The legislature is usually Democrat.

The Governor has only been a Republican twice.

There are 2,434,401 registered Democrats and 1,737,459 registered Republicans (as of 2003)

Why does NC always vote Republican for president?

2/19/2008 8:34:39 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

2/19/2008 8:36:21 PM

Because the south wanted blacks to register to vote by guessing the number of jellybeans in a jar. Yankee democrats thought differently.

2/19/2008 8:39:51 PM

did you read the first post or just dig up some obscure historical fact that has no significance?

2/19/2008 8:43:26 PM

Quote :

"The North Carolina Democratic Party is the North Carolina affiliate of the national Democratic Party. The current chair is Jerry Meek [1], a Fayetteville attorney. The chair is elected by and leads the state Executive Committee, a body of more than 700 Democratic Party leaders and activists from all 100 counties, which governs the party.[2] Meek has used his position in the organization to rework the party's operations in the state from the ground up. He has emphasized "precinct-based activism," in which precincts would have a great deal of autonomy and financial support from the state party. North Carolina Democrats scored impressive victories in the 2006 general elections, increasing their majorities in both houses of the North Carolina General Assembly and defeating incumbent Republican Congressman Charles Taylor. In addition, most candidates backed by Democrats in the non-partisan races for the North Carolina Supreme Court and the North Carolina Court of Appeals were elected."

Wiki makes it sound like the dem's are doing pretty good in NC except for in US senate (which w/ dole's low support #'s may be about to change) & pres elections.





We aren't that red in presidential elections, but only one person can win a race, so maybe we look more red than we are.

My point being perhaps we aren't as pro-any-republican-whatsoever-for-president as we seem, but I don't have an answer as for why we are as red in that race as we are.

2/19/2008 9:06:18 PM

because a large part of NC population is


a. reactionary christian evangelicals who want the [insert christian pandering candidate] & Jesus 08' ticket

b. are the git-er-dun type of working class american who gets pissed at illegals taking their jobs and paying welfare and actually think the higher up GOP candidates give a damn about their pathetic lives in the trailor park

c. are more of the libertarian types like me and do not want to see all their hard earned income being wasted socialized medicine, welfare, and other gov't projects.


whats sad though it seems that the current president has lost sight of many of the traditional conservative ideals yet most people are too dumb to know any better. They just grow up hearing their parents bitch about liberals or yankees so they just slap a "W" sticker to their F150 when they reach voting age and do not actually pay attention to what is going on.

[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 9:38 PM. Reason : a]

2/19/2008 9:36:37 PM

North Carolina if anything is actually a Democratic stronghold.

They don't vote that way in federal elections cause the federal Democratic Party does not line up with the views of the North Carolina Democratic Party. So about 10-12% of the state's voters are Democrats for state elections and Republicans for federal elections, therefore giving this group of voters the balance of power in the state.

On the flipside, the same can be said for New England Republicans somewhat (vote Republican at state-level, vote Democrat at federal level).

[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 9:41 PM. Reason : /]

2/19/2008 9:39:57 PM

Because the democratic party these days isn't even close to what it use to be. It's run by far left people.

2/19/2008 9:47:47 PM

i do not mind leftist positions on social issues.

I abhor the thought thought of universal healthcare and a gov't that hands out money to everyone who does not feel like working.

2/19/2008 9:51:52 PM

NC and the entire South used to be fully Democratic voting (look at the "The Century in Elections" thread) because historically, the Democratic party has stood for organized labor, agriculture subsidies, and help for the poor and common man. The South has historically been agriculturally based and is poorer than New England and the West, so the core of the historical Democratic platform has always been financially and economically beneficial to NC and the South. Likewise, historically the Republican/Conservative platform has been in favor of big business and richer people, which is why rich states like in New England, and all the businesses in NY and Wallstreet have strong Conservative roots.

