Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, they're not. I feel like you keep saying things without providing any voting data to back it up. If this cohort was so small, then PA would not have a Republican Governor and a Republican-controlled legislature (in both houses).When was the last time Massachusetts or New York sent not one but two Republicans to the Senate? And when have Massachusetts or New York ever sent someone like Rick Santorum (twice) or Pat Toomey to Congress?
I'm sure you realize that local politics is completely different than national politics. Again, gerrymandering has a lot to do with why there is more Republican representation at the state level than party registration would seem to implicate. I don't know why you seem to dismiss that.
Again, Santorum became much more conservative once he rose to Senator status. Clearly Pennsylvanians didn't take too kindly to his brand of politics. He was, once again, a one termer. That wasn't a fluke.
Presumably learning from Santorum's mistakes, Toomey has definitely toned down the conservative rhetoric big time from the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
I'm not forgetting anything. I'm arguing that Pennsylvania is more similar to Ohio (politically and culturally) than it is to Maryland (or New York or Massachusetts even). You seem to be arguing that PA is really this liberal state with a few conservative streaks here or there that's really more similar to New York or Maryland in its voting patterns. It's just that these conservative "streaks" tend to be strong enough to build a Republican majority in the House and Senate, send crazy ass Rick Santorum to Congress twice, and elect a Republican Governor endorsed by the National Rifle Association who also happens to be Pro-Life and Anti-Gay. You clearly need to step outside of Center City and the liberal enclaves of the Philly burbs if you think that's the case.
I'm not trying to suggest that Pennsylvania has as liberal of a political climate as MD or NY. Obviously it does not. However, I am contesting your characterization of Pennsylvania Democrats. The blue-collar, socially-conservative Democrats comprise much less of overall party than you're asserting.
Politically, yes, Pennsylvania is clearly closer to Ohio, but you're making it sound much more conservative than it is. In comparison to very liberal surrounding states, perhaps, but in the scheme of national politics, it tends to be a pretty pragmatic, moderate state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Pennsylvania, if I'm not mistaken, has the second highest NRA membership next to Texas. And it may have the highest percentage of NRA membership of all 50 states. That's not something you see in New York State. And that culture is definitely more similar to Ohio than Maryland.
Yes, I have also heard of the high NRA membership in Pennsylvania, but that's only one part of the equation. For one, Pennsylvania's gun ownership isn't particularly high in terms of a national comparison (please note fairly liberal states like Vermont, Oregon and Maine, by the way):
Also, let's not forget that Pennsylvania's gun laws do rank fairly highly in strictness (10th).
I\
Yes, I have also heard of the high NRA membership in Pennsylvania, but that's only one part of the equation. For one, Pennsylvania's gun ownership isn't particularly high in terms of a national comparison (please note fairly liberal states like Vermont, Oregon and Maine, by the way):
\
Agreed. Though with Vermont and Maine, they're mostly rural, while Pennsylvania has lots of cities in it. If you could create a region of PA that's all rural it'd probably more gun owning. And much more conservative. Vermont has some of the laxest handgun laws in the nation, including complete concealed carry freedom (no permits needed, none issued)
I'm sure you realize that local politics is completely different than national politics.
These are not Republicans in the mold of Mitt Romney, Olympia Snowe, Connie Morella or Scott Brown. They are conservatives in the truest sense of the word. That means Pro-Life. That means Pro-Gun. It's pretty simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
Again, gerrymandering has a lot to do with why there is more Republican representation at the state level than party registration would seem to implicate. I don't know why you seem to dismiss that.
I don't know why you're dismissing statewide elections, which have nothing to do with gerrymandering. Pat Toomey didn't get elected because of gerrymandered districts. He got elected because he got more popular votes than his opponent. What does that mean?? That there are a lot of conservatives in Pennsylvania! They're not conservative in the way that Trent Lott or Nikki Haley are conservative (I've already said like 5,000 times that they are liberal on economic issues). But they are conservatives nonetheless. I don't know why it's so hard for you to wrap your mind around this.
Besides, Republicans can never amass enough power to reshape districts in truly liberal states. You act as if a Republican majority just magically appeared in Harrisburg one day and started redrawing district lines. They had to get voted in to do that. And who voted them in? Apparently a whole bunch of people you claim don't exist in signficant numbers in PA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
Again, Santorum became much more conservative once he rose to Senator status. Clearly Pennsylvanians didn't take too kindly to his brand of politics. He was, once again, a one termer. That wasn't a fluke.
Dude, you are wrong, wrong and more wrong. Santorum was a two term senator. I mean, why do you keep saying he was only elected to one term when that's clearly wrong. You could just go to his Wiki page and see you're wrong. You're either not from Pennsylvania or you just don't pay much attention to politics. Based on some of your observations, I'll bet on the latter.
Quote:
Santorum served in the United States Senate representing Pennsylvania from 1995 to 2007.
