Redstate

when talking about red and blue states: most states are really some shade of purple. There really is no vast cultural gap between the states, espcially those that adjoin one another and have the same regional attitude and sense. For example, try traveling from "blue" Michigan to "red" Ohio and see if anything leaps out at you.

The true dichotomy is between red counties and blue counties, or "red areas" and "blue areas" as I like to call them.  There's not a whole lot of difference between "blue" Michigan and "red" Ohio, but there's a pretty vast difference between Detroit and the Republican-voting suburbs or rural areas in Michigan.  So it's pretty oversimplified, but note the vast difference between an overwhelmingly blue state like Massachusetts and an overwhelmingly red one like Utah.  Or between mostly blue New England and the mostly red Great Plains states.

The difference between the blue, red, and purple states is really the amount of blue and red areas in each state.  Unfortunately there's little data about that, and that data is very hard to find.  The point is that marriage and large families tend to be values associated with red areas and not blue ones.

It's in nobody's economic interest to vote Democratic, though, except maybe if you're a union boss or a Democratic strategist.

When we grow the economic pie, everyone's piece gets larger.

Of course, liberals making $80,000 a year believe that poor people who vote Democratic are ignoring their economic interests while ignoring their own economic interests.  It's like they feel guilty for being talented, getting an education, or having rich parents.

the faith of most immigrants, the liklihood that the dems will not maintain 90% of the Black vote and the identification of the dem party with failed econ high tax econ policies and the war, all cpombine tpo make the destruction of the dem party a real possibility. The dems were not effected by Bill Clinton and his moderate views or at least compromises. Its as if he were never president. Plus, the dems have done woprse, each year since the rise of talk radio and the Fox.

to back this up:

>>The point is that marriage and large families tend to be values associated with red areas and not blue ones.<<

For Utah I might agree with the large familes comment, but if you look at the stats for other places you'll find that even in red state America family size has shrunk to the point where the native-born population is no longer replacing itself. Also, a number of red states are notorious for their high divorce rates, and overall I doubt you'll find much difference in family size and structure between blue and red states (or even counties), or indeed between social pathologies like drug abuse, child abuse and so forth.

There is some data to back this up, some of which I put in the original article.  Only Utah, Idaho, and Alaska have white families that are reproducing at above replacement levels, although Kansas, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Oklahoma are close.  Utah and to some extent Idaho can be explained simply by the Mormon faith's emphasis on children and large families, however.

In the article on Steve Sailer's blog, a reader notes that among voters with incomes below $50k, Republicans only have slightly more children than their Democratic counterparts.  At higher income levels, though, the difference is more pronounced.  "Strong Republicans" with incomes above $90k have, on average, 2.47 children, compared with their Democratic counterparts in that age bracket, who on average have 1.56 children.

There are some red states with notably high divorce rates, and actually the divorce rates in blue states aren't really that high according to the Census data -- but that data only accounts for current marital status.  That data counts a person as married who has been divorced three times but is currently married.

Another article by Sailer notes that states in which women are married for longer periods of time are also likely to be Republican.  These are estimates, but once again Utah leads with white women aged 18 to 44 expected to be married (with their husband present) for 17 of those 27 years, while the averages in Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts are, respectively, 7.4 and 12.2 years.  Bush carried the top 25 states ranked on years married for white women.

You have just summarised my main issue with the "economic interests"/Whats-the-matter-with-kansas type analysis: who says that it's against their economic interests to vote Republican?

I venture then that "economic interests" is a euphemism for "welfare statism usually attributed to Democrats".

Voting one's economic self interest is a tricky issue.  A lot of liberal extremists seem to think that people with lower incomes should vote to take money away from corporations and wealthier people, and distribute it to those with less.

Somehow, this strikes the less intelligent as a cure for poverty. First it is the economic equivalent of increasing entropy.  A million dollars earned by a wealthy productive person could do far more good for the nation than taking it and giving one dollar to a million poor people.  Secondly, real cures for poverty are education, fair opportunity, and jobs...not hand-outs.

