|
Title: state vs presidential elections Post by: kfseattle on May 28, 2004, 01:41:41 PM Why is it that North and South Dakota both have two Democrats in the Senate yet voted overwhelmingly Republican the last presidential elections?
Do a different set of people vote in Senate elections vs. Presidential elections in these states (and in general)? Or is it that people in these states prefer Republicans for national issues and Democrats for local issues? Maybe it has nothing to do with this but rather the personalities of the candidates themselves? Just curious as to your thoughts... Title: Re:state vs presidential elections Post by: classical liberal on May 28, 2004, 05:12:39 PM The same reason that there are dem representatives (House/Senate) from every other state, excepting AK, ID, NH, and WY.
Title: Re:state vs presidential elections Post by: they don't love you like i love you on May 28, 2004, 08:02:29 PM UT has a Dem rep.
The reason is because such small and agriculturaly heavy states require lots of pork, which is what these Democrats keep bringing home. People in such small states care more about constituent services than the issues for their representation. Also, these states weren't always so Dem unfriendly (Dukakis actually didn't do too bad in them) and these Democrats have been big figures in Dakota politics forever back from when it was easier to elect them. Title: Re:state vs presidential elections Post by: they don't love you like i love you on May 28, 2004, 08:42:11 PM Why does DE go Dem for Prez, have two Dem US Senators but its' sole US Representative is a Rep? Go figure! he was a very popular former governor. Title: Re:state vs presidential elections Post by: © tweed on May 29, 2004, 07:08:04 AM UT has a Dem rep. No they don't Title: Re:state vs presidential elections Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 29, 2004, 09:35:20 AM UT has a Dem rep. No they don't Oddly enough, Utah *does* have a Dem rep... Matheson. Title: Re:state vs presidential elections Post by: © tweed on May 29, 2004, 10:14:29 AM Oddly enough, Utah *does* have a Dem rep... Matheson. Holy sh**t...you're right. And he was elected in a district that went 67% for Bush, , has a CPVI of R +19, and voted AGAINST the partial-birth abortion ban. He's the guy running for Governor I guess. Title: Re:state vs presidential elections Post by: © tweed on May 29, 2004, 10:15:17 AM He also only won re-election by 1600 votes.
Title: Re:state vs presidential elections Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 29, 2004, 10:17:41 AM Oddly enough, Utah *does* have a Dem rep... Matheson. Holy sh**t...you're right. And he was elected in a district that went 67% for Bush, , has a CPVI of R +19, and voted AGAINST the partial-birth abortion ban. He's the guy running for Governor I guess. Nope. The guy running for Governor is another Matheson (good name for a Dem in UT, BTW) Title: Re:state vs presidential elections Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 29, 2004, 10:18:43 AM He also only won re-election by 1600 votes. True, but a poll was done recently that had him with a big lead (much to my amazement). Title: Re:state vs presidential elections Post by: © tweed on May 29, 2004, 10:28:35 AM Who is the other Matheson?
Title: Re:state vs presidential elections Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 29, 2004, 10:44:49 AM Who is the other Matheson? Dunno. He's a Matheson. There are a lot of Matheson's in Utah. They *are* all related. Title: Re:state vs presidential elections Post by: they don't love you like i love you on May 29, 2004, 12:47:41 PM The other Matheson is his brother. They are both sons of a popular former governor.
And he got screwed over by gerrymandering. His district previously just consisted of the SLC area and he won reelection there easily. But the legislature this year added a huge rural part to his district, hence it became the one now that gave 67% to Bush and he could barely win reelection in. Good thing he has Carbon and Grand counties at least. |