How West Virginia has turned to a GOP stronghold?

[DS0816]

West Virginia was a stronghold of Democrats. Also in Republican landslides like in 1988 or 1980 Democratic candidates won the state. But in 2000 George W. Bush won the state. And from that year West Virginia turns Republican. Obama has lost in every single county of WV in 2012.

Why this change of the electorate of West Virginia?

Barack Obama being black was part of it. But, I also think the realigning of the map and re-branding of the two major parties (that Republicans used to be more liberal and are now more conservative; that Democrats used to be more conservative and are now more liberal) is even more a compelling reason.

The following states which voted for both the 1992 and 1996 elections of previous Democratic president Bill Clinton, but haven't carried for the party since, are: Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

I don't think this is any coincidence.

Today those six states combine for 48 electoral votes. (Down from 50 in 2004 and 2008.) Since half of them come from the Old Confederacy, Barack Obama pretty much made up for their losses by having carried, in both 2008 and 2012, Florida and Virginia.

Bill Clinton missed Florida in 1992. I cannot count that state for him with both elections. And, even though it is not from that same area of the country, Obama, but not Clinton, carried Colorado in both his elections. Florida and Virginia combined for 40 electoral votes in 2008. They're now combined for 42. Add Colorado's 9 electoral votes…and the loss of those states, which include West Virginia, are electorally sustainable for the Democrats.

[DS0816]

Over the last six United States presidential elections of 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012, the average number of states carried between two-term presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama were 29.

If the nation's presidential elections are going to continue on a path in which approximately 20 states will be refraining from being willing to carry for a presidential winner, due mainly to strong partisan opposition, then you have to be (or get) realistic with what to write off. And write off more than willingly.

West Virginia, and those other states I mentioned in my previous thread response, is one of those few states which carried for both of Bill Clinton's elections but not once—twelve and sixteen years after Clinton—for his Democratic successor, Barack Obama.

Well, time along with some states' voting electorates moved. More than moved.

Barack Obama had a reroute, to some notable extent, in his 2008 Democratic path with winning the Electoral College. And, given everything noted here (including all these theories specifically concerning the people of the state of West Virginia), I don't think seeing winning Democrats (on a continuing pattern with 20 states not carrying) making do without West Virginia is regrettable. The state backed plenty of losing Democrats when the Republicans were the ones more liberal (and the Democrats more conservative). It's actually better for the policies of the 2008-going-forward Democrats, when they don't get a 40-state landslide, to let states like West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, and former prominent bellwether Tennessee—which adjusted their "partisan voting index" to leaning more decisively to the Republicans (they now are the more conservative of the two major parties)—fall to the opposition than to try to go back to the past for the sake of, maybe, winning about half these states in a presidential election in which, maybe, sees two-thirds of the nation's states carry for a winning Democrat.

[DS0816]

Over the last six United States presidential elections of 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012, the average number of states carried between two-term presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama were 29.

If the nation's presidential elections are going to continue on a path in which approximately 20 states will be refraining from being willing to carry for a presidential winner, due mainly to strong partisan opposition, then you have to be (or get) realistic with what to write off. And write off more than willingly.

West Virginia, and those other states I mentioned in my previous thread response, is one of those few states which carried for both of Bill Clinton's elections but not once—twelve and sixteen years after Clinton—for his Democratic successor, Barack Obama.

Well, time along with some states' voting electorates moved. More than moved.

Barack Obama had a reroute, to some notable extent, in his 2008 Democratic path with winning the Electoral College. And, given everything noted here (including all these theories specifically concerning the people of the state of West Virginia), I don't think seeing winning Democrats (on a continuing pattern with 20 states not carrying) making do without West Virginia is regrettable. The state backed plenty of losing Democrats when the Republicans were the ones more liberal (and the Democrats more conservative). It's actually better for the policies of the 2008-going-forward Democrats, when they don't get a 40-state landslide, to let states like West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, and former prominent bellwether Tennessee—which adjusted their "partisan voting index" to leaning more decisively to the Republicans (they now are the more conservative of the two major parties)—fall to the opposition than to try to go back to the past for the sake of, maybe, winning about half these states in a presidential election in which, maybe, sees two-thirds of the nation's states carry for a winning Democrat.

Yeah, the Republicans were so much more liberal than the Democrats when they were running guys like Calvin Coolidge, running against the New Deal and nominating people like Goldwater and Reagan.  When are you going to read a book and stop pushing this "parties switched places" myth?

When you look at the states Abraham Lincoln carried in 1860, and then take a look at those same states on the electoral map of 2008, do you notice anything?

[DS0816]

Over the last six United States presidential elections of 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012, the average number of states carried between two-term presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama were 29.