Should the country be led by voters who are economically successful, or by those who are economic failures?  I understand your point here -- there are cultural criteria -- but I prefer the moolah.

was that liberals think that people should be voting their economic interests in the view of liberals.  That is to say, liberals think that poor people should want the government to help them out (when, in reality, the welfare system does more to condemn them and their descendants to a life of poverty.)  This also requires ignoring the number of rich people who vote Democratic (despite the fact that according to advocates of class struggle, they should be voting Republican.)

Tom Stephenson makes an excellent point, and it's not only between counties. Most of the large urban centers have large numbers of poor people,  many of whom receive some kind of government assistance, who vote overwhelmingly Democrat.

In states having such urban centers, Republicans must win large majorities in the suburbs and rural areas to overcome the Democrat advantage in the big cities. Many "blue" states are only blue due to one or two large cities.

For example, in the 2004 election, Kerry won Chicago overwhelmingly, but Bush won the rest of Illinois. Kerry won Detroit overwhelmingly, but Bush won the rest of Michigan. Kerry won Philadelphia overwhelmingly, but Bush won the rest of Pennsylvania. Kerry won Los Angeles and San Francisco, but Bush won the rest of California. Kerry won Seattle, but Bush won the rest of Washington. There are other examples, but these five states alone gave Kerry 123 electoral votes based on only six cities!

So, the question becomes, how can the GOP message be taken to the big cities? If we can just break even in those big cities, Republicans will win landslides!  

Re: Kerry won Detroit overwhelmingly, but Bush won the rest of Michigan.

Look again. Kerry won most of suburban Detroit as well (Wayne, Washtenaw, even Macomb erstwhile home of Reagan Democrats--also Lansing and its county). Bush's strength was in the exurbs (Livingston, Monroe, St Clair counties), and the long-time GOP bastion of southwestern Michigan (Grand Rapids etc.). To some extent that's an artifact of the strength of unions in metro Detroit (and the presence of two large universities in Washtenaw county, and another in East Lansing). But there is a trend nationally for at least older suburbs (often heavily populated by retirees and minorities) to go Democrat too. Also, some rural counties, in Michigan and elsewhere trend Democrat, especially those that are economically depressed. One of the responses to "What's the matter with Kansas" is the fact that nothing is: the Democrats continue to earn the votes of people who make below the median income. There just aren't enough of those people these days to win elections.

Yes, we can't blame it all on the cities.  The fact remains that Bush lost twice the suburbs of the north and midwest.  He came close to losing Ohio and the electoral college for this reason.

Considering that these same suburbanites vote for conservatives like Engler (MI) and Pawlenty (MN) all the time, I suspect the problem isn't that conservatism is incompatible with the northern 'burbs, but that Bush couldn't carry the message of conservatism into those areas.  A candidate who can communicate better with the suburbanites of the Rust Belt could be equally conservative and win there, especially in 2008, when "that snooty chick from Manhattan," as midwesterners will refer to her, will be leading the opposition.

The thesis of the book is not just that low income people vote against their economic interests, it's that the Republican party does not expend political capital on the social issues that get people to vote  Republican. Simply put--they vote against abortion, and get tax cuts.

Forgive an honest blue state democrat (in this case, a idealistic kid attending a liberal arts college on the inhheritance and hard work of his parents) for posting his opinion on this issue.

Te way I understand American History, until recent decades economic status was the principle factor in a person's vote.  Democrats from the William Jennings Bryan era until the 1950's ran on ecomically populist, socially conservative agrarian platforms.  The economy was the primary difference between the parties.  As a few posters have already pointed out, during this era states like Connecticut and New York were some of the most reliably Republican in the country, while the rural South and Great Plains states formed the Democratic base.

Beginning with the Civil Rights movement, however, specific issues began to define people's political outlooks.  Civil Rights, Women's liberation, environmental activism, peace activism, gay rights, gun control, etc. hijacked the system as it existed and gruadually developed into the atmosphere found today.

All of the issues I mentioned above generally attracted more socially liberal rich people to the deomcratic base, with the incidental consquence of gradually alienating blue-collar socially conservative voters.  The right has responded with some of its own issues, with good examples being the NRA and Conservative evangelical organizations.

