Why do many Democrats fall for "moderate" Republicans?

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

I see so often many of my fellow Democrats swooning over "moderate" Republicans bur yet you rarely see Republicans doing the same to moderate Democrats.

Just look at Maryland with Larry Hogan, Massachusetts with Charlie Baker, Vermont with Phil Scott, and how before the Kavanaugh confirmation many Democrats for putting a lot of faith in "moderate" Republican senators like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.

Why is that? Almost of all those Republicans are not actual moderates and are only moderate in compared with the rest of the GOP or are kept in check by a Democratic state legislature.

Why don't more Democrats realize that and stop swooning over "moderate" Repubs?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

National Republicans are unelectable in states like Maryland and Massachusetts because of cultural issues, lots of people who vote Democratic on the national level are quite happy to elect a socially moderate Republican as governor to cut spending on schools/transport etc. and veto tax hikes.

[Alabama_Indy10]

I have no problem supporting moderate Democrats here in Alabama if I like them more than their opponent.

[MT Treasurer]

Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, Joe Donnelly, Joe Manchin, Doug Jones, John Bel Edwards, Steve Bullock, ...? And most of them are Senators and not governors, which makes it even more significant/worse for Republicans. People like Hogan or Baker would never win a Senate race in their respective states.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Because they're naive.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Like has been said above, the national alignment is driven by socio-cultural issues.

There are a lot of high end or middle class people who vote Democratic because they are secular and liberal on social issues, but they still don't like taxes. These people would have been Republicans in say the 1970's when the divisions were more class based then anything else. These people are in especially high numbers in the Northeast, where Democratic dominance since 1992 was a result of the 1992 campaign, and the backlash against Republicans on social issues. Since Republicans had also raised taxes, they got the worst of both worlds and defected on masse over the coming decades. The wars and now Trump have only further hardened this alignment.

It is rather similar to how a bunch of pro-business types in the South ended up as Democrats for a long time because the alignment was based on civil war legacy/social issues. It took the New Deal to break this alignment down and replace it with a largely class one.

[IceSpear]

Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, Joe Donnelly, Joe Manchin, Doug Jones, John Bel Edwards, Steve Bullock, ...? And most of them are Senators and not governors, which makes it even more significant/worse for Republicans. People like Hogan or Baker would never win a Senate race in their respective states.

Will lose, could lose, could lose, could lose, could lose, will lose, could lose, only narrowly won both times.

I see no Democratic version of Baker or Scott (and maybe Hogan), who are going to landslide in hostile states during a hostile political climate. The last was Mike Beebe from 8 years ago. We'll see if JBE can do it I guess.

But yeah, you are right that Senate races are far more valuable than gubernatorial races in most cases.

[Lourdes]

Because they're naive.

[darklordoftech]

National Republicans are unelectable in states like Maryland and Massachusetts because of cultural issues, lots of people who vote Democratic on the national level are quite happy to elect a socially moderate Republican as governor to cut spending on schools/transport etc. and veto tax hikes.

Like has been said above, the national alignment is driven by socio-cultural issues.

There are a lot of high end or middle class people who vote Democratic because they are secular and liberal on social issues, but they still don't like taxes. These people would have been Republicans in say the 1970's when the divisions were more class based then anything else. These people are in especially high numbers in the Northeast, where Democratic dominance since 1992 was a result of the 1992 campaign, and the backlash against Republicans on social issues. Since Republicans had also raised taxes, they got the worst of both worlds and defected on masse over the coming decades. The wars and now Trump have only further hardened this alignment.

Also keep in mind that business-people who's businesses don't pollute and non-business rich people often support environmental regulations. Social classes != special interests.

[RI]

What makes you think people "fall for" them rather simply preferring what they're selling?

[Cashew]

What makes you think people "fall for" them rather simply preferring what they're selling?

Up until recently there were many that got suckered by Collins supposed pro choice stance while she votes the opposite way in practice.

[Hammy]

Because the Dems are not a left party, but a slightly right of center party.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I believe that Republicans like Hogan and Baker offer something many liberal Democrats in MD and MA want, and that is tax relief.  Both of these guys are the low-tax choices.  They allow Democrats to have their social liberalism and lower taxes as well.

[morgieb]

Probably because a significant proportion of Democrats are the ancestors of moderate Republicans from another generation.

[Sumner 1868]

"Social liberalism" isn't a real thing. The real reason that MA and MD often have ticket-splitting in state elections is because of racial issues, while VT is just a case of a small piece of the state's GOP history still lingering on.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, Joe Donnelly, Joe Manchin, Doug Jones, John Bel Edwards, Steve Bullock, ...? And most of them are Senators and not governors, which makes it even more significant/worse for Republicans. People like Hogan or Baker would never win a Senate race in their respective states.

Will lose, could lose, could lose, could lose, could lose, will lose, could lose, only narrowly won both times.

I see no Democratic version of Baker or Scott (and maybe Hogan), who are going to landslide in hostile states during a hostile political climate. The last was Mike Beebe from 8 years ago. We'll see if JBE can do it I guess.

