Why does this state always vote Republican in national elections? (Wade: low income, condo)

[ram2]

Originally Posted by pathseeker

I know this is a pattern in most Southern and Rural states but rather than post this question in the general forum, I wanted to get some insight from those who are Native to the state.

The big reason for my curiosity stems from the irony I see in the voting patterns. For instance, Mississippi has the highest proportion of African Americans, has the lowest per capita income. However, despite that, the state went overwhelming for Mitt Romney, From Massachusetts(of all places) who hailed from a very privileged background. That's not to suggest that Obama is much more in touch with the citizens of this state(I don't believe either one is) but I think he's at least a bit more so, than Mitt, who I'm sure some think of as a Northeastern elitist.

The above is just one of many examples I could have come up with. Mostly, I'm just curious as to why the Republicans have what seems like an automatic lock on this state every election cycle.

The city of Detroit, Michigan has had continuous Democratic mayors since at least 1961. Do you think the Democrats in Detroit have done a good job for the people there?

[Listener2307]

Originally Posted by ram2

The city of Detroit, Michigan has had continuous Democratic mayors since at least 1961. Do you think the Democrats in Detroit have done a good job for the people there?

Obviously not. I know you didn't ask me, but there's the obvious answer.

Democrats like Pathfinder are always stunned when their promise of "A chicken in every pot, an ObamaPhone in every hand", is rejected. They simply cannot understand the mentality of those of us who wish to make our own decisions and find our own path to success. The idea of taking unneeded government freebies is anathema to the Southern Conservatives, who, black and white, take pride in providing for themselves and their families. Thankfully, such people outnumber those who are satisfied begging from the government.

[Southern man]

Originally Posted by Listener2307

Thankfully, such people outnumber those who are satisfied begging from the government.

I wish they did outnumber the free loaders, but the last two presidential elections say otherwise.

[Listener2307]

Originally Posted by Southern man

I wish they did outnumber the free loaders, but the last two presidential elections say otherwise.

Indeed they do, and that is a sad fact, but I was addressing the status of Mississippi voters.

Perhaps Americans will come to their senses in years to come. America has been down this progressive road a couple of times before, although the previous times we were not encumbered by the 18 year old's vote, and did not have a party that had learned to manipulate them and take advantage of their inexperience.

Mississippians, I am proud to say, remain among the most independent of voters. Our Presidential politics have not been merely an image of our state politics, and that can't be said in most states.

[An Einnseanair]

Originally Posted by Listener2307

Democrats like Pathfinder are always stunned when their promise of "A chicken in every pot, an ObamaPhone in every hand", is rejected. They simply cannot understand the mentality of those of us who wish to make our own decisions and find our own path to success. The idea of taking unneeded government freebies is anathema to the Southern Conservatives, who, black and white, take pride in providing for themselves and their families. Thankfully, such people outnumber those who are satisfied begging from the government.

I realize I'm wasting internet bandwidth pointing this out, but Ronald Reagan is the one who originated Lifeline (subsidized land lines for the poor) in 1984. It was a "Southern Conservative", George W. Bush (Bush 43) who expanded it to include cell phones via the SafeLink program in 2008.

Incidentally, neither program is paid for by direct taxpayer subsidy. They are paid for by the taxes and fees collected on your monthly phone bill.

[greenvillebuckeye]

Originally Posted by Dd714

This is a poltical topic so I am sure it will "go south" (no pun intended) quickly. You seem to confuse per capita income with standard of living, and assume it's related to a preference for one political party over the other, why is that? If you have a biased political message to say - say it in the politics forum, not here.

But anyways I will entertain a response. If you look at a political map you will notice that blue states are limited to the northeast, somewhat the great lakes rust belt, and the far west (California, Oregan, WA). Red states are the mountain west and the south. So it's clear the division is amongst highly populated urban areas vs. rural areas. Now, urban areas with heavy minority populations within the south may vote democrat, but the population is spread out enough where they don't make a difference in the overall scheme of things.

