Talk Elections

Which state is the heart and soul of the Democratic/Republican Party?

_______________________________________________________________________________

Democratic Party:

California - very coastal, urban, and diverse state embracing globalism



Republican Party:

West Virginia - landlocked, rural, and overwhelmingly working class white state suffering from globalism

I agree about California, but I think Arkansas is closer to being the heart of the Republican party, since it's not as populist as West Virginia, and has become more averse to electing Democrats at any level. It still seems to be the case that a certain kind of Democrat can compete in West Virginia.

Dems: Maryland
Republicans: Wyoming

I do see what you mean, while not as white as West Virginia, Arkansas is also "landlocked, rural, and overwhelmingly working class white"

California is, without question, the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. It's one of the most diverse and increasingly diversifying states; has a large liberal, college educated White population; its economy is dominated by industries and sectors that favor higher education and globalization; and it's both socially and economically liberal.

Maryland is the runner-up as it is a highly diverse state with a large, liberal, college educated White population and dominated by globalized industries and governmental agencies. It's not as socially liberal as California, but it is highly supportive of the federal government and globalization.

Choosing a single state for Republicans is difficult. During the Bush II years I would've chosen a Southern state, such as Texas. But today, under Trump, the party is more Rust Belt oriented. I'd say Indiana is the heart and soul of the present GOP. It's a de-industrialized state that has been negatively effected by globalization; socially conservative, but not fundamentalist; highly skeptical of coastal elite and outsiders; and composed largely of white, conservative, working class types.

Dems: Massachusetts
GOP: Wyoming

Agreed about Cali and Indiana.

I'd support Indiana, but not because it's SO "working class."  It's not like the college educated, wealthy professionals around Indianapolis aren't Republicans, too.

Y'all are forgetting that there are elements of the Republican coalition that aren't Trump or social conservatives. I have a hard time believing that John Kasich or Marco Rubio would say that West Virginia is the heart of their party.

Well, of course. The WWC did shift significantly to the right for Trump in Indiana, but the upper middle class around Indianapolis (such as Hamilton County) are highly Republican as well. I should've included their conservative, upper middle class professionals as well. But all of that, when taken together, best describes the current GOP.

Democrats: California Republicans: Idaho

If we just went by "region" for the "heart and soul" (or, if I'm reading it correctly, basic *feel* of the party and what its goals are), I think it's obvious that the Northeast still holds that place for the Democrats, and the Mountain West and Great Plains (that hilarious shape of states that go around Colorado and would likely be the last holdouts ... think the first to abandon FDR in the inland) for the GOP, as has been the case since FDR.

California for the Dems.

Pre-Trump nomination, it would be Texas for the GOP. Now, I believe it would be Indiana.

Kansas for the Republicans. The state was born in the same tumult as the GOP in the 1850s, and since then, it has been one of the most reliable Republican states. It was Alf Landon's home state, Dwight Eisenhower's home state, and "we're not in Kansas anymore" brings to mind leaving the epitome of white bread middle American farm country to any place unknown or mysterious.

New York for the Democrats. The party, the spoils system, and political machines were invented here in the early 19ty century. Outside the Confederacy, no one rioted harder against Lincoln than New Yorkers. The New Deal was invented here, and the New Deal realignment started here, too. Yes, California is diverse, but not as diverse as New York City, with its Italians and Jews and Blacks and Asians and Puerto Ricans and all else. This was always America's immigrant Mecca, it's Mos Eisley Cantina.

GOP: Alabama. Just the right mix of PUMAs, Obama-->Trump voters, and Dole voters, combined with every county going for Trump in the GOP primary.

Dems: California, for obvious reasons. Massachusetts is just too White. Hawaii is too pro-Bernie.

Democrats: In the past would have said New York, as that is where establishment is stronger, future is California.

Republicans: Missouri(current median of all the factions), Indiana in the future.

Democrats: California.

Republicans: I'm inclined to say that given the current state of the party, it would be Indiana, maybe Ohio but it's recent electoral record isn't as Republican as its neighbor. Pre-Trump, I would choose a Southern or Plains state such as Texas/Tennessee or Kansas/Wyoming.

Democrats: New York

Republicans: Oklahoma

Why is everyone choosing states either with so many registered Dems (Oklahoma; GOP registration only surpassed Dem in 2014 and it did not vote for Trump in the primary), states that did not go for Trump in the primary (Idaho, Wyoming, Kansas) and states that went for WJC or Barack Obama (Indiana, Missouri, Tennessee, West Virginia, Arkansas) as the heart and soul of the GOP? The heart and soul of the GOP should be a state that did not go Dem for at least a quarter of a century, that went for Trump in the primary, that trended Republican this year, and that has a reasonable number of WJC92-Trump and HRC08-Trump voters. Alabama fits all the check boxes.

Democrats: Massachusetts (easy)
Republicans: Utah....but probably more like Tennessee today

Trump isn't the entire GOP, friend.

No, he's not.  He has an entire Congress and a plethora of GOP governors across the country to help him make up what it "means" to be a Republican.  If Trump puts forth anti-trade deals or a big infrastructure spending package, he won't be getting the votes he needs from his own party, he'll be getting crossover support.

California is the obvious choice for the Democrats.  For the Republicans, it is more difficult, and I want to say Tennessee, but the answer is probably Alabama.  It can't be somewhere like West Virginia or Wyoming, as they are too rural for the ideological upscale conservative suburbs to exist (as they do in Alabama in places like Hoover).  All of the GOP coalition is represented well by Alabama.  Tennessee and South Carolina (adding in rich retirees, especially in SC) would be good choices as well.

Texas for the GOP.

California for the Democrats.

Most of the "ideas" that drive the respective parties have come from those states.

Hard to disagree with California for the Democrats, though Hawaii could be a strong contender.

For the Republicans, I have to consider several factors (well, same for Dems as well)
- Dominance in statewide elected offices and the state legislature
- Dominance in population centers across the state and in rural areas
- Control of Senate and House seats

Wyoming, Oklahoma, Utah, and Arkansas are at the top of my list.  They have no Democratic areas in the state (Tennessee has Nashville and Memphis, Missouri has St Louis and KC, West Virginia has a Democratic governor).

Of my top four, I will go with Utah as it is (I think) least likely to elect a Democrat statewide or to Congress.  Arkansas is strongly tending in this direction, but has fairly recently elected Democrats.  Wyoming, Tennessee, and Oklahoma have in the past dozen years elected Democratic governors and could do so again (though perhaps not likely).

Texas seems like the right amount of synthesis between the southern/western bloc the GOP is dependent upon, so this sounds right.

For the historical GOP back when it was a northeastern+western party and back when the dems were the southern party, it's more like Vermont was the heart of the GOP, and Georgia was the heart of the dems.

Texas most definitely does not fit the Republican Party.

It has a huge educated population, is quite urban, very diverse, and benefits greatly from globalization.

There are way too many factors in the modern day that makes Texas an outlier in today's Republican Party.   10-15 years ago it probably would've been perfect though.

I'd probably say either West Virginia or Arkansas perfectly fits the modern day Republican Party.

This is really important to you, right? ::)

Not all "educated" or urban voters are Democrats. Not all diverse states are blue states. Not all states that benefit from globalization vote Democratic.

Not all rural areas with many White people are solid Republican territory (or is VT an oulier in today's Democratic Party as well?) You'll find tons of "uneducated" people in your own state who always vote straight-ticket Democrat.

Dems: California
GOP: Oklahoma or Arkansas

Democratic Party: California
Republican Party: Tennessee

::)

Also Again,

::)

Democratic: Massachusetts
Republican: Texas

Dems:  California easily
GOP:  The center of gravity of the party has moved more Northern and rural/industrial, so I think Missouri is a real good pick here.  Alabama and Oklahoma also work quite well.

Democrats: Massachusetts

Republicans: Kansas

Can we define heart and soul?  What do we mean by this?

Republicans: South Carolina or Louisiana
Democrats: California

Jesus Christ, this is a bad post.  Yes, Texas is an educated, populated and diverse state with mostly free trade conservatives.  None of that insinuates it's anything but a red state ... which it is.

"Republicans are rural uneducated voters!" - said the Democrat from New Hampshire.

wew

GOP is Tennessee (sans Memphis).

I'd say Democrats are New York. One megalopolis (establishment) controlling the whole and screwing everyone out of that bubble in the process.

Trump is Texas, full of himself (themselves)...lots of ego/self-pride. Thinks they/he do things better than anyone else. Reality is they make a lot of head-scratching decisions like ridiculous property taxes to buy huge stadiums for high school football teams or building a wall that will cost billions and be a waste of resources.

Actually it makes it almost a complete exception to the rule of states that vote Republican.


On average rural/small town areas get a disproportionately large amount of state resources per capita of taxes paid compared to Urban / Big city areas.

Democrats: California
Republicans: Mississippi

Dem: California, Massachusetts, NYC
GOP: Plain States generally speaking, West Virginia for Trumpism.

Interesting question, which has become much more confused since the '16 GE results....

Republican: Indiana--- Heavily White, Large WWC population working in mfg occupations, SE Indiana with a strong does of Appalachia/Southern influence (As well as in the medium sized factory cities of the state), throw in a decent Evangelical/Catholic Republican population, and add in a mix of relatively isolationist/Non-Interventionist sentiments from the Heartlands of the MidWest.... Add a shaking to the top of the cake, and you see a decent amount of economic conservatives/social liberals in the suburbs surrounding Indie....

Democrat: This one's a bit tougher, since the Social Liberalism of the Dem Party (Excepting Guns & Abortion) is overwhelmingly mainstreaming, Anti-War sentiment is dominant since George W's failed wars overseas, economic issues are increasingly divided between the "haves and have not's" of the Modern Democratic Coalition....

Additionally, we have an increasingly multi-ethnic Democratic Party, that is more representative of the "Rainbow Coalition" that Jesse Jackson first promoted way back in '88....

If I had to hazard a guess, Michigan would likely be the top contender....

Generally Democrats are socially Liberal, Anti-War, and supportive of a relatively protectionist "Fair Trade" policy....

Although, there is not a particularly large Latino or Asian-American population, there are a large numbers of Black Voters, that like most of the Democratic Party have shifted to the Left on Social Issues, fought in wars overseas from WWII to Iraq/Afganistan, and are generally opposed to "Free Trade" as a concept, unless it is perceived as beneficial to American Workers.....

Maybe out on a limb here, but i still don't see the center of gravity of the Democratic Party moving to either the West, nor the NorthEast....

Reiterating your post doesn't make it any less awful. Using your logic, Vermont should be a solid Republican state because RURALS.


Since when are Democrats "anti-war"? The protectionist argument is also very debatable IMO.

Dems: California (diverse in various ways, progressive, contains both many establishment types and lefties)
Reps: South Carolina (white, religious, it has Lindsey Graham but it's also had Jim DeMint and Strom Thurmond)

This is probably the most accurate guess.

Also as a Texan, it may seem that some aspects of Texas culture may resonate well with conservatism, it benefits heavily from free trade and its not ethnically diverse. It's on its way on becoming Florida 2.0.

...and no one in their right mind would call Vermont the "Heart and Soul" of the Democratic Party.

Just like no one should call Texas the "Heart and Soul" of the Republican Party.

It's not that complicated here.

Texas is socially conservative, has a very conservative suburban AND rural population, is a very religious state, has a good chunk of wealthy Whites and has a large business community.  Whether you like it or not, all of those represent a very significant faction of the GOP, pal.

GOP: Tennessee

DEM: New York, but slowly shifting towards California.

Wealth isn't a good indicator of being Republican or Democratic.    Texas is more Urban than the country as a whole, and has some of the biggest cities in the country.

The only thing you really have there is the religious part, but that alone isn't enough.

An interesting way to measure this is by counting how many serious presidential candidates (so, either winning a state or getting >5% in an early state) a given state has provided its party. I started the count in 1972, which may be pretty early.

Republicans: Texas has provided the Republican Party 7 serious presidential contenders (George H.W. Bush; John Connally; Phil Gramm; George W. Bush; Ron Paul; Rick Perry; Ted Cruz); no other state comes remotely close. California (Richard Nixon, Paul McCloskey, Ronald Reagan), Tennessee (Howard Baker, Lamar Alexander, Fred Thompson), and New York (Jack Kemp, Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump) have all also provided 3 each, though CA has not provided a serious Republican candidate since 1984, and not for an open primary since 1980.

Democrats: Massachusetts has provided the Democratic Party 4 serious presidential contenders (Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, John Kerry). Two states come close; California has provided 3 (Sam Yorty, Jerry Brown, Alan Cranston), though none since 1992, and Illinois has provided 3 (Paul Simon, Wesley Clark, Barack Obama). Note that to keep things consistent for non-politicians I count birth state as home state, since it can otherwise be unclear before recent years where they live; if you count self-identified home state, Illinois has a different set of 3 (Jesse Jackson, Paul Simon, Barack Obama) and Arkansas also has 3 (Wilbur Mills, Bill Clinton, Wesley Clark); note that under 'birth state' Jesse Jackson is identified as a candidate from South Carolina.

Either way; Texas for Republicans, Massachusetts for Democrats. With the former being much more so than the latter.

Also -- isn't it odd that there haven't been any serious presidential contenders from California, the biggest state, since 1992? In that time, there've been four serious Texans (Bush, Jr., Paul, Perry, and Cruz) and three serious New Yorkers (Giuliani, Hillary, and Trump). But zero candidates from California. It's bizarre.

Pete Wilson made an ephemeral bid for President in 1996. His successors were the only man ever to be recalled from the Governorship, a man constitutionally ineligible for the Presidency, and a man who already sought the Presidency thrice.

Didn't he drop out before Iowa, though? I defined "serious candidate" as getting 4.5% in either Iowa or New Hampshire. Plus, note that not a single NY candidate was a state governor (Pataki's bid having been no more serious than Wilson's); California has big-city mayors, prominent celebrities, offbeat Representatives that could all command a following if one of them ran for President. But...none do.

Considering there was a direct correlation between higher household income and voting for Trump (and an even steeper one for Congressional Republicans), I'd say it at the very least is a soft indicator of being more Republican.

-Within each race, income was a non-factor in Trump vote. Marriage and education were infinitely more important.

Uh, who gives a  about what color AMERICAN voters are?  I know all you Trumpists want to think of the GOP as a bunch of God-fearin' folks strugglin' to get by vs. the rich liberals, but it's pure fantasy.

Democrats:

California - Coastal, multicultural, liberal, over-valued, hypocritical.


Republicans:

Ohio - Middle America, moderately diverse, practical, a bit pokey, conservative but not particularly religious.

Alabama is not the heart of the Republican Party, or even the Trumpublican Party. Yes we gave Trump his best showing, but we also gave Carson his best showing at 10% of the PV. There's a few mountain counties in the state that were still voting Dem in the presidential election as late as 2000.

Georgia-minus-Atlanta* makes a slightly better case of being the heart of the Dixieland Deplorables, if only because he won three counties in the Black Belt that haven't gone Republican since Nixon (when every county in the state went for Nixon). The only way that could have possibly happened is if a lot rural black Georgians lied to the pollsters about who they voted for.

This is quite likely, given that I personally know several rural black Alabamans who say they lied to their own family about who they voted for. (And it was only this last year that my dad admitted to having voted for Obama in 2008.) But the Alabama map is identical to what it was in in 2008 whereas South Georgia is as Republican as its been since the death of the Dem machine system.

*yes I know that people like to say that Georgia-minus-Atlanta is Alabama. It's actually Mississippi, with poorer cotton-growing conditions.

slightly modified

You could also make a case for MD and AR, respectively, but I feel like these are pretty good choices.

Democrats:

Overall: California

Clintonites: Maryland or California

Progressives: Vermont. Lots of gay farmers there I bet.


Republicans

Overall: Wyoming

Pre-Trump: Utah

Trumpist: West Virginia

Democrats: California

Republicans: Wyoming, West Virginia and Tennessee

Actually sticking with this ... MD gets the nod over California due to the large Black population, and Wyoming is still the obvious GOP answer, IMO.

Democrats:
  Overall: MA
  Clintonites: CA
  Progressives: VT
  Green: OR or WA
  Populists: MN

Republicans:
  Overall: WY
  God, Guns, Gays: AL or MS
  Wall Street: TX
  Trumpites: ND (including recent oil workers)

Democrats: California
Republicans: Wyoming

Democrats : New York

Republicans : Texas



IMO Heart and Soul doesn’t equal most Democratic/Republican state

GOP: Tennessee
Dems: California

Maryland and Tennessee

Maryland for all the obvious reasons (big cities, government employees, working class Catholics, Blacks) and Tennessee (good mix of rural and suburban conservatives, Evangelicals, East TN)

Democrats: It's close between California and New York, but I'd ultimately go with California. Both home to a ton of urban voters and minorities, and have a healthy mix of Bernie supporters and "New Democrat" types, but I think there's a reason national Republicans constantly attack "California values" and whatnot.

Republicans: Probably Tennessee. Has a mix of evangelicals, suburban moderates and Trumpists. In hindsight, I don't why I thought Bredesen had a chance here.

I still would go with New York since the Democratic Establishment is clearly centered there . THEY are just as attacked by the GOP as California. Remember Criz’s New York values attack . For California until recently it was San Francisco Valies.

Democrats- California
Republicans- Alabama

I'm going to stick with California for the Democrats, and say Kentucky for the Republicans.

For all y'all saying Wyoming - it doesn't have suburbanites or Evangelicals, which are two major constituents for the GOP nationally.

California is more representative of the national GOP than Wyoming; at least the Golden State has a non-negligible number of Evangelicals and suburban voters.

So, the Republican heart and soul is an empty void (Wyoming)?  That's about right.

Northern Virginia is a better reflection of the Democratic Party than CA.

Nah.  Its too rich and too Asian, not enough Blacks or Hispanics.

Democrats: California (for obvious reasons)
Republicans: Alabama (extremely socon and evangelical and far from fiscally leftist, pretty rural with just enough suburbia to make it a better answer than Mississippi/Arkansas).  Oklahoma may be a close runner up.

Democratic: CA, MA
Republican: KY, MO

Democrats: California
Republicans: Texas

I was under the impression that there were a lot of evangelicals in Wyoming (if you ever spent time in Cheyenne you would understand why) but apparently it's only a quarter of the population? Is it because something about evangelical worship requires going to a large church or something?

survey (http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/state/wyoming/)


Not sure where you're getting the idea that NoVA is lacking in AAs or Hispanics from... here's Fairfax County demographic info from 2010 (per Wikipedia)

62.68%    White
9.17%    Black or African American
0.36%    Native American
17.53%    Asian
0.07%    Pacific Islander
4.54%    other races
3.65%    two or more races.
15.58%    Hispanics or Latinos of any race.

Fairfax is definitely wealthier than nearly any other suburban county in the US but in that sense I'd say it pretty much proves the rule. More wealth tends to mean more educated, more educated tends to mean more Democratic. Fairfax's proportion of Asians is definitely higher than the nation on average but of course non-white voters tend to be Democratic.

This is actually inaccurate. Wyoming has Teton County, Utah has Summit County (and increasingly, Salt Lake County), and Arkansas has Pulaski County, along with the majority-black counties on the Mississippi River. Oklahoma seems set to gain Oklahoma County as it's Democratic holdout, if current partisan and demographic trends continue.

As to the question in the thread title, I would say that California is the most representative Democratic state while Tennessee is the most representative Republican one.

Republicans: Wyoming
Democrats: Hawaii

Right, but more income ALSO means LESS Democratic, even with Trump and the 2018 midterms.  So, I think for "heart and soul" type places, you would want an area that is extremely educated but not overly wealthy.

And one would think that the average Democratic county in the US is way less White than 62%, significantly more Black than 9%, and much, much less Asian than Fairfax.  It's just too unique to be a representation of the entire Democratic Party.

Maryland is a much better candidate for "heart" of the Democratic Party.  Its 45.3% non-White (28% Black, 12% Hispanic, 5% Asian), 39% bachelors degree or higher (more educated than VA), and ethnic Whites in Baltimore look a lot like those in Boston or Chicago (very Catholic and working class, historically two big Democratic constituencies).  Maryland also has significant majority-Black areas (PG and Baltimore City) which are the backbone of Democratic politics in much of the South.  Montgomery County provides a suitable Fairfax County analogue in MD.

Maryland really checks all three boxes that are the national Democrats' core constituencies:  ethnic Whites ✓, Blacks ✓, and educated suburbs ✓.  NOVA is definitely lacking in 2/3 of those.

Dems: Maryland
GOP: Tennessee

This.

Texas represents absolutely everything necessary in a winning GOP coalition, and if Republicans are in trouble, the first sign of that trouble will be in upscale, educated, suburban Texas.

Dems: California or Massachusetts
GOP: The Dakotas or another Great Plains state

Maryland or Cali for the D's
Wyoming or Oklahoma for the R's

Certainly the heart and soul of a party is where most of its voters are as a percentage of the national party, not where the state has most of the local voters. Wyoming has no influence on the national party (except insofar as its only Rep is has some personal influence as Dick Cheney's daughter) and neither do most Plains states.

For Republicans, it would probably be Texas, Ohio/Pennsylvania, or Florida – the three states where Trump got the most raw votes and carried the state. I'd say Texas but Florida is clearly the ascendant state party in terms of national influence.

For Democrats, California or New York of course.

There's two ways of looking at this. Either the state embodies the spirit of the party, or it's actually the most far-left or far-right state in the union. Since the latter definition is less fun, I'll go with the former.

Democrats: Illinois (Corruption, idiotic labor laws, malfeasance, gun restrictions, some of the worst politicians in American history)
Republicans: Mississippi (Poorly funded, low quality of life, hated and inefficient bureaucracy, deep racial divide)

Democratic Party - Hawaii
Republican Party - Utah

Democratic Party - Massachusetts
Republican Party - Kansas

It was Texas for the GOP in the 90s and 00s.

For the Dem party its california...expensive, over taxed, worst income equality in the nation but hey did you hear they elected a former mailman whos black but now has transitioned to being a white male construction worker as Sacramento dog catcher?

get excited while the CA democratic party helps itself to a little bit more of your tax monies to fund Gavin Newsom's hair gel fund

Dems-California
GOP-Alabama

Democratic: California, for basically the same reasons Mondale mentioned.

Republican: Massachusetts.  Relax I'm kidding.  The real answer is Oklahoma.  Low cost of living, "low tax", low test scores.  Also racist as hell (and they don't even realize it) against outsiders and ultra-judgmental/puritanical social values.  But hey look how well Chesapeake is doing guys!  THE FREE MARKET WORKS!  THE FREE MARKET WORKS! (gives oil executive a check for $100 million)

Of course yeah I realize you could probably the same for some other Republican states but Oklahoma just sticks out like a big red dirt coated finger because it's just so over the top.  That, and while not the most Republican state (that'd probably be Wyoming or something) it seems to be the state where even after the GOP has royally screwed the pooch they can still win statewide elections (I will concede Edmondson wasn't as exciting as his supporters thought he was, but still inexcusable), just like Republican administrations can keep giving us record deficits, uncalled for wars, increased poverty, and lower pay without their voters judging them..

In terms of broadly representing their respective coalitions:

Democratic = either California or Maryland
Republican = Missouri

Although it would have been Texas 15 years ago, i think the best representation would be Indiana:

It has a long history as a red state, and still is unlike Vermont/Connecticut/Illinois, even during 92/96. 08 was a fluke.
Is part of the industrial midwest/rust belt, which has been trending R since the 2010 midterms.
Is also part of Appalachia, which went heavily R in the last couple decades.
It still has many upper middle class Republican suburbs whereas suburbs in Texas/Georgia/Arizona are Purple and going blue.

It looks popular among the red avatars to choose any poor backwater and call it "the most Republican" state, instead of actually thinking and being creative.