But yeah, you are right that Senate races are far more valuable than gubernatorial races in most cases.

I could see someone like Jim Hood or Billie Sutton become the inverse Baker/Phil Scott and be extremely popular if they were to win their initial races. The question is, if they will win this year and next though.

The electorates of MA and MD are more elastic than Southern electorates.

[°Leprechaun]

Pacifism is not "extreme", it is a no brainer. So call "moderates" are extremely pro war and some if not most hate us pacifists. Therefore "moderates" are, in reality, the most extreme of all.
The unwillingness of Democrats to limit the President's power to start wars is my biggest problem with Democrats. Pacifists are the true moderates. This is also my biggest problem with Christianity. Most Christians are not Amish.
Why is it that we can afford Nuclear Weapons, but not healthcare or education (etc.)?

[President Johnson]

I can only speak for myself here. I like REAL moderate Republicans because they are driven by pragmatism and common sense and not that much by ideology. That allows them to be practical problem solvers who can reach a broader consensus among various intrests. Nelson Rockefeller for example never saw himself as an ideologue, instead he thought of himself to be a practical problem solver (he was liberal on some issues, more moderate or conservative on others, and even that changed over time). Moderate Republicans in the tradition of Nelson Rockefeller or George Romney are not destructive to the welfare state, instead they focus on economic growth and opportunity for everyone while being socially liberal and pro-environment. They support law enforcement but civil rights as well. All noble goals.

[RaphaelDLG]

Democrats are less tribal than Republicans, more gullible, less ideological, and more likely to find the ideas compromise and "moderation" appealing.

So they are dumber, basically.

[IceSpear]

Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, Joe Donnelly, Joe Manchin, Doug Jones, John Bel Edwards, Steve Bullock, ...? And most of them are Senators and not governors, which makes it even more significant/worse for Republicans. People like Hogan or Baker would never win a Senate race in their respective states.

Will lose, could lose, could lose, could lose, could lose, will lose, could lose, only narrowly won both times.

I see no Democratic version of Baker or Scott (and maybe Hogan), who are going to landslide in hostile states during a hostile political climate. The last was Mike Beebe from 8 years ago. We'll see if JBE can do it I guess.

But yeah, you are right that Senate races are far more valuable than gubernatorial races in most cases.

I could see someone like Jim Hood or Billie Sutton become the inverse Baker/Phil Scott and be extremely popular if they were to win their initial races. The question is, if they will win this year and next though.

The electorates of MA and MD are more elastic than Southern electorates.

Before this year when it became obvious Hogan would win in a landslide literally no one would have called MD’s electorate “elastic”

[Progressive Pessimist]

Perhaps it's out of moderate hero syndrome-wanting to prove that one isn't as biased as one seems out of some sort of forced humbleness.

Honestly, I'm as partisan as it gets and I've fallen into that trap too. Granted; I have never voted for a Republican, and possibly never will, but I found myself patting myself on the back for how I handled a situation when John McCann, the Republican nominee in my district NJ-05, came to my house alongside my town's two council Republican candidates, while out canvassing for votes. I talked to the guys, and had a brief civil discussion with them, even in spite of already making up my mind about the election before it started (obviously I'm voting for every Democrat on the ballot). I thought to myself that I appreciated the humble way they were going about asking for votes, I never met any other congressional candidate out campaigning before. But then after they left, I looked at the campaign literature McCann handed me in particular, and noticed it talking about ending sanctuary cities, protecting the second amendment, and how proud McCann was for having some impact on defeating Hillarycare back in the 1990's. After reading all that, I wish I had told him to go f*** himself.

I really, think it's just something hardwired in the brains of us liberal/progressive Democrats. Maybe it has to do with a sense of empathy that we are so proud ourselves for.

[Mr. Smith]

Probably because there are just more Democrats period.

[Bidenworth2020]

Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, Joe Donnelly, Joe Manchin, Doug Jones, John Bel Edwards, Steve Bullock, ...? And most of them are Senators and not governors, which makes it even more significant/worse for Republicans. People like Hogan or Baker would never win a Senate race in their respective states.

Will lose, could lose, could lose, could lose, could lose, will lose, could lose, only narrowly won both times.

I see no Democratic version of Baker or Scott (and maybe Hogan), who are going to landslide in hostile states during a hostile political climate. The last was Mike Beebe from 8 years ago. We'll see if JBE can do it I guess.

But yeah, you are right that Senate races are far more valuable than gubernatorial races in most cases.

I could see someone like Jim Hood or Billie Sutton become the inverse Baker/Phil Scott and be extremely popular if they were to win their initial races. The question is, if they will win this year and next though.

The electorates of MA and MD are more elastic than Southern electorates.

Before this year when it became obvious Hogan would win in a landslide literally no one would have called MD’s electorate “elastic”

well,it is a fact lol.. see 2002, downballot races, etc...

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The ME elections will solidify ME as a Democratic state and Collins will be replaced by Pingree in 2020. Collins won in 2008 and 2014, during Obama years