Oregon Is Turning Republican

[Cubby]

Smash, I agree that there was a 9/11 effect, but I also think that having Lieberman on the ticket in 2000 made New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and parts of Florida more Democrat than they would have been if someone else was the VP candidate.

[ottermax]

No, this state is Democratic and will stay so until the GOP ceases to be a religious party.

I'd have to agree. The Pacific Northwest has the largest proportion of nonreligious and atheists, which makes it difficult for anyone with strong religious viewpoints to win here easily.

[Smash255]

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?

Wish I could find a link, but from what I have read, out of those in 92 that would have voted for Clitnon or Bush without Perot in the race, the breakout was somewhere along the lines of 55-45 for Bush, in 96 it was more along the lines of 50-50.  Using Nassau County for example, without Perot, Clinton would have still won obviously, but it would have probably been closer to a 5% victory rather than a tad shy of 6 points.  In 96 without Perot, more than likely Clinton still would have won by a shade under  20 points.

[Smash255]

Smash, I agree that there was a 9/11 effect, but I also think that having Lieberman on the ticket in 2000 made New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and parts of Florida more Democrat than they would have been if someone else was the VP candidate.

maybe in CT, but I doubt in NY or NJ.  I doubt Lieberman brought that many more people to the Dems because of him being Jewish (the majority of jews already vote Democratic) or being from a neighboring state.  Gore won here by the magins he did in 2000, not because of out of the ordinary vote for Gore, or Lieberman, but the way the National GOP was moving combined with the sharp Democratic shift that took place here during the 90's.  During the 90's you really started to see a strong Demcratic shift among mid atlantic & Northeast suburban voters, this wasn't just in 96-00, (though thats when it really started in Fairfax) for the most part these sharp shifts started in 88, when many of these counties were Republican, by 96 many of these areas were quite Democratic, the trend just continued in 2000.

[Alcon]

No, this state is Democratic and will stay so until the GOP ceases to be a religious party.

I'd have to agree. The Pacific Northwest has the largest proportion of nonreligious and atheists, which makes it difficult for anyone with strong religious viewpoints to win here easily.

I think that is what he was saying.

[HardRCafé]

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.

52-48 is easily?

[Rob]

More or less. It's a greater margin than our President's glorious "mandate", for one.

Regardless, the Kerry campaign didn't have to fight hard to get that result.

[Gustaf]

This sounds like complete bull-sh**t. So, Oregon has trended Republican in the last 30 years, just like the rest of America. Pwah.

[Lincoln Republican]

 

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.
[/quote]

Indeed.  And well they should be!

[Adlai Stevenson]

That may well be the case but I couldn't care less if a load of bigoted Catholics felt that way.  Massachusetts is leading the way in America and they will come to accept it.

[Lincoln Republican]

That may well be the case but I couldn't care less if a load of bigoted Catholics felt that way.  Massachusetts is leading the way in America and they will come to accept it.

So by your reasoning, Catholics who oppose gay marriage are "bigots."  Pay no mind to their deeply held moral and religious convictions, in your view, they are simply "bigots."

Yours is actually the "bigoted" view, as it simply labels a whole group of people as "bigots" clearly with no understanding or concern for their values.   

[Adlai Stevenson]

Why should anyone oppose gay marriage?  It seems paradoxical that the Republican party's record and the majority of Republicans believe in less goverment, i.e. less governmental interference in the lives of the people.  But social conservatives have now become social activists who will try to impose their moral values on to just normal people.  I think that the Same Sex Marriage Bans are appalling; in fact I cannot tolerate even discussion or debate of the issue.  So perhaps I am bigoted towards Catholics who oppose it but sorry its a non-issue for me, if you cannot see that then...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It's that wonderful split personality of the Republican party.

One side, libertarians (the low tax low government people) and social conservatives on the other. Actually it's more like a marriage of convenience - in reality whose agenda really gets moved forward?

[Lincoln Republican]

Why should anyone oppose gay marriage?  It seems paradoxical that the Republican party's record and the majority of Republicans believe in less goverment, i.e. less governmental interference in the lives of the people.  But social conservatives have now become social activists who will try to impose their moral values on to just normal people.  I think that the Same Sex Marriage Bans are appalling; in fact I cannot tolerate even discussion or debate of the issue.  So perhaps I am bigoted towards Catholics who oppose it but sorry its a non-issue for me, if you cannot see that then...

"Normal people?"

So by your definition, people who oppose gay marriage are not "normal people."  People who are in your words social conservatives and social activists are not "normal people."  So by extension, in your view, only people who do not oppose gay marriage are "normal people."

