something to consider

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Many historians have historically accredited slavery as the primary cause to the civil war, but i actually have a slightly more complex theory and that same theory can truly be applied today, observe:

In 1860 most southern states did not have Abraham Lincoln on the ballot for president and the south unanimosuly voted against him. His election broke the camals back therefore becuase the south felt it had lost its voice in american politics, and it more or less did considering Lincoln did not even carry all of the northern states just a majority of them, they suceceded

Today the north picked John Kerry, and the west did also, yet Bush won the election based on the cultural (not policy based) voting tendencies of the south. i think northerners probably feel very much taken adavantage of as their voice in american politics has basically taken a back seat to the south and midwest who vote simply based on regional heritage rather than the policy of the leader

It is a sad day when america only changes two states in an election showcasing the most controversial president (polls show americans either love him or hate him vehemently) in our generation. Is there nothing left but regionalism in this country?

[Nbadan]

It is a sad day when america only changes two states in an election showcasing the most controversial president (polls show americans either love him or hate him vehemently) in our generation. Is there nothing left but regionalism in this country?

Unfortunately no. The South will never vote for a Northerner as President. I don't care if it was the reincarnation of Lincoln himself.

This is why efforts to preportionalize a State electoral votes based on the number of votes a candidate receives is so important, but it needs to be a National change in the college electoral process

[RobinsontoDuncan]

why can a group of people vote for a president soley based on his region of origin rather than his policy, jesus for more years of Bush and we might as well give sucede into canada, at least they think strait there.

[Spurminator]

Many historians have historically accredited slavery as the primary cause to the civil war

Actually, most 7th Grade history teachers do that... Historians know better.

i think northerners probably feel very much taken adavantage of as their voice in american politics has basically taken a back seat to the south and midwest who vote simply based on regional heritage rather than the policy of the leader

This sounds strikingly like, "Southerners voted for Bush because they're stupid, Northerners voted for Kerry because they're informed about the issues." And that's bull . Very few Americans on either side of the aisle pay a whole lot of attention to politics. Most people vote for whoever their parents voted for. Democrat or Republican. There are vastly different opinions on the government's role in our lives, and it varies by region and by rural/urban locations. Let's not pretend that it's just the Republicans who are voting along cultural lines.

Politics is simply another sport for people to entertain themselves by. CNN and Fox News, for many, are simply non-sports ESPN networks. People attach themselves to a candidate or party as they would a sports team, and they root for them so they can have bragging rights at the office or the bar. I think we can all say we're guilty of this to some degree.

The South will never vote for a Northerner as President.

Well, except for Ronald Reagan (MA), George W. Bush (CT), George H.W. Bush (CT), Richard Nixon (CA)....

The South would vote for an Alaskan as long as he was Republican.

why can a group of people vote for a president soley based on his region of origin rather than his policy, jesus for more years of Bush and we might as well give sucede into canada, at least they think strait there.

Then go. Who's stopping you?

[RobinsontoDuncan]

the avearge historian equates the civil war with states' rights (or the right to choose whether slave or free) and to some small degree put tarriffs as well as the aristocracy's hold over southern politics as the focal point of the conflict.

[Hook Dem]

why can a group of people vote for a president soley based on his region of origin rather than his policy, jesus for more years of Bush and we might as well give sucede into canada, at least they think strait there.

This is your second invitation to go and I hope you do so but we all know you are just spewing bull .

[Marcus Bryant]

Today the north picked John Kerry, and the west did also

Not all of the West did.

Your theory is a tad bit too simple given the significant number of Kerry supporters in Bush states and vice versa. (Also it is basically a retread of what one can find on CNN). Sure, there are some regional differences which translate into election results but when a state's popular vote is split 55-45 I don't see that as evidence of a monolithic 'blue' or 'red' voting bloc. Sure, there is a majority, but there is also a sizable dissenting minority in most of those states, blue or red.

