Minnesota vs.Wisconsin (Minneapolis, Madison: area, cities, summer)

[GBCommenter]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

That's an interesting take on it. Why do you think it is that the Republican party has an influential libertarian wing while the Democratic party does not? That seems to be the gist of this paper from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa580.pdf

Please note, while I have definite opinions on the below, I truly am trying to speak as objectively as possible to the question of why one party has an influential libertarian wing and the other does not seem to have it. I can understand why Glen would see the potential of an influential libertarian wing in a Democratic Party, at least on some issues.

That said, while unable to read the full article at this very moment, if I had to posit a guess I would suggest that at least in theory Republicans and Libertarians advocate less or limited government. I will admit Republicans have some troublesome tendencies and can be hypocritical to their claim of limited government (i.e. how many Republicans are supporting a Vikings stadium with public funds?), but at least the platforms speak to less government or limited government. This would attract persons believing the answer to "what is good government?" is "less of it". The individual should be held accountable for their own actions and advocacy.

Conversely, the Democratic Party has generally advocated expanded government as a means to social change (and whether that is good or bad is open to debate). That said, there would seem to be different groups of people being attracted to the Democratic Party; the government would theoretically speak for the individual.

[Clifford63]

Originally Posted by GBCommenter

Please note, while I have definite opinions on the below, I truly am trying to speak as objectively as possible to the question of why one party has an influential libertarian wing and the other does not seem to have it. I can understand why Glen would see the potential of an influential libertarian wing in a Democratic Party, at least on some issues.

That said, while unable to read the full article at this very moment, if I had to posit a guess I would suggest that at least in theory Republicans and Libertarians advocate less or limited government. I will admit Republicans have some troublesome tendencies and can be hypocritical to their claim of limited government (i.e. how many Republicans are supporting a Vikings stadium with public funds?), but at least the platforms speak to less government or limited government. This would attract persons believing the answer to "what is good government?" is "less of it". The individual should be held accountable for their own actions and advocacy.

Conversely, the Democratic Party has generally advocated expanded government as a means to social change (and whether that is good or bad is open to debate). That said, there would seem to be different groups of people being attracted to the Democratic Party; the government would theoretically speak for the individual.

What of the "blue dog" democrats? They seem to be more conservative on financial issues, reluctant to expand role of government, raise taxes and such.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Clifford63

What of the "blue dog" democrats? They seem to be more conservative on financial issues, reluctant to expand role of government, raise taxes and such.

I hadn't heard much from them lately, and found that only 25 of the 193 Democrats in the House identify with the Blue Dog Coalition. (Yes, I used Wikipedia.)

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by GBCommenter

Please note, while I have definite opinions on the below, I truly am trying to speak as objectively as possible to the question of why one party has an influential libertarian wing and the other does not seem to have it. I can understand why Glen would see the potential of an influential libertarian wing in a Democratic Party, at least on some issues.

That said, while unable to read the full article at this very moment, if I had to posit a guess I would suggest that at least in theory Republicans and Libertarians advocate less or limited government. I will admit Republicans have some troublesome tendencies and can be hypocritical to their claim of limited government (i.e. how many Republicans are supporting a Vikings stadium with public funds?), but at least the platforms speak to less government or limited government. This would attract persons believing the answer to "what is good government?" is "less of it". The individual should be held accountable for their own actions and advocacy.

Conversely, the Democratic Party has generally advocated expanded government as a means to social change (and whether that is good or bad is open to debate). That said, there would seem to be different groups of people being attracted to the Democratic Party; the government would theoretically speak for the individual.

These are very good observations, GB. The Republicans' varying levels of fidelity to smaller government would explain the fairly drastic swings in the percentage of libertarians supporting Republican candidates from one election to the next.

[bananamana]

I think it's pretty much the same. The core cities of both states: Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, the Twin Cities, Rochester and the Twin Ports all trend quite liberally. The rural areas and smaller cities move more to the right. I think both states have a long tradition of socially progressive idealism stretching back to the early 1900s that was sustained by their smaller populations and populist movements. In the end, the two sides balance and you have a fairly purple region of the US. I think neither is the type of socially liberal state found on the coasts, but are also difficult to compare to other states in the Midwest, maybe Iowa being the exception. For this reason, they're kind of outliers in the nation as a whole and hard to compare. I mean, what's your frame of reference?

[Clifford63]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

I hadn't heard much from them lately, and found that only 25 of the 193 Democrats in the House identify with the Blue Dog Coalition. (Yes, I used Wikipedia.)

wiki is good for lookin stuff up. not a dissertation eh? 25 of 193 seems to be significant considering the Ron Paul bus seems to have dropped tranny. You are right that we have not heard a lot of the blue dog bark lately. not exactly sure why. Maybe same reason R.P. does not exist to Fox news. Me thinks the big news has been taking PAC money too.

[GBCommenter]

As far as RP, MSM never likes to much talk about him. Much easier (and perhaps more profitable) to paint the picture of it's all decided and only Romney and Obama. There's plenty of additional theories, such as the fact IMHO Romney will be a weak candidate to Obama so those in the media that are for Obama actually push a Romney vs. Obama matchup. There's also the theory that the media prefers the choices of Obama and Romney because there's little practical difference between the two. Anyway, RP marches on, however still packing in audiences to his speeches in the thousands repeatedly.

It will be interesting to see what the MSM does if Paul actually pulls enough delegates to cause a brokered convention. From what I read, if 5 states go majority for Paul, they could put up a nomination on the floor - and the rumors are there are at least 5 states including our happy little home of MN.

[FastRomeo73]

Completely the same politics and culture in both states. The only exception is that WI has the better football team. Go Packers!

[leonard]

Originally Posted by stockwiz

I'd still say at least democrats do have a somewhat progressive mentality, which is more than I can say for republicans. If republicans weren't so hard bent on their war on drugs and really wanted the individual to have more personal freedom, I might be more inclined to support them. But they have a 1950's style value system... they don't really believe in complete social freedom like libertarians.

Yeah those 50's were tough. Better education, mom's not working in most places, drugs not widespread and supported by violence and robbery and as to morals, hey we actually had them. It was so bad in my town we constantly forgot to lock the door on the car, house, garage and anything else we lock now. Yep progress is ..... well the right kind of progress is good, but not all progress is and most has been destructive to peoples lives. Ah "social freedom" the freedom to destroy your life, your neighbors life and anyone else who can be impacted. Oh I am also not a conservative or libertarian.

I kinda see it this way.

Democrats: Amoral. The end justifies the means.
Republicans: Immoral, I know it is wrong but I just couldn't help myself.
Libertarians: Morals, what are those?

I would be surprised if MN and WI did not have all three views of "life". In reading these forums, looking to see about a summer home in one State or the other, I find, well same ol same ol. Visit and see who and what you want around you.

[leonard]

Originally Posted by FastRomeo73

Completely the same politics and culture in both states. The only exception is that WI has the better football team. Go Packers!

Now there is something worth considering; sports.