The notion that New England only votes Democratic these days because of nebulously-defined 'social issues', and doesn't have in fact very strong economically leftist and interventionist traditions that have pretty conclusively won out against the countervailing traditions in most parts of the region, and would be open to voting for Republicans again if only they would moderate on gay marriage/abortion/marijuana/whatever, is specious, to say the least.
Precisely. State Republican parties up here (sans New Hampshire) almost always run socially moderate-to-liberal candidates for statewide offices and they still have a hard time.
People simply don't vote on social issues to the extent that the media would have us believe. If you're running as a Democrat in most areas of New England, yes, you won't have an easy time making it past the primary if you're pro-life or oppose gay marriage, but that aside, these issues are not the most important to voters in the grand scheme of things.
I think it's totally absurd the way this forum uses social issues to categorize the regions by their political leanings. No, the Democrats aren't going to suddenly have a lock on the South again by being more socially conservative and the Republicans won't do better in the Northeast by doing the opposite.
