In my entire life I've spent about 12 hour in Tennessee...about 6 of them at Graceland.As a result I cannot rightfully claim to know *anything* about the state..including the political landscape.
OTOH,I've lived my entire life,except for my time in the Armed Forces,in Massachusetts and,as a result,I have a pretty good idea what this state's all about...including the political landscape.
Have you ever been to Massachusetts?
Now look at the stats for recent elections.Obola got 51% of the national vote in 2012.He got 60% here.
I repeat...if Reagan were running next year he's be lucky to get 25% of the vote here.And a prediction...if the Former Twelfth Lady is the Rat nominee next year she'll get close to two thirds of the vote here *regardless* of who the GOP nominates....while nationally she'll get around 50%.
Massachusetts is *different*.Some claim that the country's going to hell in a hand basket...led by California,But,in fact,it's being led by Massachusetts.
"In my entire life I've spent about 12 hour in Tennessee...about 6 of them at Graceland. As a result I cannot rightfully claim to know *anything* about the state.. including the political landscape."
That's 6 hours more than I've spent at Graceland, even being an Elvis fan.
"OTOH,I've lived my entire life,except for my time in the Armed Forces,in Massachusetts and,as a result,I have a pretty good idea what this state's all about...including the political landscape. Have you ever been to Massachusetts?"
I've seen many make the argument that unless you've lived in a place, you don't really know about it. There can be a kernel of truth in that, yes, but no place is so isolated today that immersing yourself in learning from a distance can bring you up to speed on it. Yes, I've been to Massachusetts. I spent a month in New England during the infamous campaign season of 1994 (Oct/Nov). I've written scores of material (essays) on FR about the state (usually as a warning on what not to do), if only because it is a premier example of a formerly heavily GOP state that went Democrat almost entirely on the incompetence of the GOP leadership (and failure to embrace Conservatism).
"Now look at the stats for recent elections. Obola got 51% of the national vote in 2012.He got 60% here."
60.7% to be precise, and this running against a highly unpopular ex-Governor who fled the state rather than run for reelection. He was not carrying any banner for Conservative change. Indeed, he was the same Socialist crap the state has been offered for election after election.
"I repeat...if Reagan were running next year he's be lucky to get 25% of the vote here.And a prediction...if the Former Twelfth Lady is the Rat nominee next year she'll get close to two thirds of the vote here *regardless* of who the GOP nominates....while nationally she'll get around 50%."
And I say that if MA were offered an actual choice (as it has not been really in over 3 decades), I think you'd be very surprised how the commonwealth might vote. Because neither the MA Dems or MA GOP offer anything but hard-leftism, there remains a bloc of voters out there waiting for real change. One could've made the argument that MA was lost in 1964. Why ? Because LBJ got a ludicrous 76.2% of the vote, entirely due to a sympathetic vote (by contrast, JFK got 60.2% in 1960). Look at 1968, Humphrey got 63% and Nixon only got 33%. McGovern carried it (54.2%) even as Nixon won a national landslide in 1972. Carter did as well (56.1%).
But Reagan came in and offered something different that hadn't been seen in a long time: a choice. Enough people in the state soured on the Democrat that Carter dropped to just 41.75% (losing almost 400,000 votes from 1976). Reagan stood firm and got 41.9%, albeit just 1.5% higher than Ford got, but if he had taken the approach of writing off the state, he would've lost. Anderson took the remainder of 15%. When Reagan ran for reelection in 1984, he cleared 51.2% of the vote and a quarter-million vote improvement on 1980.
To say a Reagan would "only" get 25% of the vote in 2016 is ridiculous. A Republican with a pulse can get 36-37% of the vote as a base in the state (Dubya got 36% in '04, so did McQueeg, Willard 37.5%). These were no paragons of Conservatism, but the latter two being antagonists. If a GOP candidate broke 41% in MA for President, which Reagan did in 1980, that alone would mean a national victory. Running a non-loser candidate for a change who unapologetically stands on message and actively contests the vote in the state can do just that. They don't have to win there, but they can start making the Democrats sweat and have to work for places they can't afford to take for granted.
"Massachusetts is *different*.Some claim that the country's going to hell in a hand basket...led by California, but, in fact, it's being led by Massachusetts."
California has 55 members of Congress (53 House/2 Senate), MA has just 11 (9 House/2 Sen). CA has a disproportionate influence, and not for the better. Unlike CA, at least MA has a GOP Governor (and is not so disinclined to vote against them) and a balanced budget requirement. I would tell you sincerely that I believe MA has a better chance of being turned around at this point than the formerly Golden State is. But the latter also suffers from the problem of a moribund GOP that thinks that imitating the left-wing instead of offering successful Conservatism forcefully is the way to go. Conservatives taking control of local and state party apparatii is one way to begin to set these states on the right course.