How West Virginia has turned to a GOP stronghold?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Census keep shifting in TX, FL, NV, CO & AZ in which werr safe R holds in what are considered the Goldwater West and Dems are excelling in them & will win the House omce 2020 census is taken

It's somewhat strange that those states would be called the Goldwater west when Goldwater won only 1 of those 5 states.

It's also strange that anyone would consider Florida part of the West.

McCain coined it back in 08 as the Goldwater West. As McCain, Goldwater and the Cactus Corrider, including New Mexico, who supported Gary Johnson has moderate Republican roots. In 1968, Nixon swept all of them, since he ran against HHH, instead of RFK. In which NM and NJ would have put Dems in WH.

[Rockefeller GOP]

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?

[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?

[Goldwater]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Goldwater]

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?

[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.”

[RFayette]

A couple of things are at work.

It would be incredibly difficult to overstate the influence coal's decline has had on West Virginia's politics. West Virginia Democrats never actively disavowed their national party on the coal issue. The UMW didn't necessarily collapse with the mines, but their organization collapsed because they continued to support national Democrats in direct contrast to what benefits coal and their members. The UMW essentially committed suicide, with an overwhelming percentage of its members being retirees who are losing their benefits to bankruptcy.

Cultural issues are also an incredible, incredible rightward pressure on voters. The assumption for a long time has been that WV Democrats are cultural conservatives. That's certainly what they ran on. But they made these pro-life promises for so long that unrest began around 2008 in the country churches with folks asking why, after electing all people that say they're pro-life , are abortions legal in the ninth month courtesy of the taxpayer. This sort of 'why aren't you delivering?' mentality began to shift the organizational power toward the Republicans.

It's also important to highlight that Democrats couldn't touch the traditional Republican base. The upper middle class on up has always been a strongly Republican constituency. The Democrats couldn't compete there. There were also certain parts of the state which were Republican before the state began to move. There has always been a powerful sense of political inertia, meaning that communities favor incumbents so they all line up with the incumbent power. Chinks in the incumbency armor favor Republicans and they have been occurring at an ever increasing rate.

While the politics on the ground has resulted in much of the movement toward the Republican Party, the Democratic leadership has essentially kissed Appalachia goodbye. Think of who controls the Democratic Party: folks whose only political ideology is social liberalism. They're views on society and culture are derived from liberalism. They're views on work and money are informed by social liberalism. This creates a permanent disdain for Appalachian people.

How many times have liberals mockingly called West Virginia a taker state voting against their own government-dependent interests because they're dumb and racist? Every time they discuss my people. The economic promise of the Democratic Party used to be about work, unions, and stopping the government from screwing the working man. Today, the economic promise of the Democratic Party is of wielding government power to screw over the rich to give out free things. Republicans in WV used to be a very patrician party. Today the Republicans will say, 'We care about your work. We want to prevent government from screwing you over in the form of EPA regs. We don't like the union much but we do support your cultural values.'

You must also consider the type of work done by the old members of the Democratic majority. They mined coal in the south, cut timber in the middle, and worked steel in the north. Everyone was sore after a day of work. The first Democratic message resonated with these guys. The second one, not so much. Try justifying taxing those guys to provide free stuff to those who don't work. I can't tell you how many times I've heard, 'I don't have a high school diploma but I can keep my family fed, what's their excuse?'

TLDR; The Democratic Party left us. They don't care about us. We finally realized that.

Elitism has hammered the Democrats in many such places, and it has only worsened their appeal as they have dropped much of what used to make them so appealing to appeal to their new voters and the former Republicans who have joined them in places like the Northeast. Adding to the problem is that the Democrats don't think they need these states anymore, which means it likely will not change anytime soon.

Agreed. 

Folks who have shifted to the GOP over the past 30 years:  Evangelicals and conservative Protestants, rural residents, folks with just a high-school degree, blue-collar skilled workers, energy-sector employees
Folks who've shifted Democratic:  folks with post-graduate degrees, Asians, urban/inner suburban residents

The perceptions of the two parties have changed markedly because of these shifts.  I don't think anyone would say voting GOP would make you "uneducated" in the 1950's, but it could just mean that you are "filthy rich and greedy."  While the latter attack is still in play today, you see far more of the former ("uneducated") than the latter at this point.

[Sumner 1868]

If we sum it up to environmentalism and cultural issues, then why did Hillary Clinton lead McCain in the state throughout 2008 polling despite having little difference in these areas from Gore and Kerry? We're they simply less interested in these issues because of Iraq and the recession?

[Rockefeller GOP]

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.”

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.

[VPH]

Don't know how much blame can be placed on racial issues. A bunch of counties swung to Obama from 2004. They're not counties with a high black population either...

[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.

[tschandler]

A couple of things are at work.

It would be incredibly difficult to overstate the influence coal's decline has had on West Virginia's politics. West Virginia Democrats never actively disavowed their national party on the coal issue. The UMW didn't necessarily collapse with the mines, but their organization collapsed because they continued to support national Democrats in direct contrast to what benefits coal and their members. The UMW essentially committed suicide, with an overwhelming percentage of its members being retirees who are losing their benefits to bankruptcy.

