Are you seriously asking? Oklahoma was a solid-R state ever since 1952. It's already an impressive feat for Carter to come so close.
And yet party ID suggested otherwise until very recently.
Further proof that party ID is meaningless in predicting presidential vote. By 1976, Oklahoma had voted only once for a Democratic presidential candidate over the previous 25 years (and it was during LBJ's landslide). In the two close elections of that period, Kennedy and Humphrey both lost massively.
Yeah, I think a lot of people are underestimating how much influence things like the oil and gas industry are to Oklahoma voters, both Democrats and Republicans. Practically every Democrat that Oklahoma elected since statehood was pretty supportive of the state's biggest industry, something that would go a long way in soothing the fears of enough OKC and Tulsa voters to win elections that national Democrats struggled with. On the presidential level the story was much different, as the GOP candidate was almost always guaranteed to win at least 60% of the vote in Tulsa County (once known as "the Oil Capital of the world") and Oklahoma County was at least "likely" Republican barring a Dem landslide. In fact I would argue that Ford's victory in Oklahoma in 1976 was due to his overperformance in the state's two largest cities (he beat Carter by landslide margins in Tulsa and by 15% in Oklahoma County). That Carter got so close is more testament to his "good old humble pie boy" persona as well as his perceived "moderatism" compared to previous opponents. His views on energy certainly could not have helped him. Arguably, the case can also be made that Gerald Ford was a bad candidate for "Little Dixie", given that he was and still is seen as a more moderate Republican who could've been perceived as "urbane" by country voters. He also made a few dumb comments about the Cold War, which wouldn't go well with many of the hawkish types in the state.
1976 is one of the elections that makes analyzing Oklahoma politics fun.
