Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2019, 10:34:43 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  What's with states like OK and LA?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Print
Author Topic: What's with states like OK and LA?  (Read 21038 times)
HokeyDood
HockeyDude
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,612
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 13, 2004, 05:49:14 pm »

I heard on some news channels in both of those states 55% of the registered voters are Democrat.  How can a Dem possibly lose there?  Seems weird.  
Logged
YRABNNRM
YoungRepub
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,701
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -6.09

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2004, 05:54:41 pm »

Vote Democrat in local elections, Republican in Presidential.
Logged
Ben.
Ben
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,242


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2004, 06:06:50 pm »

Its interesting isn’t it… from 1968 till the late 1980’s you could accept that these where Dems who had originally voted Dem but after Civil Rights and the increasing social liberalism of the national Democratic Party turned to the GOP at the national level while they voted for the “Good old Boys” at the local level….

But these day’s aren’t most of these “good old boys” GOP rather than Dem? Perhaps it’s the classic Dem Economic Populism and Liberalism that leads so many to register as Democrats? I mean Blanco and Jinnal in LA where very close in their social conservatism and economic interventionism…

Having said all this I doubt that voter registration is that high for the Democrats… but it’s a fact that there a plenty of voters in the south who register as Dems and then vote GOP at a national level…. Cant really fathom it still being this way so long after the  old Democrat “Solid South” became the new Republican “Solid South”…        
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,275


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2004, 06:07:08 pm »

Registered Dems by birth, haven't bothered to change it... Wink
Logged
Huckleberry Finn
Finn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,820


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 13, 2004, 06:15:46 pm »

BTW. Where I can find some statistics about voters registration?
Logged
MarkDel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,152


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 13, 2004, 06:37:32 pm »

Hockey Dude,

There's a HUGE difference between Southern Democrats and real Democrats. Southern Democrats are right wing on foreign policy issues, moderate on social issues and populists when it comes to economic issues...which is pretty much where the Democratic Party stood from 1932 to 1964 when they dominated American politics. But today's REAL Democrats are Internationalist appeasers on issues pertaining to foreign policy and far left on social issues, and neither of those positions will fly with Southern Democrats.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2004, 06:39:43 pm by MarkDel »Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,275


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 13, 2004, 07:04:25 pm »

Hockey Dude,

There's a HUGE difference between Southern Democrats and real Democrats. Southern Democrats are right wing on foreign policy issues, moderate on social issues and populists when it comes to economic issues...which is pretty much where the Democratic Party stood from 1932 to 1964 when they dominated American politics. But today's REAL Democrats are Internationalist appeasers on issues pertaining to foreign policy and far left on social issues, and neither of those positions will fly with Southern Democrats.

Southern Democrats seem to be Republicans to me, what's the difference?
Logged
MarkDel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,152


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2004, 07:07:51 pm »

Gustaf,

The Southern Democrats are less conservative on social issues than rank and file Republicans, and they might be more suspectible to class envy populism...that's the biggest difference.

But when it comes to foreign policy...yes...they are pretty much Republicans.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,275


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2004, 07:11:00 pm »

Gustaf,

The Southern Democrats are less conservative on social issues than rank and file Republicans, and they might be more suspectible to class envy populism...that's the biggest difference.

But when it comes to foreign policy...yes...they are pretty much Republicans.

Take someone like Breaux, who I heard supported the Bush tax cuts. He's Republican on social issues. He's Republican on economy. He's Republican on foreign policy. I don't get all the "The Democrats are losing the Southern wing of the party"-talk, I mean are they really Democrats in any meaningful sense?
Logged
MarkDel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,152


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2004, 07:20:46 pm »

Gustaf,

Breaux may have voted with the Republicans on some issues, but he's not nearly as conservative overall on economic and social issues, though I would call him closer to the Republican base than he is to the Democratic base nationally.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,275


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 13, 2004, 07:49:15 pm »

Gustaf,

Breaux may have voted with the Republicans on some issues, but he's not nearly as conservative overall on economic and social issues, though I would call him closer to the Republican base than he is to the Democratic base nationally.

It still seems to me like he, and many others, are closer to the GOP on all major issues, even though they night well be more moderate.
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 13, 2004, 08:06:07 pm »

I heard on some news channels in both of those states 55% of the registered voters are Democrat.  How can a Dem possibly lose there?  Seems weird.  

Two words: Zell Miller

Southern states are filled with Democrats who voted for Bush in 2000 and will vote for him this year. They've voted GOP since Nixon pretty much with only minor lapses.  They keep their registration because it makes them feel independent to be registered one way and vote another.
Logged
ncjake
Full Member
***
Posts: 125


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 13, 2004, 08:40:21 pm »

Let me break it down for all of yall, being from Louisiana. Southern Democrats are conservative on social issues. On economic issues they are more in line with the Democrats. But in a national election we cant choose a real Southern Democrat, so we go for the Republican, rather than the far left nutjob who could care less about the issues of the working man. Bill Clinton and Al Gore are not Southern Democrats. New Orleans is the only place in LA whose population is actually like the northern Democrats. Another reason is because you have to be registered Democrat to vote in primaries for Democrats. To vote in Republican primaries you can be either. Thats why people register that way.

Edit: 61% of Louisiana's voters are registered Democrats
« Last Edit: February 13, 2004, 08:44:12 pm by ncjake »Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,275


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 13, 2004, 08:43:19 pm »

Let me break it down for all of yall, being from Louisiana. Southern Democrats are conservative on social issues. On economic issues they are more in line with the Democrats. But in a national election we cant choose a real Southern Democrat, so we go for the Republican, rather than the far left nutjob who could care less about the issues of the working man. Bill Clinton and Al Gore are not Southern Democrats. Another reason is because you have to be registered Democrat to vote in primaries for Democrats. To vote in Republican primaries you can be either. Thats why people register that way.

How come Clinton won LA twice then, with 46% and 52% respectively? Smiley
Logged
ncjake
Full Member
***
Posts: 125


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 13, 2004, 08:46:20 pm »

Because Dole wasnt any sort of candidate, and the 1992 election was, as we all know, a special case
Logged
zachman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,101


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2004, 10:22:52 pm »

Perot only got 12% in LA in 92. That wasn't a huge amount, and 46% for a democrat in that election in that state was phenominal.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,297
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 14, 2004, 05:40:19 am »

Most people in the South are Democrats... and a lot of them don't vote in national elections... but do sometimes at state and local level (example: the recent Lousiana gubernational election).
On the other hand a lot of them vote Democrat the further down the "political tree" while usually backing Republicans for federal offices (like Oklahoma)

It's also usually a family tradition to be a Democrat in the South (except in a few counties in each state where it's traditional to be a Republican), usually dating back to the Civil War.
Logged
agcatter
agcat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,742


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 14, 2004, 12:54:07 pm »

Democrats can be very competitive for state offices down the ballot if they can portray themselve somewhere in the middle.  At the national level, it's tough for a Democratic Presidential candidate to portay himself as anything but a liberal.  Social issues kill them in the South.  In order to appeal to their base liberal constituencies they take positions that just can't fly in the South.

Carter in 76 was perceived as a moderate conservative in the South and carried the entire South.  However, after governing as a liberal for 4 yrs his true colors came out and i believe he lost the entire South outside his native Georgia.

Clinton had some success as portraying himself as a "moderate" southern governor and siphoned off some Southern states.  No outside the South national Democrat has carried a single Southern state since Kennedy in 60.  It just can't be done and Kerry will have to put together his EV coalition outside the South.

Now here in Texas, over the last 10 years the Democratic Party has imploded all down the ballot.  Every state wide office from governor down to railroad commissioner, the entire Texas Supreme Court, and both houses of the state legislature are in complete GOP control.  Not one statewide office is held by a Democrat.  The closest race was for Lt Governor, the Dem candidate ran as a moderate cons. and came within 6 pts.  The rest of the state ticket just got buried.  HOWEVER, GOP dominance all the way down the ballot is the exception in the South, not the rule.  Exit polls showed in 2000 that a clear plurality of voters considered themselves Republicans.  That is NOT the case in the other southern states.
Logged
zachman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,101


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 14, 2004, 01:00:19 pm »

NH and northern New England is politically opposite from the south. We are socially liberal, have a high rate of college educated voters, and are fiscal conservatives. Southern democrats are fiscal moderates, social conservatives, and less educated in general.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,297
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 14, 2004, 01:04:53 pm »

The big problem the Dems have in the South is that a lot of natural Democrats in rural areas don't vote at all... they seem to be put off by wedge issues.
Most of them don't vote GOP... they just don't vote.
When they do (even in small amounts) they often swing the election to the Dems; see the (fairly) recent gubernational elections in Virginia and Lousiana.
What the Dems have got to do is concentrate on economic issues and ignore social issues, whilst taking moderate positions on them.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,089


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: February 14, 2004, 01:08:08 pm »

I'm not so sure that Southerners Democrats that vote Republican are generally that economically 'populist'. Certainly most of the Republican senators and representatives elected from the South, and even a few Democrats like Miller and Breaux, have managed to vote with the pro-capitalism, low-tax, free-trade vision of the national Republican party and not pay any price for it come election time back home.  
Probably these 'populist' democrats actually vote democrat.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,297
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 14, 2004, 01:15:56 pm »

Most Populist Democrats in the South don't vote at all... that's the problem...
Logged
agcatter
agcat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,742


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: February 14, 2004, 06:38:25 pm »

As Zackman pointed out, big differences on social issues.  New England and the South would definitely be polar opposites in that area.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,291
India


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: February 14, 2004, 10:05:39 pm »


Carter in 76 was perceived as a moderate conservative in the South and carried the entire South.  However, after governing as a liberal for 4 yrs his true colors came out and i believe he lost the entire South outside his native Georgia.


That's the way it appears when you just look at the Electoral map. Carter won all the South except Va. and Okla. in '76, yet retained only Maryland, DC, WV (which you maybe don't include under South, not everybody does) and Ga. there in 1980.
However, when you look at the swings involved the story looks quite different. All but five Southern states actually had underaverage swings away from Carter in 1980. It's just that he scored a number of close victories there in '76 and Reagan did the same in '80.
The five states are Georgia, Florida, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas. And Carter's 1976 results in Georgia and Arkansas were extremely high, very much unlike elsewhere in the South.
Logged
BushAlva
Newbie
*
Posts: 11


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 15, 2004, 08:51:06 pm »

First of all, I am a senior at Northwestern Oklahoma State University, NAIA Div I in Alva, Oklahoma.

Secondly, I don't consider Oklahoma to be completely in the south.  Oklahoma is in the Southwest, Southcentral, Southeast, and Midwest.  Where I am at (Northwest Oklahoma) is in the High Plains of the Rocky Mountains.

It is true that Oklahoma is primarily Democratic in Nature.  We have had more Democratic Governor's than GOP Govenor's.  We recently elected a Democratic Governor in the 2002 Mid-Terms.

I grew up on the eastern side of Oklahoma City (the largest city in the USA) (Land-Area).  The Western 2/3 of the state are Republican and the eastern 1/3 are Democrat.

The Oklahoma Democrats seem to me to be a bit more liberal than the Southern Democrats, especially in the Northeastern Corner of the state.

A little bit of history, Oklahoma has only voted for 1 Democrat in the past 13 presidential elections, dating back to 1952.  That person was LBJ in 1964.

Oklahoma did not even vote for JFK, we voted for Richard Nixon.

Why that is, I am not quite sure, but several of the posts I have read I seem to agree with, that we vote GOP in Federal Offices (President, Senate, most House) and we vote Democrat at the lower levels (Governor, Lt. Governor, State Senate, State House, Sheriffs, etc.)

Currently, Oklahoma has
1 Democrat Governor,
1 Republican Lt. Governor,
2 Republican US Senators,
4 Republican US Representative,
1 Democrat US Representative.

Our lower level include Democrat Auditor/Inspector, Democrat Atty Gen, Democrat Treasurer, Democrat Sec of Education, Democrat Insurance Commissioner, Republican Labor Commish, 3 Republican GOP Corporation Commissioners
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines