States with split politics

[hbelkins]

As the resident Kentucky political guru, guess I should chime in since I have personal knowledge and observation. ^{(citation needed)}

It's a power thing. Registration in Kentucky runs 3:2 D to R. In many counties, local elections are decided in the Democrat primary because there are either no Republicans running, or the opposition is token to minimal. Many people register D just so they'll get a chance to have a say in who wins local races for judge-executive, sheriff, county clerk, tax assessor, etc.

That carries over to statewide races. The overwhelming voter registration advantage is also borne out in elections for statewide offices.

There are a few liberal Democrats in Kentucky, but they're outnumbered by conservative D's -- "Reagan Democrats," if you will. It's really funny to read the lib bloggers in Lexington and Louisville whining about how Democrats out in the state are more in tune with Reagan than they are Obama or Teddy Kennedy. Natural resources (coal in particular) are very important to the economies of both ends of the state and there is a perception that liberal Democrats on the national level have done harm to the coal economy. There's also a strong religious belief system in Kentucky, a loyalty to the Second Amendment, and other factors that separate the beliefs of Kentucky Democrats from the national party.

Being Democrat and voting for Democrats allows Kentuckians to have a say in who runs the local and state governments, and people who are politically active can exercise power by being party leaders. But their beliefs run more toward conservatism than liberalism, so they vote GOP in national elections.

The Republicans are making gains in registration numbers and in winning legislative and local elections, however.

[3467]

KS v IL -IL has open primaries and huge turnouts compared to most states and that is what kept both parties to the center until very recently . There were many cases of well known politicians of one party that were found to have voted in opposite party primaries. I have a pattern of switching parties depending on the race and year.
As to newspaper endorsements. The Chicago Tribune was the kiss of death For some bizarre reason both parties have tried to appease their editorial board.

I would say Southern Illinois is just like Kentucky...but no one lives there. The rest of the of the state is moderate to Liberal at least socially. It used to be more anti-tax. No one paid a price for the big tax increase 2 years ago though

[flowmotion]

California has been fighting with partisan deadlock for decades now, but recently implemented reforms essentially give Democrats control over the entire state, at least until the GOP decides to check out of the mental ward.  (Ironically, these reforms were pushed through by Gov. Schwarzenegger, who was frustrated with the hardliners in his own party.)

First, a non-partisan redistricting commission eliminated some of districts which were gerrymandered to give the GOP the enough seats to block the annual budget (which they did, every single year).

Second, we've eliminated the party primary and replaced it with what is essentially a runoff election, with the top two advancing to the general election, even if they are of the same party. This should boost moderates of both parties.

The next step, in my belief, is to eliminated (or greatly increase) the legislature's term limits. While term limits are popular among voters, they tend to encourage partisan hacks who have no independent political base, in my view.

[bugo]

As the resident Kentucky political guru

Oh, how we tend to overrate our importance...

[J N Winkler]

KS v IL -IL has open primaries and huge turnouts compared to most states and that is what kept both parties to the center until very recently. There were many cases of well known politicians of one party that were found to have voted in opposite party primaries. I have a pattern of switching parties depending on the race and year.

Actually, if I understand these pages correctly, the system Illinois has now is very similar to what we have in Kansas.

http://www.bluerepublican.org/welcome-to-blue-republican/illinois/

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Voting_in_the_2012_primary_elections

The main difference is that in Kansas, the Democrats will allow unaffiliated voters to register Democrat when they vote, but with the Republicans you have to register in advance.  What I consider to be a true open-primary system is one where the voter can show up at the polls on the date of the primary election and request ballots for any and all parties, vote them, and have the votes be counted.  I am not sure there are any states classified as open-primary which actually allow the voter to vote multiple parties' ballots.  Blanket primaries, the current California system, are not the same thing since they entail a choice of two candidates for each post regardless of party, and thus do not afford the same opportunities to block unsuitable candidates or promote good candidates from the weaker major party.  In my Senate district, a California-style blanket primary would have resulted in a Republican-versus-Republican general-election runoff between Schodorf and O'Donnell.

