Oklahoma

[minionofmidas]

Here's the answer to your question...
the South has more people, and more EVs.

[Joe Biden 2020]

That kind of depends on where you draw your boundaries for the different regions of the country:

Here are the states that I associate with each region:

Northeast: New England, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, Ohio

Mid-Atlantic: West Virginia, Virginia

Southeast: North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana

Midwest:  Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas

Northwest: Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Alaska

Southwest: Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, California, Hawaii.

To me Oklahoma and Texas are not in the traditional "southeast", but I can see why some would classify them as such.  The term "south" has to include everything from Arizona to the Atlantic and the I-40 corridor south.

Oklahoma is one of those states that is in a whole bunch of different regions.  It is in the south, southeast, southwest (western Oklahoma), west (panhandle and NW Oklahoma), midwest (especially northeast Oklahoma), central plains (especially northern Oklahoma).  The only regions we don't qualify for are anything in the northern US.

[Storebought]

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. 

That's dishonest of you, to label the 2000 NJ result as '2004 result'. Particularly when the GOP candidate lost by 16 points in the former and lost by 7 points in the latter.

I just hope the Democrats share your insouciance about losing every state south of the Ohio River. Makes the GOP job of winning that much more satisfying..

If the Democrats were smart, they should be most concerned about Iowa and WI

[jokerman]

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. 

You're a leach that has corrupted our once glorius party.

[Ben.]

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.

Its possible, its certainly possible.

[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. 

You're a leach that has corrupted our once glorius party.

Ah, yes.  when Democrats were preaching segregation and slavery.  Glorious indeed.  You should direct your anger at those who should be voting for the Democrats, but instead decide not letting Steve and Andrew marry is more important.  That overall attitude across the South is why, frankly, I don't care what most of them think. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That's dishonest of you, to label the 2000 NJ result as '2004 result'. Particularly when the GOP candidate lost by 16 points in the former and lost by 7 points in the latter.

Good point. His choice of 1972 for the other map is also *interesting*; this is the Oklahoma map from 1972:

[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. 

That's dishonest of you, to label the 2000 NJ result as '2004 result'. Particularly when the GOP candidate lost by 16 points in the former and lost by 7 points in the latter.

I just hope the Democrats share your insouciance about losing every state south of the Ohio River. Makes the GOP job of winning that much more satisfying..

If the Democrats were smart, they should be most concerned about Iowa and WI

My mistake, it was just there to show the Dems aren't the only party to see people abondon them in the past 30 years. 

[Sam Spade]

The New Jersey switch is mainly due to the liberalization of old-line white suburbs, especially those in the northern half of the state, which have moved further socially left as social issues have become more important and the Democrat party has moved socially left along with them.

Similar trends can be found in the South, with similar results.  The closeness of Oklahoma 1972 and Oklahoma 2004 is due to the low black population in Oklahoma.  Whites in the South in 2004 acted very similar as they did in 1972, with some minor exceptions.

[Beet]

The New Jersey switch is mainly due to the liberalization of old-line white suburbs, especially those in the northern half of the state, which have moved further socially left as social issues have become more important and the Democrat party has moved socially left along with them.

New Jersey was traditionally a Republican state and should have moved with the Republicans. The fact that they didn't attests that they opposed the dixiecrat takeover of the party and the subsequent radicalization of the GOP on social issues. Imagine you are a regular Rockefeller New Jersey Republican, then suddenly your party gets taken over by evangelicals. New Jersey hasn't become more socially liberal so much as the GOP has radicalized into social conservatism-- leaving NJ in nowhere left to go but Democrat by default.

[Sam Spade]

The New Jersey switch is mainly due to the liberalization of old-line white suburbs, especially those in the northern half of the state, which have moved further socially left as social issues have become more important and the Democrat party has moved socially left along with them.

New Jersey was traditionally a Republican state and should have moved with the Republicans. The fact that they didn't attests that they opposed the dixiecrat takeover of the party and the subsequent radicalization of the GOP on social issues. Imagine you are a regular Rockefeller New Jersey Republican, then suddenly your party gets taken over by evangelicals. New Jersey hasn't become more socially liberal so much as the GOP has radicalized into social conservatism-- leaving NJ in nowhere left to go but Democrat by default.

hmmm, perhaps.  I think I should have described it better as being both things happening at once, Republicans moving more socially conservative, New Jersey/NE suburbs in general moving more socially liberal.

Anyway, it's a minor point.  What happened in real political terms is fairly obvious to see.

[Beet]

The New Jersey switch is mainly due to the liberalization of old-line white suburbs, especially those in the northern half of the state, which have moved further socially left as social issues have become more important and the Democrat party has moved socially left along with them.

New Jersey was traditionally a Republican state and should have moved with the Republicans. The fact that they didn't attests that they opposed the dixiecrat takeover of the party and the subsequent radicalization of the GOP on social issues. Imagine you are a regular Rockefeller New Jersey Republican, then suddenly your party gets taken over by evangelicals. New Jersey hasn't become more socially liberal so much as the GOP has radicalized into social conservatism-- leaving NJ in nowhere left to go but Democrat by default.

hmmm, perhaps.  I think I should have described it better as being both things happening at once, Republicans moving more socially conservative, New Jersey/NE suburbs in general moving more socially liberal.

Anyway, it's a minor point.  What happened in real political terms is fairly obvious to see.

True enough. I do think it's more a case of parties moving more than people-- in both instances. The Democratic party moved away from white southerners, the Republican party moved away from northeasterners. Their voting habits in terms of relative ideology compared to each other haven't changed all that much.