Hawaii One Party State

58miles

Red Belt
@red
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
8,025
Reaction score
4,451
It has been a rough few days for Republicans, who lost big in mayoral and gubernatorial races across the country in Tuesday’s election. But Shirlene Ostrov knows it can be much worse.

She is the chairwoman of the Republican Party in Hawaii.
The job can be lonely and thankless. Her party is teetering on the edge of extinction here.

The last time Hawaii had a Republican in the U.S. Senate was 1977. Since becoming a state in 1959, it’s had just two GOP members in the U.S. House of Representatives, most recently in 2011.

In the state Senate, all 25 members are now Democrats, since a lone Republican, Sam Slom, lost his reelection bid last November after 20 years in office.

In the 51-member state House, there are five Republicans — down from six in March, when one switched parties after denouncing President Trump.

“Obviously, it’s disappointing to lose,” Ostrov said about the defeats of Republicans last Tuesday in gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey. “But I see the numbers, and the Republican Party in the contiguous United States is doing amazing.”

Republicans not only have the presidency and Congress but a lock on the majority of statehouses and governorships, she was quick to point out.

“In Hawaii, the picture is different,” she said.

Last year she ran for the U.S. House and lost to a Democrat who received nearly three times as many votes. It was a typical showing in what is essentially a one-party state.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-hawaii-republicans-20171112-story.html

 
EDIT nevermind, I'm stoned and saw your answer below
 
Last edited:
Apparently white grievance politics doesn't work so well in a state that is overwhelmingly minority:(
 
That's the place with the volcano, right?
Can't she lost sacrifice something into the mouth of the thing?
 
Hawaii has the corruption of NOLA on a state wide level
 
I hope more states follow. The GOP in it's current state is poison
 
I think this is actually how I'd want things to be. States should be as liberal or conservative as they want and the federal side of things shouldn't try to push them towards a certain direction until there's widespread support for it.
 
I think also when one party gains a overwhelming amount of control, the state should switch to a jungle primary model. It ensures the main race is actually with two candidates the state wants instead of giving the second spot based on the party system. California does it and it prevents the primary from being the main election like someone mentioned above.
 
I am all for shipping out all far left liberals to the state. Think about it. The only people you can tolerate in the same place as you!
 
I think also when one party gains a overwhelming amount of control, the state should switch to a jungle primary model. It ensures the main race is actually with two candidates the state wants instead of giving the second spot based on the party system. California does it and it prevents the primary from being the main election like someone mentioned above.

Wholeheartedly agree with this. Also, as one person said above, it does allow a state to be as liberal or conservative as the voters would like it to be
 
In some places, certain parties just can't win. It's almost better not to try.
 
Wholeheartedly agree with this. Also, as one person said above, it does allow a state to be as liberal or conservative as the voters would like it to be

Yea, I don't see the conflict here when the state becomes heavily liberal or conservative if it's because the people living there reflect those beliefs and vote accordingly.
 
I think also when one party gains a overwhelming amount of control, the state should switch to a jungle primary model. It ensures the main race is actually with two candidates the state wants instead of giving the second spot based on the party system. California does it and it prevents the primary from being the main election like someone mentioned above.
Mathematically, doesn't that allow 2 minority party candidates through when there is a much larger field splitting the other vote? That doesn't seem democratic.
 
Mathematically, doesn't that allow 2 minority party candidates through when there is a much larger field splitting the other vote? That doesn't seem democratic.

It depends on the scenario which is why I said when a party becomes overwhelmingly dominant in the state. You could argue the same is true for a normal primary. I do agree it still remains somewhat of a con but not an absolute one.
 
That's the place with the volcano, right?
Can't she lost sacrifice something into the mouth of the thing?
NXHmIap.gif
 
Back
Top