relevant here) aren't completely about social issues and highlight at least some economic differences.  People seem to gloss over the '70s, '80s and '90s, but the South was effectively a battleground region.  Republicans didn't gain control of the region until into the 2000s, and they were running against Democrats and losing ... in any election, anywhere, the two candidates are going to highlight their differences.  The Republicans of 2016 I can't speak to, but the Republicans who slowly started defeating Southern Democrats were convincing voters to try something new, and both candidates were pretty much the same on social issues ... eventually, many Southerners did try something new.

Whether you want to deflect this or not, there is a direct relationship between Republicans gaining more power in the South and the region becoming more developed, less poor and less backward.

I didn't disprove my own point. The social conservatives in the South are ridiculously to the right regarding social issues. Look at Oklahoma and the wackiness that is going on over there. Now, I can't speak for elections in the last century, but I know that the rhetoric today in Southern elections is still centered around social issues.

While there has been plenty of work done by the SoCons in the South to push their platforms, there has actually been very little economic reform in either direction, conservative or liberal. When Southerners started casting their votes for Republicans, they didn't give a rat's behind about the free market. Southerners are the most reliant on welfare and government funding than any other Americans, and they are well aware of it. They aren't going to vote for the candidate who wants to cut Maw and Paw's Medicaid, they want the candidate who will end abortion, SSM etc.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: May 24, 2016, 11:16:29 AM »

Sometimes, I wonder if West Virginia didn't become a GOP stronghold in order to troll RINO Tom haha

I mean, they probably just got tired of voting for a party that had kept them poor for decades. Wink

In that case, Mississippi should dump all their Republicans that have kept them poor for decades.

But we all know why that won't happen...

MS did dump the party that had kept it poor for decades, and it now enjoys GOP control.  If we're going to give both parties an equal shot to fix the mess that is MS, we can check back in in about 80 years.

In all my experience regarding elections in the South, economics is rarely an issue that is stressed. The social divide between Democrats and Republicans is really what it comes down to in our elections. When you look at the platforms of the individual Republican parties, there are entire novels written about opposing the President and pushing for conservative social reform. With maybe a line here or there thrown out about the free market.

Aren't you a self-described socially conservative Democrat?

Socially conservative compared to the national Democrats. Socially liberal compared to Louisiana Democrats

Okay, but did you not just disprove your point?  If LA Democrats are socially conservative, especially compared to a Democrat who's socially conservative compared to the national party, then obviously statewide elections (which is what is relevant here) aren't completely about social issues and highlight at least some economic differences.  People seem to gloss over the '70s, '80s and '90s, but the South was effectively a battleground region.  Republicans didn't gain control of the region until into the 2000s, and they were running against Democrats and losing ... in any election, anywhere, the two candidates are going to highlight their differences.  The Republicans of 2016 I can't speak to, but the Republicans who slowly started defeating Southern Democrats were convincing voters to try something new, and both candidates were pretty much the same on social issues ... eventually, many Southerners did try something new.

Whether you want to deflect this or not, there is a direct relationship between Republicans gaining more power in the South and the region becoming more developed, less poor and less backward.

I didn't disprove my own point. The social conservatives in the South are ridiculously to the right regarding social issues. Look at Oklahoma and the wackiness that is going on over there. Now, I can't speak for elections in the last century, but I know that the rhetoric today in Southern elections is still centered around social issues.

While there has been plenty of work done by the SoCons in the South to push their platforms, there has actually been very little economic reform in either direction, conservative or liberal. When Southerners started casting their votes for Republicans, they didn't give a rat's behind about the free market. Southerners are the most reliant on welfare and government funding than any other Americans, and they are well aware of it. They aren't going to vote for the candidate who wants to cut Maw and Paw's Medicaid, they want the candidate who will end abortion, SSM etc.

This is very true. Me and my fellow white male working class blue collar Reagan Democrat coal miners were so displeased with the Republicans who passed that right-to-work law that we considered switching back to the Democrats. But then we all remembered the disgusting creature in the White House, the Democratic Party becoming an anti-white hate group, and the best presidential candidate in decades winning the GOP nomination, and dispelled that notion from our heads. We are Republicans for life now. Smiley
Logged
White Trash
Southern Gothic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,910


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: May 24, 2016, 11:18:08 AM »

Sometimes, I wonder if West Virginia didn't become a GOP stronghold in order to troll RINO Tom haha

I mean, they probably just got tired of voting for a party that had kept them poor for decades. Wink

In that case, Mississippi should dump all their Republicans that have kept them poor for decades.