Cultural issues are also an incredible, incredible rightward pressure on voters. The assumption for a long time has been that WV Democrats are cultural conservatives. That's certainly what they ran on. But they made these pro-life promises for so long that unrest began around 2008 in the country churches with folks asking why, after electing all people that say they're pro-life , are abortions legal in the ninth month courtesy of the taxpayer. This sort of 'why aren't you delivering?' mentality began to shift the organizational power toward the Republicans.

It's also important to highlight that Democrats couldn't touch the traditional Republican base. The upper middle class on up has always been a strongly Republican constituency. The Democrats couldn't compete there. There were also certain parts of the state which were Republican before the state began to move. There has always been a powerful sense of political inertia, meaning that communities favor incumbents so they all line up with the incumbent power. Chinks in the incumbency armor favor Republicans and they have been occurring at an ever increasing rate.

While the politics on the ground has resulted in much of the movement toward the Republican Party, the Democratic leadership has essentially kissed Appalachia goodbye. Think of who controls the Democratic Party: folks whose only political ideology is social liberalism. They're views on society and culture are derived from liberalism. They're views on work and money are informed by social liberalism. This creates a permanent disdain for Appalachian people.

How many times have liberals mockingly called West Virginia a taker state voting against their own government-dependent interests because they're dumb and racist? Every time they discuss my people. The economic promise of the Democratic Party used to be about work, unions, and stopping the government from screwing the working man. Today, the economic promise of the Democratic Party is of wielding government power to screw over the rich to give out free things. Republicans in WV used to be a very patrician party. Today the Republicans will say, 'We care about your work. We want to prevent government from screwing you over in the form of EPA regs. We don't like the union much but we do support your cultural values.'

You must also consider the type of work done by the old members of the Democratic majority. They mined coal in the south, cut timber in the middle, and worked steel in the north. Everyone was sore after a day of work. The first Democratic message resonated with these guys. The second one, not so much. Try justifying taxing those guys to provide free stuff to those who don't work. I can't tell you how many times I've heard, 'I don't have a high school diploma but I can keep my family fed, what's their excuse?'

TLDR; The Democratic Party left us. They don't care about us. We finally realized that.

That pretty much explains the entire country without calling people racists (and I get that a lot being Alabamian).  Basically Social and Fiscal conservatism coalesced.   And Democrats held on for a long time in Red States by saying "I'm different".  They were usually political legacy's.  But it wasn't going to last forever.   

[Rockefeller GOP]

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.

You literally said "when the Republicans were the more liberal party."  I personally don't think that using "conservative" and "liberal" is overly responsible pre-New Deal, but to the extent that it is, I think the Republicans have pretty clearly been to the right of the Democrats since 1896 (I'd argue before, but 1896 is the pretty clear starting point from most people's views).  It's near impossible to argue that McKinley wasn't well to the right of Bryan, but he won the Northeast while Bryan's liberalism played quite well in the Old Confederacy.  FDR was very liberal and won the South by huge margins while never winning VT or ME.  Barry Goldwater was quite conservative and ONLY won the Deep South.  Of course the map changed and will someday change again, but it's disingenuous to say "the parties switched places."  It's just not true.  Pro-business and moralistic policies were a lot more popular in the WASP-filled Northeast of the 1800s than they are in the quite diverse Northeast of today.  Fiscal liberalism and the New Deal were incredibly popular in the agrarian South of the 1930s, but they started to lose their appeal as the Southern suburbs began to grow and its economy modernized...  All these states are VERY different places than they were back in the day.  The "map" and the "parties" are only a piece of the equation.

[Gass3268]

The idea that the EPA or Democrats killed coal is a joke. The new extraction technologies (fracturing and horizontal drilling) and the rise of American natural gas killed coal. Gas is cheaper and burns cleaner. Its the free market at work. EPA regulations or not, gas was going to sink coal.

That being said I'm not going to disagree with some of the statements here, as an urban/suburban Democrat I really don't care that we've lost the support of Appalachia. I'll make the trade for the growing coastal south (FL, GA, NC, SC, & VA) and southwest (AZ, CO, NM, & NV) any day of the week. West Virginia will be down to only 2 House Reps and 4 electoral votes in 2020. Both Nevada and New Mexico (both strong lean Dem states) matter more than West Virginia. Seems like a deal to me.

[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."

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

2008 & 2012 were realigning elections, I think 2016, since terrorism changed the tenor of the election, it will return to form and 2000 & 2004 election will be norm for time being.  In which SW, and Rust belt without Appalachia will be owned by Clinton.

[Asian Nazi]

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."

No I think what's more disturbing is that this thread, full of supposedly informed individuals, is already buying into these lies and crafting ridiculous narratives.

[Rockefeller GOP]

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."

No I think what's more disturbing is that this thread, full of supposedly informed individuals, is already buying into these lies and crafting ridiculous narratives.

Explain ?  Not saying you're wrong, but details on your opinion would be nice...