Looking at the South, if you want to know why the GOP has increased its strength in states like Texas over the past 20 years it has been due to the explosive growth in the suburbs of its major cities. Voters living in those burbs are more likely to be college educated, married, and with kids. These voters do not fit the stereotypical image of rednecks living in trailer parks beating their wives while getting plastered on PBR and reliving the Civil War every day.

It was not Kerry's pedigree which lost him the election. It was his stances on policy and his ability, or should I say his inability, to consistenly articulate a consistent position.

As long as your side continues to believe that your candidate lost the election due to a bunch of rednecks living in trailer parks and getting plastered on PBR then there will be more electoral defeats in the near future.

Spurm is right. We've heard your tripe before. But please continue to express it as often as you like.

[Jekka]

Yeah, you can't blame a solitary cause for any war ... slavery was largely a moral appeal to the north to get them to fight, it was a convenient time to finally demand emancipation, and it was better motivation for notherners than "the other side is complaining they don't have a voice." However, it was also motivation to a lesser degree for the South, seeing as how racial based slavery is mostly an American-created ins ution developed from earlier colonial times, pretty much engrained in its citizens from day one. Southern conservatives never have liked change.

[JoeChalupa]

No matter where I live I vote for the candidate of my choice.
This blue & red state crap gets on my nerves.
I live in the United States not the the red & blue states.
Born in the south, raised in the north, now living back in the south and during the whole time I've always been a democrat.
Yeah, that's right.

[Marcus Bryant]

The problem with that notion is that the GOP's gains in the South have been due in no small part to the rise of the suburban class. Texas is a prime example. If Texas was going to go Republican because of Civil Rights movement of the 60s then it wouldn't have taken until the 1990s for that to happen.

I would say that the Demos would be quite surprised to see just who is still voting for them in the South. A lot of people do continue to vote their economic interest, regardless of how they feel about race.

People seem to forget that the 'Old South' was populist and not traditionally conservative when it came to economic issues. To say that the South has always been economically conservative is to err. Old "Southern conservatives" are more likely to still possess a populist view of the world and are also much more likely to vote Democrat to this day.

The comic book version of a South which has never changed peddled by some ignores the fact that the South has experienced rather significant growth over the last couple of decades. Texas is a prime example. Others are Georgia and North Carolina.

[FromWayDowntown]

jesus for more years of Bush and we might as well give sucede into canada, at least they think strait there.

Uh, maybe it's just me, but this clause doesn't exactly make a great case for contending that Bush voters suffer from some sort of intellectual (or, at least, grammatical) inferiority.

[Hook Dem]

Uh, maybe it's just me, but this clause doesn't exactly make a great case for contending that Bush voters suffer from some sort of intellectual (or, at least, grammatical) inferiority.

Nope! I saw it too!

[Nbadan]

Looking at the South, if you want to know why the GOP has increased its strength in states like Texas over the past 20 years it has been due to the explosive growth in the suburbs of its major cities. Voters living in those burbs are more likely to be college educated, married, and with kids. These voters do not fit the stereotypical image of rednecks living in trailer parks beating their wives while getting plastered on PBR and reliving the Civil War every day.

I think Marcus is trying to displace his experience in SA all over the rest of the South. Yes, the Republicans have a current strangle-hold on the South, and on suburban areas, but Progressives have also recently increased their constiuencies in the South in areas like Atlanta, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, Florida, and other parts of the South that have taken the time and money to revitilize their urban centers rather than just move behind gated communities in the burbs. In fact, study after study has shown that voters in blue states make more, and pay more taxes than voters in Red states. Huh? how can that be if all the married, rich, white folks are living in red suburbs?

Look at the map of the 2004 election. Every major city that serves as a metropolitan area for the international exchange of Ideas, where international businessmen do busniess, were the most foreigners come to visit, and where social progressiveness isn't villafied, went overwhelmingly Democratic. That's no coincidence. Republicans like to boast about how they are the most educated, the most reasoned, the real thinkers of this generation, but reality has consistently shown that economically it has been the red states and their constiuencies ridding on the backs of the blue states and their constiuencies who aren't the least boastful or resentful about it. It's also the liberals who don't watch Fox news who overwhelmingly get the facts right.