Despite the fact that I generally support most of the progressive causes I mentioned above, I believe my Democratic party must find some way of reconciling   with its lost constituents if it ever again wants to possess a governing mandate in the country.

The Democrat base consists of a coalition of mostly unrelated groups so this goes double for them... the union worker that votes Democrat and gets gay marriage in return. The black person who votes Democrat on civil rights issues and gets tax increases. The environmentalist that votes Democrat and gets licenses for illegal aliens. The anti-war activist that votes Democrat and gets socialized healthcare.

However, in my view the essence of being liberal and progressive is (or should be) repect for and concern about people in all of these disadvantaged groups.  In my post below, i mentioned many of the special issues that currently define the democratic base.  I happen to agree with most of those (exceptions being gun control & animal rights fanaticism).  Now it can certainly be argued from your side that possessing this worldview is overly idealistic and ignores the so-called "reality".

I might also add that recently, the obvious friction between the factions of the Republican party (Wall Street supply-siders, the Religious right, Libertarians, national security moderates, Buchanan-esque Nationalists etc.) has  become increasingly severe.  

The real key to Franks's argument is not that economic interest should trump moral issues, it is that the Republicans have pulled a bait and switch. Furthermore, if anti-abortion voters were to give up on the Republican party, Republicans would probably lose their majorities.

Both parties are big tent coalitions. Franks argues that the Republican party consistently sells out one essential part of its coalition.

I think you may be correct with Democrats and blacks--the Democratic party has been accused of taking black votes for granted, and I think there's a lot of merit to this claim.

It isn't just liberals that vote Democratic. Many of those might be in agreement on most issues. But there are also many Democrats that are not liberals. For example, I have yet to meet a blue-color union member that agrees with even half the Democratic party's agenda, but they vote Democrat because they are union guys.

I think you're about half-right.

I think the thing that the "what's the matter with Kansas?" people miss is that Middle Americans are still voting their economic interests as well, and that often leads them to vote GOP.

You are correct about the nature of the Democratic Party from Bryan through LBJ.  It began the 20th Century as an economically populist party.  It only attained majority status once the Depression convinced most Americans that more government intervention was needed in the economy in order to make it work.  In 1932, FDR united the old Roosevelt Republicans --- the ones who had been busting trusts thirty years earlier to make the market work better for regular Americans --- with the Democratic Left of the time to create a new Democratic majority, one based on maintaining the market economy, but interjecting government into it in order to create public systems of retirement security, universal education, health care, and regulations on businesses to protect labor.

In the 1960s, two things began to happen that would destroy this coalition and lead to realignment and a new center-right majority.  The first was the nationalization of social issues.  It wasn't that people all of the sudden started voting their "social interests" in the 1960s and 1970s.  It was that prior to those years, social issues had been largely kept at the personal, local, and state level.  They were not seen as the federal government's concern.  After civil rights was rightly nationalized and the disgusting racism of the past was destroyed, the coastal Democrats basically began to nationalize a whole host of other social issues in order to try and create progressive national policy on those issues too.

This policy was too smart by half, as the national liberal majorities the coastal Dems expected on issues like abortion, affirmative action, and political correctness didn't materialize.  Instead, like Pandora opening her box, the coastal liberals watched in horror as their coalition began to fragment, which made sense, because that coalition had been based on economics and couldn't be expected to agree entirely on a whole other set of issues like these cultural ones.

This is where the "Matter with Kansas" people end the story.  What they miss is that at the same time all this was happening, the economy once again began to tank.  Stagflation, the worst of all worlds, was upon us.  By the 1970s, it became clear that less economic intervention by the government was now needed to grow the economy.  And, thus, Ronald Reagan came along, grabbed those Scoop Jackson Democrats who had been cutting taxes back when JFK was president, united them with the GOP over promises of less government, a stronger economy, an end to Communism, and an end to the nationalization of social issues that was intended to create liberal social policy, and realigned America into a new GOP majority.

The point of all that is that the social issues aspect of today's GOP majority is only one aspect, and may not even have been necessary for the realignment.  In Britain, a similar realignment went on in the late 1970s, with Thatcher coming to power, and that new center-right majority had little to do with culture and had everything to do with economics.  People will always vote for the party that can best grow the economy at any given time, that can best protect the country, and that best represents their values.  Right now, for the majority of Americans, that's the GOP.  That will change at some point.  It always does.  And we're certainly closely divided right now.  But we were also closely divided after the election of 1900, and TR came along and gave us another 30 yrs of GOP majorities.  A modern TR could do the same thing.  And demographics are such that I wouldn't expect the GOP to lose the mechanisms of political power in this country anytime soon.

I don't think the social conservatives are sold out after the election is over. It's just that almost nothing can be done directly with their #1 issue since it annexed by the courts in Roe v Wade.

If the social conservatives left the party we wouldn't win elections, but the same goes for the fiscal conservatives. Neither group could stand on it's own.

had better be under 25, be in a union, or be an academic of some kind.  Otherwise, they'd be considered poverty-stricken in most urban liberal circles....

My 26 year old, brand-new first-year lawyer brother-in-law makes $135,000 a year plus bonus, but he's very very concerned about the wretched poor in Bombay after having spent a few weeks backpacking across South Asia....

-TS

truly serve the economic interests of?

I reject that What's the Matter with Kansas book's premise that moral and cultural values issues are the over-riding reason lower income workers have moved to the GOP.

I think the main reason was the success of Reagan's tax cut driven policies and the stark contrast with the memory of the last time the dems controlled the executive and legislative branches. Since the 80s we saw Bush41 who has won a landslide with many reagan dem votes turned out of office in favor of a tax cut promising Clinton. Then we saw the gop take congress after the socialist Hillary takeover of health care was utterly rejected by all but the far left.

Then we saw Clinton embrace the Gingrich agenda, NOT DEMOCRAT ECON POLICY and declare the era of big govt over and never utter a word about a tax hike, incl the one greenspan made him enact in 1993, at least not until the tech bubble boom when he bragged on the effects of the tax hike on interest rates.

Then we saw the tax cutter W beat gore albeit barely and then kerry and the GOP  congress majority grow despite the post 911 lull with kerry and the dems promising major econ policy shifts.

The only poor people helped by the dem econ policy are those that want to stay poor. And they know it.

Plus, a record per cent of americans work for themselves now. And they dont like govt taxes regs at all!!!

This entrepreneurial boom is a death knell for the dems.

Moreover, the only unions helped by dems are govt employee unions. The law allows private co workers to organize if they can get the votes  and no repub congress or any repub elected official since the 190094 takeover has proposed changing the law.

agree?

Re: Considering that these same suburbanites vote for conservatives like Engler (MI) and Pawlenty (MN) all the time

I don't know much about Pawlenty, but John Engler (for whom I voted three times) was a conservative Michigan-style.  Which is to say that he was somewhat moderate by national (especially Southern) standards. And that may be the problem: the GOP's southern base has pulled the party so far into conservatism Southern-style that it's a turn off outside Dixie, even to people who may be conservative in the general sense, but without the peculiar emphasis the South gives to the concept.

The point I was trying to make is that liberals assume that people should be voting what liberals believe those people's economic interests are.  Sorry for not making that clear in the original post.

I know of at least one suburban Midwesterner (from Illinois) who came to my school (Methodist college in Tennessee) as a conservative Republican, then switched to moderate Democrat because she was turned off by Southern-style conservatism.

I also know of one student from my high school (also in Tennessee) who was a conservative Republican, then went to Baylor for college and became a liberal Democrat because there's a difference even between conservatism in the Peripheral South (Tennessee, North Carolina, Kentucky, etc.) and the Deep South (Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, etc.)

conservatism, in that order, is why the GOP started winning, not only presidential elections, and senate majorities but also ended the dems 50 year domination of the House and now control a majority of state houses and governorships.

Rockefeller-northern republicanism was a permanent minority party as the modern day liberal democrat party now is.

Yes, there are tensions between the factions, but ours are minor compared to the dems. But if we accomodate the northern conservative differences we would lose.

agree?

If ya cant beat us join us?

What would you say the differences are between southern and midwestern conservatism?  I have a theory that it all has to do with packaging.  The southern conservative emphasizes things like "values" and talks a lot about faith and such.  The midwestern conservative is more like a manager, talking more about the deficit than gay marriage.  And yet both have the same political positions and the same voting patterns.  

