Rate MS-GOV

[smoltchanov]

A mental exercize: would Jim Eastland-type candidate (i mean Eastland of 1970th, not 1950th, i.e. - conservative, but, essentially, not overly racist anymore) win governor election NOW (suppose - he is running unopposed in primary, and nomination is guaranteed), or Democratic label would sink even such candidate? Does final result depends on candidate and his/her views or purely on party membership?

[smoltchanov]

A mental exercize: would Jim Eastland-type candidate (i mean Eastland of 1970th, not 1950th, i.e. - conservative, but, essentially, not overly racist anymore) win governor election NOW (suppose - he is running unopposed in primary, and nomination is guaranteed), or Democratic label would sink even such candidate? Does final result depends on candidate and his/her views or purely on party membership?

I think it would come down to incumbency.  Jim Hood would have been re-elected as AG in 2019, and I think he could have again this year.  Incumbent senator Hob Bryan is a Democrat who represents a 57/40 White district (SD-07.)  He's drawn a semi-serious GOP challenger this year but is still expected to win.  If he loses in an upset it would be confirmation that the Democrat label is 100% toxic to White voters in MS. 

Thanks! I watch that race too...

[smoltchanov]

The Democrat will lose, whether it’s a gay black liberal greenie or Theodore Bilbo’s ghost. Pressley will decisively lose.

An interesting question (for me, at least) - why voters for a long time made a distinction between "national Democrats" and, say, "Mississippi Democrats", and then (rather suddenly) stopped to do that? For a long time Mississippi voters were more then liking to vote Republican for President, sometimes - for Republican candidates for Congress or Governor, but time after time voted for their Democratic state legislators and local officials (usually - rather conservative, though, typically - less so, then their Republican counterparts). And then almost everything stopped, almost all voting went along "party lines" and difference between "national Democrats" and "Mississippi Democrats" - suddenly vanished in people's mind. The same - in rural Louisiana and Alabama, the same - in Florida panhandle, and so on. And all this - in less then 15 years (very short time by historic standards), 15 years ago (and even 10) there were tons of locally elected conservative Democrats, now even remaining (few, of course) Democratic conservatives usually have no chances. People became more dumb and vote as robots? Or what?

[smoltchanov]

I will say that Democrats have a better chance of winning here than holding Louisiana, though they have slightly worse odds of picking up this seat as opposed to Beshear winning reelection.

Well, Presley is white, and that gives him few percentage advantage over Wilson, but in reality Presley chances are about 5%, while Wilson's - zero.

[smoltchanov]

A mental exercize: would Jim Eastland-type candidate (i mean Eastland of 1970th, not 1950th, i.e. - conservative, but, essentially, not overly racist anymore) win governor election NOW (suppose - he is running unopposed in primary, and nomination is guaranteed), or Democratic label would sink even such candidate? Does final result depends on candidate and his/her views or purely on party membership?

This happened in 2019

Hood? He was much more liberal then Eastland. I meant real conservative, not a person whom liberals call "conservative". For some even Dianne Feinstein is a "conservative" (i laughed heartily when i read this....)

[smoltchanov]

A mental exercize: would Jim Eastland-type candidate (i mean Eastland of 1970th, not 1950th, i.e. - conservative, but, essentially, not overly racist anymore) win governor election NOW (suppose - he is running unopposed in primary, and nomination is guaranteed), or Democratic label would sink even such candidate? Does final result depends on candidate and his/her views or purely on party membership?

This happened in 2019

Hood? He was much more liberal then Eastland. I meant real conservative, not a person whom liberals call "conservative". For some even Dianne Feinstein is a "conservative" (i laughed heartily when i read this....)

Hood defended the states abortion laws in court and was adamantly pro-life and pro-gun. He was as culturally conservative as they come. He did everything right from an ideological perspective and still couldn’t come within the last 5 points.

Eastland would do the same and much more. So - my argument still stands. And cultural conservatism is the only way to win statewide in Mississippi, but, as Hood experience shows, that's neccessary, but not sufficient, condition for victory. Probably - you must NOT be economic liberal (or populist) either....

[smoltchanov]

A mental exercize: would Jim Eastland-type candidate (i mean Eastland of 1970th, not 1950th, i.e. - conservative, but, essentially, not overly racist anymore) win governor election NOW (suppose - he is running unopposed in primary, and nomination is guaranteed), or Democratic label would sink even such candidate? Does final result depends on candidate and his/her views or purely on party membership?

This happened in 2019

Hood? He was much more liberal then Eastland. I meant real conservative, not a person whom liberals call "conservative". For some even Dianne Feinstein is a "conservative" (i laughed heartily when i read this....)

Hood defended the states abortion laws in court and was adamantly pro-life and pro-gun. He was as culturally conservative as they come. He did everything right from an ideological perspective and still couldn’t come within the last 5 points.

Eastland would do the same and much more. So - my argument still stands. And cultural conservatism is the only way to win statewide in Mississippi, but, as Hood experience shows, that's neccessary, but not sufficient, condition for victory. Probably - you must NOT be economic liberal (or populist) either....

If you're conservative on literally every single issue, why would you even run as a Democrat?