Some of the other reforms Flowmotion mentions for California, such as a nonpartisan districting commission (which I understand is also used in Washington state), sound promising.  Experience with the formally nonpartisan Boundary Commission in the United Kingdom, however, suggests that such bodies are not completely successful in eliminating structural biases for one party (the current boundary map is considered to favor Labour over the Tories).

As to newspaper endorsements. The Chicago Tribune was the kiss of death For some bizarre reason both parties have tried to appease their editorial board.

The Eagle is a bit spotty.  It is a McClatchy newspaper and McClatchy has its HQ in Sacramento, so the black-is-white, lie-big rightwingers in Kansas like to portray it as a bastion of socialism.  But actually the editorial line is more subtle.  Most of the endorsements are sensible (focusing on the candidate's qualifications rather than fealty to party line), though there are some more tenuous endorsements for Chamber of Commerce types which I regard as rent paid for the ability to support the more liberal candidates.

On the straight reporting side, the Eagle is quite good at wrapping subtle denigration in valentines--a journalistic technique familiar to German newspaper reporters under the Nazis who were writing for big dailies other than the Völkischer Beobachter.  For example, the Eagle ran a multi-day feature on the Koch family which was widely criticized for slathering them with praise, airbrushing out the siblings who have been squeezed out of the family business, etc.  But this wedding-cake of sycophancy still managed to leave you with takeaways showing how creepy the Kochs are, such as Charles' remark at one point that the company had learned the hard way not to hire smart people who would question or dispute the orders they were given.

[NE2]

The Eagle is a bit spotty.

"Spotty" is RNC-speak for "African-American."

[hbelkins]

As the resident Kentucky political guru

Oh, how we tend to overrate our importance...

Well, I am the only Kentuckian here who takes an active interest in politics.

Do you have a comment on my analysis, or are you just here to take personal potshots?

[3467]

Illinois has a true open primary. You just have to walk in a request the ballot of whatever ballot you want no registration,
Iowa is more like Kansas where there is registration but the parties vary on how they let indepndats vote in primaries or their famed caucus

[1995hoo]

Virginia has open primaries as well because we do not register by party. Nominations for statewide office aren't always handled via primary, however; the Republicans frequently use a convention to nominate the gubernatorial candidate. They last used a primary in 2005 and wound up somewhat embarrassed when the anointed candidate in a largely uncontested primary (then—attorney general Jerry Kilgore) only got 82% of the vote.

[kphoger]

I would say Southern Illinois is just like Kentucky...but no one lives there.

Saint Clair County:  pop. 270,000+
Madison County:  pop. 269,000+
Williamson County:  pop. 66,000+
Jackson County:  pop. 60,000+

Yeah, that Saint Louis place is itty bitty.

[bugo]

As the resident Kentucky political guru

Oh, how we tend to overrate our importance...

Well, I am the only Kentuckian here who takes an active interest in politics.

*cough* bandit73.  I know you don't consider him human, but he is just as interested in Kentucky politics as you are, if not more.

Do you have a comment on my analysis, or are you just here to take personal potshots?

I gave my comment.

[Brandon]

As the resident Kentucky political guru

Oh, how we tend to overrate our importance...

Well, I am the only Kentuckian here who takes an active interest in politics.

*cough* bandit73.  I know you don't consider him human, but he is just as interested in Kentucky politics as you are, if not more.

Do you have a comment on my analysis, or are you just here to take personal potshots?

I gave my comment.

Tim really doesn't seem to do much commentary here other than in the photos section.

[hbelkins]

*cough* bandit73.  I know you don't consider him human, but he is just as interested in Kentucky politics as you are, if not more.

That's not true. I disagree with him and I think he would benefit from medication sometimes, but I don't consider him to not be human, and he doesn't really participate in the discussions here, as stated above.

I gave my comment.

Which wasn't about my analysis or observations, but was about me personally.

[SP Cook]

Do you have a comment on my analysis, or are you just here to take personal potshots?

I think the answer to that is pretty clear.

Anyway, I do have a comment.  I've always considered WV and KY politics to be similar, and I get KY political ads and news on local TV. 