[Marcus Bryant]

I think Marcus is trying to displace his experience in SA

First off I said Texas (along with other states) and secondly it's not just my experience in SA.

all over the rest of the South. Yes, the Republicans have a current strangle-hold on the South, and on suburban areas, but Progressives have also recently increased their constiuencies in the South in areas like Atlanta, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, Florida, and other parts of the South that have taken the time and money to revitilize their urban centers rather than just move behind gated communities in the burbs.

Ok you seem to get it.

In fact, study after study has shown that voters in blue states make more, and pay more taxes than voters in Red states. Huh? how can that be if all the married, rich, white folks are living in red suburbs?

Now that's a bit vague, to say the least. Again, this is a problem with assuming that just because a state is "red" or "blue" that all of the state's characteristics can be aligned with one party.

Case in point: Minnesota. The GOP has made huge gains in that state over the last decade, primarily in the suburban parts of Minneapolis-St. Paul. Now it's a "blue" state and perhaps has a significantly higher per capita income than some "red" states yet it's in the 'burbs in which the GOP fortunes are improving.

Also, it's not just "married, rich, white" folks living in the suburbs who are voting GOP. Nice stereotyping though.

But you do manage to highlight one reason why incomes are higher. The cost of living is higher. It's also a reason why the suburban South continues to grow, for employers don't have to worry about the impact of local taxes on employee compensation driving away quality candidates.

Look at the map of the 2004 election. Every major city that serves as a metropolitan area for the international exchange of Ideas, where international businessmen do busniess, were the most foreigners come to visit, and where social progressiveness isn't villafied, went overwhelmingly Democratic.

You mean like DFW and Houston? Atlanta? Look at Buckhead. Again, the GOP has become the majority party in the South (and Southwest) because of the increasingly affluent and fast growing suburban parts of those states.

Also, surely Detroit and Philly would meet your standard for "major" cities which went "overwhelmingly Democratic."

That's no coincidence. Republicans like to boast about how they are the most educated, the most reasoned, the real thinkers of this generation,

Actually I don't recall Republicans 'boasting' that. That is a rather odd observation, to say the least.

The one thing I do recall is that the exit poll data (which according to you is ironclad) I have seen for this recently passed election day showed that Bush won among voters with a college degree and with incomes over $50K. Who voted for Kerry? The poor, the old, and those without a high school diploma. Now which group is more likely to fit the profile of a redneck living in a trailer home?

but reality has consistently shown that economically it has been the red states and their constiuencies ridding on the backs of the blue states and their constiuencies who aren't the least boastful or resentful about it.

Oh really? Then why is it that the "red" states continue to grow in population and economic base while states like California and Michigan continue to experience declines? It's because those states are losing jobs, professional jobs to those "red" states. Why? Lower taxes, quality workforce, etc. Where are those companies setting up shop in those red states? Again, in the 'burbs.

It's also the liberals who don't watch Fox news who overwhelmingly get the facts right.

Actually, the more those "liberals" want to assume that the only people who voted for Bush are trailer trash and voice that opinion vociferously then I think they will continue to lose presidential elections.

[ChumpDumper]

Then why is it that the "red" states continue to grow in population and economic base while states like California and Michigan continue to experience declines?

Cali and Michigan both had population increases the last three years according the census bureau, California having by far the largest net gain of residents by far.

[Marcus Bryant]

Then I should have said declining population growth.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/

Michigan's population growth lagged the national average over the period from 4-1-00 to 7-1-03, at least according to the Census Bureau's estimates.

As for California, it was higher than the national average yet Texas and Georgia's growth surpassed that during that period. The ranking you were looking at was just simply overall population rank, not population growth rank.

State population changes are a minor point, yet the major point about the transfer of jobs from those states to the suburban areas of the "red states" remains, as well as the linkage of the fortunes of the GOP with suburban growth remains.

A better indicator of the growth in the suburbs of the South and Southwest is found at the MSA level. That data is from 1990-99, but it does show the strong growth in metro DFW, Houston, Atlanta, and Charlotte, for example.

