Oregon Is Turning Republican
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:34:07 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Oregon Is Turning Republican
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Oregon Is Turning Republican  (Read 19053 times)
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 29, 2006, 01:28:04 PM »
« edited: July 29, 2006, 01:29:46 PM by Blue Dog Dem »

Even the leaders of the state Republican Party are surprised by this news:

RED DAWN
Forget about blue Oregon: The Republicans are taking over.


BY NIGEL JAQUISS | njaquiss at wweek.com 
 
As seismic as such a shift would be, it is a well-kept secret. Reed College political science chairman Paul Gronke was unaware of Democrats' dwindling power. "I'm stunned," Gronke says. "I find that very surprising and something that has not been highlighted by the press at all."

Former state senator and Oregon Republican Party vice-chairwoman Marylin Shannon says Republicans' gathering strength is little recognized even among her party's leaders.

"When I show the data at [Republican] Central Committee meetings, people say, 'I didn't know this,'" says Shannon.

"This" is the fact that, absent major demographic shifts, Republicans are on track to soon outnumber Democrats in Oregon.

In the liberal Portland echo chamber, such a notion might seem absurd. But a Republican-controlled Oregon would probably be an entirely different place on issues ranging from abortion, school funding and the environment to the judiciary and the Legislature.

"This state can go from progressive to regressive," Looper says. "And they can win if we don't participate."

Last Thursday, The Oregonian published an analysis of the May City Council primary races titled "Blue Tide." The paper's conclusion?

"Portland, which had its share of Reagan Republicans, is now a sea of liberal blue—and getting bluer all the time," the story's sub-headline stated.

The story was accurate, as far as it went.

What the daily neglected to mention is that on a statewide basis, Portland's Democratic super-majority matters less each day. The trend is so clear that if the Democratic Party of Oregon were a publicly traded corporation, owners would be lining up to dump their stock.

Over the past three decades, the number of registered Democrats in the state has not only failed to keep pace with population growth, it has actually declined in absolute terms. According to the secretary of state's election statistics, there were 794,218 Oregon Democrats in 1976; as of this past May, there were 760,066.

Thirty years ago, 56 percent of registered Oregon voters were Democrats; today, that number is less than 39 percent.

Over the same time period, the number of registered Republicans in the state has soared by half. If not for a temporary spike in Democratic registration in 2004, generated by a one-time expenditure of $10 million in national party funds, the Democratic advantage—currently less than 3 percent of the electorate—might already have disappeared.

A declining registration advantage is only part of Democrats' problem. The current gap between the two parties is even smaller than it appears, because in every Oregon general election since 1964, the GOP has turned out a higher percentage of its voters than have the Democrats.

"Republicans vote more because they are typically better educated and more affluent," says Bill Lunch, chairman of the political science department at Oregon State University.

Democrats not only face a rising Republican tide, they also must compete for a growing and unpredictable cadre of independent voters.

Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2006, 01:52:44 PM »

Are there any specific demographic trends that are leading Oregon in this direction?
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2006, 01:55:27 PM »

Over the past three decades, the number of registered Democrats in the state has not only failed to keep pace with population growth, it has actually declined in absolute terms. According to the secretary of state's election statistics, there were 794,218 Oregon Democrats in 1976; as of this past May, there were 760,066.

Thirty years ago, 56 percent of registered Oregon voters were Democrats; today, that number is less than 39 percent.

Over the same time period, the number of registered Republicans in the state has soared by half. If not for a temporary spike in Democratic registration in 2004, generated by a one-time expenditure of $10 million in national party funds, the Democratic advantage—currently less than 3 percent of the electorate—might already have disappeared.

Democrats not only face a rising Republican tide, they also must compete for a growing and unpredictable cadre of independent voters.

So, is the "one time expenditure of 10 million dollars" responsible that Kerry did better than Gore in Oregon in 04 ? Remember, the spread between Gore and Bush in 2000 was 0,5%, between Kerry and Bush it was 4%. Could it probably be the case that more and more "former" registered Democrats are considering themselves Independents and when it comes to elections vote in favor for the Democrats ? Even if Democrats and Republicans have the same numbers of registered members, it´s possible that most Independents, maybe 55 to 45 break for the Dems.
Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,368
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2006, 02:46:17 PM »

CNN 2004 Oregon Exit Poll

It says Republicans outnumbered Democrats, but Indepdents broke big for Kerry.  Most of all surprising, look at the gender gap.  Just wow.
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,550
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2006, 02:54:43 PM »

Until Republicans start winning more in the west I'll still have it for the Dems.
Logged
Cubby
Pim Fortuyn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,067
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -3.74, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2006, 10:00:40 PM »

Putting partisan-ness aside, I highly doubt this article.

