Oklahoma

[Beet]

Why did Republicans make relative gains in southwestern Oklahoma but Democrats made relative gains in northeastern Oklahoma between 1956 and 1996?

[Rob]

The smaller GOP percentages are likely the result of Perot, at least in part. As for the Republican gains in the southeast (Little Dixie), this can probably be attributed to the increased importance of social issues. But how about this Oklahoma result:



They sure didn't like John Kerry...

[Beet]

Heh, true, I had to go back and find maps which were pretty even. It's interesting 1956 with a Republican landslide and 1996 was a decisive Democratic win, but you'd never be able to tell from the maps.

[jimrtex]

Perhaps identity with the candidate from the neighboring state that they identify with.   

In the case of SW Oklahoma, you have a couple of counties that are on the fringe of the OKC metropolitan area (McClain and Grady), two with military bases which are the dominant economic force (Comanche - Ft.Sill, and Jackson - Altus AFB).   You have a gradual loss of farmers, those who are successful stick around and expand their acreage, while those who aren't go elsewhere.  In Western Oklahoma you would have oil and gas, which displace ranching and farming in importance.

[Rob]

The interesting thing about the 1956 map is that it shows a clear north-south divide. It's the map that most clearly shows Oklahoma's divided political heritage. Republicans from Kansas populated the north and west; Democrats from the South (especially Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas) populated the south and east.

These voting patterns persist even today, though to a lesser extent as the GOP's strength has filtered into Little Dixie. Bush made his strongest showings in the wheat-growing northwest, especially in the Panhandle; Kerry's best showings were in the southeast.

[Ebowed]

1988


2004


Kind of sad, really.

[Rob]

Ebowed, I agree. The Democratic collapse in Oklahoma has been drastic. Dukakis lost solidly to HW Bush, while polling 41 percent in Oklahoma; Kerry lost narrowly to W Bush, and polled a pathetic 34 percent in the state. Dukakis carried 33 counties; Kerry didn't win a single one. To put that in some context, Walter Mondale carried three. It's bad, all right.

[Ebowed]

I just noticed, the 2004 Oklahoma map is strikingly similar to the 1972 one.  Not only do all counties go for the Republican, even the shading looks almost the same.  And 2004 and 1972 were no where on the same level.  Then again, what can one expect from John Kerry -- the man who won less counties than Hubert Humphrey, Barry Goldwater, Michael Dukakis, and even George Wallace.

[Rob]

The Democrats have been losing counties left and right. Bush carried counties that voted for George McGovern- the Dems are in bad shape.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Bush even got 28% of the black vote in Oklahoma according to the exit polls.

[Ebowed]

Bush even got 28% of the black vote in Oklahoma according to the exit polls.

Wow.  Just wow.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I think the exit polling last year had some flaws... but even half that number would be impressive!

Bush even got 28% of the black vote in Oklahoma according to the exit polls.

Wow.  Just wow.

[Alcon]

I think the exit polling last year had some flaws... but even half that number would be impressive!

Bush even got 28% of the black vote in Oklahoma according to the exit polls.

Wow.  Just wow.

Bush got 25% of blacks in Washington for some reason, too.

[jokerman]

Bush even got 28% of the black vote in Oklahoma according to the exit polls.

It's because of the values issue, I'm confident.  Some of my fellow Democrats think that the South will sway Democrat in 40 years because of demographic changes.  The way I see it, the Democratic Party is heading to become the party of the hypocritical, rich, elite.  I see the Republicans making inroads of up to 30% among blacks nationally and a majority of hispanics nationally if the Democrats keep straying away from populism.

[zorkpolitics]

Bush even got 28% of the black vote in Oklahoma according to the exit polls.

It's because of the values issue, I'm confident.  Some of my fellow Democrats think that the South will sway Democrat in 40 years because of demographic changes.  The way I see it, the Democratic Party is heading to become the party of the hypocritical, rich, elite.  I see the Republicans making inroads of up to 30% among blacks nationally and a majority of hispanics nationally if the Democrats keep straying away from populism.

As the black middle class grows, as time moves forward from the 1960’s,  it is inevitable that the 90:10 split in voting patterns for blacks will moderate.  As the generation that rewarded Kennedy/Johnson for enacting the civil rights bills ages, more and more blacks will vote like other citizens: either in their perceived economic interest (pro-growth/opportunity vs entitlements) or their social interests: (faith based vs secular).  In both cases the Republicans can expect to attract more blacks to their policies, witness  RNC chair Ken Mehlman’s persistent outreach to the black community to explain why voting Republican is in their interest.

