Primary Thread 3: Race to Denver

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


No way! You have one of the coolest avatars in all of Apolytonland, and you are not allowed to risk losing it!

Beside, the prediction is that those two states might be in play. That's a pretty fuzzy prediction.

What Zkrib said (minus your avatar, whose relative coolness I choose not to comment on). I agree they are red states, but they ar red states with extremely popular Democratic governors, which adds an unexpected bit of blue to the mix. Unlike Utah or Wyoming, they seem to be breaking out of the Republican-at-any-cost mode. It would take a lot to flip them, but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility. Stiill, I'm not fool enough to bet on it -- though, I'll admit, given your track record in these discussion of American politics, it is tempting.

[DinoDoc]

I agree they are red states, but they ar red states with extremely popular Democratic governors

What does that have to do with anything? Would you have said MS was on the verge of turning when Musgrove was elected and the majority of the Legislature is Dem?

[Zkribbler]

your avatar, whose relative coolness I choose not to comment on

I made it myself!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

I agree they are red states, but they ar red states with extremely popular Democratic governors

What does that have to do with anything? Would you have said MS was on the verge of turning when Musgrove was elected and the majority of the Legislature is Dem?

No, but what's happening in the West, on a state level, is that Dems are not just defeating individual Republicans but are successsfully running against the Republican party itself, portraying it as ot of step with local values. (In Montana, this seems to mean "not populist enough"; in Kansas, it seems to mean "too beholden to evangenical yahoos.") Maybe it doesn't mean anything. But states do change -- see Vermont, see Mississippi -- and when they do this is often how it starts. Just an observation.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thanks Zkribbler!

Ixnay made it for me when I finally could have a custom avatar.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I agree they are red states, but they ar red states with extremely popular Democratic governors, which adds an unexpected bit of blue to the mix.

Democrats, in Oklahoma anyway, don't tend to be much different from the Republicans.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Democrats, in Oklahoma anyway, don't tend to be much different from the Republicans.

From what I understand, Democrats in Kansas tend to be like Republican in the upper midwest (or like what Kansas Republicans -- the ones who elected Bob Dole for a century or so -- used to be); Republicans in Kansas tend now to be bible-thumping loons. Mainstream Kansans arguably haven't changed at all, but both parties have shifted to the right, so that the Dems are starting to seem more mainstream there.

[snoopy369]

I wonder if that isn't a trend... the more a party becomes strong, the more it shifts to its extreme, and then the other party shifts to the middle to pick up the moderates who are a bit scared of the extreme of the other party. Moderates who in the late 1960s / 1970s voted Republican, all the way to Reagan, because of the FDR->LBJ years (relatively 'liberal' years overall) making the Dems move to the left, and the Republicans picked up the moderates (while moving relatively to the left, Goldwater aside). Then in the 1970s they started moving right, and in the 1980s completed the move; now they are very far right indeed (having moved even more right after the successes of 1994-2000, and by right I don't just mean conservative but also becoming more 'christian' etc.).

Now the Democrats are the party for the moderates, and will start to do better as a result, and will thus move further left (whether because of the party core being more leftist and exerting power to go back to the 'left' where they prefer, once they win enough votes to be in power, or because of some natural tendency for a party in power to become more extreme), until they are so far left the moderates are Republicans again...

Personally I'd prefer to have a third party, a party of fiscal conservatives who believe in the market but also support governmental action to correct market failures, and who are generally in the middle socially (not at all supporting the christian conservatives, but not for forcing liberal morals on folks either) ... but that's just a wet dream

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


From what I understand, Democrats in Kansas tend to be like Republican in the upper midwest (or like what Kansas Republicans -- the ones who elected Bob Dole for a century or so -- used to be); Republicans in Kansas tend now to be bible-thumping loons. Mainstream Kansans arguably haven't changed at all, but both parties have shifted to the right, so that the Dems are starting to seem more mainstream there.

That sounds about right.

[Ben Kenobi]

I can't say I agree with you snoopy.

The democrats are the only ones who are ideologically pure. What, if any policy differences are there between Hillery and Obama? None.

Look at all the Republicans, and you have substantial disagreements on pretty much everything. I can't understand why someone who sincerely believes in a smaller government would prefer the statist democrat party, since they actively reject the principle that the smaller the state the better the governance.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The democrats are the only ones who are ideologically pure. What, if any policy differences are there between Hillery and Obama? None.

Our governor in OK doesn't seem to be ideologically Democrat at all, although he's not particularly religious.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I can't say I agree with you snoopy.

The democrats are the only ones who are ideologically pure. What, if any policy differences are there between Hillery and Obama? None.

Look at all the Republicans, and you have substantial disagreements on pretty much everything. I can't understand why someone who sincerely believes in a smaller government would prefer the statist democrat party, since they actively reject the principle that the smaller the state the better the governance.

Both parties policies reject that Ben... I'm a republican and I admit that. I'm anti-'big government' in a sense, but what Republicans call 'big government' is not the same as what it should mean. Republicans prefer 'big' government in certain areas (morality anyone...) while Democrats prefer it in others.

Democrats are not ideologically pure by any means, either ... you're massively oversimplifying things.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I can't say I agree with you snoopy.

The democrats are the only ones who are ideologically pure. What, if any policy differences are there between Hillery and Obama? None.

Look at all the Republicans, and you have substantial disagreements on pretty much everything. I can't understand why someone who sincerely believes in a smaller government would prefer the statist democrat party, since they actively reject the principle that the smaller the state the better the governance.

Snoopy kinda beat me to this. The Republican party favor big government, albeit differently from the way the Democratic party favors big government.

Republican party favors stronger security measures such as Patriot Act, for example. Another example is how many Republicans had favored keeping sodomy laws intact, at expense of people's right to privacy. Another example Republicans favor big government, is subsidization of corporations and big business.

[snoopy369]

The main problem is that once people get into government, they generally want more of it. It's very hard for people to give up power... so they couch it in terms they can live with, suggesting they're for small government while instead just adjusting the government to be on the things they find beneficial.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by snoopy369
The main problem is that once people get into government, they generally want more of it. It's very hard for people to give up power... so they couch it in terms they can live with, suggesting they're for small government while instead just adjusting the government to be on the things they find beneficial.

I've never been quite satisfied with this reasoning. People don't change that much when they get past their 20s. I think what goes on is people use rhetoric to get elected they don't really mean.