Oregon was not a Democratic state before 1988. It was the only Western state not to vote for Harry Truman, and voted Republican in 1960 and 1976, 2 close contests that Democrats won nationally.

Washington County (450,000) is next to Portland. Its all suburbs, so it would appear to be strongly Republican. Its now more Democrat than the state as a whole, and its still growing fast. I'm not sure where the Republicans in the article are coming from. Outside the Portland metro area OR isn't growing too fast, except Deschutes County (City of Bend) I don't know much about that area.

Overall, I think this article has a bias.
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2006, 11:14:54 PM »

Is there any sort of chart which tracks changes in voter registration against long term partisan control in a state (well short and long term, and partisan not only in party control, but political culture--if this makes sense, a state can be republican with a democratic statehouse and vica versa)?

Ie...is there a relative gain of Republican voters in say...Hawaii or Massachusetts,, West Virginia or a similar sampling of Democrats in Arizona/Wyoming/Idaho/Montana
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2006, 12:22:05 AM »

This article just seems to quote statistics that show a long-term GOP trend, and then continue repeating the same "Oregon is trending Republican" lines.

Is there any sort of chart which tracks changes in voter registration against long term partisan control in a state (well short and long term, and partisan not only in party control, but political culture--if this makes sense, a state can be republican with a democratic statehouse and vica versa)?

Ie...is there a relative gain of Republican voters in say...Hawaii or Massachusetts,, West Virginia or a similar sampling of Democrats in Arizona/Wyoming/Idaho/Montana

I know Oregon regularly posts registration information, but I can't find it right now, and I don't remember any major GOP trend.

I jut do not see the reason that Oregon would be trending Republican in any meaningful way.  Certainly, the 2000/2004 results didn't.  Granted, it was more Democratic in 1976, but - uh - gee, so?
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 30, 2006, 01:53:10 AM »

This has more to do with liberal Independents not alligning themselves with the Democrats more than naything else.  As long as Dems have the advantage among Indpendent voters at Election time (which they have, and recent elections show that advanatge is growing) it doesn't really matter.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 30, 2006, 02:25:31 AM »

This has more to do with liberal Independents not alligning themselves with the Democrats more than naything else.  As long as Dems have the advantage among Indpendent voters at Election time (which they have, and recent elections show that advanatge is growing) it doesn't really matter.

Exactly.

Democrats are losing the rural working-class voterbase.  Morrow County, which voted 2-to-1 Bush, recently had a Democratic registration advantage.  The new guard that will keep the Dems in power in Oregon is an increasingly liberal independent constituency.  This is also true in Washington.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2006, 02:58:49 AM »

This has more to do with liberal Independents not alligning themselves with the Democrats more than naything else.  As long as Dems have the advantage among Indpendent voters at Election time (which they have, and recent elections show that advanatge is growing) it doesn't really matter.

Exactly.

Democrats are losing the rural working-class voterbase.  Morrow County, which voted 2-to-1 Bush, recently had a Democratic registration advantage.  The new guard that will keep the Dems in power in Oregon is an increasingly liberal independent constituency.  This is also true in Washington.

This also explains much of the suburban mid atlantic & northeast, such as Long Island (with the 04 9/11 factor being an exception).  While registration here has trended more & more Democratic,which explains part of it, the reason the shift has been as large as it has is Independents use to lean Republican in their voting, now they lean Democratic by a decent margin.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2006, 07:05:17 AM »

So, in other words, Oregon had a really weird registration pattern once that had nothing to do with its voting pattern (no, they didn't represent a former voting pattern either, apparently), and while voting patterns have not changed, registration patterns have fallen in line with voting patterns.

Interesting, but not meriting the thread title.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2006, 10:59:48 AM »

This has more to do with liberal Independents not alligning themselves with the Democrats more than naything else.  As long as Dems have the advantage among Indpendent voters at Election time (which they have, and recent elections show that advanatge is growing) it doesn't really matter.

Exactly.

Democrats are losing the rural working-class voterbase.  Morrow County, which voted 2-to-1 Bush, recently had a Democratic registration advantage.  The new guard that will keep the Dems in power in Oregon is an increasingly liberal independent constituency.  This is also true in Washington.

