How would states vote if...

[bullmoose88]

They voted on solely voted on 1) Economic Issues, 2) Social Issues, 3) Foreign Policy...(maps if possible, with relative strength)...I'm curious to see something...

[Colin]

1) Economic Issues

2) Social Issues

Not really all that different from the actual election results. There weren't many Bush states that were socially moderate or liberal.

[bullmoose88]

You think NJ and CA (even NY) would vote democrat on economics? Well perhaps I'm just confused about NJ and CA...

That said, I think PA might be a bit more of a lean dem on economic issues, the Philly Burbs would definitely be Republican on that.

[TeePee4Prez]

Social:

PA, VA, and Upper Midwest close calls.

Economic:

CA, NJ, DE, MO, TN and CT close calls

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

1) Economic Issues

Minnesota is economically conservative? Yeah, you'd sure enjoy our tax rates.

[bullmoose88]

1) Economic Issues

Minnesota is economically conservative? Yeah, you'd sure enjoy our tax rates.

I don't believe he's talking about enacted policy, but instead, general preference of the state's electorate. That said, I think MN is economically liberal.

[Colin]

1) Economic Issues

Minnesota is economically conservative? Yeah, you'd sure enjoy our tax rates.

I don't believe he's talking about enacted policy, but instead, general preference of the state's electorate. That said, I think MN is economically liberal.

Tossup really. I didn't know where to put it. It has economically conservative suburbs in Minneapolis being cancelled out by the old mining and union areas in the Northeast around Lake Superior. Rural areas could break either way, in essence. It could go either way. Just as I think Texas, South Carolina, Tennesee and Wisconsin could. It's really hard to actually consider states economic policies considering that economics, as a major issues, hasn't been part of a presidential race since 1992.

[nclib]

I'm surprised to see North Carolina rated as economically liberal. We're tied for last in union membership.

[bullmoose88]

I'm surprised to see North Carolina rated as economically liberal. We're tied for last in union membership.

But aren't you guys pretty anti-NAFTA? which I think shouldn't be the only standard.

[nclib]

Yeah, but on domestic issues we're pretty economically conservative.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

1) Economic Issues

Minnesota is economically conservative? Yeah, you'd sure enjoy our tax rates.

I don't believe he's talking about enacted policy, but instead, general preference of the state's electorate. That said, I think MN is economically liberal.

Tossup really. I didn't know where to put it. It has economically conservative suburbs in Minneapolis being cancelled out by the old mining and union areas in the Northeast around Lake Superior. Rural areas could break either way, in essence. It could go either way. Just as I think Texas, South Carolina, Tennesee and Wisconsin could. It's really hard to actually consider states economic policies considering that economics, as a major issues, hasn't been part of a presidential race since 1992.

Most of the rural areas are economically populist. That's why they vote way more Democratic in state racs than national.

[Alcon]

Why are people saying Virginia and Montana are socially liberal?  Fairfax County is libertarian maybe, but still.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yeah there is no way in hell Virginia is socially liberal.

No socially liberal state would've given George Allen 49%

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

How funny. The dems win in both situations.

[FerrisBueller86]

If everyone voted based strictly on economic issues, would Republicans win anywhere other than the wealthy places?  I don't think there are many Paris Hilton wannabes in Utah, Idaho, or South Carolina.  I think Republicans would lose all 50 states.  The electoral map by county would look bizarre - the Republicans would win only the richest counties, which are in major metropolitan areas and lose just about everywhere else, even counties more Republican than Utah.

Is Virginia really that socially liberal?  I know northern Virginia is socially liberal, but I thought the rest of the state is as socially conservative as Mississippi, Alabama, or South Carolina.

Is Colorado that socially liberal?  Some of the maps show Colorado as more socially liberal than Wisconsin, a state that no Republican presidential nominee has won since the Reagan landslide of 1984.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Virginia is desouthernizing each decade lead by upper virginia.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I do not think NJ votes Republican in an all-economics elections.  Democrats have been winning here due to large in part union support in the state.  Combine that with the huge margins they recieve in Essex, Hudson, and Camden counties (they would go Dem no matter what) and I don't see a GOP canidate winning. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

economic

social

[bullmoose88]

I do not think NJ votes Republican in an all-economics elections.  Democrats have been winning here due to large in part union support in the state.  Combine that with the huge margins they recieve in Essex, Hudson, and Camden counties (they would go Dem no matter what) and I don't see a GOP canidate winning. 

I'd disagree...but you're more of an expert on NJ than I am...I'd say the primary reason NJ has gone away from the Republican fold (see 1968-1988) is the GOP's batsh**t crazy position on social issues. And if the GOP were as socially liberal as the democrats, (thus holding the social factor constant)...Republicans would likely win NJ...but given how far out the GOP is from the social mainstream in NJ...we really can't tell how the state would vote solely on economics.