If the nation's presidential elections are going to continue on a path in which approximately 20 states will be refraining from being willing to carry for a presidential winner, due mainly to strong partisan opposition, then you have to be (or get) realistic with what to write off. And write off more than willingly.

West Virginia, and those other states I mentioned in my previous thread response, is one of those few states which carried for both of Bill Clinton's elections but not once—twelve and sixteen years after Clinton—for his Democratic successor, Barack Obama.

Well, time along with some states' voting electorates moved. More than moved.

Barack Obama had a reroute, to some notable extent, in his 2008 Democratic path with winning the Electoral College. And, given everything noted here (including all these theories specifically concerning the people of the state of West Virginia), I don't think seeing winning Democrats (on a continuing pattern with 20 states not carrying) making do without West Virginia is regrettable. The state backed plenty of losing Democrats when the Republicans were the ones more liberal (and the Democrats more conservative). It's actually better for the policies of the 2008-going-forward Democrats, when they don't get a 40-state landslide, to let states like West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, and former prominent bellwether Tennessee—which adjusted their "partisan voting index" to leaning more decisively to the Republicans (they now are the more conservative of the two major parties)—fall to the opposition than to try to go back to the past for the sake of, maybe, winning about half these states in a presidential election in which, maybe, sees two-thirds of the nation's states carry for a winning Democrat.

Yeah, the Republicans were so much more liberal than the Democrats when they were running guys like Calvin Coolidge, running against the New Deal and nominating people like Goldwater and Reagan.  When are you going to read a book and stop pushing this "parties switched places" myth?

When you look at the states Abraham Lincoln carried in 1860, and then take a look at those same states on the electoral map of 2008, do you notice anything?

I'm pretty sure approximately 0% of Obama's voters voted for Lincoln, and vice versa.

I think Rockefeller GOP can field the question, "When you look at the states Abraham Lincoln carried in 1860, and then take a look at those same states on the electoral map of 2008, do you notice anything?" himself.

[DS0816]

Over the last six United States presidential elections of 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012, the average number of states carried between two-term presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama were 29.

If the nation's presidential elections are going to continue on a path in which approximately 20 states will be refraining from being willing to carry for a presidential winner, due mainly to strong partisan opposition, then you have to be (or get) realistic with what to write off. And write off more than willingly.

West Virginia, and those other states I mentioned in my previous thread response, is one of those few states which carried for both of Bill Clinton's elections but not once—twelve and sixteen years after Clinton—for his Democratic successor, Barack Obama.

Well, time along with some states' voting electorates moved. More than moved.

Barack Obama had a reroute, to some notable extent, in his 2008 Democratic path with winning the Electoral College. And, given everything noted here (including all these theories specifically concerning the people of the state of West Virginia), I don't think seeing winning Democrats (on a continuing pattern with 20 states not carrying) making do without West Virginia is regrettable. The state backed plenty of losing Democrats when the Republicans were the ones more liberal (and the Democrats more conservative). It's actually better for the policies of the 2008-going-forward Democrats, when they don't get a 40-state landslide, to let states like West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, and former prominent bellwether Tennessee—which adjusted their "partisan voting index" to leaning more decisively to the Republicans (they now are the more conservative of the two major parties)—fall to the opposition than to try to go back to the past for the sake of, maybe, winning about half these states in a presidential election in which, maybe, sees two-thirds of the nation's states carry for a winning Democrat.

Yeah, the Republicans were so much more liberal than the Democrats when they were running guys like Calvin Coolidge, running against the New Deal and nominating people like Goldwater and Reagan.  When are you going to read a book and stop pushing this "parties switched places" myth?

When you look at the states Abraham Lincoln carried in 1860, and then take a look at those same states on the electoral map of 2008, do you notice anything?

No sh^t, genius.  But most people here realize that things aren't that simple, and they don't boil down to some nifty little formula.  States change.  VT is one of the most liberal states in the union today, yet it backed CALVIN COOLIDGE and Ronald Reagan with huge margins ... the Republicans of the 1860s, for example, were clearly the more pro-business party and were clearly to the right of Democrats on immigration and moral issues.  Things are just simply not as simple as you make them out to be.

And the most amusing part about this is that you actually seem to think you're all teaching us something, LOL.  I'd love to hear your argument of how McKinley ran to the left of Bryan and Coolidge ran to the left of Davis just because Obama won and lost a certain set of states in 2008.

Is there any reason why you and Goldwater won't allow Rockefeller GOP to respond himself?

[DS0816]

Over the last six United States presidential elections of 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012, the average number of states carried between two-term presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama were 29.