The shift has happened in the past 50 years or so, where things have more or less switched. I can think of three lines of reasoning off the top of my head, all or none of which may or may not be true in one way or another:

1) It has been said that people vote for local and state governments based on issues that directly effect them most, like taxes and subsidies and such, and vote in national elections more based on "values" or "moral issues", which, arguably, have a less direct or immediate effect on a person's well-being. e.g. in principle, Republicans want abortion outlawed, but generally abortion doesn't directly affect their everyday lives, so they will leave it up to the federal government to eventually outlaw abortion, while voting locally for issues that will effect them tomorrow, next week and next year. This line of reasoning would generally support the trends we see, where southern states will vote Democratic on a state level (to benefit themselves directly, usually financially) and Republican nationally (to benefit the country as a whole by instituting "moral legislation"), and "liberal states" will vote Republicans to governor (since they are more likely to be business owners or be well-off, so local tax cuts will benefit themselves directly) but Democrats nationally (to benefit the country by instituting more liberal legislation).

2) Before ~50 years ago, the political parties were more concerned with mostly economic policies rather than moral or value policies. i.e. in the 1930s, you can be sure that gay marriage and abortion weren't at the top of the list of priorities for politicians (although I guess it could be said things like prohibition would fall under that category). Anyway, as such, people would generally vote for their own financial self interests, which if #1 is true, would indicate poor southerners would vote Democratic and more well-off New Englanders would vote Republican. I think it was within the past 50 years, though, that Republican strategists basically hijacked the old-style Financially Conservative Republican Party and turned it into the Religious Right. It was explicitly a strategy to get strong Christians and religious people to vote Republican, meaning the South would follow. The framers of the party purposefully moved the focus of the Republican Party away from the old-style fiscal conservation and made religious morals the centerpiece of the party. By strongly associating Republicans with moral issues like anti-abortion and anti-gay rights, the Republican party has made Christians feel alienated and like bad Christians if they don't vote that way. But, of course, they only vote that way nationally, for a government who has control over the Constitution and federal laws, but locally/state they still vote for policies that have a direct effect on their wallet/job/livelihood.

3) The main points of #1 and #2 has been that people will vote with their wallets locally, and with their hearts nationally. But, they will always look after themselves first (i.e. their wallets). It could be argued that the general financial state of the populous as a whole has risen significantly in the past 50 years, especially after WWII when the USA became the sole superpower and biggest financial giant on earth. So even though there are still plenty of poor people, especially in the South, poor people as a whole are still better well-off than poor people at the beginning of the 1900's, and the Middle Class has grown significantly since then. Therefore, as more and more people become at least solid or comfortable financially, they are more likely to start making their political decisions based on values and morals. So in the past (like 1920) and very poor person (but religious) person would vote straight Democrat across the board, because his financial needs trumped any "values needs" from his politicians. But when that person moved into the Middle Class, he could turn some of his attention away from his day-to-day economic status and more towards moral or values issues.

2/19/2008 10:19:19 PM

The South has been a Republican since right after the Prez signed the Civil Rights Act...went from Dem to Republican and sadly still is(for Presidential elections)

It basically changed overnight from Dem to Republican....Eisenhower(sp) said after he signed it that he cost his party the South for at least two generations.

My dad remembers how in a instant the Solid South for the Dems turned into the Solid South for the Republicans.





[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 11:17 PM. Reason : w]

2/19/2008 11:13:41 PM

I think you mean LBJ.

2/19/2008 11:23:27 PM

Yeah yeah, I have heard all about the "The south is racist and republicans are racist, so southerners vote republican" theory, which would make perfect sense.

Except:

Quote :

"The legislature is usually Democrat. The Governor has only been a Republican twice. There are 2,434,401 registered Democrats and 1,737,459 registered Republicans (as of 2003) Why does NC always vote Republican for president?"

2/19/2008 11:45:23 PM

I've always wonder this myself, it happens in a lot of states.

Nationally there are a shitload more democrats then republicans, but voter turnout is huge for republicans. An old republican motto is to "wish for rain on the presidential election day".

2/20/2008 12:15:05 AM

Quote :

"Before ~50 years ago, the political parties were more concerned with mostly economic policies rather than moral or value policies."

I'd argue to the contrary. The dems today are more concerned about social healthcare, gov't regulation to go green, sympathy welfare checks to the poor. More than they are about the social issues. This is a large part as to why i'm

McCain 08'

If Dems had a strong candidate more concerned over the gov't encroachment of the bill of rights, waste of money the war on drugs has been, etc. I might think twice.

On the flip the same opposite for the GOP which i am surprised hasn't disgruntled traditional conservatives. The GOP has taken the focus off the economy and onto social and foreigh issues. I guess when you average american is sitting around being skerred over the turrists they ignore what 1/2 of being conservative really means (fiscal responsibility, smaller gov't, individual responsibility, no welfare social or corporate). The GOP is too busy rallying people to the banner of WAR, getting dem turrists, and National Security (big brothers is coming for ya). As well as *gasp gay marriage!

I guess my political positions are fucked as my liberal social views are ignored by the dems pandering to the pro-welfare big happy socialist nation hippies. Meanwhile my conservative views are given the backburner by my GOP friends b.c they gotta spend BIG to get dem turrists and to make Jesus happy by safeguarding family values to appease the Christian right.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 12:50 AM. Reason : l]

2/20/2008 12:45:21 AM

Quote :

"The dems today are more concerned about .... sympathy welfare checks to the poor"

i really don't think that's true of the average Democratic voter. I believe the welfare issue is mostly a red herring by the Right, or at least it's not truly as big of a deal to Democrats as Republicans make it out to be.

2/20/2008 7:33:20 AM

I have seven very honest answers for this even though they are not very well fit for the Soap Box because they aren't what most of you would like to hear or consider from people these days....

it has little to nothing to do with actual politics....it's much more social and historical than political....

I'm not making this up either....this has been explained to me time and time and time again by Democrats (both young and old) in North Carolina when I question them on why they are Democrats when their beliefs are so CLEARLY Conservative...

1) Great Depression - "Hoover times were hard times for everybody"...and since Hoover was a Republican he was a terrible person and so were all Republicans

2) FDR - He saved them from the Depression...he made jobs...he boosted the economy...he was also a Democrat

3) Harry Truman - He blew up Japan and got us out of WWII....this man was a national hero and a Democrat...

4) LBJ - a vast majority of North Carolinians are Baptist...it was a struggle for many of these people to vote for that damn dirty Catholic Yankee John F. Kennedy for that very reason....but since this is the generation that was still so affected by the Depression and WWII they had to because all that Republican Eisenhower did was make us look like fools in Korea....then, low and behold he got picked off and the nation was once again saved by a Protestant Texan...Democrat

5) Jim Graham - if you've never been to the Piedmont this probably makes so sense to you...but everybody in Rowan, Iredell, Davie, etc is related to him, went to church with him or his family, was taught in school by someone in his family, etc....he got a stronghold on this state many years ago and kept it until he died...he was both a farmer and a Democrat...

5) Jim Hunt - this is the same principle as Jim Graham except for the Eastern part of the state....I've known this man my entire life, my parents/aunts/uncles/etc went to high school and church with him, his mother taught everybody in the community, he's related to VERY influential people in several counties in, and around, Wilson...he won the minorities and the teachers over years ago and they make up the majority of the legitimate Democratic party....he also was both a farmer and Democrat....

7) I'm not going to give this reason a 'title' because there is none you can give aside from pure racism...this is the one that's going to stir a lot of emotion here and upset a lot of people...this applies largely to the eastern part of the state....and I will swear on my Grandmother's grave that this has been told to me by several, and I mean several, "registered" Democrats....

The eastern part of NC is largely rural, poor, and black....since the vast majority of black people are Democrats this means that an inordinate number of Democrats are concentrated in the eastern part of the state....this also means the chances of having black leaders is much greater in these areas....since a large majority of people from NC still retain the racist mindset they were taught as children the only way around this issue is for them to register Democrat, vote for the white people, and ensure that the black people aren't voted into office...then they vote Republican in the National Election....simple as that...


these reasons are all along the same vein as what agentlion said but NO WHERE NEAR as political or economical as his explanations....they have so much more to do with "this is how I was raised"....

it all boils down to this --- NC is still a good old, racist, frat-boy of a state and this isn't very likely to change in our lifetime....

