France vs. Russia

[MT Treasurer]

Lol, I don't care that you're from Illinois/Iowa or THE NORTH (why are you so obsessed with this?). I also don't necessarily think that you're elitist (although your comments really seem to suggest that you are), just that you're extremely out of touch with your own party and the average Republican voter and that have much more in common with the party of Hillary Clinton than the GOP.

There are plenty of very conservative Republicans from THE NORTH (Heck, just look at Wisconsin, the birthplace of the Republican Party), but you seem to think that the South (where I'm not even from, fyi) is still some kind of Democratic base region and that the fact that Republicans are associated with the South or rural areas in general hurts them in a general election. Paul LePage, Ron Johnson, Scott Walker, Joni Ernst, Chris Christie, etc. are all basically as conservative as your average Southern Republican politician.

[The_Doctor]

One question - how come IL whites were so much more Democratic than whites from other redder states? I was wondering if anyone could shed light. The exits indicated that Clinton won CA whites, lost IL whites by only 11 points, and lost NY whites by 5 points.

[RINO Tom]

Lol, I don't care that you're from Illinois/Iowa or THE NORTH (why are you so obsessed with this?). I also don't necessarily think that you're elitist (although your comments really seem to suggest that you are), just that you're extremely out of touch with your own party and the average Republican voter and that have much more in common with the party of Hillary Clinton than the GOP.

There are plenty of very conservative Republicans from THE NORTH (Heck, just look at Wisconsin, the birthplace of the Republican Party), but you seem to think that the South (where I'm not even from, fyi) is still some kind of Democratic base region and that the fact that Republicans are associated with the South or rural areas in general hurts them in a general election. Paul LePage, Ron Johnson, Scott Walker, Joni Ernst, Chris Christie, etc. are all basically as conservative as your average Southern Republican politician.

1. The Democratic Party going forward is as much "The Party of Hillary Clinton" as the Republican Party is "The Party of Mitt Romney."  That just doesn't fit your narrative that I'm "out of touch" with my party or the MUCH more asinine assertion that I have more in common with your average Democrat than your average Republican.  Seriously, look at how any red avatar on this site interacts with me during a debate, and you'll realize how stupid that comment was.  Or get out of Tennessee (seriously, is this not where you live?  Was the avatar just BS??), where Whites vote VERY differently than the rest of the country.

2. I never said the South was a Democratic bastion.  Like, seriously, WHAT are you talking about?

3. I have never said Republicans associated with the South hurt the GOP in elections, far from it.  What I have become RIDICULOUSLY irritated with over the last decade is Republicans (yes, largely from the South, in my experience) deciding FOR THEMSELVES what "conservative" means and viciously attacking any Republican who doesn't fit that mold as a "RINO" (hence my sarcastic username) or a "cuckservative" or whatever else, even when the person they're attacking might be MORE conservative than they are on other issues.  That doesn't matter to them; as long as you don't fit their lifestyle mold and cultural views and "talk the talk," you're some kind of lesser conservative, and that is just one of the most intellectually void mindsets I could possibly imagine.

4. I never responded to this, but did you seriously suggest that in a few years I am going to have a green avatar?  Get a grip.  I am a generic, moderate conservative who finds evangelism and outward social conservatism on moral issues to be uncomfortable and sometimes offensive, so I - as a member of my party's discourse - openly object to candidates who I think alienate some voters we could be winning.  I have some socially liberal views that I clearly hardly ever vote on.  Who cares?  Your characterization of me as "pretty much a Democrat" is just too bizarre.  This is a party that almost gave its nomination to a socialist and forced the gal who beat him to tact so far left that she more or less held the same views.  A party whose convention speakers were drowned out with deafening chants of "Stop TPP."  A party who is CLEARLY letting electoral defeat move it in a more populist and progressive direction.  The only things I can possibly theorize as to why your conception of them is so strangely off is how politics are where you live, which is why I keep referencing that.  Other than that, I am at a loss and just assume you are willfully ignoring the prevailing populist and progressive nature of the Democratic Party.

[MT Treasurer]

^^^Thanks for the explanation. You DID say it, though

OMG GUYZ ITZ A TOS AHP!!!!!!!111!!!

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=143901.15
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=142086.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=142146.0

In all seriousness, can we talk about states that are actually going to be competitive now? Virtually all the undecideds and Sanders supporters in NH will vote for Clinton in the end. Nothing to see here, move along. Also, a generic R would probably lose the women's vote in the state by 20+ points while Trump/Carson/Cruz would lose it by 40 points against Clinton. So yeah... there is no path to victory for the GOP here. The Vermontification of NH continues unabated and that's EXCELLENT NEWS!