[minionofmidas]

Of course the 90:10 split is a relatively recent development. It didn't exist before Willie Horton.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

And if that happens, we can all but dispense with that pesky Democrat Party

In many places, it would only take a consistent 15% or so of the black vote to end it.

Bush even got 28% of the black vote in Oklahoma according to the exit polls.

It's because of the values issue, I'm confident.  Some of my fellow Democrats think that the South will sway Democrat in 40 years because of demographic changes.  The way I see it, the Democratic Party is heading to become the party of the hypocritical, rich, elite.  I see the Republicans making inroads of up to 30% among blacks nationally and a majority of hispanics nationally if the Democrats keep straying away from populism.

[Bugs]

Every election since 1988 has had a Republican from a nearby state who was popular here.  Oklahoma unquestionably is a Republican state, since Clinton was from a nearby state too but didn't do well here, but I wonder how Pataki or McCain would do, or someone else from not so close.  We do have a democrat governor.

[jokerman]

And if that happens, we can all but dispense with that pesky Democrat Party

In many places, it would only take a consistent 15% or so of the black vote to end it.

Bush even got 28% of the black vote in Oklahoma according to the exit polls.

It's because of the values issue, I'm confident.  Some of my fellow Democrats think that the South will sway Democrat in 40 years because of demographic changes.  The way I see it, the Democratic Party is heading to become the party of the hypocritical, rich, elite.  I see the Republicans making inroads of up to 30% among blacks nationally and a majority of hispanics nationally if the Democrats keep straying away from populism.

Of course not if Evan Bayh or Mark Warner has anything to say about it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And if that happens, we can all but dispense with that pesky Democrat Party

In many places, it would only take a consistent 15% or so of the black vote to end it.

Keep on dreaming. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction you know

[Joe Biden 2020]

Every election since 1988 has had a Republican from a nearby state who was popular here. Oklahoma unquestionably is a Republican state, since Clinton was from a nearby state too but didn't do well here, but I wonder how Pataki or McCain would do, or someone else from not so close. We do have a democrat governor.

I agree, although I've said this many times before, Oklahoma has more Democrats than Republicans in registered voters.  I've lived here for all 23 years of my life and we have been trending to the right since 1988.  I think that may change, though, with candidates that are not close to Oklahoma in their home states.  I also think just the right Democratic candidate could take several of the eastern counties.  He may lose the state, but he could set the stage for 2012 or more likely 2016 where the Republicans have to spend money in Oklahoma to protect their safespot.  That would happen quicker if Brad Henry retained his governors seat, and if Mary Fallin lost her Lt Governors seat to the Democrats (she would probably have to give it up to run for Governor), and the Democrats take back the State House.  All three of which are very likely.

So, I stick by my previous claims that Oklahoma is starting to trend back to the center, because there's frankly no more room for us to move right, unless Mike Huckabee ran (Ark Gov).  Even that would be a stretch

[No more McShame]

Bush even got 28% of the black vote in Oklahoma according to the exit polls.

J.C. must have some sway there

[Joe Biden 2020]

Bush even got 28% of the black vote in Oklahoma according to the exit polls.

J.C. must have some sway there

You bet he does, don't forget he is the highest ranking politician (under Carl Albert) in either party.  He was ranked 4th in the House Republicans before he gave up his seat.

If he wins the GOP nomination, it will be a very good fight between him and Gov. Brad Henry.

As I've said before, he would be in a dog fight for the GOP nomination with popular Lt Governor Mary Fallin, then another dog fight (assuming he is the dog that eats the other dog),  pardon the expression, with Brad Henry.

[Joe Biden 2020]

BTW, just for some useless information to those of you in the other 49 states, I work 1 1/2 blocks north of the State Capitol at the Oklahoma Tax Commission, so I could possibly have some contact with my state's leaders.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

New Jersey 1972



New Jersey 2004



Both republican victories.....what's your point?  It's amazing how you people can make an argument saying a party is collapsing when it's most recent president canidate recieved 48% of the vote.  48% is on the verge of victory, not collapse. 

And yes, we finally get it.  The Democrats suck in the South.  And I'm glad they do.  Why?  Cause if Southerners were voting for the Democratic party, I wouldn't be a Democrat.  What the Dems lost in the South they more than made up for in the Northeast.  Why don't we hear about GOP problems in the Northeast?  Bush didn't win ONE Northeastern state.  But that's not sad.  Only that the Dems took positions that happen to be different than your average hick in the last twenty years.  That's the sad part. (rolls eyes) Gimme a break.