Yankee Republicans on last legs

[TheresNoMoney]

maybe one of these days i may also end up in new hampshire.

The quality of life here is so much better than in Massachusetts.

[Beet]

Don't be so hard on Massachusetts, guys. It's a northeastern state in a time where a lot of the economic growth is happening in other places. We don't exactly have the NYSE up here either. Compared to other Northeastern cities Boston has done very well.

Scoonie is right, and an educated population is good, of course. Places like New Hampshire can probably get boring after a while. Metropolitan areas are more exciting and more diverse, and I prefer them.

[TheresNoMoney]

Don't be so hard on Massachusetts, guys. It's a northeastern state in a time where a lot of the economic growth is happening in other places.

The reason why Massachusetts is so expensive to live is because the economy is so good. A lot of people who work in Boston make a lot of money.

[Beet]

Don't be so hard on Massachusetts, guys. It's a northeastern state in a time where a lot of the economic growth is happening in other places.

The reason why Massachusetts is so expensive to live is because the economy is so good. A lot of people who work in Boston make a lot of money.

Good point, yes the state's income is higher than average of course. I was referring to waltermitty's comment about losing population. Your reply there was right on target.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You know, it's funny. If the Republican party had just listened to what people like me were saying around when there was talk of invading Iraq, the Republican party would be in much much better shape right now.

As it is, the Republican party decided to take the approach that would help their short term political interests at the expense of American's interests and their long term political interests.

Payback is a bitch.

[Joe Republic]

and if democrats are the party of the working people, how come no one can afford to live in massachusetts?

Massachusetts is a small, overpopulated state filled with extremely eduated people who make good salaries. The whole eastern half of the state is basically a big Boston suburb. Any metro area with a strong economy is going to be expensive to live in (see New York/New Jersey, DC Metro area, etc.)  Doesn't have anythign to do with the state government, it's the nature of the Boston metro area. Western Massachusetts is quite affordable.

And for the record, I hated living in Massachusetts (overcrowded, way too much traffic) and will never live there again.

i agree with you on the last part. 

maybe one of these days i may also end up in new hampshire.

Why were you so keen to move there last year?

[WalterMitty]

and if democrats are the party of the working people, how come no one can afford to live in massachusetts?

Massachusetts is a small, overpopulated state filled with extremely eduated people who make good salaries. The whole eastern half of the state is basically a big Boston suburb. Any metro area with a strong economy is going to be expensive to live in (see New York/New Jersey, DC Metro area, etc.)  Doesn't have anythign to do with the state government, it's the nature of the Boston metro area. Western Massachusetts is quite affordable.

And for the record, I hated living in Massachusetts (overcrowded, way too much traffic) and will never live there again.

i agree with you on the last part. 

maybe one of these days i may also end up in new hampshire.

Why were you so keen to move there last year?

life works out that way sometimes, joe. 

massachusetts isnt that bad.  where i live is way too crowded and expensive (for my tastes).

so that leaves really two options:

1. move to central or western massachusetts where it is cheaper
2. move to southern new hampshire where it is cheaper.

number 2 is probably the best option since you still have relatively quick access to boston.

[opebo]

Don't be so hard on Massachusetts, guys. It's a northeastern state in a time where a lot of the economic growth is happening in other places.

The reason why Massachusetts is so expensive to live is because the economy is so good. A lot of people who work in Boston make a lot of money.

Good point, yes the state's income is higher than average of course. I was referring to waltermitty's comment about losing population. Your reply there was right on target.

While the economy might be good for those at the upper end of the working class, fellows, it is never so for the lower working class - such as our friend WalterMitty.  Mitty I have no idea why you live in Massachussetts.  Are you still unemployed?

[ag]

This was one of the biggest stories this election: accelerated disintegration of the New England (and, to some extent, also New York) Republican Party. Elsewhere it was just "through-the-bums-out" election, but in NE it was more than that (though the national trend accelerated the long-term local process).