But we all know why that won't happen...

MS did dump the party that had kept it poor for decades, and it now enjoys GOP control.  If we're going to give both parties an equal shot to fix the mess that is MS, we can check back in in about 80 years.

In all my experience regarding elections in the South, economics is rarely an issue that is stressed. The social divide between Democrats and Republicans is really what it comes down to in our elections. When you look at the platforms of the individual Republican parties, there are entire novels written about opposing the President and pushing for conservative social reform. With maybe a line here or there thrown out about the free market.

Aren't you a self-described socially conservative Democrat?

Socially conservative compared to the national Democrats. Socially liberal compared to Louisiana Democrats

Okay, but did you not just disprove your point?  If LA Democrats are socially conservative, especially compared to a Democrat who's socially conservative compared to the national party, then obviously statewide elections (which is what is relevant here) aren't completely about social issues and highlight at least some economic differences.  People seem to gloss over the '70s, '80s and '90s, but the South was effectively a battleground region.  Republicans didn't gain control of the region until into the 2000s, and they were running against Democrats and losing ... in any election, anywhere, the two candidates are going to highlight their differences.  The Republicans of 2016 I can't speak to, but the Republicans who slowly started defeating Southern Democrats were convincing voters to try something new, and both candidates were pretty much the same on social issues ... eventually, many Southerners did try something new.

Whether you want to deflect this or not, there is a direct relationship between Republicans gaining more power in the South and the region becoming more developed, less poor and less backward.

I didn't disprove my own point. The social conservatives in the South are ridiculously to the right regarding social issues. Look at Oklahoma and the wackiness that is going on over there. Now, I can't speak for elections in the last century, but I know that the rhetoric today in Southern elections is still centered around social issues.

While there has been plenty of work done by the SoCons in the South to push their platforms, there has actually been very little economic reform in either direction, conservative or liberal. When Southerners started casting their votes for Republicans, they didn't give a rat's behind about the free market. Southerners are the most reliant on welfare and government funding than any other Americans, and they are well aware of it. They aren't going to vote for the candidate who wants to cut Maw and Paw's Medicaid, they want the candidate who will end abortion, SSM etc.

This is very true. Me and my fellow white male working class blue collar Reagan Democrat coal miners were so displeased with the Republicans who passed that right-to-work law that we considered switching back to the Democrats. But then we all remembered the disgusting creature in the White House, the Democratic Party becoming an anti-white hate group, and the best presidential candidate in decades winning the GOP nomination, and dispelled that notion from our heads. We are Republicans for life now. Smiley

Please don't get involved with this. RINO Tom and I were actually having a good discussion. You really aren't adding anything to this, brother.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: May 24, 2016, 11:28:39 AM »

Sometimes, I wonder if West Virginia didn't become a GOP stronghold in order to troll RINO Tom haha

I mean, they probably just got tired of voting for a party that had kept them poor for decades. Wink

In that case, Mississippi should dump all their Republicans that have kept them poor for decades.

But we all know why that won't happen...

MS did dump the party that had kept it poor for decades, and it now enjoys GOP control.  If we're going to give both parties an equal shot to fix the mess that is MS, we can check back in in about 80 years.

In all my experience regarding elections in the South, economics is rarely an issue that is stressed. The social divide between Democrats and Republicans is really what it comes down to in our elections. When you look at the platforms of the individual Republican parties, there are entire novels written about opposing the President and pushing for conservative social reform. With maybe a line here or there thrown out about the free market.

Aren't you a self-described socially conservative Democrat?