I really do not see in WV this "Reagan democrat" "conservative democrat" whatever thing.  I think it is more of a "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" thing.  Here in my state we are on our fourth in a row, and, interpted by a single RINO term, sixth out of the last seven govenor's terms of people who portray themselves as "conservatve democrats".  The legislature (which is going to be 55-45 in the House, the best GOP showing in 80 years) is primarially people who portray themselves as "conservative democrats".  The Supreme Court (which is partsian elected) has been of late populated by at least three (a majority) people who portrayed themselves as "conservative democrats". 

But, in-between them and the civil service, are the "will and pleasure" appointees.  The secretaries, under-secretaries, commissioners, etc, who are supposed to carry out policy.  And these people are the farthest left-liberal extreme people.   Freed from actually running for office, they are free to express how they really feel.  The civil service is put in the position of seeing the Governor, et al, saying one thing; but the department they are in being run by people that tell them to do the exact opposite.

At the federal level, at least one of our Senators and our sole remaining democrat congressman, just got re-elected, despite stating their opposition to basicly everything the democat party has done or wants to do.

Two conclusions are possible.  Either a succession of people smart enough to get elected to high office are so stupid as to not know what their personal reports believe, or what is actually going on in the government they head.  Or the more simple conclusion.  These are simply people who say one thing, but believe (and eventually do) the exact opposite.  Putting together a coalition of people who understand this and are happy about it and just enought people who buy the lie of "conservative democrat" to get just over 50%.

I don't think Kentucky is really very different.

[J N Winkler]

S.P., it's interesting to see how you evade the moderator's instruction to use correct names equally (including equal capitalization) for the Democrats and Republicans by using "GOP" exclusively for "Republican."

[cpzilliacus]

The next step, in my belief, is to eliminated (or greatly increase) the legislature's term limits. While term limits are popular among voters, they tend to encourage partisan hacks who have no independent political base, in my view.

I strongly agree.  I don't have a problem with limits on chief elected officers (governors and presidents) of two or three terms, but term limits on members of legislatures is not a good thing, and I think may make matters worse.
Post Merge: November 29, 2012, 07:52:10 PM

At the federal level, at least one of our Senators and our sole remaining democrat congressman, just got re-elected, despite stating their opposition to basicly everything the democat party has done or wants to do.

The New Republic ran this today - Jay Rockefeller's in Big Trouble in West Virginia -- and So Are the Dems

[vdeane]

The next step, in my belief, is to eliminated (or greatly increase) the legislature's term limits. While term limits are popular among voters, they tend to encourage partisan hacks who have no independent political base, in my view.

I strongly agree.  I don't have a problem with limits on chief elected officers (governors and presidents) of two or three terms, but term limits on members of legislatures is not a good thing, and I think may make matters worse.

Term limits are supposed to get rid of career politicians.  In fact, I would not be opposed to replacing elections with a random draft, like the military one.

[J N Winkler]

Term limits are supposed to get rid of career politicians.

The problem is that they don't; at best they impose an up-or-out promotion system for them, and also create an incentive to support policy proposals with severely backloaded costs as long as the costs fall after the term limit has run out (by which time the politician who has irresponsibly voted for it is either out of office or in a new post where he or she cannot be held accountable).  Term limits also guarantee that you lose the benefit of institutional memory, which is necessary to avoid policy cycling in some complex areas of public policy.

In fact, I would not be opposed to replacing elections with a random draft, like the military one.

That is an even worse idea--there are excellent reasons why we now have an all-volunteer military, at the military's own initiative.  A person chosen at random may very well outperform a crook, but to choose your legislators randomly because you have zero confidence in your ability to weed out the crooks is a counsel of despair.

[Brandon]

S.P., it's interesting to see how you evade the moderator's instruction to use correct names equally (including equal capitalization) for the Democrats and Republicans by using "GOP" exclusively for "Republican."

The Republican Party has used "GOP" on many occasions, and the Democratic Party has used "Democrat Party" as well in the past.  It's only been recently when some have gotten rather touchy about it.

Are we going to fight about this sort of silly shit?

[NE2]

Only Demublican and Republicrat are correct.

[hbelkins]

Anyway, I do have a comment.  I've always considered WV and KY politics to be similar, and I get KY political ads and news on local TV. 