And this is why I'm a big advocate of finding a Rust Belt conservative to lead the party.  Because such a conservative can better sell conservatism to the northern midwest and all its electoral votes, which are slipping away and without which we can't win again (without Iowa and Ohio, we lose).  

Incidentally, I've never known a southern conservative to say one bad word against a midwestern conservative.  I think the south would be fine with such a candidate if one could be found.

between Southern and Midwestern conservatives are not nearly as vast as those between Southern conservatives and "Rockefeller Republicans" of the Northeast, who were actually fairly liberal on social and even economic issues.

My guess is that the difference between conservatism in the South and the Midwest (and Rocky Mountains, for that matter) has more to do with style than substance.  It's like the difference between traditional mainline Protestant denominations (though not the "re-packaged" liberal denominations that seem to believe about as much of the Bible as non-Christians do) and evangelical denominations.  Both generally have similar beliefs, but the difference has to do with style.  Rocky Mountain Republicans might differ a bit in that environmental laws tend to have a more tangible impact on their way of life, but all generally share the same basic beliefs.  Just look at the difference in personal style between Texan George W. Bush and Wyoming's Dick Cheney.  Or Kansan Bob Dole.  Or Ronald Reagan (a transplanted Midwesterner who moved to California).  Or Georgian Newt Gingrich.  Or... you get the picture.

Democrats face the same problems, though theirs are much different.  Southern Democrats liberal by Southern standards are often seen as "not liberal enough" for Northeastern liberals not so much because of substance (okay, there really WAS a difference in Bill Clinton's rhetoric and the liberalism of New Yorkers or Californians, but think of John Edwards, for example) but because of style.  Southerners often talk openly about faith, which is alien talk to Democratic primary voters in New England.  John Kerry rarely, if ever, mentioned his faith during the campaign, which is perfectly acceptable to New England voters but which is a normal part of political discourse in the South.

It's these differences in style that constitute most of the differences between conservatives in different parts of America.  The benefits of nominating a Midwesterner in 2008 probably outweigh the drawbacks, since the Democratic nominee is unlikely to be anyone that most Southerners will feel the least bit inclined to vote for.

I would agree with that entirely.  And I would add that we saw in 1980 what the South does when faced with a real conservative who is not from the South and a real southerner who is not a conservative.  Substance wins over style.  I think the South would be quite solid behind a Western or Midwestern conservative, which is also the kind that can appeal to the swing regions of the country: the upper midwest and the southwest.  

The figures concerning median incomes don't really mean a whole lot.  You have to remember that such statistics don't take cost of living variations into consideration. Those variations can be significant. A $50,000 salary in Mississippi gets you about what a $75,000 salary buys in New York.

Second, even in the upper-income blue states, wealthy people tend to vote for Republicans, and poor people for Democrats. It's just that in the red states more of the poor also vote Republican.  

Other than that, good diary.

The differences in cost of living probably have a lot to do with Democrats' attitudes about "the poor" and their supposed economic interests.  And I'd actually be willing to bet that cost-of-living differences are even greater than you stated.  Another article by Sailer (which I can't find right now, but I'd be happy to link) said that a two-income couple making $100,000 a year in San Francisco would expect the same amount of disposable income as a single-income family in which the husband made $44,000 a year in Cedar City, Utah.  That would also allow the wife to stay at home and take care of the children, without the subsequent drop in prestige that she would experience in San Francisco (since, you know, staying at home and caring for the children goes against feminist dogma in which entrusting the care of your children to sometimes untrustworthy and often expensive child care is infinitely better than staying at home and caring for them yourself.)

But it's this difference in cost-of-living which probably clouds some Democrats' judgment of "poor."  After all, if you're making $100,000 a year and have one child and feel as though you're hanging on by a thread, how can some guy making $30,000 a year in Mississippi and supporting three children possibly make it?

Second, even in the upper-income blue states, wealthy people tend to vote for Republicans, and poor people for Democrats. It's just that in the red states more of the poor also vote Republican.  