Socially conservative compared to the national Democrats. Socially liberal compared to Louisiana Democrats

Okay, but did you not just disprove your point?  If LA Democrats are socially conservative, especially compared to a Democrat who's socially conservative compared to the national party, then obviously statewide elections (which is what is relevant here) aren't completely about social issues and highlight at least some economic differences.  People seem to gloss over the '70s, '80s and '90s, but the South was effectively a battleground region.  Republicans didn't gain control of the region until into the 2000s, and they were running against Democrats and losing ... in any election, anywhere, the two candidates are going to highlight their differences.  The Republicans of 2016 I can't speak to, but the Republicans who slowly started defeating Southern Democrats were convincing voters to try something new, and both candidates were pretty much the same on social issues ... eventually, many Southerners did try something new.

Whether you want to deflect this or not, there is a direct relationship between Republicans gaining more power in the South and the region becoming more developed, less poor and less backward.

I didn't disprove my own point. The social conservatives in the South are ridiculously to the right regarding social issues. Look at Oklahoma and the wackiness that is going on over there. Now, I can't speak for elections in the last century, but I know that the rhetoric today in Southern elections is still centered around social issues.

While there has been plenty of work done by the SoCons in the South to push their platforms, there has actually been very little economic reform in either direction, conservative or liberal. When Southerners started casting their votes for Republicans, they didn't give a rat's behind about the free market. Southerners are the most reliant on welfare and government funding than any other Americans, and they are well aware of it. They aren't going to vote for the candidate who wants to cut Maw and Paw's Medicaid, they want the candidate who will end abortion, SSM etc.

I guess my question, then, is why did Southerners stop voting for STATEWIDE Democrats who also opposed those things?  And why were emerging Southern suburbs, areas far less dependent on federal expenditure, start supporting local Republicans long before rural areas?

I can't speak to federal elections, which do seem to be dominated by social issues in the South, and my argument loses all of its weight BY NOW (now that Republicans dominate state governments), but I think when you look at county results of governor's races across the region, Republicans were only able to make inroads in wealthier, more suburban areas at first, leading me to believe they were able to pitch a message of "hey, we're just as socially conservative as that rural Democrat guy (i.e., we're no Yankee Republican), but it's about time you stop voting for these liberal economic reforms!"  I mean, going back to the '50s, Republicans stood no chance in the South until wealthy Southerners and the Southern business community started voting like their Northern counterparts.

Today might be a different story, but I think there's evidence that the GOP's first real inroads in the South were indeed fiscal-oriented.
Logged
White Trash
Southern Gothic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,910


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: May 24, 2016, 11:33:50 AM »

Sometimes, I wonder if West Virginia didn't become a GOP stronghold in order to troll RINO Tom haha

I mean, they probably just got tired of voting for a party that had kept them poor for decades. Wink

In that case, Mississippi should dump all their Republicans that have kept them poor for decades.

But we all know why that won't happen...

MS did dump the party that had kept it poor for decades, and it now enjoys GOP control.  If we're going to give both parties an equal shot to fix the mess that is MS, we can check back in in about 80 years.

In all my experience regarding elections in the South, economics is rarely an issue that is stressed. The social divide between Democrats and Republicans is really what it comes down to in our elections. When you look at the platforms of the individual Republican parties, there are entire novels written about opposing the President and pushing for conservative social reform. With maybe a line here or there thrown out about the free market.

Aren't you a self-described socially conservative Democrat?

Socially conservative compared to the national Democrats. Socially liberal compared to Louisiana Democrats

Okay, but did you not just disprove your point?  If LA Democrats are socially conservative, especially compared to a Democrat who's socially conservative compared to the national party, then obviously statewide elections (which is what is relevant here) aren't completely about social issues and highlight at least some economic differences.  People seem to gloss over the '70s, '80s and '90s, but the South was effectively a battleground region.  Republicans didn't gain control of the region until into the 2000s, and they were running against Democrats and losing ... in any election, anywhere, the two candidates are going to highlight their differences.  The Republicans of 2016 I can't speak to, but the Republicans who slowly started defeating Southern Democrats were convincing voters to try something new, and both candidates were pretty much the same on social issues ... eventually, many Southerners did try something new.

Whether you want to deflect this or not, there is a direct relationship between Republicans gaining more power in the South and the region becoming more developed, less poor and less backward.

