Why can moderate republicans win in red states but not the other way around?

[Cashew]

Edit: i'm reviving this, and wording it better too.

Why can down-ticket republicans perform decently in (atlas) red states, but not the other way around?

Are Democratic states just innately more elastic?

[Nyvin]

The country typically moves away from whichever party holds the White House.

Look at the makeup of political party strength in 2007-2008, which were the last two Bush years,  Democrats were everywhere.

[DC Al Fine]

The country typically moves away from whichever party holds the White House.

Look at the makeup of political party strength in 2007-2008, which were the last two Bush years,  Democrats were everywhere.

And of course, look at their politics. Heath Schuler was a prominent name at the time.

[RI]

Plenty of Dems have won in "red" states since 2010: Nixon, Bullock, Donnelly, Heitkamp, McCaskill, Manchin, Bel Edwards, Beshear, Tomblin, Beebe...

[Cashew]

Plenty of Dems have won in "red" states since 2010: Nixon, Bullock, Donnelly, Heitkamp, McCaskill, Manchin, Bel Edwards, Beshear, Tomblin, Beebe...

Many of those had family in politics, and name recognition.

[jamestroll]

Just for everyone's information, back in 2006, I believe I noticed that moderate Democrats won a lot of Republican states, but it was harder for the other way around.

It seems most elections are becoming waves now. Though, I hardly think of 2012 as a wave and 2016 was only a wave in the Midwest.

[RINO Tom]

I think most can acknowledge how unique the Obama era was on local politics and how odd the Trump era very well could be on national politics ... I think it's not safe to make any judgments about things like this right now.  A bad Trump Presidency very well could see states like Arkansas or Kentucky electing their local Democrats again ... then again, it could very well not.

[Beet]

Because red states are becoming the equivalent of blue cities.

I noticed Hillary's share of the vote in Mingo county, WV dropped to 14%. A county that was going Dem as recently as the early 2000s. Democrats are so alien in these places, they may as well be a foreign species. As recently as 2006/08, this was not so. A local blue dog could still make a credible appeal. In recent years, as Democrats chased their 'Obama coalition', vast swathes of the country fell off the radar. I remember in 2003, Zell Miller published a book indicting the Democratic party as 'A National Party No More'. It wasn't true then, but it's true now.

[RI]

Because red states are becoming the equivalent of blue cities.

I noticed Hillary's share of the vote in Mingo county, WV dropped to 14%. A county that was going Dem as recently as the early 2000s.

Justice won Mingo by over 15 points. It's not out of reach for the right type of Democrat.

[morgieb]

Mostly it's a nature of political climates. If moderate Democrats make up no ground in blue states, then maybe you have a point, but in the last 12 months we've seen the likes of Justice, Edwards and Bullock win, so moderate Democrats can easily win blue states.

[bore]

What a ridiculously silly thread.

Just 2 weeks ago Jim Justice won the governor's race in the state with the second largest vote for Trump. If you look at the state house races for West Virginia and Kentucky Democrats won races in seats where Hillary got 10 or 20%. All three rural Minnesota dems were re elected despite Hillary losing their districts in a landslide (Clinton didn't even win a county in Petersons). Steve Bullock won re election in a state which Trump won by 20 points.

The whole premise is just flat out wrong.

[ApatheticAustrian]

i think the thread is spot-on.

ofc dems can win in republican states but it's much harder and needs much more luck/ressources/ name recog/gaffes than the other way around.

just look at the map...which states are out of reach for down-ticket republicans? (hint: not maryland/illinois/mass.....)

[Cashew]

i think the thread is spot-on.

ofc dems can win in republican states but it's much harder and needs much more luck/ressources/ name recog/gaffes than the other way around.

just look at the map...which states are out of reach for down-ticket republicans? (hint: not maryland/illinois/mass.....)

And Vermont.

Can somebody give me a scenario where democrats are competititive in the republican equivalents of Wyoming, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee?

[bore]

i think the thread is spot-on.

ofc dems can win in republican states but it's much harder and needs much more luck/ressources/ name recog/gaffes than the other way around.

just look at the map...which states are out of reach for down-ticket republicans? (hint: not maryland/illinois/mass.....)

There is no reason at all to say that Democrats need more luck/resources or worse opponents to win in Solid Republican states than the converse. A quick look at the races you mention proves the point. Why did Republicans scrape a victory in Illinois? Because they were running against the incredibly unpopular Pat Quinn in a republican landslide year. Why did Charlie Baker win in 2014? Because he was a good candidate running against Martha Coakley, the world's worst candidate, in a republican landslide year. Why did Phil Scott win in Vermont? Because he was a well known moderate figure in the state, running to suceed the unpopular Shumlin. Why did the unknown John Bel Edwards win in Louisiana last year? Because he was a good candidate running against David Vitter. Why did Jim Justice win this year? Because he was a good, very rich candidate. There is no difference at all.

Wyoming and Tennessee had very popular democratic governors just 6 years ago. South Carolina had a very very close gubernatorial race in 2010. Obviously, all things being equal, Republicans are more likely to win in these states than Democrats. The same is obviously true in reverse for Vermont and Massachusetts and Maryland. But for all of these states there are circumstances, when there is the perfect storm of a good candidate, a poor opponent, the national tide and so on where the minority party can win. And these perfect storms seem to happen about as often on both sides.

[RINO Tom]

This thread reminds me of a thread Mr. Illini made about the most "quintessentially" DEM and GOP states one time; it wasn't necessarily getting at which states would vote the most that way in terms of PVI or whatever.  Places like Arkansas and West Virginia and Kentucky have a LOT of people alive whose parents would never vote for a Republican no matter what, and Vermont and Maine have people like that on the other side.  Those states aren't quite the same as Utah/Idaho.

[RI]

If anything, the hardest states to topple for the opposing party are the polarized, inelastic, western, (mostly) vote-by-mail states: California, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. States where the opposition party is relatively more moderate than nationally are the most likely to see opposition takeovers; if the GOP in New England was like the GOP in the South, they'd almost never win, and vice versa for West Virginia and the like. Out west, we see Dems are very liberal, even in conservative states (ex: Salt Lake City in Utah), and Republicans are very conservative, even in more liberal states.

[Torie]

To state the obvious, there is more play for state offices, than federal ones.

[All Along The Watchtower]

As bore said, the premise is mostly false. The only states where I can see it being true are all in the Deep South - which is obviously very racially polarized so very few Democrats can ever win statewide nowadays.