[scott]

Great post, Spurm. The politics as a spectator sport analogy is, sadly, a very accurate one.

[ChumpDumper]

Politics is show business for ugly people.

[Hook Dem]

Politics is show business for ugly people.

And here is the proof! Dan in his own world.

[Nbadan]

Also, it's not just "married, rich, white" folks living in the suburbs who are voting GOP. Nice stereotyping though.

Statics show that caucasions are a large part of the suburban movement. Yes there is a small but growing representation of blacks, hispanics, and Asians, but by in large surbanites are caucasion. Go take a drive on the far north, east, or west side of SA and tell me that minorities are represented in equal numbers as they are represented in urban parts of the city.

More importantly though, is that these families are very likely to attend the same churches, Caucasion, Hispanics, Asians, and Blacks. So not only do most suburbanites have a joined built in defense mechinism against paying higher taxes, I mean thats why most of them moved to the burbs to begin with, right? Every Sunday they listen to the same message, over and over again, about gays and gay marriage, about secularism, about Islam, about Armegetton, about prophecy. Its no wonder the church crowd played such a big part in the 04 Presidential election - they were scared -less by the right.

[Nbadan]

You mean like DFW and Houston? Atlanta? Look at Buckhead. Again, the GOP has become the majority party in the South (and Southwest) because of the increasingly affluent and fast growing suburban parts of those states.

Dallas and Houston are major business hubs, but in both those cities caucasions still live in sizeable numbers in urban areas on top of dominating the growth of the burbs, Have you been to Sugarland lately? However, its not just affluent Southerners who are relocating to the burbs, its also Eastern liberals who are relocating to the South and they don't just leave their political leanings at the door. Yes, they are vastly out-numbered by surburba traditionalists, but the South isn't the complete lock it used to be even just a few years ago. Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, Florida, and West Virginia all had Kerry leading in the polls at one time. A Northerner winning a Southern state, can you imagine that?

[Nbadan]

The one thing I do recall is that the exit poll data (which according to you is ironclad) I have seen for this recently passed election day showed that Bush won among voters with a college degree and with incomes over $50K. Who voted for Kerry? The poor, the old, and those without a high school diploma. Now which group is more likely to fit the profile of a redneck living in a trailer home?

Kerry also got the most votes from those with PHD's. So what? Democrats are the minority party, 63% of hispanics, 80% of blacks, 52% of women voted Kerry, and despite some progress in personal income distribution in the U.S. in recent years, minorities as a group still make less than Caucasions. So it's not surprising that Democrats as a group make less than Republicans.

The real difference is that Northern states help to take care of their minority, elderly, and poor populations with higher local taxes and also pay higher National Income taxes to help pay for the minority, elderly and poor in Red states.

[Marcus Bryant]

Kerry also got the most votes from those with PHD's. So what? Democrats are the minority party, 63% of hispanics, 80% of blacks, 52% of women voted Kerry, and despite some progress in personal income distribution in the U.S. in recent years, minorities as a group still make less than Caucasions. So it's not surprising that Democrats as a group make less than Republicans.

Yet it is suprising given that supposedly it was the "rich" hoodwinking unsuspecting ignorant trailer trash with patriotic and religious baiting to vote Republican that won Bush the election. You have, along with a host of other lefties, forgotten that the GOP is pretty strong among those who are married college educated professionals. Certainly not the profile of the ignorant voting against their economic interest which you like to peddle.

Also, enough with the racism already. Those individuals who happen to be non-caucasian are certainly capable of economically succeeding in a professional environment.

Also your stat on hispanic support conflicts with another survey I saw which had hispanic support for Kerry only at 55% with 45% for Bush. Apparently not all hispanics are as incapable of succeeding as you seem to think.

The real difference is that Northern states help to take care of their minority, elderly, and poor populations with higher local taxes and also pay higher National Income taxes to help pay for the minority, elderly and poor in Red states.

So the "minority" population is incapable of taking care of itself? Thank you for summing up the paternalistic condescention of the lib-left towards non-whites.

The real difference is that those states with high local taxes and increasing regulation are losing their economic base to other parts of the US and the world.