This also explains much of the suburban mid atlantic & northeast, such as Long Island (with the 04 9/11 factor being an exception).  While registration here has trended more & more Democratic,which explains part of it, the reason the shift has been as large as it has is Independents use to lean Republican in their voting, now they lean Democratic by a decent margin.

the 9/11 factor did not exist.

as lewis has explained, the 2004 returns in places like the long island were simply a correction from the skewed 2000 results.
Logged
Adlai Stevenson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,403
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2006, 11:07:53 AM »

This has more to do with liberal Independents not alligning themselves with the Democrats more than naything else.  As long as Dems have the advantage among Indpendent voters at Election time (which they have, and recent elections show that advanatge is growing) it doesn't really matter.

Exactly.

Democrats are losing the rural working-class voterbase.  Morrow County, which voted 2-to-1 Bush, recently had a Democratic registration advantage.  The new guard that will keep the Dems in power in Oregon is an increasingly liberal independent constituency.  This is also true in Washington.

This also explains much of the suburban mid atlantic & northeast, such as Long Island (with the 04 9/11 factor being an exception).  While registration here has trended more & more Democratic,which explains part of it, the reason the shift has been as large as it has is Independents use to lean Republican in their voting, now they lean Democratic by a decent margin.

the 9/11 factor did not exist.

as lewis has explained, the 2004 returns in places like the long island were simply a correction from the skewed 2000 results.

Of course the '9/11 factor' existed - Bush did not make substantive gains in states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island due to the fact that voters in these states were coming home to Southern-accented Republicanism and conservative policies. They were paying homage to his War On Terror and perceived tough stance on Terrorism and Homeland Security. 
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2006, 01:01:53 PM »

In part... but all of these areas still voted more democratic than they did up to the 1980s, and Al Gore had done really, really great there.
And a big part of teh reason for that was that in 2000, he was the candidate perceived (in this region at least) as strong on security - not international security, but personal security, as exemplified that year by the issue of gun control. (A map of areas where the NRA has more influence than the Religious Right - although I'm not sure how to measure that - would probably look quite a bit like a map of the areas where Kerry did better than Gore had...)
2004 in the region was probably more of a return to normalcy than a freak "9/11 effect" - although this return to normalcy can be attributed in part to post-9/11 events.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 30, 2006, 01:15:52 PM »

This has more to do with liberal Independents not alligning themselves with the Democrats more than naything else.  As long as Dems have the advantage among Indpendent voters at Election time (which they have, and recent elections show that advanatge is growing) it doesn't really matter.

Exactly.

Democrats are losing the rural working-class voterbase.  Morrow County, which voted 2-to-1 Bush, recently had a Democratic registration advantage.  The new guard that will keep the Dems in power in Oregon is an increasingly liberal independent constituency.  This is also true in Washington.

This also explains much of the suburban mid atlantic & northeast, such as Long Island (with the 04 9/11 factor being an exception).  While registration here has trended more & more Democratic,which explains part of it, the reason the shift has been as large as it has is Independents use to lean Republican in their voting, now they lean Democratic by a decent margin.

the 9/11 factor did not exist.

as lewis has explained, the 2004 returns in places like the long island were simply a correction from the skewed 2000 results.

Of course the '9/11 factor' existed - Bush did not make substantive gains in states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island due to the fact that voters in these states were coming home to Southern-accented Republicanism and conservative policies. They were paying homage to his War On Terror and perceived tough stance on Terrorism and Homeland Security. 

also, dont overlook the gay marriage debate.  here in massachusetts, a lot of otherwise democrat voters are still upset over the state legalizing gay marriage.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 30, 2006, 01:28:11 PM »

That as well. That issue probably played much better in the Northeast than in the Midwest or West.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 30, 2006, 04:29:51 PM »
« Edited: July 31, 2006, 06:14:25 PM by Alcon »

That as well. That issue probably played much better in the Northeast than in the Midwest or West.

Indeed; most socially conservative blue collar workers around here have shifted to the GOP already.  Not all union Democrats are socially conservative at all.  A lot of union/service industry workers are actually just plain liberal.  Non-affluent Democrat does not mean populist/communitarian.
Logged
Reignman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,236


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2006, 05:23:02 PM »

Until Republicans start winning more in the west I'll still have it for the Dems.

F'real.
Logged
Rob
Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,277
United States
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 31, 2006, 06:34:37 PM »

hahaha, this article is a joke. Remember 2004? It was a big Democratic year here; we took both houses of the state legislature, reelected all our US representatives by solid margins, reelected Wyden by a big margin, and Kerry easily beat Bush. The RNC initially thought that Oregon could go their way, but had essentially given up by September IIRC.