I didn't disprove my own point. The social conservatives in the South are ridiculously to the right regarding social issues. Look at Oklahoma and the wackiness that is going on over there. Now, I can't speak for elections in the last century, but I know that the rhetoric today in Southern elections is still centered around social issues.

While there has been plenty of work done by the SoCons in the South to push their platforms, there has actually been very little economic reform in either direction, conservative or liberal. When Southerners started casting their votes for Republicans, they didn't give a rat's behind about the free market. Southerners are the most reliant on welfare and government funding than any other Americans, and they are well aware of it. They aren't going to vote for the candidate who wants to cut Maw and Paw's Medicaid, they want the candidate who will end abortion, SSM etc.

I guess my question, then, is why did Southerners stop voting for STATEWIDE Democrats who also opposed those things?  And why were emerging Southern suburbs, areas far less dependent on federal expenditure, start supporting local Republicans long before rural areas?

I can't speak to federal elections, which do seem to be dominated by social issues in the South, and my argument loses all of its weight BY NOW (now that Republicans dominate state governments), but I think when you look at county results of governor's races across the region, Republicans were only able to make inroads in wealthier, more suburban areas at first, leading me to believe they were able to pitch a message of "hey, we're just as socially conservative as that rural Democrat guy (i.e., we're no Yankee Republican), but it's about time you stop voting for these liberal economic reforms!"  I mean, going back to the '50s, Republicans stood no chance in the South until wealthy Southerners and the Southern business community started voting like their Northern counterparts.

Today might be a different story, but I think there's evidence that the GOP's first real inroads in the South were indeed fiscal-oriented.

I can't contest that, I haven't done my research on the past few decades while you evidently have Smiley. All I can say is what I know from the most recent elections.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: May 24, 2016, 11:38:30 AM »

Sometimes, I wonder if West Virginia didn't become a GOP stronghold in order to troll RINO Tom haha

I mean, they probably just got tired of voting for a party that had kept them poor for decades. Wink

In that case, Mississippi should dump all their Republicans that have kept them poor for decades.

But we all know why that won't happen...

MS did dump the party that had kept it poor for decades, and it now enjoys GOP control.  If we're going to give both parties an equal shot to fix the mess that is MS, we can check back in in about 80 years.

In all my experience regarding elections in the South, economics is rarely an issue that is stressed. The social divide between Democrats and Republicans is really what it comes down to in our elections. When you look at the platforms of the individual Republican parties, there are entire novels written about opposing the President and pushing for conservative social reform. With maybe a line here or there thrown out about the free market.

Aren't you a self-described socially conservative Democrat?

Socially conservative compared to the national Democrats. Socially liberal compared to Louisiana Democrats

Okay, but did you not just disprove your point?  If LA Democrats are socially conservative, especially compared to a Democrat who's socially conservative compared to the national party, then obviously statewide elections (which is what is relevant here) aren't completely about social issues and highlight at least some economic differences.  People seem to gloss over the '70s, '80s and '90s, but the South was effectively a battleground region.  Republicans didn't gain control of the region until into the 2000s, and they were running against Democrats and losing ... in any election, anywhere, the two candidates are going to highlight their differences.  The Republicans of 2016 I can't speak to, but the Republicans who slowly started defeating Southern Democrats were convincing voters to try something new, and both candidates were pretty much the same on social issues ... eventually, many Southerners did try something new.

Whether you want to deflect this or not, there is a direct relationship between Republicans gaining more power in the South and the region becoming more developed, less poor and less backward.

I didn't disprove my own point. The social conservatives in the South are ridiculously to the right regarding social issues. Look at Oklahoma and the wackiness that is going on over there. Now, I can't speak for elections in the last century, but I know that the rhetoric today in Southern elections is still centered around social issues.

While there has been plenty of work done by the SoCons in the South to push their platforms, there has actually been very little economic reform in either direction, conservative or liberal. When Southerners started casting their votes for Republicans, they didn't give a rat's behind about the free market. Southerners are the most reliant on welfare and government funding than any other Americans, and they are well aware of it. They aren't going to vote for the candidate who wants to cut Maw and Paw's Medicaid, they want the candidate who will end abortion, SSM etc.