If the nation's presidential elections are going to continue on a path in which approximately 20 states will be refraining from being willing to carry for a presidential winner, due mainly to strong partisan opposition, then you have to be (or get) realistic with what to write off. And write off more than willingly.

West Virginia, and those other states I mentioned in my previous thread response, is one of those few states which carried for both of Bill Clinton's elections but not once—twelve and sixteen years after Clinton—for his Democratic successor, Barack Obama.

Well, time along with some states' voting electorates moved. More than moved.

Barack Obama had a reroute, to some notable extent, in his 2008 Democratic path with winning the Electoral College. And, given everything noted here (including all these theories specifically concerning the people of the state of West Virginia), I don't think seeing winning Democrats (on a continuing pattern with 20 states not carrying) making do without West Virginia is regrettable. The state backed plenty of losing Democrats when the Republicans were the ones more liberal (and the Democrats more conservative). It's actually better for the policies of the 2008-going-forward Democrats, when they don't get a 40-state landslide, to let states like West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, and former prominent bellwether Tennessee—which adjusted their "partisan voting index" to leaning more decisively to the Republicans (they now are the more conservative of the two major parties)—fall to the opposition than to try to go back to the past for the sake of, maybe, winning about half these states in a presidential election in which, maybe, sees two-thirds of the nation's states carry for a winning Democrat.

Yeah, the Republicans were so much more liberal than the Democrats when they were running guys like Calvin Coolidge, running against the New Deal and nominating people like Goldwater and Reagan.  When are you going to read a book and stop pushing this "parties switched places" myth?

When you look at the states Abraham Lincoln carried in 1860, and then take a look at those same states on the electoral map of 2008, do you notice anything?

No sh^t, genius.  But most people here realize that things aren't that simple, and they don't boil down to some nifty little formula.  States change.  VT is one of the most liberal states in the union today, yet it backed CALVIN COOLIDGE and Ronald Reagan with huge margins ... the Republicans of the 1860s, for example, were clearly the more pro-business party and were clearly to the right of Democrats on immigration and moral issues.  Things are just simply not as simple as you make them out to be.

And the most amusing part about this is that you actually seem to think you're all teaching us something, LOL.  I'd love to hear your argument of how McKinley ran to the left of Bryan and Coolidge ran to the left of Davis just because Obama won and lost a certain set of states in 2008.

Is there any reason why you and Goldwater won't allow Rockefeller GOP to respond himself?

Is there any reason why you're being so bitchy about people responding to something you posted on a  publicly accessible internet forum?

False.

Rockefeller GOP responded to my post.

I asked Rockefeller GOP a question.

After that, you and RINO Tom posted responses as if you were both acting on behalf of Rockefeller GOP.

It is funny you think I am the one who is “bitchy.”

[DS0816]

Well, honestly RINO Tom did a fine job poking holes in your theory, but sure I'll respond.  Yeah, they're very different.  Wouldn't you agree that a threat of a CIVIL WAR might have had something to do with it?  To sum up something as unique as the Civil War into liberal and conservative sides shows an alarming ignorance.  Reagan won all those states, too, is he Barack Obama??  Lol.  The GOP has been unabashedly pro-business, puritanical and xenophobic since its formation, yet because they won different states then, they were "the more liberal" party?  You have to see how painfully simplistic your analysis is.  WV is considered a deep red state today yet voted for Dukakis, so if your neat little analysis was as rock solid as you act like, the Republicans would have been the "more liberal" party in 1988, or a far more likely explanation is that WV changed as a state and the politics in the state changed.

I mean you can't seriously, with a straight face, say the GOP of the '20s, '30s and '40s was to the left of the Democrats (an objectively false claim to anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge) just because during that time the Democrats had their best victory margins in the South ... Like seriously, that's hilarious if you think that.  I mean I get it: it fits your narrative, and it helps to ensure your sense of superiority if you can rewrite things so that the good guys (in history's eyes) are always the ones with "your views," but - again - that's hilariously simplistic.

I don't recall having stated that the Civil War was a battle between conservatives and liberals.

I also don't recall having stated that, with all the presidential elections of 1856 to 1988, every Republican nominee was more liberal than their Democratic opponent—and every Democratic nominee was more conservative than their Republican opponent.

My "narrative," if you want to insist that I have one, is about the voting patterns and the realigning—and the counter-realigning—of much of the electoral map. (I know you don't like my mentioning of the Old Confederacy states as being inferior. But, I'm not saying these states are inferior in general. I'm saying their reliability in voting for presidential winners, historically, is inferior. I even have a thread on that, here, @ https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=222186.msg4783698#msg4783698 . If you check it out, you can see my point.) I think most of the forum members on this site recognize this.