Do you have any sources on that? I don't believe that is the case. I think the high income folks split pretty evenly between the parties.

Presumably people vote their interests, regardless of whether they're primarily cultural or economic. But let's say for the sake of argument that cultural reasons predominate. Have the "red state voters" been rational in their expectations and vindicated in their choice?

Were I to base my vote on social conservative values, I'd presumably favor a candidate who'd dismantle the social welfare state, pick judges assured of overturning Roe v. Wade, oppose gay unions, shrink the government, rein in spending, and generally enshrine a specific conception of Judeo-Christian values at every opportunity in the public discourse. This administration seems like a mixed bag on each count.

Do such voters really expect these things to happen, or are they simply picking the lesser of two evils in their estimation? I'd think they'd be feeling used or at least suffering a fair amount of let-down at this point and wouldn't exactly run back to the polls in '06 and '08 with much spring in their step...

my point. I was NOT advocating Rockfeller GOP liberalism (which is what Rockefeller Republicanism was) but rather the sort of conservatism represented by John Engler or Tommy Thompson-- a reform conservatism I think I will call it. Or, for that matter, by Ronald Reagan who was not a Southern-style conservative at all.

also is also big-government conservatism when it comes to things like Pork and Patronage and Political Machinery (a trait borrowed from the old Southern Democrats). It also seems happy to ignore serious national problems in favor of rhetoric and sloganeering.

Pork, both barbecued and government, are time honored Southern traditions. Democrat, Republican; New South, Old South, it doesn't matter. You'll get our pork when you pry it from our cold, dead hand.

Southern conservatism is also much less free-market oriented than say Western or Mid-western versions. Living in a small southern town for 5 years, I'm constantly surprised by how much people seem to be looking for some savior (either government or some big company) to pull this region (S. Arkansas) out of our economic doldrums rather than finding ways to do it ourselves, despite the fact that thanks to oil, we have plenty of capital to invest in ourselves.

I concur with your pork comment, but would have to disagree with the comment that Southern conservatism is much less free-market oriented.  Raised in small town Alabama, and currently living in Birmingham, I too have a very good feel for the brand of Southern conservatism here.  I would say that the only people looking for big government are those in the cold blue hearts of our larger cities and in the population belts where the poverty/illiteracy rates are high. In other words, where people are under the sway of the Dems.  

Now many Southern govs are agressive in trying to attract both foreign and domestic industry to the south, is this what you are referring when you speak of a company savior?

I think Birmingham, an industrial city, is probably a bit different. Economic development in Arkansas is all about getting a big automobile plant here. This is odd, considering the state's economic jewel was a home-grown company (Wal-Mart--perhaps you've heard of it?) that has done more for this state than any factory ever has. Even if you don't like Wal-Mart, I can't imagine what Arkansas would be like without it. If I were governor of this state, I would do more to encourage the next Wal-Mart than spend all my time trying to get a truck factory here.

What makes this even more perplexing here is that there is money here--my town has a number of people who got very rich when oil was discovered on their land. And, for the most part, they just sit on their money, rather than invest it. My students say it's because they're greedy, to which I always respond it's because they're not greedy enough--greedy people don't stick their money in a savings bank in order to live off the proceeds, they invest it in order to make more.

The presumed payoff is that Republicans will take action on these issues, but there's a growing sense that social conservatives are just being played by the Republican party.  Republicans give lip service to issues that matter to these voters and occasionally throw out a "School Prayer Amendment" or a "Gay Marriage Amendment" in an attempt to make it seem like they really are trying to do something about it -- while, of course, making sure that these measures never pass, since Republicans fear the repercussions among swing voters of passing such bills.

While I doubt social conservatives would seriously consider switching to the Democratic Party, social conservatives CAN stay home if they start thinking Republicans are all talk and no action on these issues.  Well, there is action, but no real results.

The thing about cities is that they tend to be controlled by Dem machines.  That makes it pretty difficult for GOPers to break through.

Despite being a (economic and foreign policy, not cultural) conservative, I've spent nearly my entire life living in big cities.  I'm from NYC originally (and I live there now); but over the years, I've lived in LA, DC, and the Bay Area.  In addition, I've spent considerable time in Boston and Seattle.

Living in these cities, I've always observed that people in them tended to vote reflexively Democrat in State and National elections.  Local politics, however, can be a different matter.  If GOPers want to break through in the big cities, they should observe our latest Mayoral election here in NYC.

Bloomberg's re-election confirms something I've been saying for several years.  New York City is no longer a far-left city.  While it remains generally liberal and Democrat, it's not (generally) part of the kooky left.  This city is far more comfortable with Bill Clinton than, for example, Freddy Ferrer.

GOPer success in local NYC politics bears several lessons.  In a focused campain on local issues where (at least generally) limited govt. approaches make sense, GOPers can win.  The key is to identify all the casual political observers and get them to the polls.  Unfortunately, that system is A LOT of work.

If someone is willing to do that work, they can win as a GOPer even in a blue state.  Arnold (in '03 and '04) proved that.  The problem is when GOPers think the results speak for themselves and stop trying to get soft voters to the polls (a la Arnold in '05).

I doubt this southern conservative misunderstands what conservatism means down here where the Reagan found the fertile ground for the  conservative revolution that produced reagan democrats and made possible the  revolution that led to the Gingrich takeover of the house ater 40 years in the wilderness and changed a once solid south from dem to gop.

I dont know thompson or engler that well and what "great lakes style" repubs are, but you would search in vain for any light between southern and reagan positions of issues.

I dont know your age, but recently we have been served a regular examples of reagan conservatism via roberts and alito docs from the reagan admin.

Now, before I stew any longer wondering if you are the latest red state non-southerner or self loathing southerner projecting their own unknown to them latent anti-southern bigotry onto a whole region of the country that, despite same, votes for southerners every chance they get

(and Alecs, please know that I still love and respect you, albeit a little less and am not mad at you. Southerners long ago learned to endulge the shallow minded that assume our inferiority based upon idiosyncratic irrelevancies. We are all human. And I respect your mind and, as you know, have agreed with you often...)

PRAY TELL PLEASE tell me how YOU define

soputhern STYLE conservatism

vs

reagan's STYLE

You know 311 the South voted for JFK, LBJ, NIXON, CARTER, REAGAN, 41, der schleik, and W.

see any STYLE bigotry there

More and more I am developing a SUPERIORITY COMPLEX visa vis midwesterners when I allow myself to imagine that the generalizations like yours may be true

But then, I suspect that "reform" is euphemism for liberal with you as it is usually used.

So lets have it bro, tell me what

Alecs311 defined southern style conservatism is

Yes, the south is not bigoted against style. We vote substance and character. But there is no light between Reagan and the South on style or any thing else.

I had to delete one of your other notes... the one about the book depository. Just so you know, they really do find out who you are and come to your house when you do that. So don't do it here.

You do, however, understand that it was a joke, right?

I do. The Guys That Come To Your House won't.

Re: but you would search in vain for any light between southern and reagan positions of issues.

Reagan was closer to the libertarian-influenced conservatism of the West than the Big Government Conservatism of the South: His famous line was that Government Is the Problem Not the Solution; today's conservatism (which I identify with the South) is that government is not a problem at all just as long as the right folks are running the show.

of big government conservatism. The south was agrarian until after wwii and you will search in vain to find a southern state with a bigger government than comparable northern or midwestern states since then from 1776 to 2005.

So where did you get this notion of southern?Big Government Conservative. its an oxymoron

 

does better among the wealthy has long been acknowledged, but if you need a source, here's an article from the last presidential campaign:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/22/news/economy/icr/

here is not to denigrate the South or Southerners, but I hardly think it is an extarordinary statement that there are several strains of conservatism, that some are libertarian in outlook and these are especially strong in the West and (to a lesser extent) the North, while others are authoritarian and are es-cially strong in the South

of southern big govt conservatism. or a STYLE that is a major difference from Reagan.

I cant find any?

I realize there is no bigotry bone in your body christian brother, at least not one that is intentionally fed

and so I apologize for alluding to it at such length but I mean I had get over CLASS bigotry myself in my 20's and so

but the bottom line is that I googled your idea

and found no southern connection to the BGC