This is very true. Me and my fellow white male working class blue collar Reagan Democrat coal miners were so displeased with the Republicans who passed that right-to-work law that we considered switching back to the Democrats. But then we all remembered the disgusting creature in the White House, the Democratic Party becoming an anti-white hate group, and the best presidential candidate in decades winning the GOP nomination, and dispelled that notion from our heads. We are Republicans for life now. Smiley

Please don't get involved with this. RINO Tom and I were actually having a good discussion. You really aren't adding anything to this, brother.

But it was my post that initialized the discussion. Sad

Even fellow Southerners look down on us West Virginians. Sad
Logged
White Trash
Southern Gothic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,910


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: May 24, 2016, 12:12:09 PM »

Sometimes, I wonder if West Virginia didn't become a GOP stronghold in order to troll RINO Tom haha

I mean, they probably just got tired of voting for a party that had kept them poor for decades. Wink

In that case, Mississippi should dump all their Republicans that have kept them poor for decades.

But we all know why that won't happen...

MS did dump the party that had kept it poor for decades, and it now enjoys GOP control.  If we're going to give both parties an equal shot to fix the mess that is MS, we can check back in in about 80 years.

In all my experience regarding elections in the South, economics is rarely an issue that is stressed. The social divide between Democrats and Republicans is really what it comes down to in our elections. When you look at the platforms of the individual Republican parties, there are entire novels written about opposing the President and pushing for conservative social reform. With maybe a line here or there thrown out about the free market.

Aren't you a self-described socially conservative Democrat?

Socially conservative compared to the national Democrats. Socially liberal compared to Louisiana Democrats

Okay, but did you not just disprove your point?  If LA Democrats are socially conservative, especially compared to a Democrat who's socially conservative compared to the national party, then obviously statewide elections (which is what is relevant here) aren't completely about social issues and highlight at least some economic differences.  People seem to gloss over the '70s, '80s and '90s, but the South was effectively a battleground region.  Republicans didn't gain control of the region until into the 2000s, and they were running against Democrats and losing ... in any election, anywhere, the two candidates are going to highlight their differences.  The Republicans of 2016 I can't speak to, but the Republicans who slowly started defeating Southern Democrats were convincing voters to try something new, and both candidates were pretty much the same on social issues ... eventually, many Southerners did try something new.

Whether you want to deflect this or not, there is a direct relationship between Republicans gaining more power in the South and the region becoming more developed, less poor and less backward.

I didn't disprove my own point. The social conservatives in the South are ridiculously to the right regarding social issues. Look at Oklahoma and the wackiness that is going on over there. Now, I can't speak for elections in the last century, but I know that the rhetoric today in Southern elections is still centered around social issues.

While there has been plenty of work done by the SoCons in the South to push their platforms, there has actually been very little economic reform in either direction, conservative or liberal. When Southerners started casting their votes for Republicans, they didn't give a rat's behind about the free market. Southerners are the most reliant on welfare and government funding than any other Americans, and they are well aware of it. They aren't going to vote for the candidate who wants to cut Maw and Paw's Medicaid, they want the candidate who will end abortion, SSM etc.

This is very true. Me and my fellow white male working class blue collar Reagan Democrat coal miners were so displeased with the Republicans who passed that right-to-work law that we considered switching back to the Democrats. But then we all remembered the disgusting creature in the White House, the Democratic Party becoming an anti-white hate group, and the best presidential candidate in decades winning the GOP nomination, and dispelled that notion from our heads. We are Republicans for life now. Smiley

Please don't get involved with this. RINO Tom and I were actually having a good discussion. You really aren't adding anything to this, brother.

But it was my post that initialized the discussion. Sad

Even fellow Southerners look down on us West Virginians. Sad

Your post did initialize it, but that last post was just another chance to showcase your parody account, which didn't help the discussion.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: May 24, 2016, 04:36:03 PM »

Sometimes, I wonder if West Virginia didn't become a GOP stronghold in order to troll RINO Tom haha

I mean, they probably just got tired of voting for a party that had kept them poor for decades. Wink

In that case, Mississippi should dump all their Republicans that have kept them poor for decades.

But we all know why that won't happen...

MS did dump the party that had kept it poor for decades, and it now enjoys GOP control.  If we're going to give both parties an equal shot to fix the mess that is MS, we can check back in in about 80 years.

