New England

[Devilman88]

*When I say a state is like another state I mean them state were about the same percentage above national average in 2008.*

MD: In 2008 it was 19% more democratic then the national average, and trended Democratic. MD is like Mississippi, so yes MD is safe Democratic country.
DE: In 2008 it was 18% more democratic then the national average. DE is Biden's home state so they saw the home state swing too. So DE is truly about 12% to 15% more democratic then the national average in 2008. DE is like SC, so yes DE is safe Democratic country.
NJ: In 2008 NJ was 8% more democratic then the national average, and trended Republican. If the trend stays the same going into 2012 it will be about 6% to 7% more democratic then the national average. NJ is equal to MO, so no NJ isn't safe Democratic country.
PA: In 2008 PA was 3% more democratic then the national average, and trended Republican. If the trend stays the same going into 2012 it will be about 1% more democratic then the national average. PA is like FL in 2008, so no PA isn't safe Democratic country, but a battleground state in a 50-50 race.
NY: IN 2008 NY was about 20% more democratic then the national average, and trended Republican. If the trend stays the same going into 2012 it will be about 18% more democratic then the national average. So yes it democratic country.
CT: In 2008 CT was about 16% more democratic then the national average and trended Democratic. CT is like TX so yes it is democratic country.
RI: IN 2008 RI was 21% more democratic then the national average and trended Republican. But it's still safe democratic country.
MA: In 2008 MA was about 19% more democratic then the national average. Safe democratic country.
VT: VT was 30% more democratic then the national average, do I need to say more?
NH: IN 2008 NH was 2% more democratic then the national average, and trended Republican. If the trends stay the same in 2012 it will be .5% more democratic then the national average. So, no NH isn't safe democratic country, but a battleground state.
ME: IN 2008 ME was 11% more democratic then the national average, and trended Republican. If the trends stay the same in 2012 it will be about 10% more democratic then the national average. So, ME is lean democratic country.

[CJK]

What troubles me about New England is the fact that states like Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont have trended hard toward the Democrats since 1988, totally out of proportion to the rest of the country. I understand the region has historically been more liberal, but fail to see why it has become so much more pronounced over the last 20 years.

On the other hand, New England only has 6.3% of all electoral votes, so perhaps the GOP's decline ultimately does not matter there in the grand scheme of things.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I think most of New England is more economically conservative, I could be wrong though. Dukakis's stances on crime and taxes probably hurt in CT. Since 92 the religious right has increased it's grip on the GOP, and most of the people up there do not care for that. Nevertheless, they fired Chafee and he wasn't that bad. I would have preferred he kept his seat rather than that scumbag Lieberman.

[You kip if you want to...]

On the other hand, New England only has 6.3% of all electoral votes, so perhaps the GOP's decline ultimately does not matter there in the grand scheme of things.

I guess, but 6.3% of the EVs is quite alot in a close race, just look at 2000. If Gore had carried New Hampshire, a Florida recount wouldn't have even mattered.

[Vepres]

Well we can assume that, short of a GOP landslide, Maryland, Delware, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont are all solid Dem. Now for the remaining states:

New Hampshire - Given the right candidate, like Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman Jr., I see this as the Republican's best opportunity to win a north-eastern state. The state has a strong libertarian streak, so it's voters are turned off by hard-core social conservatives or neo-cons. That said, I expect to be at best equal to the popular vote; though it will most likely be around +1-3 Dem. Palin, Huckabee, and most southern republicans would be slaughtered here.

Maine - To win just Maine's 2nd district would be similar to New Hampshire, though probably a little more difficult. The state as a whole would be challenge even for a Republican who is relatively strong in the north-east. Mitt Romney would probably get a popular vote +5-7 Dem result, while Palin or Huckabee would lose by 20+ points.