Now, it's interesting to note that the last century, particularly before the 70's, the south used to vote predominantly democrat. This has shifted as the democrats have purposly changed their party platform to focus on issues that attracted the population centers, this is no accident. It was a strategic choice. It has nothing to do with the background of the candidate - and yes both are rich entitled millionaires, and more to do with party platforms. So the democrats now focus on unions, bigger government, more government outlays, liberal social issues, government regulations, etc. The republicans now focus on smaller government, deregulation, and more personal responsiblity. Which appeals more to the average rural southerner who's roots may be distrust of government, trust in religion, and a belief in personal independence? Throw in gun rights and gay marriages (an sensitive issue for African Americans) and the choice becomes clear.

The income disparity is a non-issue. Trust me - a dollar goes alot farther here in MS due to less taxes. I have been offered a job in the northeast at a higher salary. Nope, after comparing the cost of living I simply will not be as prosperous there as I am here.

You forgot to mention that Nixon grabbed the southern vote in 68 by campaigning to southerners that he would not support school desegregation the same way previous presidents had. this forced the issue for southern dems to remain loyal to the solid south of their grand daddies or take the political plunge and join the republican ranks.

if you go back to the 1920s the cultural divide in America begins to show itself between urban and rural or better yet modern v. traditionalist.

the 1930s exacerbated the issue with the new deal that instituted things like social security, collective bargaining, and numerous financial reforms, labeling FDR a socialist by the far right.

Historically the ideologies on urban america and rural america have been established well before the recent era. in fact i would argue that this change took place after world war 1 and simply grew from there.

in the case of the south they simply changed allegiance because tricky dick was telling them what they wanted to hear in 1968.

[greenvillebuckeye]

Originally Posted by ram2

The city of Detroit, Michigan has had continuous Democratic mayors since at least 1961. Do you think the Democrats in Detroit have done a good job for the people there?

whats your point?

southern states still continue to boast some of the lowest per capita incomes annually and they are all red states. Have you driven down I-95 in SC recently? I've seen villages in Nat Geo that look more prosperous.

[Listener2307]

Originally Posted by jwkilgore

I realize I'm wasting internet bandwidth pointing this out, but Ronald Reagan is the one who originated Lifeline (subsidized land lines for the poor) in 1984. It was a "Southern Conservative", George W. Bush (Bush 43) who expanded it to include cell phones via the SafeLink program in 2008.

Incidentally, neither program is paid for by direct taxpayer subsidy. They are paid for by the taxes and fees collected on your monthly phone bill.

Not the point, who started it. Almost no one needs a phone provided for them, and Mississippians have not endorsed candidates who announced great expansion of Nannie-state programs. Reagan would be outraged at the huge expense that his program has become.

When liberals oversee programs that outgrow there intended use and usefulness, they always find a conservative to blame it on. Read the above posts.

"You ain't got to pay for it", has become the rallying cry for 47 percenters. Fortunately, in Mississippi, they really are only 47 percent of the population.

[Listener2307]

Originally Posted by greenvillebuckeye

You forgot to mention that Nixon grabbed the southern vote in 68 by campaigning to southerners...........

It probably wasn't mentioned primarily because it isn't true, but there may have been some other more compelling reason.

Red: Republican (Nixon)
Blue: Democrat (Humphrey)
Yellow: American Independent (Wallace)

[Mouldy Old Schmo]

Originally Posted by greenvillebuckeye

You forgot to mention that Nixon grabbed the southern vote in 68 by campaigning to southerners that he would not support school desegregation the same way previous presidents had. this forced the issue for southern dems to remain loyal to the solid south of their grand daddies or take the political plunge and join the republican ranks.

You forgot to mention that Nixon - a nominal member of the liberal Quaker denomination - wasn't the reactionary that popular history has made him out to be! He may have had a "Southern Strategy", but he ended up endorsing various affirmative-action programs and promoted population-control programs worldwide.