Federal vs. state leadership

[Leere]

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?

Ehhh, wrong.

States such as the ones you mentioned are able to elect Republicans to statewide offices because they tend to be more closely aligned ideologically with the people who voted them in, as opposed to people running for national office. Presidential candidates have to create many images of themselves to serve the most number of voters. People are more trusting/understanding of their own state officials though, and are much more apt to "forgive" them if they step out of line once every four years. For example, voters consistently rate their own Congressmen as better than all of the others, despite the fact that they rate the rest pitifully low (consider also that these same voters probably don't know jack about many of the other Congressmen). It's a loyalty thing. It has nothing to do with budgets, or handouts (as the rightwing likes to think).

Oh, and states do offer their own forms of "handouts." And...they don't actually have to balance their budgets Hence the reason so many states have budget issues!

 

[Leere]

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.

Very true. I, personally, thought it was funny that Akin's campaign tried to label Claire as a radical. That made me laugh. Except for maybe St. Louis and Kansas City, I'm not sure if Missouri could ever elect a truly liberal Rep. or Senator (state or national).

 

[lordbt]

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.

Give me a couple of examples of liberal thought or policies that Obama opposes or in what way he has been 'fairly moderate.'

 

[lordbt]

Ehhh, wrong.

States such as the ones you mentioned are able to elect Republicans to statewide offices because they tend to be more closely aligned ideologically with the people who voted them in, as opposed to people running for national office. Presidential candidates have to create many images of themselves to serve the most number of voters. People are more trusting/understanding of their own state officials though, and are much more apt to "forgive" them if they step out of line once every four years. For example, voters consistently rate their own Congressmen as better than all of the others, despite the fact that they rate the rest pitifully low (consider also that these same voters probably don't know jack about many of the other Congressmen). It's a loyalty thing. It has nothing to do with budgets, or handouts (as the rightwing likes to think).

So the candidates for state office more represent the ideology of the state? I guess that is what you are saying, if so I agree. But I dont get your explanation as to why as state would vote in a republican governor a republican legislature and a democrat president, particularly one so hostile to republicans as Obama is.

 

[dysert]

By my count, there are currently only 19 states with Democrat governors. I have read all the posts so far, but I still don't understand why so many states have Republican governors while the popular vote went Democrat for president. Maybe the country is just illogically double-minded. (I guess I should have paid more attention in Political Science class.)

 

[iluvatar5150]

Give me a couple of examples of liberal thought or policies that Obama opposes or in what way he has been 'fairly moderate.'

He hasn't pushed a single payer health system - his big health plan was originally the Republican response to Hillarycare.

He's kept a lot of W's policies regarding troop deployment, judicial review, and exercise of military power. (but to the dismay of us libs)

He's put forward some tax cuts, along with less stimulus than we probably needed.

Can you give some examples of his policies that have been radically liberal relative to those of other presidents through the early-mid 20th century?

ETA: Can you do me a favor: can you just let me know if talking to you is a waste of time? If you're really interested in having a discussion, great (the core of the question in your OP is worth exploring). But if you're just interested in taking idiotic pot shots at liberals like you do over here, then talking to you is going to be like talking to a brick wall, and I'll just go find something better to do.

-Dan.

 

[lordbt]

By my count, there are currently only 19 states with Democrat governors. I have read all the posts so far, but I still don't understand why so many states have Republican governors while the popular vote went Democrat for president. Maybe the country is just illogically double-minded. (I guess I should have paid more attention in Political Science class.)

These states in particular stand out--Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and Michigan. What do those states have in common? They all voted for Obama and they all have republican governors and republican controlled legislatures.

 

[lordbt]

He hasn't pushed a single payer health system - his big health plan was originally the Republican response to Hillarycare.

He signed his name to the most liberal version of health care reform that could pass congress. Does he oppose single payer? No. That he didnt push for it is more a sign of a lack of political courage than a disagreement with ends.

He's kept a lot of W's policies regarding troop deployment, judicial review, and exercise of military power. (but to the dismay of us libs)

I think I will conceed this one. He certainly ran on liberal rhetoric, but has not followed through on it.

He's put forward some tax cuts, along with less stimulus than we probably needed.

If you remember, the stiumulus was crafted by the liberals in congress. Just like health care, all Obama did was sign his name to legislation written by others. He has proposed more 'stimulus' but has been unable to get it through congress. You have to judge the man on what he wants.

ETA: Can you do me a favor: can you just let me know if talking to you is a waste of time? If you're really interested in having a discussion, great (the core of the question in your OP is worth exploring). But if you're just interested in taking idiotic pot shots at liberals like you do over here, then talking to you is going to be like talking to a brick wall, and I'll just go find something better to do.

