How West Virginia has turned to a GOP stronghold?

[RINO Tom]

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.

[RINO Tom]

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.

Goldwater was clearly making a joke, referencing how people who voted for Lincoln are, you know, long dead and the politics of that era aren't relevant at all.

[RINO Tom]

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, it's just a comment: think of how many reasons everyone is throwing out here, all with a DEGREE of truth behind them.  Yet, in 80-90 years when the pundits and historians discuss what turned WV blue (Atlas red), there will be some simplified reason so that it can fit in a textbook for high school students, and everyone will grow up believing that.  Hence why many (though not even close to a majority) can make alarmingly simplistic assumptions like "the South is conservative now and has always liked states' rights, and Lincoln used big government, so the Union was liberal and the South was conservative, and getting rid of slavery was liberal, and wanting to keep it was conservative, and therefore the Republicans were the liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives in the 1860s."  it helps little third graders learn US history, but it completely ignores things like the rise in Northern evangelism (and some of the most conservative religious denominations like the Quakers) being the driving force behind abolitionism or the Southern Democrats completely sh^tting on "small government" and "states' rights" when it didn't suit their racism (i.e., supporting the Dred Scott decision).

Anyway, it reminds me of a great quote once uttered by Napoleon Bonaparte:

"History is a set of lies agreed upon."

[RINO Tom]

^ Agreed.  My long post was just making the point that whatever most people start to think/want the narrative to be, that's likely what will be remembered.

[RINO Tom]

It was always a Dixiecrat state, but Robert C Byrd kept it in the Democratic column, and so did Jay Rockefeller.  It voted for Carter, LBJ, JFK, Truman & Clinton. It became a GOP, after Byrd.

Yeah at the state level WV became GOP after Byrd died.

It's still not "GOP" at the state level.