I really do not see in WV this "Reagan democrat" "conservative democrat" whatever thing.  I think it is more of a "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" thing.  Here in my state we are on our fourth in a row, and, interpted by a single RINO term, sixth out of the last seven govenor's terms of people who portray themselves as "conservatve democrats".  The legislature (which is going to be 55-45 in the House, the best GOP showing in 80 years) is primarially people who portray themselves as "conservative democrats".  The Supreme Court (which is partsian elected) has been of late populated by at least three (a majority) people who portrayed themselves as "conservative democrats". 

But, in-between them and the civil service, are the "will and pleasure" appointees.  The secretaries, under-secretaries, commissioners, etc, who are supposed to carry out policy.  And these people are the farthest left-liberal extreme people.   Freed from actually running for office, they are free to express how they really feel.  The civil service is put in the position of seeing the Governor, et al, saying one thing; but the department they are in being run by people that tell them to do the exact opposite.

At the federal level, at least one of our Senators and our sole remaining democrat congressman, just got re-elected, despite stating their opposition to basicly everything the democat party has done or wants to do.

Two conclusions are possible.  Either a succession of people smart enough to get elected to high office are so stupid as to not know what their personal reports believe, or what is actually going on in the government they head.  Or the more simple conclusion.  These are simply people who say one thing, but believe (and eventually do) the exact opposite.  Putting together a coalition of people who understand this and are happy about it and just enought people who buy the lie of "conservative democrat" to get just over 50%.

I don't think Kentucky is really very different.

Much of what you describe in WV is, as you point out, very much like Kentucky. A lot of the appointees are much farther to the left than what the governor portrayed himself to be when he ran. And many of the same appointees have been in their jobs for years. It really didn't matter which Democrat they may have supported in the primary, they kept some sort of appointed position (maybe the same job, or maybe they got moved, or maybe a director became a commissioner and a commissioner got demoted to a director). As much as I liked Ernie Fletcher, Kentucky's last GOP governor and the first one in 32 years, he kept way too many appointees from his D predecessor. They had no loyalty to him and were just holding on (in some cases actively undermining him) until another D could be elected.

Speaking of our governor, he was an outspoken opponent of a lot of Obama's actions and proposals concerning the EPA, coal mining, etc. He even went so far as to demand the EPA "get off our backs" during one of his State of the Commonwealth addresses. Yet instead of supporting Romney, whose positions on coal mining were much more favorable to Kentucky and in line with his stated opinions, he blindly supported Obama.

S.P., it's interesting to see how you evade the moderator's instruction to use correct names equally (including equal capitalization) for the Democrats and Republicans by using "GOP" exclusively for "Republican."

I think this thread applies...

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8159.0

[vdeane]

That is an even worse idea--there are excellent reasons why we now have an all-volunteer military, at the military's own initiative.  A person chosen at random may very well outperform a crook, but to choose your legislators randomly because you have zero confidence in your ability to weed out the crooks is a counsel of despair.

I'm of the opinion that someone who actually wants to be a politician is probably someone who shouldn't be trusted to make policy; it's actually been shown that there's a higher than normal percentage of sociopaths in politics because one needs those personality traits to be a successful politician!

[kphoger]

So it would be better to have someone with no aptitude, desire, or experience to hold a position?

[Alps]

So it would be better to have someone with no aptitude, desire, or experience to hold a position?

I have the aptitude and desire to hold high position. In order to get the experience, I have to abandon my morals. So it goes.

And I guess I'm seeing one possible answer to the original question: Parties are a name, but whereas a Presidential election is national, a senatorial or gubernatorial (who the hell came up with that word?) election is statewide, and state politics under the same name as the national party can vary toward the sentiment of the state overall.

[flowmotion]

Term limits are supposed to get rid of career politicians.  In fact, I would not be opposed to replacing elections with a random draft, like the military one.

This is a terrible analogy, so I apologize up front. A Career Politician is like a wife you have to live with. A term-limited politician is like a prostitute with one eye on the clock.

On a couple occasions, a legislator thought he could express his independence and cut a deal with the other side. Guess what, the GOP laid down the pimp-hand and ran a successful recall election in his district.

I'd rather have a Career Politician, with name recognition and some popular support, who can give the finger to the party establishment if he wants to. Term Limits were put in place to get rid of Willie Brown, but they ended up weakening the minority Republicans most of all.