In all my experience regarding elections in the South, economics is rarely an issue that is stressed. The social divide between Democrats and Republicans is really what it comes down to in our elections. When you look at the platforms of the individual Republican parties, there are entire novels written about opposing the President and pushing for conservative social reform. With maybe a line here or there thrown out about the free market.

Aren't you a self-described socially conservative Democrat?

Socially conservative compared to the national Democrats. Socially liberal compared to Louisiana Democrats

Okay, but did you not just disprove your point?  If LA Democrats are socially conservative, especially compared to a Democrat who's socially conservative compared to the national party, then obviously statewide elections (which is what is relevant here) aren't completely about social issues and highlight at least some economic differences.  People seem to gloss over the '70s, '80s and '90s, but the South was effectively a battleground region.  Republicans didn't gain control of the region until into the 2000s, and they were running against Democrats and losing ... in any election, anywhere, the two candidates are going to highlight their differences.  The Republicans of 2016 I can't speak to, but the Republicans who slowly started defeating Southern Democrats were convincing voters to try something new, and both candidates were pretty much the same on social issues ... eventually, many Southerners did try something new.

Whether you want to deflect this or not, there is a direct relationship between Republicans gaining more power in the South and the region becoming more developed, less poor and less backward.

In case you're looking for proof of this, remember that the Rockefellers were extremely successful as progressive Republicans in Arkansas as late as 2006.
Logged
Intell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,817
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: May 25, 2016, 09:26:10 PM »

Sometimes, I wonder if West Virginia didn't become a GOP stronghold in order to troll RINO Tom haha

I mean, they probably just got tired of voting for a party that had kept them poor for decades. Wink

In that case, Mississippi should dump all their Republicans that have kept them poor for decades.

But we all know why that won't happen...

MS did dump the party that had kept it poor for decades, and it now enjoys GOP control.  If we're going to give both parties an equal shot to fix the mess that is MS, we can check back in in about 80 years.

In all my experience regarding elections in the South, economics is rarely an issue that is stressed. The social divide between Democrats and Republicans is really what it comes down to in our elections. When you look at the platforms of the individual Republican parties, there are entire novels written about opposing the President and pushing for conservative social reform. With maybe a line here or there thrown out about the free market.

Aren't you a self-described socially conservative Democrat?

Socially conservative compared to the national Democrats. Socially liberal compared to Louisiana Democrats

Okay, but did you not just disprove your point?  If LA Democrats are socially conservative, especially compared to a Democrat who's socially conservative compared to the national party, then obviously statewide elections (which is what is relevant here) aren't completely about social issues and highlight at least some economic differences.  People seem to gloss over the '70s, '80s and '90s, but the South was effectively a battleground region.  Republicans didn't gain control of the region until into the 2000s, and they were running against Democrats and losing ... in any election, anywhere, the two candidates are going to highlight their differences.  The Republicans of 2016 I can't speak to, but the Republicans who slowly started defeating Southern Democrats were convincing voters to try something new, and both candidates were pretty much the same on social issues ... eventually, many Southerners did try something new.

Whether you want to deflect this or not, there is a direct relationship between Republicans gaining more power in the South and the region becoming more developed, less poor and less backward.

I didn't disprove my own point. The social conservatives in the South are ridiculously to the right regarding social issues. Look at Oklahoma and the wackiness that is going on over there. Now, I can't speak for elections in the last century, but I know that the rhetoric today in Southern elections is still centered around social issues.

While there has been plenty of work done by the SoCons in the South to push their platforms, there has actually been very little economic reform in either direction, conservative or liberal. When Southerners started casting their votes for Republicans, they didn't give a rat's behind about the free market. Southerners are the most reliant on welfare and government funding than any other Americans, and they are well aware of it. They aren't going to vote for the candidate who wants to cut Maw and Paw's Medicaid, they want the candidate who will end abortion, SSM etc.

This is very true. Me and my fellow white male working class blue collar Reagan Democrat coal miners were so displeased with the Republicans who passed that right-to-work law that we considered switching back to the Democrats. But then we all remembered the disgusting creature in the White House, the Democratic Party becoming an anti-white hate group, and the best presidential candidate in decades winning the GOP nomination, and dispelled that notion from our heads. We are Republicans for life now. Smiley

Please don't get involved with this. RINO Tom and I were actually having a good discussion. You really aren't adding anything to this, brother.

