oklahoma 2004

[Padfoot]

Kerry was just a horrible candidate.

Don't expect the same thing in 2008, though!!  Expect a much more competitive state.

Kerry was an ok candidate. Not great, for sure, but he did almost defeat a sitting president in the middle of a war, albeit a minor one. The counties that Mondale and Dukakis won were in Litte Dixie, which like Dixie as a whole has continued to swing hard to the GOP. Many of the old hardcore FDR folks that still voted Dem in the 80s are now dead. Oklahoma will not be even remotely competitive in 2008, primarily because its two urban counties, Oklahoma and Tulsa, are Republican strongholds.

Kerry was a terrible candidate.  It was only a month after the election that polls began showing a majority of Americans thought the war was a mistake.  There was no reason for him to lose and no reason for him not take a single county in Oklahoma.

[Gustaf]

Sweden uses a national vote system and it's evident how virtually all of the campaigning takes place in Stockholm. No one bothers with the rural areas.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Sweden uses a national vote system and it's evident how virtually all of the campaigning takes place in Stockholm. No one bothers with the rural areas.

In part wouldn't that be because everyone knows that (most of) the rural areas will vote for the Social Democrats regardless? Over here areas with lots of safe seats "tend" to get ignored as well.

[KEmperor]

Sweden uses a national vote system and it's evident how virtually all of the campaigning takes place in Stockholm. No one bothers with the rural areas.

In part wouldn't that be because everyone knows that (most of) the rural areas will vote for the Social Democrats regardless? Over here areas with lots of safe seats "tend" to get ignored as well.

Which is exactly what would happen with Oklahoma, of course.

[Gustaf]

Sweden uses a national vote system and it's evident how virtually all of the campaigning takes place in Stockholm. No one bothers with the rural areas.

In part wouldn't that be because everyone knows that (most of) the rural areas will vote for the Social Democrats regardless? Over here areas with lots of safe seats "tend" to get ignored as well.

You miss the point - since we don't have FPTP there is no inherent advantage in going for "marginal" seats as opposed to "safe" seats (unless one supposes that the number of swing voters are fewer in safe areas). But because Stockholm is more cost-effective to campaign in, being an urban area, it gets all the action. It's very obvious how Sweden tends to have two swings in each election - the campaign-correlated Stockholm swing and the non-campaign related national swing.

While it would be correct to note that most rural areas are safely SAP, Stockholm is the most or second most conservative area in the country. I'm sure New York would see a lot more campaigning than Iowa or Wisconsin if America used a more national system.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You miss the point

No; I ignored it. There's a difference

Agree with you, btw.

[Gabu]

Sweden uses a national vote system and it's evident how virtually all of the campaigning takes place in Stockholm. No one bothers with the rural areas.

In part wouldn't that be because everyone knows that (most of) the rural areas will vote for the Social Democrats regardless? Over here areas with lots of safe seats "tend" to get ignored as well.

You miss the point - since we don't have FPTP there is no inherent advantage in going for "marginal" seats as opposed to "safe" seats (unless one supposes that the number of swing voters are fewer in safe areas). But because Stockholm is more cost-effective to campaign in, being an urban area, it gets all the action. It's very obvious how Sweden tends to have two swings in each election - the campaign-correlated Stockholm swing and the non-campaign related national swing.

While it would be correct to note that most rural areas are safely SAP, Stockholm is the most or second most conservative area in the country. I'm sure New York would see a lot more campaigning than Iowa or Wisconsin if America used a more national system.

I think that the conclusion here is basically that no matter what electoral system you use, someone is going to get ignored.  Which electoral system you prefer depends on who you would prefer to get ignored.

[RBH]

Sweden uses a national vote system and it's evident how virtually all of the campaigning takes place in Stockholm. No one bothers with the rural areas.

If a popular vote system came into effect in the U.S., the campaigning would concentrate on swing areas, and on the bases for both sides.

Which means that it's not going to be all urban campaigning in the U.S., because Republicans can't win most urban areas, and they'd need to keep the turnout high in their base areas.

[memphis]

Sweden uses a national vote system and it's evident how virtually all of the campaigning takes place in Stockholm. No one bothers with the rural areas.

In part wouldn't that be because everyone knows that (most of) the rural areas will vote for the Social Democrats regardless? Over here areas with lots of safe seats "tend" to get ignored as well.

Which is exactly what would happen with Oklahoma, of course.

Oklahoma is not all rural. Metro Oklahoma City and Tulsa together (they're not that far apart) are about the size of metro Kansas City or Cincinatti. Not the biggest population center for certain, but still worth running tv spots, which would be somewhat of an improvement over currently being ignored.

[Gustaf]

Al,
I was actually going to insinuate that.

Gabu,
Yes, but one could argue that it's a matter of what principle one believes should be used rather than what particular group should be favoured.

RBH,
I'm not so sure. First off, what's left once you've covered swing areas AND bases? Secondly, the pay-off on an ad campaign or whatever in a rural area is much, much lower than in an urban area. 90% of 1000 voters is still less than 40% of a million. And so on.

Also, it is fully possible that a state such as Wisconsin is 45 R-45 D-10 Undecided while, say, Idaho is 65-25-10. In that case it isn't necessarily better to campaign in Wisconsin than in Idaho. The point is that a safe state must not necessarily have fewer swing voters than a swing state. It may just have more safe voters for the other side. Therefore the traditional swing states would not necessarily get any attention in a national race.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Sweden uses a national vote system and it's evident how virtually all of the campaigning takes place in Stockholm. No one bothers with the rural areas.

If a popular vote system came into effect in the U.S., the campaigning would concentrate on swing areas, and on the bases for both sides.

Which means that it's not going to be all urban campaigning in the U.S., because Republicans can't win most urban areas, and they'd need to keep the turnout high in their base areas.

Depends how thee defines urban though, doesn't it? A bumpkin/hick, such as myself, would probably tend to view everything in a metropolitan area as being urban.

[KEmperor]

Sweden uses a national vote system and it's evident how virtually all of the campaigning takes place in Stockholm. No one bothers with the rural areas.

In part wouldn't that be because everyone knows that (most of) the rural areas will vote for the Social Democrats regardless? Over here areas with lots of safe seats "tend" to get ignored as well.

Which is exactly what would happen with Oklahoma, of course.

Oklahoma is not all rural. Metro Oklahoma City and Tulsa together (they're not that far apart) are about the size of metro Kansas City or Cincinatti. Not the biggest population center for certain, but still worth running tv spots, which would be somewhat of an improvement over currently being ignored.

It's not a big city, and Oklahoma is heavily Republican.  It would mostly be a waste of effort.  It would get minimal attention.  The large states would get at least 90% of campaign attention.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The large states would get at least 90% of campaign attention.

Actually it wouldn't even be done on a state-by-state basis

[Joe Biden 2020]

Sweden uses a national vote system and it's evident how virtually all of the campaigning takes place in Stockholm. No one bothers with the rural areas.

In part wouldn't that be because everyone knows that (most of) the rural areas will vote for the Social Democrats regardless? Over here areas with lots of safe seats "tend" to get ignored as well.

Which is exactly what would happen with Oklahoma, of course.

Oklahoma is not all rural. Metro Oklahoma City and Tulsa together (they're not that far apart) are about the size of metro Kansas City or Cincinatti. Not the biggest population center for certain, but still worth running tv spots, which would be somewhat of an improvement over currently being ignored.

It's not a big city, and Oklahoma is heavily Republican.  It would mostly be a waste of effort.  It would get minimal attention.  The large states would get at least 90% of campaign attention.

Oklahoma City is a big city.  Not the size of New York, but you don't have to be the size of New York to be a big city.  Tulsa is also a big city.  Even Norman and Lawton are big cities, IMO.  Norman has approaching 110,000 and Lawton approaching 100,000.  Oklahoma is not completely rural, but even that doesn't make us any less important of a state.  No one can diss Oklahoma and say that we are just a bunch or rural folk who don't know nothin'.

