West Virginia

[Joe Republic]

Going from one of the Democratic stronghold states - one of the few that voted for Dukakis - to a fairly solid GOP state, could WV vote for a Democrat in the near future?

[phk]

Yes

[FerrisBueller86]

I think West Virginia will be a state that only votes Democratic in a Democratic landslide.  In fact, I think Virginia is more likely to vote Democratic than West Virginia.

[Rob]

I have to say, I was stunned when Bush carried WV by such a big margin. I knew he was going to win there, but I thought by 4-5 points, not 13.

In response to the question, maybe. Bayh would be competitive there, as would several other Democrats, but the state now has a solid GOP lean in presidential elections.

[Akno21]

It depends on the candidate. Anyone with an aristocratic image, has no chance.

[Alcon]

It has to be a down-to-earth midwestern or southern populist. And I'm not talking John Edwards.

[opebo]

West Virginians are now voting their prejudices rather than their economic interests.  They are Born Again!

[zachman]

Manchin, Bredensen and Warner could be competitive there.

[nclib]

W.V. will (for the foreseeable future) vote Democratic only in a landslide or with the right type of Democrat.

W.V. is one of only a few states to drift rightward (compared to) the national average in Presidential Elections every year since 1988.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

West Virginia will vote democratic if the Dems can nominate someone who taps into the middle class and poorer Americans like they used to.  Kerry is an elite New Englander, he didn't have a chance in WV. 

Ex. If Clinton were to run again, he'd win WV easily.  I also think Edwards would've carried WV rather easily. 

[TeePee4Prez]

It has to be a down-to-earth midwestern or southern populist. And I'm not talking John Edwards.

Agreed and we may be talking western PA as well.  Southeastern PA will just smack the GOP down hard hence the Demscarry the state.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes

I'll have to be brief as I've got to go in a minute but...

1. WV does not do "trends". In 1988, Dukakis won WV on the back of Caperton's coattails (or Bush I lost on the back of Arch Moore's coattails...), had it been a normal gubernatorial election that year, Bush I would have won WV. In 2000, despite being in theory an ideal candidate to win WV, Gore managed to lose because he thought he'd locked the state up and didn't bother with it, which allowed the Bush campaign to gut him on two wedge issues (Coal, Guns). Last year, Kerry was doing well in WV (better than expected, btw) until the late summer when his campaign did a messy pull out to Ohio, PA and VA (why?) which REALLY upset a lot of people who had put in a lot of effort for him (local Party and UMW bosses). If Kerry had never even bothered with WV he would have lost by a little more than Gore did... as opposed to what actually happend
He then made a bad situation worse by failing to campaign on economics and instead being an idiot and campaigning on wedge issues and foreign policy.
Drawing trends out of WV is idiotic.
2. WV is NOT, repeat NOT a Religious Right stronghold. There is a deep mistrust of ministers/preachers etc. in Central Appalachia generally and West Virginia especially.
3. Because of 1. there was a bad coalfield turnout
4. 59-61% of WV voters are Democrats

more tomorrow...

[ian]

I think a southerner (not an Al Gore 'southerner') could take West Virginia.  I don't think that they are pro-Republican; I just think they are anti-liberal Democrat.

[Jake]

It has to be a down-to-earth midwestern or southern populist. And I'm not talking John Edwards.

Agreed and we may be talking western PA as well.  Southeastern PA will just smack the GOP down hard hence the Demscarry the state.

Over the next ten years, as Bucks, Berks, Montco, etc turn more Democratic, West PA are just going to turn more Republican, and as Murtha and Doyle retire, Democrats are going to lose their hold on those seats. 

[Notre Dame rules!]

opebo,

By the same token, it can be said that every Blue State is voting its prejudices against Christianity.  I would consider both instances to be over generalizations.   People vote their values, not their prejudices.  It seems, however, that the values of the Red States are not the same as those of the Blue States.

[Umengus]

The majority on this forum agree: West Virginia is a state for a populist guy as John Edwards, not for an elitist as "Jean F. chéri".

[Joe Republic]

I don't think that they are pro-Republican; I just think they are anti-liberal Democrat.

But let's not forget that WV was one of the few states that voted for Michael Dukakis.  How many times were people constantly reminded of his liberalism during that election?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't think that they are pro-Republican; I just think they are anti-liberal Democrat.

But let's not forget that WV was one of the few states that voted for Michael Dukakis.  How many times were people constantly reminded of his liberalism during that election?

Dukakis only won WV because of Caperton's coattails though.
Besides being a "liberal" isn't a problem in WV (look at Senator Rockefeller), the problem comes when a liberal campaigns on wedge issues instead of bread and butter issues and is seen as too anti-military.

[Gustaf]

I don't think that they are pro-Republican; I just think they are anti-liberal Democrat.

But let's not forget that WV was one of the few states that voted for Michael Dukakis.  How many times were people constantly reminded of his liberalism during that election?

Dukakis only won WV because of Caperton's coattails though.
Besides being a "liberal" isn't a problem in WV (look at Senator Rockefeller), the problem comes when a liberal campaigns on wedge issues instead of bread and butter issues and is seen as too anti-military.

"Liberal" is such a confusing word in the US really...but being left-winged on economics certainly isn't a problem in WV, on the contrary. It's, as you say, being too elitist, socially liberal and, perhaps above all, "weak" in a broad sense.