[WMS]

Economic:

Image Link

CA, NJ, DE, MO, TN and CT close calls

NM as economically conservative? Uhh, sure.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I do not think NJ votes Republican in an all-economics elections.  Democrats have been winning here due to large in part union support in the state.  Combine that with the huge margins they recieve in Essex, Hudson, and Camden counties (they would go Dem no matter what) and I don't see a GOP canidate winning. 

I'd disagree...but you're more of an expert on NJ than I am...I'd say the primary reason NJ has gone away from the Republican fold (see 1968-1988) is the GOP's batsh**t crazy position on social issues. And if the GOP were as socially liberal as the democrats, (thus holding the social factor constant)...Republicans would likely win NJ...but given how far out the GOP is from the social mainstream in NJ...we really can't tell how the state would vote solely on economics.

New Jersey's changed a little bit as well with the rest of the suburban population in the US.  I think suburbans voters are more open to liberal economic stances than they were in the past.  How do you explain the massive shift to the Dems on the state level?  Our Republican canidates recently have always been more towards the NJ mainstream on social issues, yet they still lose time and time again.  Certainly there has been a change in the voter makeup in the state.  I think the one issue that can get NJ voters to support the GOP is security, and even that wasn't enough to get it close in 2004.   

[TeePee4Prez]

I do not think NJ votes Republican in an all-economics elections.  Democrats have been winning here due to large in part union support in the state.  Combine that with the huge margins they recieve in Essex, Hudson, and Camden counties (they would go Dem no matter what) and I don't see a GOP canidate winning. 

I'd disagree...but you're more of an expert on NJ than I am...I'd say the primary reason NJ has gone away from the Republican fold (see 1968-1988) is the GOP's batsh**t crazy position on social issues. And if the GOP were as socially liberal as the democrats, (thus holding the social factor constant)...Republicans would likely win NJ...but given how far out the GOP is from the social mainstream in NJ...we really can't tell how the state would vote solely on economics.

New Jersey's changed a little bit as well with the rest of the suburban population in the US.  I think suburbans voters are more open to liberal economic stances than they were in the past.  How do you explain the massive shift to the Dems on the state level?  Our Republican canidates recently have always been more towards the NJ mainstream on social issues, yet they still lose time and time again.  Certainly there has been a change in the voter makeup in the state.  I think the one issue that can get NJ voters to support the GOP is security, and even that wasn't enough to get it close in 2004.   

I'm more inclined to agree with that.  Back in the 1980s, GOP policies were not really affecting the white collar sectors too much and pre-Reagan tax rates were ridiculous which did affect these voters.  Since the Democrats moved to the center on economics, voters in places like NJ and suburban Philadelphia are more inclined to vote Democratic on both economic AND social issues, but still more social issues.  Simply put- if the Dems weren't gonna kill them on taxes, they'll vote that way. 

[Smash255]

I do not think NJ votes Republican in an all-economics elections.  Democrats have been winning here due to large in part union support in the state.  Combine that with the huge margins they recieve in Essex, Hudson, and Camden counties (they would go Dem no matter what) and I don't see a GOP canidate winning. 

I'd disagree...but you're more of an expert on NJ than I am...I'd say the primary reason NJ has gone away from the Republican fold (see 1968-1988) is the GOP's batsh**t crazy position on social issues. And if the GOP were as socially liberal as the democrats, (thus holding the social factor constant)...Republicans would likely win NJ...but given how far out the GOP is from the social mainstream in NJ...we really can't tell how the state would vote solely on economics.

New Jersey's changed a little bit as well with the rest of the suburban population in the US.  I think suburbans voters are more open to liberal economic stances than they were in the past.  How do you explain the massive shift to the Dems on the state level?  Our Republican canidates recently have always been more towards the NJ mainstream on social issues, yet they still lose time and time again.  Certainly there has been a change in the voter makeup in the state.  I think the one issue that can get NJ voters to support the GOP is security, and even that wasn't enough to get it close in 2004.   

.  While the most noticeable shift in the region politically has stemmed from social issues, the views on economic issues has changed as well.  That doesn't mean its economically liberal, but not nearly as economically conservative as it was more economically moderate.  Also amny people in the area feel the GOP economically now soley helps those at the very top, and many of those who are fairly well off have been turned off by it.  As a whole might still be GOP leaning in these areas on economic issues, much closer to the center than they use to be, meanwhile the urban areas of the state are still very Democratic on economic issues.

The hard core Republicanism on economic issues in the more suburban and more well off parts of the state iin the past made up for the staunch economic liberalsim in the urban areas and the state as a whole sided with the GOP on economic issues.  Now because the GOP advantage on economic issues is not nearly s large as it once was it no longer is able to make up for the staunch Dem advantage in the urban areas on economic isses.  So its Dem on ecomomics as well as a whole.

[HardRCafé]

No socially liberal state would've given George Allen 49%

No socially Conservative state would have touched Jim Webb with a ten-foot pole.

[Reignman]

Economic Issues

Image Link

Social Issues

Image Link

Foreign Policy

Image Link