[KEmperor]

The large states would get at least 90% of campaign attention.

Actually it wouldn't even be done on a state-by-state basis

True, but the television markets and newspapers tend to be organized in that fashion, so it would by default.

[KEmperor]

Sweden uses a national vote system and it's evident how virtually all of the campaigning takes place in Stockholm. No one bothers with the rural areas.

In part wouldn't that be because everyone knows that (most of) the rural areas will vote for the Social Democrats regardless? Over here areas with lots of safe seats "tend" to get ignored as well.

Which is exactly what would happen with Oklahoma, of course.

Oklahoma is not all rural. Metro Oklahoma City and Tulsa together (they're not that far apart) are about the size of metro Kansas City or Cincinatti. Not the biggest population center for certain, but still worth running tv spots, which would be somewhat of an improvement over currently being ignored.

It's not a big city, and Oklahoma is heavily Republican.  It would mostly be a waste of effort.  It would get minimal attention.  The large states would get at least 90% of campaign attention.

Oklahoma City is a big city.  Not the size of New York, but you don't have to be the size of New York to be a big city.  Tulsa is also a big city.  Even Norman and Lawton are big cities, IMO.  Norman has approaching 110,000 and Lawton approaching 100,000.  Oklahoma is not completely rural, but even that doesn't make us any less important of a state.  No one can diss Oklahoma and say that we are just a bunch or rural folk who don't know nothin'.

Your education is immaterial.  The point is that there would be little campaigning in a small city like OK City in an area that is heavily Republican anyway.  Most campaign funds would go to the heavily populated regions on the coasts and the great lakes area to maximize turnout of their respective voters.  It's a simple numbers game.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Sweden uses a national vote system and it's evident how virtually all of the campaigning takes place in Stockholm. No one bothers with the rural areas.

In part wouldn't that be because everyone knows that (most of) the rural areas will vote for the Social Democrats regardless? Over here areas with lots of safe seats "tend" to get ignored as well.

Which is exactly what would happen with Oklahoma, of course.

Oklahoma is not all rural. Metro Oklahoma City and Tulsa together (they're not that far apart) are about the size of metro Kansas City or Cincinatti. Not the biggest population center for certain, but still worth running tv spots, which would be somewhat of an improvement over currently being ignored.

It's not a big city, and Oklahoma is heavily Republican.  It would mostly be a waste of effort.  It would get minimal attention.  The large states would get at least 90% of campaign attention.

Oklahoma City is a big city.  Not the size of New York, but you don't have to be the size of New York to be a big city.  Tulsa is also a big city.  Even Norman and Lawton are big cities, IMO.  Norman has approaching 110,000 and Lawton approaching 100,000.  Oklahoma is not completely rural, but even that doesn't make us any less important of a state.  No one can diss Oklahoma and say that we are just a bunch or rural folk who don't know nothin'.

Your education is immaterial.  The point is that there would be little campaigning in a small city like OK City in an area that is heavily Republican anyway.  Most campaign funds would go to the heavily populated regions on the coasts and the great lakes area to maximize turnout of their respective voters.  It's a simple numbers game.

So, in other words, we just continue to get screwed.

[KEmperor]

Sweden uses a national vote system and it's evident how virtually all of the campaigning takes place in Stockholm. No one bothers with the rural areas.

In part wouldn't that be because everyone knows that (most of) the rural areas will vote for the Social Democrats regardless? Over here areas with lots of safe seats "tend" to get ignored as well.

Which is exactly what would happen with Oklahoma, of course.

Oklahoma is not all rural. Metro Oklahoma City and Tulsa together (they're not that far apart) are about the size of metro Kansas City or Cincinatti. Not the biggest population center for certain, but still worth running tv spots, which would be somewhat of an improvement over currently being ignored.

It's not a big city, and Oklahoma is heavily Republican.  It would mostly be a waste of effort.  It would get minimal attention.  The large states would get at least 90% of campaign attention.