Many social activists espouse very liberal causes.  I would assume that you consider social activists espousing liberal causes to be "normal people," but, on the other hand, that you consider social activists espousing conservative causes not to be "normal people."

This to me this is extremely exclusionary and narrow minded. 
 

[angus]

It's that wonderful split personality of the Republican party.

One side, libertarians (the low tax low government people) and social conservatives on the other. Actually it's more like a marriage of convenience - in reality whose agenda really gets moved forward?

neither of those groups, of course, except by accident or coincidence.  the reality is that the agenda of the anglophone imperialists and neoconservatives gets moved forward.  this has been fairly widely understood for a long time, by the way.  See, for example, the works by Andrew Bacevich, Christopher Hitchens, and others.

By the way, we prefer the term "Superpower" 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm very familiar with all of those writers.
It is like an arranged marriage - the kids get pawned off and the parents get the benefits.

[minionofmidas]

It is like an arranged marriage - the kids get pawned off and the parents get the benefits.

LOL, great comparison.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Why should anyone oppose gay marriage?  It seems paradoxical that the Republican party's record and the majority of Republicans believe in less goverment, i.e. less governmental interference in the lives of the people.  But social conservatives have now become social activists who will try to impose their moral values on to just normal people.  I think that the Same Sex Marriage Bans are appalling; in fact I cannot tolerate even discussion or debate of the issue.  So perhaps I am bigoted towards Catholics who oppose it but sorry its a non-issue for me, if you cannot see that then...

"Normal people?"

So by your definition, people who oppose gay marriage are not "normal people."  People who are in your words social conservatives and social activists are not "normal people."  So by extension, in your view, only people who do not oppose gay marriage are "normal people."

Many social activists espouse very liberal causes.  I would assume that you consider social activists espousing liberal causes to be "normal people," but, on the other hand, that you consider social activists espousing conservative causes not to be "normal people."

This to me this is extremely exclusionary and narrow minded. 
 

You seem to have mistaken me, perhaps quite deliberately and interpreted my post as you want to read it.  Normal people are for the most part, not interested in gay marriage; its a non-issue for a lot of younger Americans in any case.  Social conservative activists are clearly not representative of 'normal people' or average people in general. 

[MarkWarner08]

In a word, no. The state is still dominated by Democrats and is likely to stay that way thanks to the gross incompetence of the Oregon GOP.

[Governor PiT]

Is Oregon becoming more independent?

[Alcon]

Is Oregon becoming more independent?

Not...especially.  Independents pretty much consist around 20% of the population in every Oregon county (registration-wise).

Independent-minded does not necessarily equate to friendly to third-parties.  Maybe we'd start seeing differences in states if independents could actually establish themselves.

[JSojourner]

I think you also have to look at the kind of Republicans Oregonians tend to elect.  through the 80's and 90's, both Bob Packwood and (possibly my favorite Republican ever) Mark Hatfield were moderate.  By today's GOP standard, Hatfield was a Liberal.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is Gordon Smith a fairly moderate GOPer?  If Republicans do well in Oregon, I suspect it's because they offer voters the same kind of candidates put forth in Maine. 

Would Jim DeMint, Sam Brownback or Tom Coburn get elected in Oregon or Maine?  I'd be very surprised.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There was that huge swing against Kerry compared to Gore.
Oh wait.

[merseysider]

I remember reading an article (I think it may have been in the Economist) which said Oregon was trending Republican.

Basically it was saying that there was a backlash in the rest of the state against the liberalism of Portland, and also that the population of the rest of the state was growing in relation to Portland because being a fairly liberal city it was trying not to grow by sprawling out into the countryside.

[Smash255]

I think you also have to look at the kind of Republicans Oregonians tend to elect.  through the 80's and 90's, both Bob Packwood and (possibly my favorite Republican ever) Mark Hatfield were moderate.  By today's GOP standard, Hatfield was a Liberal.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is Gordon Smith a fairly moderate GOPer?  If Republicans do well in Oregon, I suspect it's because they offer voters the same kind of candidates put forth in Maine. 

Would Jim DeMint, Sam Brownback or Tom Coburn get elected in Oregon or Maine?  I'd be very surprised.

Smith isn't Collins, chafee or Snowe, but he is definatley a moderate Republican.  Would say he proobably ranks 5th behind those  three and Specter, Smith is a bit more socially conservative than the others (against abortion, voted for the FMA, also against the death penalty.   Has somewhat of a Libertarian lean.

Coburn, Bownback & Demin would have no chance of getting elected in Oregon (statewide at least)