But it was my post that initialized the discussion. Sad

Even fellow Southerners look down on us West Virginians. Sad

lol at WV being Southern.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: May 25, 2016, 10:11:16 PM »

Sometimes, I wonder if West Virginia didn't become a GOP stronghold in order to troll RINO Tom haha

I mean, they probably just got tired of voting for a party that had kept them poor for decades. Wink

In that case, Mississippi should dump all their Republicans that have kept them poor for decades.

But we all know why that won't happen...

MS did dump the party that had kept it poor for decades, and it now enjoys GOP control.  If we're going to give both parties an equal shot to fix the mess that is MS, we can check back in in about 80 years.

In all my experience regarding elections in the South, economics is rarely an issue that is stressed. The social divide between Democrats and Republicans is really what it comes down to in our elections. When you look at the platforms of the individual Republican parties, there are entire novels written about opposing the President and pushing for conservative social reform. With maybe a line here or there thrown out about the free market.

Aren't you a self-described socially conservative Democrat?

Socially conservative compared to the national Democrats. Socially liberal compared to Louisiana Democrats

Okay, but did you not just disprove your point?  If LA Democrats are socially conservative, especially compared to a Democrat who's socially conservative compared to the national party, then obviously statewide elections (which is what is relevant here) aren't completely about social issues and highlight at least some economic differences.  People seem to gloss over the '70s, '80s and '90s, but the South was effectively a battleground region.  Republicans didn't gain control of the region until into the 2000s, and they were running against Democrats and losing ... in any election, anywhere, the two candidates are going to highlight their differences.  The Republicans of 2016 I can't speak to, but the Republicans who slowly started defeating Southern Democrats were convincing voters to try something new, and both candidates were pretty much the same on social issues ... eventually, many Southerners did try something new.

Whether you want to deflect this or not, there is a direct relationship between Republicans gaining more power in the South and the region becoming more developed, less poor and less backward.

I didn't disprove my own point. The social conservatives in the South are ridiculously to the right regarding social issues. Look at Oklahoma and the wackiness that is going on over there. Now, I can't speak for elections in the last century, but I know that the rhetoric today in Southern elections is still centered around social issues.

While there has been plenty of work done by the SoCons in the South to push their platforms, there has actually been very little economic reform in either direction, conservative or liberal. When Southerners started casting their votes for Republicans, they didn't give a rat's behind about the free market. Southerners are the most reliant on welfare and government funding than any other Americans, and they are well aware of it. They aren't going to vote for the candidate who wants to cut Maw and Paw's Medicaid, they want the candidate who will end abortion, SSM etc.

This is very true. Me and my fellow white male working class blue collar Reagan Democrat coal miners were so displeased with the Republicans who passed that right-to-work law that we considered switching back to the Democrats. But then we all remembered the disgusting creature in the White House, the Democratic Party becoming an anti-white hate group, and the best presidential candidate in decades winning the GOP nomination, and dispelled that notion from our heads. We are Republicans for life now. Smiley

Please don't get involved with this. RINO Tom and I were actually having a good discussion. You really aren't adding anything to this, brother.

But it was my post that initialized the discussion. Sad

Even fellow Southerners look down on us West Virginians. Sad

lol at WV being Southern.

A recent poll showed a majority consider it a Southern state. Smiley

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_WV_50416.pdf

Question 18.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: May 27, 2016, 11:36:55 AM »

It is so beyond discussion that WV can be considered a Southern state.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: May 28, 2016, 12:14:57 PM »

It is so beyond discussion that WV can be considered a Southern state.

Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,145
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: May 28, 2016, 12:22:24 PM »

It is so beyond discussion that WV can be considered a Southern state.


That is my personal definition of "South".
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: May 28, 2016, 12:29:11 PM »

It is so beyond discussion that WV can be considered a Southern state.


That is my personal definition of "South".

I have to admit, Maryland and Delaware are a stretch.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.094 seconds with 15 queries.