Dallas and Houston are major business hubs, but in both those cities caucasions still live in sizeable numbers in urban areas on top of dominating the growth of the burbs,

Yet still Dallas and Houston are cities which certainly fit the profile of the cities which you claim show how the Democrat base of the poor, ignorant and oppressed also manage to be worldly sophisticates. Also, learn how to spell caucasian correctly already.

Have you been to Sugarland lately? However, its not just affluent Southerners who are relocating to the burbs, its also Eastern liberals who are relocating to the South and they don't just leave their political leanings at the door. Yes, they are vastly out-numbered by surburba traditionalists, but the South isn't the complete lock it used to be even just a few years ago.

Here's a newsflash: "Northerners" have been moving to the Southern burbs for well over the past two decades. Yet the GOP continues to thrive. Figure it out.

Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, Florida, and West Virginia all had Kerry leading in the polls at one time.

And he lost all of those. Your point?

A Northerner winning a Southern state, can you imagine that?

Yeah, now that's never happened before.

Again, it's not the region that matters. You seem to think that prior to the last couple of years Americans have never moved outside of their home state. That most likely is the reason you are unable to grasp the trends which have made the South reliably GOP over the last two decades. If "Northerners" moving to the South was going to turn the South into a liberal haven it would have already happened. Again, as I have pointed out for some time in this forum, the South has become more economically conservative over the last couple of decades precisely because of the rise of the Southern suburbanites. The old Jim Crow racist Democrats who voted for that 'Northerner' FDR were populists and pretty much remain so.

Which group do you think is much more likely to have some racist "caucasions", the poor ignorant elderly or younger, college educated individuals with professional jobs who grew up in the 1970s and 1980s? Which group is more likely to vote Democrat? Republican?

This is the basic problem for your side. You do not win elections today by assuming the electorate has not changed since the 1960s. It's not about what state a candidate is from. It's about having something to offer that isn't based on racial and class warfare. Clinton managed to do it twice so it isn't impossible for a contemporary Democrat to pull it off.

As long as the lib-left wants to believe the electorate consists of a majority monolithic poor, ignorant "Caucasion" voting bloc in the South, Southwest, and Midwest then they are going to continue to lose elections. Things are a bit more complex than that and the longer the left wants to tell those younger college educated suburbanites that they are poor ignorant white trash then the longer that the left will remain an political minority.

Statics show that caucasions are a large part of the suburban movement. Yes there is a small but growing representation of blacks, hispanics, and Asians, but by in large surbanites are caucasion. Go take a drive on the far north, east, or west side of SA and tell me that minorities are represented in equal numbers as they are represented in urban parts of the city.

Damn, you managed to be racist, resentful, and condescending in regards to just about every racial and ethic category in that one paragraph. Obviously you have some feelings towards the "caucasion" people which need to be worked out.

Also I would have to say that you need to get out more. Sure, if you want to claim that certain isolated parts of the Northside are predominantly white I'm sure you can. But you ignore the rest of the North to Northwest suburbs which are much more racially mixed. Seeing as how Bush garnered about 45% of the Hispanic vote nationally and did well among hispanics in Texas you seem to be living in another era, perhaps the 1940s.

More importantly though, is that these families are very likely to attend the same churches, Caucasion, Hispanics, Asians, and Blacks. So not only do most suburbanites have a joined built in defense mechinism against paying higher taxes, I mean thats why most of them moved to the burbs to begin with, right?

Not necessarily. The primary reason is economic opportunity. People tend to live close to where their jobs are.

Yes, once people own a home, have a good job, and start a family then they start to pay attention to the taxes they pay as well as the quality of the local public schools, etc. Hence the reason the GOP tends to do well in the 'burbs.

Every Sunday they listen to the same message, over and over again, about gays and gay marriage, about secularism, about Islam, about Armegetton, about prophecy. Its no wonder the church crowd played such a big part in the 04 Presidential election - they were scared -less by the right.

Ok you are off the reservation and not worthy of any further attention in this forum.

Seek professional psychiatric help.