New Jersey - If the Republicans win in 2012, I think this may be the surprise win state, much like Indiana was to Obama. Though they have been trending left, they have a history of moderate republicanism combined with an unpopular democratic governor. I think Romney could, if he runs as the businessman social moderate that he probably really is, instead of what he did in 2008, he could get the margin down to PV +4-6 Dem, perhaps even closer. Palin and Huckabee would, again, be slaughtered.

Pennsylvania - I don't know about this state. It is one of the classic swing states, yet a Republican hasn't won there since George H.W. Bush's moderate landslide in 1988. The state seems to be trending Dem, though we'll have to wait for the 2012 elections to be sure. The GOP always does well in the rural areas, and McCain did surprisingly well in the counties surrounding Pittsburgh, but they always seem to be trounced in Philly and it's suburbs. Mitt Romney may do OK here, similar probably to his performance in Maine or New Jersey, but I just don't see the state being much less democratic than the previously mentioned states. I know the numbers say differently, but my gut tells me it will be tough for any Republican to win here on the presidential level, particularly against Obama. Palin and Huckabee have a chance, but I suspect it will turn out much like it did last year, they will push hard for it but end up losing it by PV + 3-5 Dem.

Only a Republican with strong suburban and/or Urban (relative to Bush, McCain, and many southerners) can win any of these states. If Mitt Romney campaigns as the guy we saw in the Massachusetts governors race, he could potentially secure majorities in most suburbs and close the large gap in the urban areas.

By the way, I don't think Romney is an amazing candidate with Reagan-like appeal, but if he campaigns correctly, I could see him gaining respectable winning margins in suburbs. A few other candidates with this appeal are (possibly) Jon Huntsman Jr., Charlie Crist, or one of the Maine senators (though they wouldn't probably get the nomination). What all these candidates have in common (and Mitt Romney pre-2008 campaign) is that they aren't very socially conservative, and rarely discuss social issues. This is key to winning back the north-east.

[pbrower2a]

What troubles me about New England is the fact that states like Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont have trended hard toward the Democrats since 1988, totally out of proportion to the rest of the country. I understand the region has historically been more liberal, but fail to see why it has become so much more pronounced over the last 20 years.

On the other hand, New England only has 6.3% of all electoral votes, so perhaps the GOP's decline ultimately does not matter there in the grand scheme of things.

The region has about the same number of electoral votes as Texas, the second-largest state in electoral votes, so it's no triviality. New England is liberal because of its political heritage, and political heritage does not change quickly. Party agendas can change, and Party affiliations among voters can also change. New England hasn't changed; it's just that the GOP has changed from a Party with a liberal wing to one with none.

No less importantly, the GOP has been losing New Jersey, New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Illinois at the same time. Washington and Oregon seem far away -- but they have cultural affinities to the Northeast.

It doesn't get any better with, for example, Indiana or Virginia -- States that hadn't voted for the Democratic nominee for President since 1964, but have slowly trended away from the GOP enough to do so in 2008.

Trends can reverse,  but I wouldn't bet on it this time. 

[Lincoln Republican]

Oh for a return to those golden days of New England politics, the days when New Englanders appreciated iniative, enterprise, and independent thinking.

Let's take a trip back in time to that glorious era when the Republicans held sway in this part of the nation.

1856 Republican sweep
1860 Republican sweep
1864 Republican sweep
1868 Republican sweep
1872 Republican sweep
1876 ME, NH, VT, MA, RI
1880 Republican sweep
1884 ME, NH, VT, MA, RI
1888 ME, NH, VT, MA, RI
1892 ME, NH, VT, MA, RI
1896 Republican sweep
1900 Republican sweep
1904 Republican sweep
1908 Republican sweep
1912 VT
1916 ME, VT, MA, CT, RI
1920 Republican sweep
1924 Republican sweep
1928 ME, NH, VT, CT
1932 ME, NH, VT, CT (Even in the FDR landslide and the darkest of times for Republicans)
1936 ME, VT (Even running against the most popular President)
1940 ME, VT
1944 ME, VT
1948 ME, NH, VT, CT
1952 Republican sweep
1956 Republican sweep
1960 ME, NH, VT
1964 Wiped out
1968 NH, VT (I believe that ME would have been GOP had Muskie not been on the Dem ticket)
1972 ME, NH, VT, CT, RI
1976 ME, NH, VT, CT
1980 ME, NH, VT, MA, CT
1984 Republican sweep
1988 ME, NH, VT, CT
1992 Wiped out
1996 Wiped out
2000 NH
2000 Wiped out
2004 Wiped out
2008 Wiped out

Overall, a very impressive record indeed.

However, clearly, especially since 1992, the GOP has fallen on hard times in New England.

But the GOP shall rise from the ashes of gloom and despair and one day reclaim its historic birthright as the standard bearer of truth and liberty in the picturesque region of America we know as New England.

[pbrower2a]

Oh for a return to those golden days of New England politics, the days when New Englanders appreciated iniative, enterprise, and independent thinking.

It still is so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Until then the GOP was still the more liberal of the two main Parties -- mostly because the Democratic Party remained heavily under the domination of Southern agrarian interests.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When the GOP was seen as the Party of Depression.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Eisenhower was a great President -- no qualification.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

JFK, of course!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Southern Strategy made the GOP the Reactionary Party and made it largely irrelevant in New England.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you have ever read Albion's Seed by David Hackett Fisher, you will notice that the political parties have practically flip-flopped in their constituencies over a century. States that largely voted for Bryan in 1908 voted for Obama in 2008; states that voted for Taft in 1908 largely voted for Obama in 2008. It's just amazing -- but it reflects how Parties could drift in their cultural affinities. A hundred years ago, Democrats won the votes of southern agrarians and Republicans got the black vote (where it could vote). Democrats got the votes of under-educated white people and Republicans got the educated white vote. How that has changed!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

An understatement! Of course one could also say that the GOP became irrelevant in New England as it pandered to constituencies (white Protestant fundamentalists) that aren't to be found in large numbers in New England. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When?

The Ozarks and southern Appalachians are just as picturesque. Take I-95 to greater New York City, I-78 west to I-81 just east of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania... and you will be only a day away from picturesque places likely to go Republican in 2012.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Oh for a return to those golden days of New England politics, the days when New Englanders appreciated iniative, enterprise, and independent thinking.

Let's take a trip back in time to that glorious era when the Republicans held sway in this part of the nation.

1856 Republican sweep
1860 Republican sweep
1864 Republican sweep
1868 Republican sweep
1872 Republican sweep
1876 ME, NH, VT, MA, RI
1880 Republican sweep
1884 ME, NH, VT, MA, RI
1888 ME, NH, VT, MA, RI
1892 ME, NH, VT, MA, RI
1896 Republican sweep
1900 Republican sweep
1904 Republican sweep
1908 Republican sweep
1912 VT
1916 ME, VT, MA, CT, RI
1920 Republican sweep
1924 Republican sweep
1928 ME, NH, VT, CT
1932 ME, NH, VT, CT (Even in the FDR landslide and the darkest of times for Republicans)
1936 ME, VT (Even running against the most popular President)
1940 ME, VT
1944 ME, VT
1948 ME, NH, VT, CT
1952 Republican sweep
1956 Republican sweep
1960 ME, NH, VT
1964 Wiped out
1968 NH, VT (I believe that ME would have been GOP had Muskie not been on the Dem ticket)
1972 ME, NH, VT, CT, RI
1976 ME, NH, VT, CT
1980 ME, NH, VT, MA, CT
1984 Republican sweep
1988 ME, NH, VT, CT
1992 Wiped out
1996 Wiped out
2000 NH
2000 Wiped out
2004 Wiped out
2008 Wiped out

Let's look at the South, just for fun.

1856  Democratic Sweep
1860  Wiped out (Breckenridge, Bell)
1868  LA, GA
1872  TX, GA, TN
1876  VA, NC, TN, GA, AL, MS, AR, TX
1880  Democratic Sweep
1884  Democratic Sweep
1888  Democratic Sweep
1892  Democratic Sweep
1896  Democratic Sweep
1900  Democratic Sweep
1904  Democratic Sweep
1908  Democratic Sweep
1912  Democratic Sweep
1916  Democratic Sweep
1920  VA, NC, SC, GA, AL, FL, MS, LA, AR, TX
1924  Democratic Sweep
1928  SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, AR
1932  Democratic Sweep
1936  Democratic Sweep
1940  Democratic Sweep
1944  Democratic Sweep
1948  VA, NC, TN, GA, FL, AR, TX
1952  NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, AR
1956  NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, AR
1960  NC, SC, GA, AL, LA, AR, TX
1964  VA, NC, TN, FL, AR, TX
1968  TX
1972  Wiped Out
1976  NC, TN, SC, GA, AL, FL, MS, LA, AR, TX
1980  GA
1984  Wiped Out
1988  Wiped Out
1992  TN, GA, LA, AR
1996  TN, FL, LA, AR
2000  Wiped Out
2004  Wiped Out
2008  VA, NC, FL

About as solid as New England, now that I look at it.

[Smash255]

What troubles me about New England is the fact that states like Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont have trended hard toward the Democrats since 1988, totally out of proportion to the rest of the country. I understand the region has historically been more liberal, but fail to see why it has become so much more pronounced over the last 20 years.

On the other hand, New England only has 6.3% of all electoral votes, so perhaps the GOP's decline ultimately does not matter there in the grand scheme of things.

The GOP use to have a liberal wing of the party, they don't anymore.  The old school Rockefeller Republicans finally had enough, and jumped ship from the party.  The anti-intellectualism that some in the GOP seem to take pride in hasn't helped either.

New England might make up 6.3% of the electoral votes, but the problems have spread beyond there.  Its from D.C all the way up, and now going further.  Northern Virginia use to be strongly GOP, and that has switched just about as much as New England and it has taken the state with it.  The same issues have happened in North Carolina as well especially in Mecklenburg County and the Raleigh-Durham areas.

[pbrower2a]

What troubles me about New England is the fact that states like Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont have trended hard toward the Democrats since 1988, totally out of proportion to the rest of the country. I understand the region has historically been more liberal, but fail to see why it has become so much more pronounced over the last 20 years.

On the other hand, New England only has 6.3% of all electoral votes, so perhaps the GOP's decline ultimately does not matter there in the grand scheme of things.

The GOP use to have a liberal wing of the party, they don't anymore.  The old school Rockefeller Republicans finally had enough, and jumped ship from the party.  The anti-intellectualism that some in the GOP seem to take pride in hasn't helped either.

New England might make up 6.3% of the electoral votes, but the problems have spread beyond there.  Its from D.C all the way up, and now going further.  Northern Virginia use to be strongly GOP, and that has switched just about as much as New England and it has taken the state with it.  The same issues have happened in North Carolina as well especially in Mecklenburg County and the Raleigh-Durham areas.

Don't forget Florida, which is Southern only in latitude and climate.

Add to that some areas that have cultural ties to New England and New York State  -- Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Washington, and Oregon. Northern California is essentially the same. The GOP had big trouble in Indiana in 2008, and for a time it looked as if Indiana could go for Obama in a close race.  The GOP absolutely cannot win without Indiana, where college towns combined with the Industrial Northwest, South Bend, and Indianapolis to shove Indiana into the Obama camp. Obama's latest approval rating in Indiana was 62%, which is in the same range as those for Wisconsin and Michigan.

So it's not just the Potomac -- it's the Ohio too. Maybe the Sacramento River as well. Political culture matters greatly, and the GOP is in big trouble with large parts of America.

I look at the 2012 prospects, and I see no GOP candidate with a war record that might bring out a sympathy vote. Any general who gets credit for ending a war in Iraq or Afghanistan won't run until at least 2016. If I were GOP I wouldn't even trust the military vote should Obama have success in Iraq and Afghanistan.