Until 10-12 years ago that question didn't stopped such candidates in the Deep South. More on state legislative and, especially, on local, levels, then on statewide and federal, but still there was considearble number of such candidates.  Essentially - for 50+ years  after Brown people in this area were quite satisfied voting Republican on Presidential and, later, Congressional levels, and for their conservative Democratic candidates - on state and local. And then rather suddenly that stopped. So, the question i wanted to be answered was "why NOW?". Look at local level politicains in my "favorite" Liberty county in Florida:

https://www.ourcampaigns.com/ContainerDetail.html?ContainerID=2892

Many of them were Democrats quite recently, some were even reelected in 2020 as Democrats. Now all of them (except one Indie) are Republicans. It's unlikely, that their political views radically changed in so short time period, so - most likely they were as conservative as Democrats as they are now as Republicans. Then, again: "what happened, why NOW?" It seems that in a strange way a catalyzer could be Obama's election in 2008, and first couple of years of his administration: in 2008 such non-liberal Democrats (then) as Bobby Bright were elected, and it wasn't big surprise then. About that time there were about dozen of really conservative (not in present sense of this word, when "conservative Democrat" really means "centrist-to-moderate liberal") Democratic state legislators in Louisiana and Mississippi, and so on. In 3-4 years - almost all switched (or retired), a sort of "second mass exodus", the first being in mid-1990th with Gingrich's "Contract with America". Now situation is at least somewhat paradoxical: Democratic party in very conservative (especially - socially) Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama is not only almost "all Black", but comparable by it's liberalism with Democratic party of Pennsylvania, Indiana and so on... It's difficult to count on good electoral results in such situation. And that may especially effect the Senate of the future, where "all states are equal", and the above mentioned Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama have (together) the same number of seats as California, New York and Illinois together...

[smoltchanov]

The Democrat will lose, whether it’s a gay black liberal greenie or Theodore Bilbo’s ghost. Pressley will decisively lose.

That's because Theodore Bilbo would be too economically liberal for Mississippi if he were alive today.

Bilbo was likely the most vile rascist ever in either House of Congress, but he was also an FDR Democrat and a down-the-line New Deal supporter.

That was exactly the reason i used James Eastland not Bilbo in my "mental exercise". Eastland was substantially more economically conservative while only slightly less racist. Even better example would be John Bell Williams, who was all around conservative: economically, socially and racially, but i think it would be extremely difficult to even find such Democrat today...

[smoltchanov]

The Democrat will lose, whether it’s a gay black liberal greenie or Theodore Bilbo’s ghost. Pressley will decisively lose.

That's because Theodore Bilbo would be too economically liberal for Mississippi if he were alive today.

Bilbo was likely the most vile rascist ever in either House of Congress, but he was also an FDR Democrat and a down-the-line New Deal supporter.

That was exactly the reason i used James Eastland not Bilbo in my "mental exercise". Eastland was substantially more economically conservative while only slightly less racist. Even better example would be John Bell Williams, who was all around conservative: economically, socially and racially, but i think it would be extremely difficult to even find such Democrat today...

What would the point of being a Democrat even be then if they have to be as conservative as a Republican to win?

There was a point in the past. And it worked then. In general - i support a "big tent" principle for countries with small number of parties (as is the case for US), and so - bitterly oppose present day polarization of both parties. "Democrat" for me is not neccessarily equals "ultraliberal", and "Republican" is not neccessarily "ultraconservative". And thus both JBE and Phil Scott are among my favorite governors now, while, say DeSantis and Kotek - absolutely no)))))

[smoltchanov]

Well, me too..... Especially - as a foreigner. For me - US election is a very big game (naturally, almost all decisons made here can't influence my everyday life in Moscow), which used (in the past) to be interesting. When you couldn't predict with 99% probability a positions of candidate on all important issues solely on a basis of his/her party membership. When you couldn't predict "ab initio" results in vast majority of districts, again - solely on party membership (conservative Democrat in the South could easily get elected in a district voting heavily Republican in Presidential election, and vice versa, say, in New England). And so on. Now US politics became boring and even primitive: 99+% Democratic candidates take more or less "standard" positions on global issues, differing only on some local, which are of interest to local denizens only (whether particular road will go here or there, or whether a trade and entertainment center will be built in this or that part of the city) and the same - among Republican candidates. Even monkey can predict results in about 95% of districts before election day. All suspense and intrigue is gone.

I was lucky to begin my study of US politics in 1972 (though the first thing i remember about US politics is Kennedy murder in 1963, but it was extremely difficult to get detailed and honest info about US politics then) , when both conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans still existed, though even then there was less of them then in 1960th. They brought unpredictability to electoral "sport". Now it's all gone, and i simply continue because it's difficult to throw away habits of 50+ years. But it's really boring, guys!!!!!

[smoltchanov]

The intensity of polarization isn't a good thing for the country, but I think we're better off with each party having a fairly clear ideological bent. It's unrealistic to expect voters to deeply research every single candidate up and down the ballot; if the party is a reasonable heuristic for ideology, then it makes voting more accessible to people out of the loop.

I would absolutely agree if US would have 4-5 really BIG parties, as most of European countries do (say, 1 - socialist left, 1 - left-of-center, 1 - strickly centrist, 1 - moderate conservative, and 1 - far right). Practice shows, that 2 is "too little", many voters, who doesn't "belong" to any of them, are, essentially, disenfranchised and denied real "choice". They simply vote for "lesser evil" - the candidate they hate less. In the past there was a considerable "center" in US politics, now about 35% of people, who call themselves "moderates" or "centrists", are, essentially, "partyless".....

P.S. And yes - i am aware about FPTP, and problems with parlamentary democracy (including - frequent falls of the government and elections). But millions of disenfranchised voters are worse IMHO.....