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 9:29 AM. Reason : typos]

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 9:43 AM. Reason : damn...i should reread]

2/20/2008 9:23:24 AM

^Wow, I've never seen Truman overshadow FDR before.

2/20/2008 9:33:00 AM

hahahaha....GAH....I was thinking faster than I was typing....

I fixed it...thanks

2/20/2008 9:44:30 AM

Wow, I'm not from the eastern part of the state, so I don't know for sure, but are you telling me people register to vote democrat JUST to keep black people out of office?

I mean, if all they care about is keeping the blacks out of office, why not vote democrat in the national election too? It's almost never black people running for president on the democratic side.

I mean, in the 2000 election, the republican candidate was a damn Connecticut yankee and the Democrat was a southern baptist Tennessee boy.

2/20/2008 10:30:57 AM

Blackwater's headquarters is in NC, and NC is also a military stronghold

And there's a bunch of religious fanatics and idiots/racists/bigots... lots of reasons

2/20/2008 10:37:59 AM

My own opinion is people initially started voting Republican in Presidential elections due to the Southern Strategy employed by Nixon. The reason it people have continued to vote Republican can be traced to the union of the Republican Party and the religous right, and the heavy use of social wedge issues in national elections. The strong military presence in the South and the ability of Republicans to protray themselves as stronger on national security has is also a factor, the Dems nominating liberal Northeastern candidates like Dukakis and Kerry certainly hasn't helped matters. Social wedge issues and the military tend not to be big factors in state and local races.

2/20/2008 10:41:12 AM

Quote :

"And there's a bunch of religious fanatics and idiots/racists/bigots... lots of reasons"

Democrats?

"since a large majority of people from NC still retain the racist mindset they were taught as children the only way around this issue is for them to register Democrat, vote for the white people, and ensure that the black people aren't voted into office...then they vote Republican in the National Election....simple as that..."

Wow

2/20/2008 10:44:00 AM

Republicans today stand for what most in the south stand for in social terms. The wierdos in the democratic party don't stand for what the working class people stand for.

2/20/2008 10:46:35 AM

Quote :

"The wierdos in the democratic party don't stand for what the working class people stand for."

that's pretty much exactly what the Republican Party wants people to think, and obviously that strategy has mostly worked.

2/20/2008 10:54:04 AM

I believe that. I think most people want to work hard and dont want the govt managing thier lives. Most believe that govt at worst is evil and at best is terribly ineffiecent and wasteful with their money, so they want less of it.

of course you have a growing population who know nothing else but govt handouts, but they tend to vote for another party.

2/20/2008 11:00:51 AM

^ you are so detached from reality that it's ridiculous.

2/20/2008 11:08:27 AM

Really, why do you think that? You can PM if you wish.

Just yesterday I showed you the difference between money spent on war and on entitlements. Did that sink in? You didnt respond, so i figured you choose to ignore it. Didnt fit into YOUR reality did it.

2/20/2008 11:11:35 AM

^^^^No, I agree with him. He is reiterating my point, that people were voting based on social wedge issues rather than their economic best interest.



Additionally, I think some of you must have slept through welfare reform. By the way, it was signed by a Democratic president.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 11:12 AM. Reason : .]

2/20/2008 11:11:59 AM

Quote :

"I believe that. I think most people want to work hard and dont want the govt managing thier lives. Most believe that govt at worst is evil and at best is terribly ineffiecent and wasteful with their money, so they want less of it. "

yeah, but you're making economic arguments about why people vote Republican vs. Democrat.

I honestly believe that the average man-on-the-street doesn't know that much about Fiscal Conservatism vs. (at the extreme) Socialism. I think that if you ask most people today about what the difference between Republicans and Democrats is, or why they vote Republican or Democratic, their reasons are going to be related to social and values issues, not economic/fiscal policy.


[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 11:15 AM. Reason : .]

2/20/2008 11:13:05 AM

Mark, I will give clinton credit for trying to fix a problem. However, it just didnt work.

Ill give bush credit for trying to fix SS, just didnt get it through. Where I despise Bush is INCREASING entitlements with the medicare drug plan. Most fiscially irresponsible thing Ive witnessed, well until they pass socialized medicine.


