Federal vs. state leadership

[lordbt]

What explains the failure of republicans for national office and their success at the state level? Blue states like Michigan and Wisconsin where a republican presidential canidate has virtually no chance, have republican governors and republican legislatures. New York, Mass., New Jersey and even California have had or currently do have republican governors but are uncontested in presidential races. Ohio, Pennsyvania, Vrginia, and Florida have republican governors and all went for Obama in the general. What explains this? If the republican party is on the verge of 'permanent minority status' as many claim, why do they hold a 3/2 advantage over democrats in governorships?

The only thing I can come up with is that state government is not the source of handouts and transfer payments. They actually have to balance budgets and have some level of fiscal sanity, so republicans dominate. The federal government is th main source of transfer payments, so if you have your hand out, or expect to in the future, you vote for liberals.

No?

 

[iluvatar5150]

What explains the failure of republicans for national office and their success at the state level? Blue states like Michigan and Wisconsin where a republican presidential canidate has virtually no chance, have republican governors and republican legislatures. New York, Mass., New Jersey and even California have had or currently do have republican governors but are uncontested in presidential races.

Well, NY has had one Republican governor since the mid 70's: Pataki served from 1995-2006. He, along with he Republican governors of MA, NJ, and CA are/were all fairly moderate by modern Republican standards, with none of them being hard social conservatives. AFAIK, all of them at least presented themselves as being somewhat pragmatic in their approaches to policy, rather than being the sort of ideologues favored by the far right. (whether they were or were not pragmatic is another issue)

I'm not familiar with MI, but it's my impression that the people of WI didn't really appreciate how "conservative" Scott Walker actually was when they elected him, and that some of his policies have been a bit surprising.

If the republican party is on the verge of 'permanent minority status' as many claim, why do they hold a 3/2 advantage over democrats in governorships?

Because democrats are concentrated into large urban centers, whereas Republicans are spread out over less densely populated rural areas. That gives Republicans more governors and more representatives per voter.

The only thing I can come up with is that state government is not the source of handouts and transfer payments.

You are wrong.

-Dan.

 

[Merope]

You are wrong.

-Dan.

I was wondering that too. I believe Colorado receives money from the Federal Government for food stamp assistance and energy assistance, etc. but if I understand the process correctly that is administered by the state, not the Feds directly. So the "hand out" comes from the state.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I was wondering that too. I believe Colorado receives money from the Federal Government for food stamp assistance and energy assistance, etc. but if I understand the process correctly that is administered by the state, not the Feds directly. So the "hand out" comes from the state.

I believe Medicaid works in a similar fashion.

-Dan.

 

[Merope]

I believe Medicaid works in a similar fashion.

-Dan.

Well regardless voters in the state of Colorado decided to relieve the Republican party of the burden of leadership in the state government this past election. The trouble in Colorado (for the Republicans anyway) is that the people may tend toward fiscal conservatism but have a more "live and let live" attitude toward social policy these days. Republicans seem to have mistaken the support of their fiscal policy as an endorsement of their entire obsolete agenda.

 

[lordbt]

Well, NY has had one Republican governor since the mid 70's: Pataki served from 1995-2006. He, along with he Republican governors of MA, NJ, and CA are/were all fairly moderate by modern Republican standards, with none of them being hard social conservatives. AFAIK, all of them at least presented themselves as being somewhat pragmatic in their approaches to policy, rather than being the sort of ideologues favored by the far right. (whether they were or were not pragmatic is another issue)

I'm not familiar with MI, but it's my impression that the people of WI didn't really appreciate how "conservative" Scott Walker actually was when they elected him, and that some of his policies have been a bit surprising.

Minnesota never votes republican for president but elected Pawlenty. Michigan is much the same yet elects people like Engler and Snyder. Ohio has Kasich, Pennsylvania has Corbet. Virginia, Wisnonsin, Florida, New Jersey all are led by republicans that are all certainly fisclly conservative but went for the most liberal president in US history.

Because democrats are concentrated into large urban centers, whereas Republicans are spread out over less densely populated rural areas. That gives Republicans more governors and more representatives per voter.

How does that matter in statewide races like governorships?

You are wrong.

-Dan.

Perhaps, but not because of anything you wrote.

 

[lordbt]

Well regardless voters in the state of Colorado decided to relieve the Republican party of the burden of leadership in the state government this past election. The trouble in Colorado (for the Republicans anyway) is that the people may tend toward fiscal conservatism but have a more "live and let live" attitude toward social policy these days. Republicans seem to have mistaken the support of their fiscal policy as an endorsement of their entire obsolete agenda.

If that is correct, then why is there not more public anger at Obamas fiscl irresponsibility?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Minnesota never votes republican for president but elected Pawlenty.

Minnesota is weird. They also elected Michelle Bachmann, Jesse Ventura, and Al Franken (IMO, Franken has turned out fine, but he seemed an odd choice at the time). The state also doesn't have what I'd consider huge margins for Democrats.

