southern democrats/northern (new england) republicans

[WalterMitty]

weve all heard about the typical 'southern democrat'.  the guy, typically an oldster, he lives in the rural south, is a registered democrat and has been all of his life, but he tends to vote republican these days (especially in national and statewide races)

does he have a counterpart in new england?  someone who is a registered republican, and always has been, but now typically votes democrat?

discuss.

[Cashcow]

Sure! I know many people like that.

[WalterMitty]

Sure! I know many people like that.

details please.

[Rob]

Yes. The GOP's southern religious bias doesn't fly in New England, which is why old Republican strongholds are now voting solidly Democratic.

[Keystone Phil]

A good amount of Montgomery County (PA) Republicans would be the opposite of your typical southern Democrat. Gore 2000 and Kerry 2004 voters that also voted for Rendell in 2002 for Governor.

However, they vote for Specter for U.S. Senate.

[Cashcow]

People who used to vote on economics now vote on social issues. It's pretty simple.

[WalterMitty]

People who used to vote on economics now vote on social issues. It's pretty simple.

not really simple.

why have they shifted their priorities?

personally, im more concerned with money and financial freedom than i am with abortion.

but then again, this thread isnt about me.

[danwxman]

A good amount of Montgomery County (PA) Republicans would be the opposite of your typical southern Democrat. Gore 2000 and Kerry 2004 voters that also voted for Rendell in 2002 for Governor.

However, they vote for Specter for U.S. Senate.

Yep...you said it. WalterMitty, you belong in the Philly suburbs.

[danwxman]

People who used to vote on economics now vote on social issues. It's pretty simple.

not really simple.

why have they shifted their priorities?

personally, im more concerned with money and financial freedom than i am with abortion.

but then again, this thread isnt about me.

Maybe for the same reason southern Democrats are voting on social issues....economic issues are no longer important and they feel their party has moved to the extreme on social issues.

Plus... (and I hate to make this about intelligence) those Northeast RINOs tend to be very well educated and financially secure.

[Keystone Phil]

People who used to vote on economics now vote on social issues. It's pretty simple.

not really simple.

In my example they do. Montgomery County RINOs are upper middle class/wealthy people and hold centrist/center-right economic views. Economic issues aren't really that much of a concern anymore. Now that social issues are big, their social liberalism stands out big time.

[Cashcow]

People who used to vote on economics now vote on social issues. It's pretty simple.

not really simple.

why have they shifted their priorities?

personally, im more concerned with money and financial freedom than i am with abortion.

but then again, this thread isnt about me.

Maybe for the same reason southern Democrats are voting on social issues....economic issues are no longer important and they feel their party has moved to the extreme on social issues.

Plus... (and I hate to make this about intelligence) those Northeast RINOs tend to be very well educated and financially secure.

Exactly. Had I been alive 40 or 50 years ago, I probably would have been a Republican. Now, I consider myself independent, and am considering becoming a Democrat - if they cut out all that populist crap, of course.

Money just isn't a huge political concern for me.

[Keystone Phil]

if they cut out all that populist crap, of course.

Money just isn't a huge political concern for me.

Yet financial issues hold you back from becoming a Democrat.

[Erc]

The Democrats have moderated their tone from the McGovern era...the marginal tax rates aren't as high as they used to be for the upper echelons (they can afford to vote Democrat), so taxes aren't that big of a deal...so they vote on what's visible, social issues.

Well, that's my best guess, at least.


I really do think that the Republicans can (and should) make inroads in the Northeast suburbs, by being the type of Republican that the Northeast suburbs want...economically center-right, socially center-left, not beholden to the Religious Right or to President Bush.  Not on the Presidential level of course, but for Congress, for State Assembly and Senate...and, perhaps, eventually for Senate or higher office in a few decades.  
And it's in the suburbs that most of the Northeast is won...Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, even New York.  The rest of New England (New Hampshire and perhaps Maine notwithstanding) is too far gone, but we cannot give up on the Northeast...just as the Democrats shouldn't give up in the South.

[Cashcow]

if they cut out all that populist crap, of course.

Money just isn't a huge political concern for me.

Yet financial issues hold you back from becoming a Democrat.

They promote a culture of dependency that is harmful to society. I am not concerned with my own money, but I think fiscal conservatism can be helpful - rather than hurtful - to the middle class.

[Smash255]

NYC & Philly burbs, especially Montco & Delaware counties and also Bucks in the Philly area, Long Island & Westchester in the NYC area.  All 6 counties use to be heavily Republican voting republican in every Presidential  election from 1916 - 1988 with the exception of 1964 where it went Dem when Johnson won all but 3 counties in PA & every county in NY & 1936 which I believe Bucks Co went Dem, all the rest went GOP.

However since 1992, 5 of the 6 counties have gone Dem in every election (Suffolk went for Bush in 92) & since 96 all 6 have gone Dem in every election.  Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester & Delawre counties all went double digits to the Dems in 96, and all but Bucks went to the Dems by double digits in 2000.  Some movement back to the Republicans in 04 due to 9/11, but all went for the Dems & as far as I know all 6 counties still have GOP advantages in voter regristration (although that gap is closing quickly)

[Smash255]

The Democrats have moderated their tone from the McGovern era...the marginal tax rates aren't as high as they used to be for the upper echelons (they can afford to vote Democrat), so taxes aren't that big of a deal...so they vote on what's visible, social issues.

Well, that's my best guess, at least.


I really do think that the Republicans can (and should) make inroads in the Northeast suburbs, by being the type of Republican that the Northeast suburbs want...economically center-right, socially center-left, not beholden to the Religious Right or to President Bush.  Not on the Presidential level of course, but for Congress, for State Assembly and Senate...and, perhaps, eventually for Senate or higher office in a few decades. 
And it's in the suburbs that most of the Northeast is won...Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, even New York.  The rest of New England (New Hampshire and perhaps Maine notwithstanding) is too far gone, but we cannot give up on the Northeast...just as the Democrats shouldn't give up in the South.

I think its going to be very hard for the GOP to get back the suburban northeast vote.  2004 due to security issues from 9/11 is probably the best they are going to do in NY, NJ & CT.

A state like NY didn't use to be strongly Dem, it tended to lean Dem because of NYC, but the suburbs especially Long Island & Westchester were heavily Republican and made the state fairly competitive.  Everything started to change in the early 90's as the suburbs became ore liberal (especially on social issues) & even to a lesser extent economic issues (it moved from hard right economically to pretty much center economically) but the social issues had more of an impact as well as problems with the GOP machine at the local level.  The machine didn't break uup for another 8-10 years, but the problems within it, as well as the shift leftward socially in the early & mid 90's changed NY, as thhe NYC burbs especially  Long Island & Westchester became Democratic & the state whent from competitive to safe Dem

[nini2287]

People who used to vote on economics now vote on social issues. It's pretty simple.

not really simple.

In my example they do. Montgomery County RINOs are upper middle class/wealthy people and hold centrist/center-right economic views. Economic issues aren't really that much of a concern anymore. Now that social issues are big, their social liberalism stands out big time.

You hit Montco on the nose.  I personally know tons of Republicans who voted for Kerry  (and some voted for several other Democrats as well(

[WalterMitty]

ok/  what about the rural northeast vote?

there has to be a lot of registered or self proclaimed republicans voting democrat in vermont, new hampshire and maine.

[minionofmidas]

ok/  what about the rural northeast vote?

there has to be a lot of registered or self proclaimed republicans voting democrat in vermont, new hampshire and maine.

I think in rural New Hampshire, some people vote Dem only because the suburban areas of the state vote Rep. And vice versa.

[TeePee4Prez]

People who used to vote on economics now vote on social issues. It's pretty simple.

not really simple.

In my example they do. Montgomery County RINOs are upper middle class/wealthy people and hold centrist/center-right economic views. Economic issues aren't really that much of a concern anymore. Now that social issues are big, their social liberalism stands out big time.

You hit Montco on the nose.  I personally know tons of Republicans who voted for Kerry  (and some voted for several other Democrats as well(

You also have to credit Montco Dem chairman Marcel Groen for this as well.  He has registered an unprecendented number of Democrats this past election cycle there.  Funny, Montgomery County used to be way more Republican than Bucks now I'm wonder why Bucks is so impotent they let the 2nd coming of Rick Santorum (Fitzpatrick) get elected to Congress.  He would have NEVER won in Montco.

[Keystone Phil]

Funny, Montgomery County used to be way more Republican than Bucks now I'm wonder why Bucks is so impotent they let the 2nd coming of Rick Santorum (Fitzpatrick) get elected to Congress.  He would have NEVER won in Montco.

Because Bucks doesn't have as high of a population of liberals.

[Cashcow]

People who used to vote on economics now vote on social issues. It's pretty simple.

not really simple.

why have they shifted their priorities?

personally, im more concerned with money and financial freedom than i am with abortion.

but then again, this thread isnt about me.

Maybe for the same reason southern Democrats are voting on social issues....economic issues are no longer important and they feel their party has moved to the extreme on social issues.

Plus... (and I hate to make this about intelligence) those Northeast RINOs tend to be very well educated and financially secure.

Exactly. Had I been alive 40 or 50 years ago, I probably would have been a Republican. Now, I consider myself independent, and am considering becoming a Democrat - if they cut out all that populist crap, of course.

Money just isn't a huge political concern for me.

Yeah, if they cut the "populist crap" if they still have any populism left then the Democratic Party will really be dead.  You must realize that the majority of the country is at least populist-leaning and a plurality is pure populist, the main reason the Democratic Party has found recent defeat is it's embrace of social liberalism and neglecting attention to economic issues.  If anything needs to be cut it's the gay, feminist, and abortionist crap.

It may be in line with the country, but it's not in line with me.

[Rob]

It may be in line with the country, but it's not in line with me.

This obviously is the case with me too. This populist bullsh**t does not win elections. The old Democratic rural areas are trending to the GOP, while the Democrats are cutting into upscale Republican areas. They need to go purely libertarian, then maybe the party could win in places like Maricopa County, Arizona.  Places like Mississippi are a lost cause.

[A18]

You don't understand libertarianism if you think it is in any way compatible with the Democratic base.

[Rob]

No, the platform should be completely changed.  The "base" can go to hell.