I lived in a small town in the middle of the vast, desolate sea of red for 18 years. I now live in a different town in the middle of the vast sea of red, and have done so for three years. I think I know a thing or two about how these people think. My roommate is a conservative, and he told me the only reason he voted for Bush was because he wanted to keep his gun. I'm not kidding.
As for the statement about major cities, I see no reason to believe that my statement was untrue. People in big cities understand more about cooperating because they have to.
Guns are a huge deal with my roommate and his family.
Mostly, and this is just in my experience, the reason why Democrats in western Oklahoma (the area I am most familiar with) vote for Republican presidents is because of gun control. Democrats in western OK vote for Democratic governors and Congressmen, but vote for Republican presidents time and time again.
In the towns of Elk City, Clinton, and Weatherford, I saw Carson (Democrat) signs and Bush signs in virtually every yard. People want local Democrats and national Republicans. I've asked people why, and they always mention the guns. They mention other things, but the gun thing is the most popular.
Wow. Until I sat down and typed this out, I never realized how weird western OK was.
its not that weird (I've been there, I used to live in Oklahoma) - anyway - its actually quite a normal thing. People segregate their federal and state/local issues and when voting on issues instead of party lines, people tend to find themselves being socially and politically different, or moderate. If I were to vote on just social issues, I would have voted for Al Sharpton in all likelyhood :P
It's like that out here in Colorado as well. Colorado supported Bush, but elected Ken Salazar(a moderate hispanic Democrat) over beer maker Pete Coors. Democrats also took over both houses of the state legislature.
I think voters in the Western U.S. aren't particularly loyal to a party, but to their values. If they can find a way to relate to a candidate, then they'll vote for them no matter their affiliation. Salazar is a 5th generation rancher, and also a Catholic(which I think even Southern Baptist's are starting to recognize as a Christian faith).
Kerry has feel of an east coast aristocrat. To many, his humility, reserve, and shyness came as being aloof. Worst yet, he comes from a state where a judge tried legalize gay marriage. This really helped the social conservatives to 'get out the vote'. People have a certain idea of what marriage should be. Try to change it a radical way without a going through a traditional legislative process, then expect one hell of an angry backlash.
It goes without saying that Democrats really need to rethink their platform and strategy. The statistical breakdown of who voted for whom is a big win for the Republicans and just brutal for Progressives. Compared to the 2000 election, Bush gained votes among all ethnic groups, and all religious groups except for those in the mysterious 'other' column.
no subject
on 5 Nov 2004 11:56 (UTC)As for the statement about major cities, I see no reason to believe that my statement was untrue. People in big cities understand more about cooperating because they have to.
Not really
on 5 Nov 2004 12:14 (UTC)As for the gun thing, I didn't think gun control was even an issue.
Re: Not really
on 5 Nov 2004 12:22 (UTC)Mostly, and this is just in my experience, the reason why Democrats in western Oklahoma (the area I am most familiar with) vote for Republican presidents is because of gun control. Democrats in western OK vote for Democratic governors and Congressmen, but vote for Republican presidents time and time again.
In the towns of Elk City, Clinton, and Weatherford, I saw Carson (Democrat) signs and Bush signs in virtually every yard. People want local Democrats and national Republicans. I've asked people why, and they always mention the guns. They mention other things, but the gun thing is the most popular.
Wow. Until I sat down and typed this out, I never realized how weird western OK was.
Re: Not really
on 5 Nov 2004 12:38 (UTC)Re: Not really
on 5 Nov 2004 12:46 (UTC)Re: Not really
on 5 Nov 2004 13:33 (UTC)Re: Not really
on 5 Nov 2004 13:51 (UTC)I think voters in the Western U.S. aren't particularly loyal to a party, but to their values. If they can find a way to relate to a candidate, then they'll vote for them no matter their affiliation. Salazar is a 5th generation rancher, and also a Catholic(which I think even Southern Baptist's are starting to recognize as a Christian faith).
Kerry has feel of an east coast aristocrat. To many, his humility, reserve, and shyness came as being aloof. Worst yet, he comes from a state where a judge tried legalize gay marriage. This really helped the social conservatives to 'get out the vote'. People have a certain idea of what marriage should be. Try to change it a radical way without a going through a traditional legislative process, then expect one hell of an angry backlash.
It goes without saying that Democrats really need to rethink their platform and strategy. The statistical breakdown of who voted for whom is a big win for the Republicans and just brutal for Progressives. Compared to the 2000 election, Bush gained votes among all ethnic groups, and all religious groups except for those in the mysterious 'other' column.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
Re: zenophobic outbursts
on 6 Nov 2004 09:34 (UTC)