Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 30 Sep '09 15:27
    was asked the other day and couldn't give a definitive answer as to why certain states in america ALWAYS vote either republican or democrat, states that either parties leader could be an actual donkey and still win.

    i'm talking more about certain southern sates who vote republican every time, why? how did this history of voting begin?
  2. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    30 Sep '09 15:40 / 5 edits
    Originally posted by trev33
    was asked the other day and couldn't give a definitive answer as to why certain states in america ALWAYS vote either republican or democrat, states that either parties leader could be an actual donkey and still win.

    i'm talking more about certain southern sates who vote republican every time, why? how did this history of voting begin?
    The short answer is that's not true. Reagan won every state except for Minnesota in '84, Nixon won every state except MA in 1972 and Johnson won every state except AZ and a few deep south states in 1964. Clinton also won many states that people consider safe GOP states (KY, LA, etc.). Jimmy Carter won states in the deep South in 1976 as well.

    The shorter answer is because, in general, people in different regions of the country have different political leanings. With 2 parties to choose from, you generally vote for the party that best reflects your ideology.

    Edit: Incidentally, the GOP winning the South is a recent phenomenon. There was a time not too long ago when the South was safe Democratic territory. Those were the days when the Dems were an odd coalition of liberals and conservative Dixiecrats, while the GOP was generally run by moderate conservatives like me. It was only when the GOP decided to try to flip the South and moved the party right to do so that the Dems gained a foothold in the center. Consider this: New York and New Jersey both used to be swing states and California used to be reliably Republican.
  3. 30 Sep '09 16:12 / 2 edits
    on a broad, simplified level...

    by the 1960's - the South was lagging far behind the North economically. So southern states focused on doing everything possible to attract business - lower taxes, less regulation, no unions etc - and while the economic gap has closed greatly, the South's strong pro-business stance has remained in place.

    also by the 1960's - the North had become extremely urbanized and ethnically diverse - and this led to the liberal view that celebrates a diversity of beliefs, cultures, and religions. But the South was much more rural and adhered to more traditional, conservative values.

    traditionally, the GOP had been the party of the North, industry, and abolition and the Dems had been the party of the South, agriculture, and slavery but during the Civil Rights revolution, the Democrats embraced the idea that racial segregation was bad, while the South had embraced the idea that industrialization was good. It would take time for in-grained partisan traditions to change, but it was only a matter of time until the parties would switch regions.
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    30 Sep '09 16:21 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    on a broad, simplified level...

    by the 1960's - the South was lagging far behind the North economically. So southern states focused on doing everything possible to attract business - lower taxes, less regulation, no unions etc - and while the economic gap has closed greatly, the South's strong pro-business stance has remained in place.

    also by the 1 raditions to change, but it was only a matter of time until the parties would switch regions.
    The Dixiecrats were the last group to embrace desegregation. Desegregation is not what cost the Dems the South.

    I would also hesitate to annoint the Dems as the party of the North quite yet. The Northeast, yes. But the rust belt is still very much a swing region, the 2008 election notwithstanding.
  5. 30 Sep '09 16:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    The Dixiecrats were the last group to embrace desegregation. Desegregation is not what cost the Dems the South.

    I would also hesitate to annoint the Dems as the party of the North quite yet. The Northeast, yes. But the rust belt is still very much a swing region, the 2008 election notwithstanding.
    as I said, I offered a simplified view.

    much of the North-South difference has been due to the North's high urbanization. People from the more rural parts of the North generally have views that are more "Southern" than "Northern", especially on social issues.

    I agree that desegregation by itself didn't cause the re-alignment. Other major factors were the North's strong labor union movement and the liberal urban values. But the main thing that had made the made the South such a solid bastion for the Democrats was the Dems' strong support for the "southern ways" regarding race. When the national party embraced desegregation and especially things like bussing and affirmative action, the door was now wide open for the GOP.
  6. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    30 Sep '09 17:00
    Originally posted by sh76
    The short answer is that's not true. Reagan won every state except for Minnesota in '84, Nixon won every state except MA in 1972 and Johnson won every state except AZ and a few deep south states in 1964. Clinton also won many states that people consider safe GOP states (KY, LA, etc.). Jimmy Carter won states in the deep South in 1976 as well.

    The shorter an ...[text shortened]... ork and New Jersey both used to be swing states and California used to be reliably Republican.
    The last time Mississippi, Alabama, Texas and South Carolina voted Democrat was in 1976. That's because Carter was a southerner.

    The last time Oklahoma, Idaho and Iowa voted Democrat was in 1964, when Johnson trounced Goldwater. That's 11 consecutive Presidential elections that those states have voted Republican.
  7. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    30 Sep '09 17:22
    Originally posted by rwingett
    The last time Mississippi, Alabama, Texas and South Carolina voted Democrat was in 1976. That's because Carter was a southerner.

    The last time Oklahoma, Idaho and Iowa voted Democrat was in 1964, when Johnson trounced Goldwater. That's 11 consecutive Presidential elections that those states have voted Republican.
    In fact, the last time Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Alaska voted Democrat was in 1964. That's nine states that haven't voted Democrat in the last 45 years. They've all voted Republican in the last 11 Presidential elections.

    On the Democrat side, Minnesota last voted Republican in 1972. Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Hawaii last voted Republican in 1984.
  8. 30 Sep '09 18:31
    thank you rwingett i really didn't want to have to look those up.

    so why? what makes those states vote for the same party 40 years in a row?
  9. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    30 Sep '09 18:54
    Originally posted by trev33
    thank you rwingett i really didn't want to have to look those up.

    so why? what makes those states vote for the same party 40 years in a row?
    Because they're stupid (the Republican states, that is).
  10. 30 Sep '09 19:01
    Red states tend to be poorer, but are they poorer because they tend to vote Republican, or are they Republican because they are poorer (and less educated)?
  11. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    30 Sep '09 19:32
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Red states tend to be poorer, but are they poorer because they tend to vote Republican, or are they Republican because they are poorer (and less educated)?
    That's a funny hypothesis, since the reputation is that the Dems are the champions of the poor and the Republicans are the party of the rich.
  12. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    30 Sep '09 19:48
    Originally posted by sh76
    That's a funny hypothesis, since the reputation is that the Dems are the champions of the poor and the Republicans are the party of the rich.
    In his book, What's The Matter With Kansas, Thomas Frank shows that Republicans have cynically used wedge issues (like gay marriage and abortion) to get poor southerners to vote against their own economic interests. They get elected on an anti-abortion platform, but instead deliver fiscal policies which cater toward the rich.
  13. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    30 Sep '09 19:52
    Originally posted by rwingett
    In his book, [b]What's The Matter With Kansas, Thomas Frank shows that Republicans have cynically used wedge issues (like gay marriage and abortion) to get poor southerners to vote against their own economic interests. They get elected on an anti-abortion platform, but instead deliver fiscal policies which cater toward the rich.[/b]
    As opposed to Democrats, who never use cynical ploys to ensure continued minority support?
  14. 30 Sep '09 20:28
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Because they're stupid (the Republican states, that is).
    as opposed to California whose smart?
  15. 30 Sep '09 20:29
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Red states tend to be poorer, but are they poorer because they tend to vote Republican, or are they Republican because they are poorer (and less educated)?
    could you back that up with one of your great stats? I mean just look to the rich economically stable state of California, right?