Unlike in the South, where the Dems can always rely on the blacks and the univeristy types, NE simply doesn't have a natural Repubilcan constituency left.  Normally, one-party system is not stable in a democracy (and, unlik the Solid South of old, NE states are - "small d" - democracies). But the national Republican party has become too ideologically unpalatable in New England. Frankly, this might be the best moment in decades for the emergence of a regional party that would take the second major party role. While in the rest of the country the Dem/Rep system is under no threat, here things are different.   Either the local Republican party simply severes the ties to the national organization to become locally viable, or another  party might emerge as the local second force, probably, to the left of the Dems, w/Dems being pushed a bit to the right. There are simply not enough Repubilcans in many places to make the "third party" candidates and voters fear that they might unwittingly elect a Republican.

If something like this happens, US politics would become more "Canadian": essentially local two-party systems, but a national multy-party configuration.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Minnesota house:  85 (D)  49 (R)
Minnesota Senate: 44 (D)  23 (R)

Republicans hold one statewide office:  The governorship which they squeaked out with a 1% margin of victory.

The northern part of the state, which media outlets had orgasms every couple weeks reporting that the area was turning purple after decades of DFL domination has been definitively squelched.  The north went overwhelmingly for DFL Gub. candidate Mike Hatch, and not one Republican represents the northern 3rd of the state, with the exception of Larry Howes, who eeked out 5 point victory over a candidate no one had ever heard of (a teacher that just retired).

The Minnesota Republican party has never been very conservative, especially on fiscal issues or social issues, for that matter.  While you've had Michele "I'm subservient to my husband" Bachmann and a few others like her, it was Republicans that introduced the Department of Human Rights in Minnesota, consolidated our school funding to the state level, expanded MinnesotaCare (state healthcare for the working poor)... and now are seeking universal coverage for children (Tim Pawlenty).

Minnesota, historically, has been more liberal than Massachusetts.  We basically had a socialist party dominate the state during the '30s and it merged with the democrats, which has dominated the state since...

We're populist at heart.  You can't call 2002 and 2004 as Minnesota going purple (in 2004, Republicans lost 16 seats in the state house and like 2 or 3 in the senate) when they were largely the results of a terrorist attack on the nation.  I'm sure the 1942 and 1944 elections were not typical of trends in the state either.

And yes, we are a yankee state, so it is relavent.

[bullmoose88]

Sometimes I get confused with the term Yankee...

Are we now applying it to every state east of the Dakotas that was a free state in 1860? or just the states in the Northeast (perhaps just New England) that were free states in 1860?

shrug

[Colin]

Sometimes I get confused with the term Yankee...

Are we now applying it to every state east of the Dakotas that was a free state in 1860? or just the states in the Northeast (perhaps just New England) that were free states in 1860?

shrug

I just apply it to New England. That's the actual definition of a Yankee, and the traditional one, a resident or native of New England.

[bullmoose88]

Sometimes I get confused with the term Yankee...

Are we now applying it to every state east of the Dakotas that was a free state in 1860? or just the states in the Northeast (perhaps just New England) that were free states in 1860?

shrug

I just apply it to New England. That's the actual definition of a Yankee, and the traditional one, a resident or native of New England.

But you wouldn't consider a Pennsylvanian or a New Yorker (or even a Joisey person) a yankee? Those were pretty big Abolitionist/Republican states.

[Colin]

Sometimes I get confused with the term Yankee...

Are we now applying it to every state east of the Dakotas that was a free state in 1860? or just the states in the Northeast (perhaps just New England) that were free states in 1860?

shrug

I just apply it to New England. That's the actual definition of a Yankee, and the traditional one, a resident or native of New England.

But you wouldn't consider a Pennsylvanian or a New Yorker (or even a Joisey person) a yankee? Those were pretty big Abolitionist/Republican states.

Doesn't matter. Yankee is a much older term than the Civil War. The term Yankee dates back to at least the Revolutionary War. It usually refers to New England but can also be expanded to contain any state north of the Mason-Dixon line. It's most common usage is as a name for New Englanders and, more specifically, old stock New Englanders, WASPs for lack of a better term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee

[muon2]

Sometimes I get confused with the term Yankee...

Are we now applying it to every state east of the Dakotas that was a free state in 1860? or just the states in the Northeast (perhaps just New England) that were free states in 1860?

shrug

I just apply it to New England. That's the actual definition of a Yankee, and the traditional one, a resident or native of New England.

The oldest use of Yankee was probably to describe Dutch settlers along the Hudson (appropriate for the New York Yankees). There's widespread agreement that it came to be used to describe New Englanders during the French and Indian Wars, but was applied to the colonists in general by the time of the Revolution. The American Heritage Dictionary lists the New Englander reference back to 1765 and colonist back to 1780.

As for the political impact, I would be curious to hear the reaction of my wife's great aunt if she lived today. She was the quintessential MA Yankee Republican. She was a small government traditionalist and not as socially liberal as one would expect given the use of the term today. Some of my friends in NH and the MA exurbs who are Dems would fit that description, but I would not apply it to the urban Boston Dems I know.

[??????????]

Yankees on their last legs? I wish.

[Conan]

Sometimes I get confused with the term Yankee...

Are we now applying it to every state east of the Dakotas that was a free state in 1860? or just the states in the Northeast (perhaps just New England) that were free states in 1860?

shrug

I just apply it to New England. That's the actual definition of a Yankee, and the traditional one, a resident or native of New England.

But you wouldn't consider a Pennsylvanian or a New Yorker (or even a Joisey person) a yankee? Those were pretty big Abolitionist/Republican states.

No person from NJ I have ever heard has ever had that fake accent of "Joisey".

[WMS]

Frankly, this might be the best moment in decades for the emergence of a regional party that would take the second major party role. While in the rest of the country the Dem/Rep system is under no threat, here things are different.   Either the local Republican party simply severes the ties to the national organization to become locally viable, or another  party might emerge as the local second force, probably, to the left of the Dems, w/Dems being pushed a bit to the right. There are simply not enough Repubilcans in many places to make the "third party" candidates and voters fear that they might unwittingly elect a Republican.

If something like this happens, US politics would become more "Canadian": essentially local two-party systems, but a national multy-party configuration.

That would be rather interesting. I wonder if that would happen in other places? The Bloc Southern?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Between the GOP and the bloc south's competition/splitting the social conservative vote the net effect would be to send into congress a large number of liberals(a united liberal vote) from the south.

[WMS]

Between the GOP and the bloc south's competition/splitting the social conservative vote the net effect would be to send into congress a large number of liberals(a united liberal vote) from the south.

Or the Bloc Southern pulls off total domination like in today's Quebec. Add to that the NDP Greenies in the NE from ag's post...yeah, we could pull off our variant of Canadian party politics.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Not quite. I see the bloc south splitting the dixie social conservative vote between economic left/right and the social moderates/liberals going to the dems. Also I don't see a new left party emerging. A party that's left on social issues but not jacobin/radical(advocating civil unions instead of gay marriage, taking a compromise position on abortion etc) and center-right on economcis owuld be more likely.

[WMS]

Not quite. I see the bloc south splitting the dixie social conservative vote between economic left/right and the social moderates/liberals going to the dems. Also I don't see a new left party emerging. A party that's left on social issues but not jacobin/radical(advocating civil unions instead of gay marriage, taking a compromise position on abortion etc) and center-right on economcis owuld be more likely.

While a division of the dixie social conservative vote along economic lines is very possible, I don't think the Dems would benefit, especially if it is the Southern Dems who turn into the Bloc Southern. They'd hold a few inner-city bits (although even there it would vary) but the bulk of the competition would be between the GOP in the suburbs and the Bloc Southern in the countryside and working-class urban areas. That would be an interesting map, actually...

The New Left Party would be in New England, and it's already been mentioned in another thread as well (Forum Community?). It would compete from the left against New England Dems.

Now, the party you're talking about sounds more like a moderate libertarian party, and they'd be in the West Coast (and parts of the Mountain West).

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Actually I was thinkling the moderate libertarian party would get the areas you refer to along with northeast/urban areas that sent in yankee/gypsy moth/rockefeller republicans to either house before the realignments of 1968-1974, 1980 and 1992.

[WMS]

Actually I was thinkling the moderate libertarian party would get the areas you refer to along with northeast/urban areas that sent in yankee/gypsy moth/rockefeller republicans to either house before the realignments of 1968-1974, 1980 and 1992.

Bah, I thought of that a minute after I posted. I think the assumption is that with the Green/NDP/New Left/etc. party popping up on the left the Dems would shift to more of what you have in mind as a moderate libertarian party.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

My projection has the dems moving more to the left. Basically they fully become the party of racial minority interest, postmodern lifestyle interests, nonchristians and genral leftist elemetns.