Does Kander prove MO is not completely gone for Dems? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 01, 2024, 04:49:56 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 100% pro-life no matter what)
  Does Kander prove MO is not completely gone for Dems? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Does he?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 57

Author Topic: Does Kander prove MO is not completely gone for Dems?  (Read 3213 times)
SingingAnalyst
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
United States


« on: May 09, 2017, 06:04:14 PM »

It is beyond gone for them in presidential races, but the right Democrat (one who is perceived as an outsider or moderate or populist or whatever) could easily win a Senate or gubernatorial race there. Missouri politics is quite awful, honestly. It is easily my least favorite "red" state.

What makes it different for a national candidate, if they'd vote for the exact same person on a local level? Trust?
I think it is the level of responsibility, as well as the difference between someone being 1 of 50 (a governor) or 1 of 100 (a Senator) and being the one and only (a President). Tennesseeans voted for Al Gore for Senator, when he was 1 of 100--balanced by Senators of the other party as well as those that differed regionally and ideologically. But when it came time to vote to make Al Gore the chief decision maker of the land, Tennesseeans (by 51%-47%) said No.
Logged
SingingAnalyst
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
United States


« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2017, 09:36:29 AM »

It is beyond gone for them in presidential races, but the right Democrat (one who is perceived as an outsider or moderate or populist or whatever) could easily win a Senate or gubernatorial race there. Missouri politics is quite awful, honestly. It is easily my least favorite "red" state.

What makes it different for a national candidate, if they'd vote for the exact same person on a local level? Trust?
I think it is the level of responsibility, as well as the difference between someone being 1 of 50 (a governor) or 1 of 100 (a Senator) and being the one and only (a President). Tennesseeans voted for Al Gore for Senator, when he was 1 of 100--balanced by Senators of the other party as well as those that differed regionally and ideologically. But when it came time to vote to make Al Gore the chief decision maker of the land, Tennesseeans (by 51%-47%) said No.
Also, for some reason, I trust local Democrats much more readily than Democrats from elsewhere, more so than for Republicans. I don't think my reaction is atypical. It is well-known that the South mostly elected Democrats to the House and Senate well into the 1990s, long after it had swung to the GOP at the Presidential level. Similarly for Macomb County: the GOP didn't even have a presence to speak of at the county level until well into the 1980s, Congressmen Dennis Hertel and David Bonior regularly trounced their GOP opponents (the GOP didn't even bother putting up a challenger to Hertel in 1982). Still, Macomb voted 2-1 Reagan in '84 and nearly 2-1 Nixon in '72.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.027 seconds with 15 queries.