I dont think clinton was a terrible president by anymeans. However, I was in school and not paying for that massive tax increase. The stock market soaring really helped offset the hurt of the taxes. Repubs love to harp on the BJ thing. I dont care, however, he did lie under oath and that shouldnt be ignored. imo NAFTA wasnt so hot in teh long run either for our manufacturing base.

In hindsight did we miss a chance at OBL? yep. Are there some things he probably wishes he would have done differently, but cant politically say it.. no doubt. Im sure bush is the same.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 11:19 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 11:20 AM. Reason : .]

2/20/2008 11:16:53 AM

Quote :

"However, I was in school and not paying for that massive tax increase."

you're making a pretty damned big assumption that had you not been in school, you would have fallen into the top-2 tax brackets, > ~$150k/year. Otherwise, you wouldn't have seen much of a difference, or would have been paying less in 1993 than in 1992

2/20/2008 11:29:10 AM

^^I would argue that Bush tried to kill SS rather than fix it. In the State of the Union he demanded that Congress "fix" it without providing any proposal.

SS was "fixed" under Reagan for another several decades, and a similar bipartisan commission will need to address it again.

2/20/2008 11:36:05 AM

Quote :

"Just yesterday I showed you the difference between money spent on war and on entitlements. Did that sink in? You didnt respond, so i figured you choose to ignore it. Didnt fit into YOUR reality did it. "

I asked for the numbers, I never once said I didn't believe it... I didn't refute it at all. I just asked for the fucking numbers. You gave them to me, so thanks.

2/20/2008 11:40:33 AM

The south did switch almost over night with the change in civil rights legislation. They kept a local democrat mindset because at the time the local democrats were not supporting the civil rights change (dixiecrats). once they switched the never went back.

After race relations the republicans had communism that they were fighting and being a strong area militarily we kept alongside those who had our interest.

Republicans didn't switch to this ultra religious zealot mindset in the last 50 years, its more like in the last 20. The fall of communism removed a central enemy that the party had keeping it together. So religious fervor replaced its anti-communism counterpart. This change has helped the republicans keep NC's votes at the national level seeing as how there is a strong religious support in the area.

clif notes: what someone else said about local governments having to deal with our immediate financial issues and the federal level being representative of our social issues is the most accurate to what the case is.

2/20/2008 12:23:23 PM

Quote :

"NC and the entire South used to be fully Democratic voting (look at the "The Century in Elections" thread) because historically, the Democratic party has stood for organized labor, agriculture subsidies, and help for the poor and common man slavery."

There fixed it

2/20/2008 12:48:04 PM

lol i love it when repubs say "we are the party of lincoln"

2/20/2008 2:48:19 PM

^look up who the voting majority for the civil rights act was. hint, it wasnt the democrats.

LOL, I love it when dems dont know thier history.

2/20/2008 2:54:00 PM

Quote :

"i do not mind leftist positions on social issues. I abhor the thought thought of universal healthcare and a gov't that hands out money to everyone who does not feel like working."

I think a lot of North Carolinians, especially in our generation, are in this same position. Open minded but not open walleted. I consider myself liberal on social issues and moderate (w/ some left leanings) on financial issues. Infrastructure is important and to some degree safety net is good too. A society can be judged on how it treats the least amongst it, but your not treating a man well if you are giving him the fish instead of teaching him to fish.

I weigh social issues over my own wallet. A government that doesn't spy on me, that stays out of consenting adults bedrooms, that leaves me my civil rights & freedoms, that doesn't mess with peoples human rights, and that doesn't torture is what I want. And in the end that outweighs my wallet, it has to. For that reason I am a democrat (Its not like the republicans aren't a big spending party these days anyways).

And also for that reason I think its important to take primaries seriously. To help shape the democratic party into one that creates the infrastructure we need, that understands the importance of treating properly the least amongst us while valuing workfare over welfare, and that above all respects human and civil rights and freedoms.

Thats why, even as someone who strongly identifies himself as a democrat, I'm an Obama supporter rather than Clinton who has been a party figure much longer.

Hillary is socially more conservative and a bigger spender financially of where I am.