In case you don't know, U.S. senators serve six year terms. Santorum served for 12 years. 12 divided by 6 equals 2. So that's two terms. Got it? And yes, he was just as conservative when he was in the Senate. He bragged about religion, his gigantic ass family, he supported the death penalty, opposed gay marriage, was endorsed by the NRA, aligned himself with Bush (which was probably his greatest downfall). The funny thing is that Bob Casey took the same position on most of these issues when he defeated him in 2006.
Quote:
Presumably learning from Santorum's mistakes, Toomey has definitely toned down the conservative rhetoric big time from the past.
Pat Toomey wouldn't even be in office in Maryland. He's still pro-choice. Still against gay marriage. He's only softened his stance on guns because 30+ kids were gunned down in a Connecticut classroom.
Quote:
I'm not trying to suggest that Pennsylvania has as liberal of a political climate as MD or NY. Obviously it does not.
But you basically are. I mean, why else are you posting? I initially said that PA and OH were politically similar. Ted Strickland, a more conservative Democrat, is exactly the type of guy who would do well in PA. You seem to want to put PA in this basket with Massachusetts or New York whose politics you undoubtedly view as being more "enlightened."
Quote:
However, I am contesting your characterization of Pennsylvania Democrats. The blue-collar, socially-conservative Democrats comprise much less of overall party than you're asserting.
You're big on assertion and light on facts and data. The Philadelphia suburbs have historically been "swingier" than the suburbs of Washington, DC. Or San Francisco. Or Boston. The media even went so far as to label traditionally Republican voters in the burbs and in the Lehigh Valley as "Rendellicans."
In the Central and Western parts of the state, many registered Democrats vote Republican. And I've shown that with data. The issue is not that they comprise a big percentage of the Democratic Party in PA. The issue is that they're defecting to the Republican Party.
Besides, I never said anything about socially-conservative Democrats being X percent of Dems in the state. I didn't even say they were typical Democrats in PA. I said that way more of these voters exist in PA and OH than MD and that they are a big reason for Republican inroads in both local, state and national elections. If the Western and Southwestern portions of the state had not flipped from Democratic to Republican, there'd be no way Bush would garner 48% of the popular vote. The votes have to come from somewhere. Duh.
Quote:
Politically, yes, Pennsylvania is clearly closer to Ohio, but you're making it sound much more conservative than it is. In comparison to very liberal surrounding states, perhaps, but in the scheme of national politics, it tends to be a pretty pragmatic, moderate state.
You must have missed the part where I said "OH leans a bit more to the right and PA a bit more to the left." If you had, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?
Quote:
Yes, I have also heard of the high NRA membership in Pennsylvania, but that's only one part of the equation. For one, Pennsylvania's gun ownership isn't particularly high in terms of a national comparison (please note fairly liberal states like Vermont, Oregon and Maine, by the way)
PA's gun ownership per capita (italicised because it's important) isn't as high as, say, Montana's because PA has big cities. And it's more urban overall. But once you get outside of the Philly and Pittsburgh metros, the ownership rates are very high. I'm not surprised by certain parts of New England because there is more of a libertarian streak there as well as many rural areas.
Quote:
Also, let's not forget that Pennsylvania's gun laws do rank fairly highly in strictness (10th).
In what bizzaro universe would PA's gun laws be considered "strict?" I would consider New York, Maryland, and Massachusetts to be "strict."
These are not Republicans in the mold of Mitt Romney, Olympia Snowe, Connie Morella or Scott Brown. They are conservatives in the truest sense of the word. That means Pro-Life. That means Pro-Gun. It's pretty simple.
I stand corrected about Santorum. I don't claim to be a seasoned expert about Pennsylvania politics, but I will admit when I am wrong. I still believe, however, that his election was an anomaly, and he was voted out of office largely because of his extremist politics.
Again, Pennsylvania has much more of a track record electing moderate Republicans al a Romney, Snowe and Brown. Please note that I am not suggesting that Pennsylvania doesn't have more of a propensity to elect Republicans than New York or Massachusetts. I'm simply contesting the characterization that they have all been of the
extremely conservative, bible-thumping, abortion-obsessed variety.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
You're big on assertion and light on facts and data. The Philadelphia suburbs have historically been "swingier" than the suburbs of Washington, DC. Or San Francisco. Or Boston. The media even went so far as to label traditionally Republican voters in the burbs and in the Lehigh Valley as "Rendellicans."
Historically, but again -- which has been my point overall with a lot of what you're saying -- that conventional wisdom is definitely no longer the case -- things have changed.
Here is documented proof of the Rep-to-Dem party switching in the Philly area, going back 10 years:
This is definitely having an affect on statewide politics, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
In what bizzaro universe would PA's gun laws be considered "strict?" I would consider New York, Maryland, and Massachusetts to be "strict."
You can ask the Brady Campaign about that. I'm not the one who did the legal analysis to determine level of strictness. The rankings are the rankings, however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Maybe you petition for Philadelphia secede from Pennsylvania. That way you can feel like you're living in Massachusetts.
