Why is Massachusetts much more likely to support GOP governors compared to CA and NY? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 28, 2024, 08:28:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Why is Massachusetts much more likely to support GOP governors compared to CA and NY? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why is Massachusetts much more likely to support GOP governors compared to CA and NY?  (Read 985 times)
Vice President Christian Man
Christian Man
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,669
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -2.26

P P P

WWW
« on: September 10, 2021, 10:26:23 PM »

Massachusetts has an old-school Republican tradition which dates back to The Whigs. Massachusetts never left the Republicans, the Republicans left the state and when a moderate enough candidate comes along, it generally supports them over a generic Dem. While the state is very Democratic, it is only liberal on social issues and free trade. There's a lot of economic moderates and even some conservatives who vote Democrat because of these issues, which has increased under Trump who was a uniquely bad fit for this state, but easily return to their party when a soc. lib/eco con is nominated. As other posters have posted, the state party largely divorced itself from the national party, although some people are trying to make it Trumpier. Historically, Trump could've done well in Bristol/Worcester counties as well as near the largely working-class areas of Lowell, Haverhill, and Peabody, but the area is also home to a lot of academic/science types who largely switched to the Dem. party during the later half of the 20th century and even more so now. While Governor Baker's Covid lockdown was unpopular in certain quarters, I think it was enough for him to win over some of this normally-Dem voters in 2022.
Logged
Vice President Christian Man
Christian Man
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,669
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -2.26

P P P

WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2021, 12:14:13 PM »

Massachusetts has an old-school Republican tradition which dates back to The Whigs. Massachusetts never left the Republicans, the Republicans left the state and when a moderate enough candidate comes along, it generally supports them over a generic Dem. While the state is very Democratic, it is only liberal on social issues and free trade. There's a lot of economic moderates and even some conservatives who vote Democrat because of these issues, which has increased under Trump who was a uniquely bad fit for this state, but easily return to their party when a soc. lib/eco con is nominated. As other posters have posted, the state party largely divorced itself from the national party, although some people are trying to make it Trumpier. Historically, Trump could've done well in Bristol/Worcester counties as well as near the largely working-class areas of Lowell, Haverhill, and Peabody, but the area is also home to a lot of academic/science types who largely switched to the Dem. party during the later half of the 20th century and even more so now. While Governor Baker's Covid lockdown was unpopular in certain quarters, I think it was enough for him to win over some of this normally-Dem voters in 2022.

When you mention that these MA voters are only liberal on social issues is it mainly abortion, LGBT rights, marijuana mainly? Or other things as well?

Definitely abortion and LGBT rights, but I'd add gun control and immigration as well. Most are internationalists and I'd say more are opposed than supportive of marijuana legislation, especially looking at the 2016 referendum results, but I think a lot of millennials/zoomers in this group support it, similar to national trends.
Logged
Vice President Christian Man
Christian Man
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,669
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -2.26

P P P

WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2021, 08:35:27 PM »
« Edited: September 16, 2021, 08:43:09 PM by JD Vance For Senate »

New England states (with the exception of maybe northern Maine) have effectively no social conservatives other than some fringe people.  This means all social issues are settled.  No reasonable middle of the road voter there thinks a fetus is a human, that religion should be a big part of politics, or that there shouldn't be gun control.  

Therefore there is clarity on what the issues are.  So for local issues the GOP candidates tend to only distinguish themselves on taxes and fiscal policies and don't need to run to the right during primaries.  California and New York are larger and more diverse states that do have pockets of social conservatism and therefore GOP statewide candidates tend to run to the right to win.  This is the same issue in Virginia where GOP candidates need to say stupid **** in primaries (or conventions) to appeal THG-level religious people then become totally out of touch for the general electorate and lose.


1. Why do you feel the need to single-out THG when this has nothing to do with him. There's also a ton of anti-gun control liberals across New England, especially in the rural areas, although you're right about most of the region not being socially conservative. It's still "country" in a lot of ways though in the rural areas. For example, it's not that unusual to see pickup trucks in  Bernie bumper stickers for example.
2. There's pockets of social conservative predominately Catholic-working class areas on The South Shore especially in Bristol county, but it's not as frequent as in other areas of the country like The Midwest/South.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 10 queries.