Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 25, 2019, 06:39:06 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  2016 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: TJ in Oregon, Virginiá)
| | |-+  Which state is the heart and soul of the Democratic/Republican Party?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Print
Author Topic: Which state is the heart and soul of the Democratic/Republican Party?  (Read 5997 times)
Nyvin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,886
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: January 25, 2017, 04:03:52 pm »

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

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


...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.

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.
Logged
Vosem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,913
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: -6.26

P P

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: January 25, 2017, 04:17:19 pm »

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.
Logged
mencken
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,257
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: January 25, 2017, 04:30:45 pm »

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.
Logged
Vosem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,913
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: -6.26

P P

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: January 25, 2017, 04:33:36 pm »

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.
Logged
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,104
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: January 25, 2017, 04:41:39 pm »

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

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


...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.

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.

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.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,983


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: January 25, 2017, 05:17:45 pm »

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

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


...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.

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.

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.
Logged
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,104
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: January 25, 2017, 08:33:05 pm »

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

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


...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.

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.

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 fvck 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.
Logged
thr33_
BG-NY
Full Member
***
Posts: 204


Political Matrix
E: -3.03, S: 1.32

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: January 25, 2017, 08:41:23 pm »

Dem - California or Maryland
GOP - I like the Missouri mention
Logged
blacknwhiterose
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 79


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: January 26, 2017, 04:50:16 pm »

Democrats:

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


Republicans:

Ohio - Middle America, moderately diverse, practical, a bit pokey, conservative but not particularly religious.
Logged
Firestorm
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 50


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: January 28, 2017, 10:33:03 am »

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.
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.
Logged
IA more R than GA/TX/OH/FL
IndyRep
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,605
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: December 20, 2018, 08:37:57 pm »

Democrats - New Hampshire, California and Virginia
Republicans - Tennessee, Wyoming and Indiana

slightly modified

You could also make a case for MD and AR, respectively, but I feel like these are pretty good choices.
Logged
Swing State Ohio
bagelman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,366
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: December 20, 2018, 09:11:56 pm »

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
Logged
Neoliberalbusters
Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,737
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.00, S: -4.00

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: December 21, 2018, 08:52:48 am »

Democrats: California

Republicans: Wyoming, West Virginia and Tennessee
Logged
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,104
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: December 21, 2018, 11:16:31 am »

Dems: Maryland
Republicans: Wyoming

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.
Logged
SInNYC
Full Member
***
Posts: 105


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: December 21, 2018, 11:18:48 am »

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)
Logged
brucejoel99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,437
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: December 21, 2018, 12:46:05 pm »

Democrats: California
Republicans: Wyoming
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,556


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: December 22, 2018, 03:24:55 am »

Democrats : New York

Republicans : Texas



IMO Heart and Soul doesn’t equal most Democratic/Republican state
Logged
Let Dogs Survive
MormDem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,112
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: December 22, 2018, 12:28:32 pm »

GOP: Tennessee
Dems: California
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,708
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: December 22, 2018, 01:00:39 pm »

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)
« Last Edit: December 22, 2018, 01:05:14 pm by Del Tachi »Logged
New Frontier
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,098
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.42, S: -1.22

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: December 22, 2018, 01:48:11 pm »

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)
Logged
Roll Roons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 445
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: December 22, 2018, 01:54:28 pm »

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.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,556


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: December 22, 2018, 03:18:51 pm »

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.





Logged
Very Legal & Very Cool
RFA09
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 636


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: December 22, 2018, 03:39:33 pm »

Democrats- California
Republicans- Alabama
Logged
NV less likely to flip than FL
xingkerui
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,685
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.63, S: -6.13

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: December 22, 2018, 04:51:40 pm »

I'm going to stick with California for the Democrats, and say Kentucky for the Republicans.
Logged
Lincoln_Chaffee
Newbie
*
Posts: 7
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: December 22, 2018, 05:54:28 pm »

Dems: Maryland
Republicans: Wyoming
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines