Fours years later and we vote for the same party

[RecycleMichael]

How many people out there voted republican four years ago and are now voting for Obama? Vice versa, how many of the Kerry voters are voting for McCain?

Bottom line, most of us vote for the same party for President every four years. I have heard that less than five percent of us will vote differently on average. This means that order to win, the candidate must get new voters to the poll.

Do any of you plan to vote differently than four years ago?

[Nik]

Bush in 04, Obama in 08.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

How many people out there voted republican four years ago and are now voting for Obama? Vice versa, how many of the Kerry voters are voting for McCain?

Bottom line, most of us vote for the same party for President every four years. I have heard that less than five percent of us will vote differently on average. This means that order to win, the candidate must get new voters to the poll.

Do any of you plan to vote differently than four years ago?

When you live in the forest you are quite unaware and unconcerned about where anyone else lives. That's Oklahoma. Everyone here is imprinted at birth with a partisan brand and spend the rest of their lives justifying it. Kind of like Crips and Bloods. Never have met a native Okie who changed his brand. I've met many who had identity confusion. They registered as their parents did as Dems but never voted for one since 1964 and never bothered to change registration.

We are irrelevant politically. The real question should be directed to residents outside of Idaho, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. And yes, multitudes of voters outside those states are jumping to a different ship.

[sgrizzle]

Now you have. I'm a born and bred okie from a family of all democrats who is registered republican. In the last two presidential elections I have voted both parties. I vote by the candidate and not the party which makes this year particularly hard since we have two crap-a$$ candidates.

[Conan71]

I'm just like Grizzle, vote the candidate, not the party.

Dad was a Democrat, Mom's always been a GOP.  Dad came from northeastern Episcopal GOP stock, but found it pretty much necessary to register as a Dem after graduating from OU law if he wanted to work in Oklahoma and go anywhere politically or in the judiciary.

I've been registered GOP since I voted in my first election in 1984.  I have never voted for a Democrat candidate for President (I didn't vote for Perot either), but have voted for plenty of other Democrats in national and state offices.  It's not inconcievable that I'd vote for a Democrat candidate for President.  The Dems have not run anyone who is that appealing to me, though I honestly could have voted for Bill Richardson this year.

[waterboy]

I'm not trying to anger anyone, just noting the reality of rural dominated states like Oklahoma.

Grizz, Con, I'm guessing your parents were registered as Democrats in Tulsa when being a Democrat meant aligning with the old Southern (Baptist) Democrats that opposed the Civil Rights Amendment, liquor by the drink, gambling, womens rights, and unions. They were given up to the Republicans by Johnson and Humphrey in 1964 leading to the vaunted Southern Strategy cynically launched by Nixon. By most definitions they were Dems in name only having registered Democrat during the depression, WWII era but by 1956 had much more in common with Republicans.

The fact that you are both registered republicans confirms my point. A rose by any other name. Grizz, at least you recognized that reality and have no political identity confusion as many Tulsans still do.

I also vote occassionally for a republican. I most notably remember voting for Bellmon and locally for D.Bartlett Jr. and Robert Gardiner but I didn't change any of my imprinted loyalties.

[sgrizzle]

WB you are right to some extent. They are against Gay Marriage, Abortion, Federal Stem Cell Research, and many of the other hotpoints prescribed to their party yet the often lament at how their offspring has "fallen astray" by going republican. My aunt even started a fight with some of the leaders within the Oklahoma Southern Baptists who tried politicizing their religious beliefs because of some of those viewpoints.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

WB you are right to some extent. They are against Gay Marriage, Abortion, Federal Stem Cell Research, and many of the other hotpoints prescribed to their party yet the often lament at how their offspring has "fallen astray" by going republican. My aunt even started a fight with some of the leaders within the Oklahoma Southern Baptists who tried politicizing their religious beliefs because of some of those viewpoints.

We have so little in common with those other states I listed other than being dominated by rural interests. Our two metro areas simply are not large enough or powerful enough to overcome the rest of the state's politics which is a mixture of populism, fundamentalism and agricultural. Remember when the rural legislators wanted a cut of our sales tax revenue because their populations were shopping in our counties?

We are probably more accurately described as very cynical conservative Democrats with a tinge of racism who match nicely with moderate, well heeled Republicans. Same goals, different private clubs. Otherwise we couldn't even stand to live next to each other!

[carltonplace]

I'm the opposite of grizz, born republican and southern baptist but converted to democrat with a distaste for organized religion. It should be noted that everyone else in my immediate family is fiercely republican and religious.

I don't vote straight party lines especially in local elections; I vote for the candidate that I feel has the most to offer or in the case of a tie the one that has more of the same personal tenets that I have.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

I'm the opposite of grizz, born republican and southern baptist but converted to democrat with a distaste for organized religion. It should be noted that everyone else in my immediate family is fiercely republican and religious.

I don't vote straight party lines especially in local elections; I vote for the candidate that I feel has the most to offer or in the case of a tie the one that has more of the same personal tenets that I have.

Your story is very commonplace in Tulsa. I too have little taste for "Big Religion" anymore than "Big Oil" or any other megaconglomerate. That is the reason there are hundreds of non-denominational or semi-denominational churches in this area and the traditional churches have very tiny congregations anymore. Many older churches in Tulsa are at 10% of their former attendance.

I quit church for most of a decade because of similar issues and currently go to a non-traditional church whose pastor is wanting to print up "Religion Kills" t-shirts. Oh the times, they are a-changing..

[Neptune]

I think if one dug around a bit, Oklahoma is even more "conservative" than most people know.  But "conservative" doesn't mean Republican.  There are "conservatives" in this state that are "Yellow Dog Democrats".  They will not, nor have they ever, voted Republican.  These are the people that either don't vote based on so-called "morality" issues, or they see voting Democratic as a "moral obligation."

It's one thing to be "opposed to everything" and vote accordingly.  That's pretty much the majority of conservatives, either Republicans or Democrats.  The other perspective pretty much ignores ideologically-charged temporary "issues" for a greater sense of ideological "continuity".  Less reactionary on timely issues, more consistently ideological.

That group is much smaller here, but it's just as historically significant nationally.  It made the New Deal, Civil Rights Movement, Women's Rights Movement, and Great Society possible.  It wasn't Atheists and Homosexuals that made the New Deal, it was a whole lot of Christians.  It was your reactionaries, whether they be anti-tax or anti-liberalization on womens rights, or anti-equality....those people tried to stop those movements.  Also, largely Christian.

I do hope that Christians in general question their political views, they may find out that some things are really more important than others.  I think we're already seeing that movement to a degree.  And no matter who wins next week, Christians will have voted for both the winner and the loser in substantial numbers.

[waterboy]

Not sure I followed all of that. I wasn't so much referring to Christians as much as fundamental religion of all kinds. Jews, Bhuddists, whatever. People who simply refer to their religion as the first source of guidance on all issues. For many that religion is conservatism or anything resembling it. For instance the lock step view of support for Israel in 1967 even though recently Israeli commandoes had strafed and hijacked one of our ships, the Pueblo. It created a weird combination of support from Jews, Christians, Conservatives and politicians. We may have had issues with the Israelis but we still considered Arabs our enemies. Yet they had never made such provocative moves against us.
Those people are not going to consider a candidate simply because his stand on the issues might indicate they would be voting against their own interests.

I do see parallels with voter registration preferences in 1932 and 2008. In both cases, regardless of reality, the current party shouldered the blame for economic difficulties which resulted in a massive re-orientation of the electorate. McCain's people seem to be channeling the same fear that people of that generation had that it would result in a change of economic structure towards socialism/communism. The communist party was pretty active and just as well received as the Libertarians and the Green party are now.

[Neptune]

I have to agree with all of that.  And to be honest, if McCain somehow wins this election I'll be back on that anti-conservative bandwagon all over again.  They've been wrong in nearly everything they've done for the last 8 years, they'd be wrong the next 4.

However, I do believe in taking the foot off the gas when they're beaten.  The Yellow-Dog Democratic Christians are smart folk generally.  They understand why people are pissed off at Christians for electing Neocons.  They also understand that all the side-chatter doesn't make any difference.  They understand McCain is full of it when he talks about "socialism", they understand where an Atheist would go on TV and blame Christians for everything.  It just doesn't matter to them, they know talk is cheap and they'll vote Democratic because they believe in the potential of that party alone.  IF the Democratic Party was to become some truly anti-Christian Party, then they would be disaffected.

The Socialist and Communist parties of the 1930's were largely Christian organizations.  Just as the Klan and Neo-Nazi groups were largely Christian organizations.  I just wouldn't underestimate the potential for Christianity to broaden its horizons and to be an ally to moderately "liberal" causes.

One last bit, I recently heard Paul Begala or someone on some movies say about Clinton how when he was elected there was a strong sense that "we could change it", that things were moving forward.  And the first 100 days, Clinton introduced "Gays in the Military" and Health Care without talking to the Health Care industry.  Clinton killed his own momentum.  I like Clinton, but I'd rather not see that happen again.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I'm not trying to anger anyone, just noting the reality of rural dominated states like Oklahoma.

Grizz, Con, I'm guessing your parents were registered as Democrats in Tulsa when being a Democrat meant aligning with the old Southern (Baptist) Democrats that opposed the Civil Rights Amendment, liquor by the drink, gambling, womens rights, and unions. They were given up to the Republicans by Johnson and Humphrey in 1964 leading to the vaunted Southern Strategy cynically launched by Nixon. By most definitions they were Dems in name only having registered Democrat during the depression, WWII era but by 1956 had much more in common with Republicans.

The fact that you are both registered republicans confirms my point. A rose by any other name. Grizz, at least you recognized that reality and have no political identity confusion as many Tulsans still do.

I also vote occassionally for a republican. I most notably remember voting for Bellmon and locally for D.Bartlett Jr. and Robert Gardiner but I didn't change any of my imprinted loyalties.

You assume a lot, my friend.  Actually Mom's a Republican because she's bright.  []  Dad didn't have a choice but to register as a Democrat if he wanted to be a judge or legislator in Oklahoma in the early 1960's and those were his eventual aspirations.  My grandparents crapped when they found out he'd registered as a Dem.

Other than my views on national defense and fiscal conservatism, I'm hardly a lock-step Republican (I can't seem to find many in the GOP leadership anymore who know what fiscal conservatism is).  I'm a very small government person which means I really don't have a comfortable home in either major party.  I don't believe the gov't should be in the marriage business, nor healthcare (and that extends to "women's health"), I don't believe government offers the solution for every problem of society.  If you haven't figured that out by now, you must only pay attention to your flash-points when you read one of my posts.

If you re-read my last post, you'd see that my father came to Oklahoma from up north to attend law school and his family was a traditional Republican Episcopal family.  My Mom spent most of her years before college at OU in Dallas and lived for a couple of years in New Jersey.  I grew up in the Episcopal Church and we pretty much shunned Baptists and Baptist social views.  Her family never was a big church going family, they pretty much had their family code of morals though.

Mom's never been a registered Democrat, only Dad was.  Racism never had a place in our house (no one in my family that I'm aware of had a problem with the CRA's), I can remember being strapped pretty hard by my dad for uttering the "N" word when I was about 6 years old.  Dad hung out with the "legal beagles" back in the late '60's & early '70's and they were all proponents of liqour-by-the-drink and most of those folks were also backers for pari-mutuel gambling later.

I was "saved" at summer camp when I was 12 or 13.  I can remember my mom being somewhat creeped out about that.  That, in itself had very little to do with me eventually registering as a Republican.  I've never believed in legislated morality- ever.  God was definitely in our house, but we weren't ever obsessive about it and there were no overt symbols of it.  Ever since I've been grown, Mom attends church on Christmas Eve and sometimes on Easter but she's got her own sense of faith.  For that matter, I rarely go anymore either, I've got the same affliction w/ organized religion as Grizzle does.

I was one of the young voters who Reagan appealed to.  Most everyone I knew of on the OSU campus registered GOP because of Reagan.  I was pretty apolitical at the time, but I understood the years of turmoil we'd come through as a country and could see his first four years in office had been a success and he had done a great job unifying the country.  IOW- if Reagan were a Democrat, I'd have probably registered as a Democrat.  Reagan, though quite a bit older, was the JFK of my age peer group.

You were pretty far off the mark about me, but nice try anyhow.

[HoneySuckle]

Registered Democrat here (naturalised citizen), so thankfully, did not grow up with domineering parents telling me to be Republican or else[]

As a non-domineering parent, I must say that I am thrilled my kids are Dems. They were left to think it out themselves...or so I'd like to believe, LOL