-Dan.

You make your own determinations. I have my own style and tactics for debate. If you dont like them, then you dont like them. If you dont want to waste your time, dont waste your time. It makes no difference to me.

 

[iluvatar5150]

You skipped a question:

Can you give some examples of his policies that have been radically liberal relative to those of other presidents through the early-mid 20th century?

I'm still waiting on an answer for that one.

-Dan.

 

[Leere]

So the candidates for state office more represent the ideology of the state? I guess that is what you are saying, if so I agree. But I dont get your explanation as to why as state would vote in a republican governor a republican legislature and a democrat president, particularly one so hostile to republicans as Obama is.

I already answered that. Considering how much you despise Obama, I don't think you'll be fully willing to understand, but I guess I'll give it another shot?

Missouri (where I live) is a red state. The state went for Romney in a landslide, and the state legislature has a supermajority of Republicans in both chambers. Yet...we elected Democrats to high positions throughout the state, including a Democratic governor, and re-elected the Democratic Senator McCaskill. This is kind of a reverse example, but it should give you the answer right there. It has nothing to do with "handouts", because if it did, rural Missouri would be voting in Democrat after Democrat. But it isn't. Maybe consider that not everyone who votes is as biased as you? And read some scholarly work on voting patterns (which means nothing you will find at a local bookstore).

 

[lordbt]

I already answered that. Considering how much you despise Obama, I don't think you'll be fully willing to understand, but I guess I'll give it another shot?

Missouri (where I live) is a red state. The state went for Romney in a landslide, and the state legislature has a supermajority of Republicans in both chambers. Yet...we elected Democrats to high positions throughout the state, including a Democratic governor, and re-elected the Democratic Senator McCaskill. This is kind of a reverse example, but it should give you the answer right there. It has nothing to do with "handouts", because if it did, rural Missouri would be voting in Democrat after Democrat. But it isn't. Maybe consider that not everyone who votes is as biased as you? And read some scholarly work on voting patterns (which means nothing you will find at a local bookstore).

You have some 'scholarly work' on the subject do you? By all means post it. As for McCaskill, she was the beneficiary of a horrible opponent. I dont know about your governor, but Ohio elects democrat governors as well. Ted Strickland was our former governor, a democrat, who was a victim of the 2010 republican wave. He was a fiscally conservative democrat ad a decent governor who I actually thought should be re-elected. In my opinion, Ohioans would not elect a guy a liberal as Obama Governor, but voted twice for him as president.

 

[jayem]

These states in particular stand out--Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and Michigan. What do those states have in common? They all voted for Obama and they all have republican governors and republican controlled legislatures.

Because to most voters, the candidate is more important than the party. And how a candidate is perceived may well be more important than his positions.

Did you ever consider that Obama won in some locally red states for the same reason Claire McCaskill won? He ran against a lousy opponent, whom the voters liked even less.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Interesting thread. We are, the United States. I doubt our founding fathers envisioned the day Comrade Obama would gain control.

 

[JCSr]

Interesting thread. We are, the United States. I doubt our founding fathers envisioned the day Comrade Obama would gain control.

Ya, Considering almost all of the founding fathers were slave owners, I bet they would be shocked to see a negro running the country.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Ya, Considering almost all of the founding fathers were slave owners, I bet they would be shocked to see a negro running the country.

I'd be surprised if "all of the founding fathers were slave owners". All? Really?

 

[JCSr]

I'd be surprised if "all of the founding fathers were slave owners". All? Really?

I never said what you said. Please reread and edit accordingly.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

I never said what you said. Please reread and edit accordingly.

OK - "almost all". Let's see your data.

 

[JCSr]

OK - "almost all". Let's see your data.

No, I have done the research and it is accurate. Go find it yourself. 2/3 were.

 

[Leere]

OK - "almost all". Let's see your data.

Oh my goodness. What is with conservatives and not doing research? Is it really so much harder than I imagine for you? GOOGLE IS YOUR BEST FRIEND. USE IT.

 

[lordbt]

Are you too lazy to do it? I don't think you are. Give it a shot. It's really not difficult to find scholarly work out there on this subject. I bet you know you can find it too.

You are joking right? It was you who made the claim that 'scholarly work on the subject' exists out there, That means the burden is upon YOU to link to it. Do you investigate every stupid assertion put forth by some internet novice? I doubt it. If you did, you would be doing nothing else. So you cant expect me to do it either. If the information you claim is out there is out there and easy to find, link to it. Since I have now asked you to back up your own statement three times and you have failed to do so, I have to conclude that you were being less than honest from the start. So if you have something of substance to add to the thread, do so. Otherwise troll your own threads and stay off of mine.