Oklahoma City is a big city.  Not the size of New York, but you don't have to be the size of New York to be a big city.  Tulsa is also a big city.  Even Norman and Lawton are big cities, IMO.  Norman has approaching 110,000 and Lawton approaching 100,000.  Oklahoma is not completely rural, but even that doesn't make us any less important of a state.  No one can diss Oklahoma and say that we are just a bunch or rural folk who don't know nothin'.

Your education is immaterial.  The point is that there would be little campaigning in a small city like OK City in an area that is heavily Republican anyway.  Most campaign funds would go to the heavily populated regions on the coasts and the great lakes area to maximize turnout of their respective voters.  It's a simple numbers game.

So, in other words, we just continue to get screwed.

In a popular vote system, yes.  With the Electoral College, you would get attention if your state became competitive, which it clearly is not right now.  Should the political situation change and there was a real chance of the Democrats winning, then as a swing state you would see a lot of attention.

It's one of the things I like about the EC, it allows for smaller states to have possible importance.

[WalterMitty]

im curious, what did independent candidate for governor in 94, wes watkins stand for?  why was he so popular in little dixie?

[Gabu]

It's one of the things I like about the EC, it allows for smaller states to have possible importance.

The one thing I don't like about it, though, is that even if a large group of people decide to vote for the other party, it won't make one bit of difference if the state is strongly one way or the other.  This results in politicians being effectively able to ignore or even blatantly give the finger to regions that their base doesn't like (Massachusetts comes to mind), and the people in that region have no way whatsoever to express their heightened disapproval because that state was already going to vote in a predetermined fashion.  Stuff like this heavily reinforces people's views that many presidents are only really president of half of the United States, and I'm not sure if that's exactly a good thing.  This wouldn't be the case in a situation where every vote counts, rather than every state.

As I said before, it's largely an issue of what your priorities are in terms of who should be included in the electoral process in a meaningful manner.

[Joe Biden 2020]

It's one of the things I like about the EC, it allows for smaller states to have possible importance.

The one thing I don't like about it, though, is that even if a large group of people decide to vote for the other party, it won't make one bit of difference if the state is strongly one way or the other.  This results in politicians being effectively able to ignore or even blatantly give the finger to regions that their base doesn't like (Massachusetts comes to mind), and the people in that region have no way whatsoever to express their heightened disapproval because that state was already going to vote in a predetermined fashion.  Stuff like this heavily reinforces people's views that many presidents are only really president of half of the United States, and I'm not sure if that's exactly a good thing.  This wouldn't be the case in a situation where every vote counts, rather than every state.

As I said before, it's largely an issue of what your priorities are in terms of who should be included in the electoral process in a meaningful manner.

Even if we don't have as big of a voice in the Presidential Election as bigger states such as Ohio, Florida, Missouri, or Texas, I still disagree with that view and I believe that, whether good or bad, President Bush is still my President.  I mean, once they take office, they do occasionally visit our state, espcially Tinker AFB in Midwest City or Vance AFB in Enid or Altus AFB in Altus or Fort Sill in Lawton.  I still strongly believe that while we are virtually ignored during the campaign, we are not completely ignored during the administration.  When we had the major ice storms in early January, the President took note.  When we had the May 3, 1999 F5, almost F6, tornado, President Clinton responded.  When we had the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995, President Clinton immediately responded, and so did the New York firefighters.  For that, we will always be grateful and returned the favor by sending some of our finest to New York during the aftermath of 9/11.  The same goes with even smaller states such as Arkansas, Mississippi, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, Utah they are not ignored by this country.  Iowa, while smaller than Oklahoma, is definitely more of a swing state and thus gets more attention.  As KEmperor pointed out, it is a numbers game.

So, at least I can take heart in the fact that during the administration, Oklahoma is not ignored.

So, I'm going to try to put to bed my ranting about Oklahoma being irrelevant, and while we may not be actively pursued in the campaign, we are treated as equals during the administration.

I need your help.  If I start ranting and raving, other than stating my opinion, about this state, remind me and quote this.  Don't do it in a harsh way, but in a pleasant way.  This will be hard as I have such strong feelings for this state, but with your help, I can do it.