States' rights

[Polkergeist]

Let’s say that in a Blue North-Eastern state an independent telegenic governor is elected in 2006. Let’s call him Governor Bailey. Gov. Bailey comes to office on a platform of social liberalism and expanding public health coverage, generally liberal positions.

Governor Bailey has an extended honeymoon in part because of his independent clean skin image and his media savvy. However he runs into bitter fights with Washington Conservatives. When his name is brought up on Fox News it’s generally put in a critical light.

In early 2008 a socially conservative Dem becomes the front runner for the Dem nomination, this leads to some liberals to moot that Gov. Bailey (I) run as a 3rd party candidate.

Gov. Bailey decides to take advantage of the momentum that is created and declares his candidacy for president. However he knows that big government and social liberalism is not sellable to the country at large so he designs his platform on States rights namely:

- Federal Government to cease all programs in health, education and welfare by July 1 2010.

- Abolition of federal income tax.

- Advocate states to legislates as they see fit for abortion subject to the constitution

Gov. Bailey argues for this policy by stating it would up to the people of the states to elect state governments that would tax their income and size their government programs as they see fit.

Now for the question......

How will this fictional Gov. Bailey do in November as a left-leaning candidate on a states' rights platform which historically has been something advocated by right wingers.

[Joe Republic]

If Bailey won any votes at all it would be because of his image.  The only place where states' rights would be an issue is the South or maybe some of the Rocky states, but they would still not vote for a social liberal.  Bailey seems like a libertarian, so I guess he would do well in New Hampshire.  That'd probably be it though.

[MODU]

How will this fictional Gov. Bailey do in November as a left-leaning candidate on a states' rights platform which historically has been something advocated by right wingers.

He'd be laughed right off the circuit.  Not to be mean or anything, but the states would not be able to afford taking on those programs without increased federal aid.  So, instead of having a standardized program which the government funds, you'll now have 50+ different forms of the same programs which the government funds.  You're better off with leaving it at the federal level.

[No more McShame]

I'd vote for him on the federal level but not on the state level.  I'll vote for a liberal who understands seperation of powers and the 10th Amendment anyday over a "conservative" that expands federal power over domestic issues.  To me, the only federal issues are trade and national defense.