No, this state is Democratic and will stay so until the GOP ceases to be a religious party.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 01, 2006, 02:22:55 AM »

This has more to do with liberal Independents not alligning themselves with the Democrats more than naything else.  As long as Dems have the advantage among Indpendent voters at Election time (which they have, and recent elections show that advanatge is growing) it doesn't really matter.

Exactly.

Democrats are losing the rural working-class voterbase.  Morrow County, which voted 2-to-1 Bush, recently had a Democratic registration advantage.  The new guard that will keep the Dems in power in Oregon is an increasingly liberal independent constituency.  This is also true in Washington.

This also explains much of the suburban mid atlantic & northeast, such as Long Island (with the 04 9/11 factor being an exception).  While registration here has trended more & more Democratic,which explains part of it, the reason the shift has been as large as it has is Independents use to lean Republican in their voting, now they lean Democratic by a decent margin.

the 9/11 factor did not exist.

as lewis has explained, the 2004 returns in places like the long island were simply a correction from the skewed 2000 results.

Long Island was trending HARD to the left from 88-96, 2000 continued the trend.  04's results had quite a bit to do with 9/11.  Granted the National margin was a bit closer as well, but Nassau County was slightly closer in 00 than in 96, and Suffolk was a few points closer in 00 than it was in 96.   The trend against the National average between 96 & 2000

If you look at how it compares to natioanal average)
Nassau
1988 7.02% more GOP than National average
1992 .3% more Dem than National average
1996  11.11% more Dem than National average
2000 18.91% more Dem than National average

Suffolk
1988 14.06% more GOP than National average
1992 7.08% more GOP than National average
1996 7.19% more Dem than National average
2000 10.85% more Dem than National average

In both Nassau & Suffolk the biggest trends were between 92 & 96.  Nassau's 96 to 2000 trend was slightly larger than the 88 to 92 trend.  Suffolk's 96 to 00 trend was actually quite small and a bit smaller than the 88 to 92 trend

and for the 04 #'s
Nassau 8.08% more Dem than National average
Suffolk 3.4% more Dem than National average

This is no question a bump to 9/11, as both counties were more Republicann compared to the national average in 04 than they even were in 96.  And this is in an area where the Democrats are gaining more control on the local level, socially liberal areas during a time period where the National GOP has become more & more socially conservative.  Hell Bush did quite well in the five towns region (won parts of it) and in general did quite well in SOUTHWEST NASSAU.  This is usually a very Democratic area, LARGE Jewish population, and VERY Socially liberal.  No question that had to do with 9/11.  The 04 reuslts on LI were in no way a correction, but a bump Bush received here from 9/11 (look at what happened in Staten Island and much of suburban Jersey as well).  Many of these counties were not only well to the right of the 00 results, but to the right of their 96 results.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 01, 2006, 02:45:36 PM »

True that the largest swing happened between 92 and 96, forgot to mention that. Of course, the thing about the single-issue security vote being a Democrat vote also applies in 96 - not in 92 though.
I think the main reason I'm not focussing so much on 92 and 96, though, is that Perot makes the results harder to analyze.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 03, 2006, 01:39:50 AM »

True that the largest swing happened between 92 and 96, forgot to mention that. Of course, the thing about the single-issue security vote being a Democrat vote also applies in 96 - not in 92 though.
I think the main reason I'm not focussing so much on 92 and 96, though, is that Perot makes the results harder to analyze.

Granted, but supposidly (according to some of the pundits) that Perot took more votes from Bush in 92 than Clinton, the 96 split was pretty much even.  Which would make the 92-96 swing even larger.  2000 wasn't an abnormaility by any means, it was simply a continuation of a decade long Deemocratic shift, during a time the Natinal GOP became more & more focused on conservatism, especially social conservatism in areas that were already and moving further left socially.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2006, 08:00:21 AM »

True that the largest swing happened between 92 and 96, forgot to mention that. Of course, the thing about the single-issue security vote being a Democrat vote also applies in 96 - not in 92 though.
I think the main reason I'm not focussing so much on 92 and 96, though, is that Perot makes the results harder to analyze.

Granted, but supposidly (according to some of the pundits) that Perot took more votes from Bush in 92 than Clinton, the 96 split was pretty much even.  Which would make the 92-96 swing even larger. 
Sure you don't have them the wrong way round?
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2006, 09:08:05 AM »

For the 2000 results to make any sense, it would have to be the other way round...
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.068 seconds with 11 queries.