Obama is much closer to where I am. Even if he's not perfect on financial issues, I'd rather the democrat party drift towards his ideals than Hillary's. (i don't recall the detailed specifics of their healthcare plans, but i've heard hillarys described as healthcare for all, and Obama described as healthcare should be affordable for all if they opt to purchase it) And its very important to me to shift the democratic party into what I think it should be in the long term rather than abandon it's commitment to civil/human rights/liberties for some cash savings in the short term.

McCain is far right from where I am socially and from the kinds of things he says these days is likely to be a big spender too. And also I don't like the idea of war with Iran. We can lead the world towards democracy and peace without so readily using war as a tool.

2/20/2008 3:19:21 PM

After talking to that social worker today. One of the great welfare reforms was that after 12 months after your baby was born you had to show you were looking for employment. Sounds like a good plan right. Except now it just encourages them to stay preggers, which they do to avoid working. Just another well intentioned plan that just doenst work.

2/20/2008 6:16:56 PM

I agree with Flyin Ryan. North Carolina Democrats are on average, slightly more conservative than their national party. North Carolinians have no problem voting for local Democrats for most races involving local candidates (state and national legislature for example) but may have more difficulty lining up with a national candidate who is a bit further left than they are comfortable with.

That, or an old axiom that I heard once might hold true: you want Democrats locally because they can have a more direct impact on quality of life but you want a Republican in the White House to handle the larger macro issues like security. Of course, given the current administration, the latter rings a bit hollow these days.

2/21/2008 12:12:42 AM

It seems that you've overlooked the Jessecrats, Reagan Democrats, and a more recent trend in North Carolina and elsewhere: more unaffiliated voters.

Unaffiliated voters are an emerging force (2006)

Quote :

"Political change may arrive with the speed of a tsunami transforming all before it. The GOP takeover of Congress in 1994 was such an event. Another change may move more slowly like a steadily rising tide. We take note only after it reaches us. The ascent of unaffiliated voters in North Carolina is such a phenomenon. Today one in every five registered voters is unaffiliated with any political party. This growth in the unaffiliated eclipsed the majority status of the Democrats and prevented the GOP from significant gains in its share of registered voters [emphasis added]. Since 1996, the Democratic share statewide of all registered voters has dropped to a plurality of 45.61 percent — a decrease of almost 9 percent — which contrasts with an 8 percent increase in the unaffiliated. (Actual numbers of registered Democrats increased 7 percent, suggesting that older party loyalists still hang in there.) The Republicans' share was almost frozen with a percentage gain of less than 1 percent. The GOP now claims 34.6 percent statewide. The growth of the unaffiliated has permeated much of the state. In the 14 counties of the 11th Congressional District, the trend in party registration almost paralleled the state. Democrats dropped more than 10 percent to a present share of about 41 percent. The GOP decreased slightly less than a full percentage point to just under 36 percent. The unaffiliated had almost a full 10 percent rise to over 23 percent [emphasis added]. This rise of the unaffiliated and their apparent ticket splitting produce mixed electoral results with Republican and Democratic candidates in different statewide races receiving similar vote counts. The 2004 General Election provides numerous examples. George Bush and Dick Cheney, opposed by John Kerry and North Carolina's Sen. John Edwards, tallied over 1.9 million votes. However, their count only exceeded Democratic Gov. Mike Easley’s by little more than 22,000 votes. While Democrats continued to dominate state government, the GOP did have gains on the Council of State. If neither party or regional loyalties determines electoral outcomes, what does? Future research may give us more answers but there is already enough data to provide useful insights to candidates in this year's races. The John Locke Foundation reports that its Agenda poll has showed 'a steadily rising percentage of North Carolina voters labeling themselves as conservative. In 2004, the share reached 45 percent.' Other polls reported by Locke's John Hood showed that the number of North Carolinians identifying themselves as conservative or moderate was about 40 percent each. 'Self-identified liberals' were reported at around 20 percent."

http://www.smokymountainnews.com/issues/09_06/09_13_06/op_unaffiliated.html

[Edited on February 21, 2008 at 12:33 AM. Reason : .]

2/21/2008 12:32:36 AM