Why?  So our party can continue to let our association with the South sink our electoral chances?

I don't see how this is even remotely true. States like Vermont or New Jersey turning into blue states did not happen over night or just because the Republican Party became more "Southern" - that is an overly simplistic and probably very wrong view. (I know you weren't saying THAT, but many people, including several "historians", seem to believe that this is the case). The GOP becoming more conservative and a bit populist is obviously helping them in most parts of the South and in many Western and Midwestern states, but I wouldn't say it's hurting them in the swing states, especially if they nominate the right candidate (someone like Kasich or...well.. Trump, lol) and don't let Democrats define their nominee as an out-of-touch right-wing lunatic or something like that.

Regarding your other point, I think we're just seeing a general trend here, with Democrats becoming more liberal and partisan and Republicans becoming more conservative and partisan - whether this is in the South or in states like Wisconsin or the West. It's really happening all over the country.

Even if you don't become a Democrat or Independent very soon, I wonder what you are going to do if the GOP becomes more populist and anti-free trade? Will you vote for Democrats at the presidential level and for Republicans down-ballot? Neither party would really "fit" your views, right?

[RINO Tom]

^^^Thanks for the explanation. You DID say it, though

OMG GUYZ ITZ A TOS AHP!!!!!!!111!!!

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=143901.15
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=142086.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=142146.0

In all seriousness, can we talk about states that are actually going to be competitive now? Virtually all the undecideds and Sanders supporters in NH will vote for Clinton in the end. Nothing to see here, move along. Also, a generic R would probably lose the women's vote in the state by 20+ points while Trump/Carson/Cruz would lose it by 40 points against Clinton. So yeah... there is no path to victory for the GOP here. The Vermontification of NH continues unabated and that's EXCELLENT NEWS!

Why?  So our party can continue to let our association with the South sink our electoral chances?

I don't see how this is even remotely true. States like Vermont or New Jersey turning into blue states did not happen over night or just because the Republican Party became more "Southern" - that is an overly simplistic and probably very wrong view. (I know you weren't saying THAT, but many people, including several "historians", seem to believe that this is the case). The GOP becoming more conservative and a bit populist is obviously helping them in most parts of the South and in many Western and Midwestern states, but I wouldn't say it's hurting them in the swing states, especially if they nominate the right candidate (someone like Kasich or...well.. Trump, lol) and don't let Democrats define their nominee as an out-of-touch right-wing lunatic or something like that.

Regarding your other point, I think we're just seeing a general trend here, with Democrats becoming more liberal and partisan and Republicans becoming more conservative and partisan - whether this is in the South or in states like Wisconsin or the West. It's really happening all over the country.

Even if you don't become a Democrat or Independent very soon, I wonder what you are going to do if the GOP becomes more populist and anti-free trade? Will you vote for Democrats at the presidential level and for Republicans down-ballot? Neither party would really "fit" your views, right?

I don't even remember saying the post you quoted, but touche, I guess.  LOL.

As for the bolded, the point I keep repeating over and over on this site is that the only way a MORE (key word, as it is simply implying MORE populist than the GOP has been previously!) populist GOP would lose voters like me is if Democrats actively court them, and they're clearly not doing that.  A more populist GOP that is more protectionist vs. an even more populist Democratic Party that is at least as "bad" (in my view) on trade is an easy choice for me.  Trump was a unique circumstance.  I didn't and still don't think he is safe for our country in office, it went way beyond political views.  There has never been a party that perfectly fit my views, and there never will be.  The Republican Party has been my party since I knew what the hell was goin' on, and it was my dad's and grandfather's party, as well.  I believe in its core principles of self-reliance, individualism and celebrating hard work/talent, rather than punishing it because someone else was unlucky (there are other ways to help the unlucky).  If there's a time when the Democrats are literally calling for lower federal spending, lower taxes, fewer regulations, etc. and the GOP is to the left of them on all that, then we can talk.  But that's not happening anytime in the foreseeable future.  It's not like I'm a single issue trade voter.

[bore]

Russia, because it has the best literature in the world and, even more importantly, the best jokes.

[Sol]

One question - how come IL whites were so much more Democratic than whites from other redder states? I was wondering if anyone could shed light. The exits indicated that Clinton won CA whites, lost IL whites by only 11 points, and lost NY whites by 5 points.

Chicago and it's associated megalopolis.

[Ljube]

Russia, but both are nice.