[Asian Nazi]

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."

No I think what's more disturbing is that this thread, full of supposedly informed individuals, is already buying into these lies and crafting ridiculous narratives.

Explain ?  Not saying you're wrong, but details on your opinion would be nice...

I posted a textwall earlier in this thread detailing my position already:

The rise (during and after the New Deal Era) and collapse (since the 1980s) of labor unions as a social and political force has played a predominant factor in changing West Virginia's political alignment over time.  Now, West Virginia has always been a culturally conservative place.  It separated from Virginia in order to stay in the Union (making it a Republican state), but then became a conservative Democrat bastion during the Reconstruction Era as it resisted what it viewed as overreach by the federal government.  Then, over time, it slowly transitioned into a conservative Republican state once again.  It was the New Deal Era and the rise of labor unions that made it such a strong Democratic state from 1932 onwards. 

In the recent past, these unions played a central role in the lives of West Virginians for their members, the families of their members, and the communities that the members lived in.  Once the unions collapsed as a force in West Virginia, there was little reason for culturally conservative West Virginians to back a Democratic Party which had little values in common with them.  Some switched to the Republican Party, but many stopped voting altogether without unions bringing them to the polls, which is why turnout has collapsed in the state. 

The state Democratic Party managed to hold on a bit better, but the social and political realignment of the region seems to be getting to them too.  The Republicans just took the State Legislature for the first time in 80+ years and looks set to take the governorship next year.  It wouldn't shock me if the West Virginia Democratic Party goes the way of the Tennessee Democrats in a decade or so.

But basically the "muh environmentalism" and "muh negroes" are symptoms, rather than causes of the decline of the national Democratic Party in Greater Appalachia.  And really the decline of organized labor around the entire country has shifted America to an increasingly postmaterialist political paradigm, where income no longer predicts partisan support among white voters and the vast majority of political debate revolves around a handful of cultural issues.

[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.

[DINGO Joe]

I've written about the unpleasantness of WV in other threads and here I go again.

Current WV politics are driven by desperation, lies and ego.

Well, the history books will talk about coal because that is what WV in the 20th Century is all about.

A few facts:

--WV is the only state with fewer people than in 1950.  There are really two WV.  The Eastern panhandle which mines no coal and is part of the I-81 corridor/Wash exurbs.  The population there has gained 125,000 since 1950 and has gone from 3% of the state to 10%.  The rest of the state has lost 280,000 people. 

--WV was one of the youngest states in 1950 and now is the third oldest (behind Florida and Maine) http://www.be.wvu.edu/bber/pdfs/BBER-2014-04.pdf

--It ranks at the top or in the top three of states in the following categories:

Disability
Drug Overdose deaths (by far)
Adults who self medicate daily
Smoking
Obesity
Fewest Adults with college degree
Accidental deaths

WV lack of health and their age results in a death rate 15% higher than the next state.  Despite having the 6th highest teen birth rate, the overall birthrate for WV is below average (the only state in the top 10 teen births to pull off that feat).  Again, there are two WV as the East Panhandle is younger and healthier, it has 750 more births than deaths, while the rest of the state has 2500 more deaths than births.

Their current workforce looks like this:



I don't have separate numbers for East panhandle, but they are younger and have fewer disability cases than the national average meaning that the rest of WV is even worse than it looks in that graph above. 

Let turn to geography.

WV has a very difficult terrain to maintain infrastructure.  Many, many coal towns have been completely abandoned after the coal ran out.  Because of the terrain and the transitory nature of coal towns much of the infrastructure built tended to be bare minimum.  The infrastructure that has survived is stretched across fewer people to pay for it's maintenance  or upgrading to modern standards.  Think of Detroit if it were stretched across mountains and hollows.

Coal mining jobs in WV peaked just before 1950 at around 120,000 were at 22,000 in 2008 and have dropped to around 16,000 this year.  Coal jobs have declined for many reasons, technology, Wyoming coal, natural gas, more than one environmental movement (who can forget acid rain).  There has never been a lack of a villain.   So, WV has been combating declining coal jobs for seven decades now.  Of course, their number one weapon for several decades was Sen. Robert Byrd and he dragged in anything he could for WV, not just much needed money for roads or water systems, but an FBI crime lab, a NASA facility, more than one Naval facility (think about that) so many federal prisons that almost 11,000 residents of the state (for census purposes) are federal prisoners.

But Senator Byrd is gone and there is no one with the fraction of the clout or skill to replace him and in fact one of the naval facilities recently closed (and despite a local politician's efforts, was not converted into a prison). 

As for private development.  Well, WV has very difficult terrain, an iffy infrastructure complicated by terrain,  an old, disabled, declining work force with a wide variety of health issues.  also, an educational attainment level that limits the state to more basic industries and jobs.  Again the Eastern Panhandle is the exception due to it not being like the rest of the state and being located along a vibrant corridor.

It's easy to see why they cling so fanatically to coal and in my next post I'll explain why that ain't gonna work, and why those that tell them otherwise (pretty much every politician in the state) are steaming bags of inks.