Ohio has Kasich

Ohio went for W both times.

Pennsylvania has Corbet.

Pennsylvania has flipped back and forth between republican and Democratic governors since at least 1970.

Virginia

Obama was the first Democrat to take Virginia since 1960.

Wisconsin

Prior to Walker, they had a Democrat. As I said before, I think many Wisconsinites have been a bit surprised at how conservative Walker actually is.

Florida, New Jersey all are led by republicans that are all certainly fisclly conservative but went for the most liberal president in US history.

Ah, well that bolded bit explains some of your questioning. Obama is not the most liberal president in history, not by a long shot. "Socialist" policy was much more popular among American politicians in the early-mid 20th century. If Obamacare is socialism, the New Deal is downright communist.

How does that matter in statewide races like governorships?

You asked why Republican governors outnumber Democrat governors. Most of the Democrats are concentrated into fewer places.

To address your broader point: most people are somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum and will vote for the guy they think will do the best job, instead of being beholden to one party or one particular pet issue; this is particularly true as races get closer and closer to home.

If that is correct, then why is there not more public anger at Obamas fiscl irresponsibility?

A lot of us don't think he's been very irresponsible, particularly in light of what he's had to work with.

-Dan.

 

[Merope]

If that is correct, then why is there not more public anger at Obamas fiscl irresponsibility?

Simple: Obama isn't actually a liberal.

 

[Vylo]

State governments actually handle quite a bit of entitlements, so I don't think it is because of that. They also don't always run balanced budgets. Republicans are typically more confederalist, that is stronger on state rights, which usually jives well with voters from their states.

 

[JCSr]

No?

Correct, no.

There are many handouts and entitlements on the state level.

Your attempt to blame liberals fails.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Voter turnout in state vs national elections might be a place to look. It is probably easier for liberals to get their vote out in the presidential election than one for governor. A lot of younger voters, mainly liberal students, won't waste their time on anything less than the presidential election. One possible reason for this is that they are casting an 'idealistic' feel-good vote; a feeling they won't get in a mundane local election.

 

[Vylo]

Governorship is hardly a mundane local election.

 

[BoltNut]

Simple: Obama isn't actually a liberal.

Compared to whom?

 

[jayem]

The opposite is true here in Missouri, which has only voted Democratic for President 3 times since 1968. Republicans have veto-proof majorities in both houses of the legislature. But the Governor, Atty. General, Sec. of State, and State Treasurer are all Dems. And Claire McCaskill won re-election to the Senate (largely due to Todd Akin's epic failure.) But our Democrats are definitely moderate. And there's still a bit of lingering warm feelings towards the party of Harry Truman.

 

[Vylo]

Compared to whom?

Fiscally hes all over the place, mainly to the right. Crony capitalism is the end result of capitalism run amok. It resembles socialism because it is the market effectively taking control of the government and bending it to the will of the wealthy. Only Obama's taxation is progressive, and misses the mark by still allowing insanely low capital gains and dividend taxes.

Socially, he is more liberal, but still, he would center right compared to politicians around the world.

 

[lordbt]

Correct, no.

There are many handouts and entitlements on the state level.

Your attempt to blame liberals fails.

Give me a few of the state level handouts and entitlements, then explain why a state like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Virginia nd Florida elect republicans for staewide leadership but send a leftist like Obama back to the Whiote House.

 

[lordbt]

Fiscally hes all over the place, mainly to the right. Crony capitalism is the end result of capitalism run amok. It resembles socialism because it is the market effectively taking control of the government and bending it to the will of the wealthy.

No, crony capitalism is what results from a socialist awakening to the fact that socialism cannot provide the revenue that socialism requires to survive. So they enlist the capitalists to help them fund their wealth transfer schemes while lining their own pockets.

Socially, he is more liberal, but still, he would center right compared to politicians around the world.

But I wasnt comparing him to socialists around the world. Heck, next to Mao, Obama is a right winger, but by American standards--which are all that really matter--he is a radical leftist.

And to whoever it was earlier in the thread that claimed Obama isnt a liberal, please point to me that aspect of liberalism that he opposes.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Heck, next to Mao, Obama is a right winger, but by American standards--which are all that really matter--he is a radical leftist.

But he isn't. I know you want to believe that this is the case, but it's not. Only in the skewed opinion of Republican conservativism of the late 1990's onward is Obama a "radical leftist." As I pointed out earlier, American government was more "socialist" across the board during the mid 20th century. Nixon created the EPA, EEOC, OSHA, and instituted price controls - and he was a conservative.

You'd be able to answer your own question if you started looking at reality a little more clearly. Most of the states about which you've asked have elected fairly moderate governors. Obama has been a fairly moderate President.

-Dan.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Perhaps it's because the state Republican parties aren't associated in the public mind with the ruinous neocon foreign policy.