HAH! Look, I have no agenda whatsoever here. I simply didn't agree with how you appeared to be characterizing the political landscape of Pennsylvania. Certainly I know that Pennsylvania is not MA or NY.
Through hashing this out a bit more, I think we agree more than we disagree. I simply wanted to add some other thoughts/perspectives to the conversation.
Again, Pennsylvania has much more of a track record electing moderate Republicans al a Romney, Snowe and Brown.
You could say that about a lot of states. Republicans in general were more moderate in 1980 than they are in 2013. Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford and Dwight Eisenhower would be run completely out of today's Republican Party. They'd be considered "liberals" in today's political climate. So you can't really compare the way a state voted 20 or 30 years ago to the way it votes today. Times have changed. So we need to focus on the Republicans that people are voting for in the present day.
That said, Romney, Snowe and Brown would have a tough time getting elected in PA today. Arlen Specter is a good example of what I'm talking about. He was a Republican for nearly 30 years, but then the state party shifted hard to the right, and essentially deserted him in favor of the far more conservative candidate, Pat Toomey. He was too liberal for Republicans and too conservative for Democrats. Consequently, he lost.
What we've essentially seen in PA is a Republican Party whose platform has shifted to the right, voters in the Philly burbs who now trend Democratic because the Republicans have become way too conservative, and ex-Democrats in the SW and Western part of the state who feel that they've been shafted by NAFTA, immigrants, quotas, etc. These voters (referring to SW and Western PA) were already social conservatives anyway so it wasn't as much of a stretch for them to vote Republican. They were only "liberal" in an economic sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
Please note that I am not suggesting that Pennsylvania doesn't have more of a propensity to elect Republicans than New York or Massachusetts. I'm simply contesting the characterization that they have all been of the extremely conservative, bible-thumping, abortion-obsessed variety.
See the above. The Republican Party in Pennsylvania has shifted hard right (Dems in SW and Western PA have shifted too). You have a view of the state that may have been accurate in 1950, but not the 21st Century. Republicans in PA are very culturally different from Republicans in Mississippi, and far more liberal on economics, but yes, they are often a bible-thumping, NRA card-holding, abortion-obsessed variety. Do you not remember Obama's comments that came out right in the midst of the PA primary (aka "Bittergate")?
Quote:
You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
The "cling" part of his statement is what got him in trouble, but the essence of his statement is accurate.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 09-13-2013 at 09:04 AM..
Historically, but again -- which has been my point overall with a lot of what you're saying -- that conventional wisdom is definitely no longer the case -- things have changed.
Here is documented proof of the Rep-to-Dem party switching in the Philly area, going back 10 years:
This is definitely having an affect on statewide politics, too.
My point was not that voters in the Philly burbs are conservative. My point was that voters in Philly and the burbs are conservative relative to Maryland voters (much more like voters in Northeast Ohio or Bergen County, NJ). Voting Democratic does not per se make you a full blown liberal. You could be an Irish Catholic in the Northeast/Bucks County who voted Clinton in the primary because you didn't want to vote for a black guy, but then voted for Obama in the general election because you just vote for Dems. I mean, Maryland was one of the few states where Obama won white men in the 2008 Democratic Primary. The Democrats in the DC suburbs in particular are far more similar to voters in the SF Bay Area than they are to voters in Philly. It's a far more liberal, PC, transient, pro-diversity, white collar, Whole Foods-eating, Subaru Outback-driving Democratic base (plus African Americans) rather than a more conservative, "bread and butter" Democratic base. They are different voters, which is why Obama lost PA and OH by almost identical, double-digit margins.
One of the reasons why someone like Chris Christie, Christine Todd Whitman or Rudy Giuliani can have success as Republicans is because there are a fair number of Democratic voters who are more conservative on social issues. In Maryland, Chris Christie would be likened to Hitler. The state has only had one Republican governor in the last 40 years and even he could be considered a liberal. And the only reason he was elected in the first place was because Kathleen Kennedy Townsend ran the most incompetent, inept and disastrous campaign in the history of American electoral politics. Anytime your name is "Kennedy," and you can't get elected in a liberal state with a 30% AA population, you simply suck as a candidate.
People need to get it out of their heads that Democratic means "liberal." There's a lot of diversity under that "Democrat" label and different people may vote for the same party in a general election for entirely different reasons.
Noooooo, he didn't. You're just advocating for him because you believe Baltimore and Richmond are one and the same, and because anybody who disagrees with me is automatically your friend. Well done for showing your true colors.
Thats my opinion how are you going to tell me noooo, Aquest1 hit some one some major points i wasn't thinking of you when i liked his comment Stlousian I know thats you lol you can't hide under another name.
By the way i never said that they were one in the same i just recognize that they do have some similarities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When was the last time Massachusetts or New York sent not one but two Republicans to the Senate? And when have Massachusetts or New York ever sent someone like Rick Santorum (twice) or Pat Toomey to Congress?
You clearly need to step outside of Center City and the liberal enclaves of the Philly burbs if you think that's the case.
