oklahoma 2004

[KEmperor]

Do you think our 7 Electoral Votes are very vital and crucial, or are they insignificant?

No offense, but in the hundred years since Oklahoma has been a state, I don't think there's ever been a single election in which Oklahoma's electoral votes were crucial to victory and were not simply taken for granted or ignored.

So, are our needs just as important as New Yorkers needs or Californian needs or are our people just little insignificant stupid peons.

New York and California weren't exactly competitive in the last few elections either.

[KEmperor]

Do you guys think I know nothing about Oklahoma politics?  Why don't you believe an Okie about Oklahoma politics.  Trust me, OKLAHOMA WILL BE COMPETITIVE IN 2008!!!!!!!!  You don't believe that Oklahoma is trending Democrat.  You don't believe me, which means you must think the Democrats or Republicans should NEVER spend time here or focus on our needs.

Do you think our 7 Electoral Votes are very vital and crucial, or are they insignificant?

Oklahoma was the fifth most conservative state in 2004. Oklahoma was 60-38 in 2000 but 65-34 in 2004. The only thing Oklahoma is trending is more conservative. Yes, Democrats or Republicans shound't spend thier time there because it is a lock to go to the Republicans.

So, if they don't visit us, how will they find out what we need from the lips of Oklahomans.  Are our needs not as important as the needs of Ohio or Florida?

You have some beef with the winner take all Electoral College system, which is totally legitimate. On a human level, of course a person from one state is just as important as a person from another state. However, candidates for president have to campaign where it will likely make a difference in their EC vote total, and under the current system, that is in large swing states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.  If you don't like this work to change the EC. Oklahoma, like my state of Tennessee, can in fact welcome Democrats at the local or statewide level. However, this never happens in presidential races anymore. Bush did 15 points better in OK than nationwide in 04 after doing 13 points better there than nationwide in 2000. In 1996 Dole did just 8 points better there than nationwide, and in 1992 Bush Sr. did only 5 points better in OK than nationwide. These are not the patterns of an increasingly competitive state.

Oklahoma isn't populated enough that it would be a major campaign target without the EC system either. 

[KEmperor]

I know, Gabu, but I'm just tired of people not giving Oklahoma any respect politically.  I was just speaking out of frustration.

Well, blame the voters or the electoral college, basically.  While I'd like to believe the idea that Oklahoma will be a swing state in 2008... well, just look at its electoral history since 1960 compared to the national popular vote:

2004: +28.68% R
2000: +22.39% R
1996: +16.32% R
1992: +14.19% R
1988: +8.93% R
1984: +19.73% R
1980: +15.79% R
1976: +3.27% R
1972: +26.55% R
1968: +14.99% R
1964: +11.08% R
1960: +18.21% R

There have only been two elections since 1960 in which Oklahoma was not over 10% more Republican than the national average.  As things stand right now, the Democrat would need to win the popular vote by 15-20% to have a chance in Oklahoma.  Unless Oklahomans decide to change that sometime soon, Oklahoma will unfortunately always be politically irrelevant (no offense) in national elections that use the electoral college.

It's not even about the electoral college.  There would be no point in campaigning in a scarcely populated solidly Republican state even with a nationwide popular vote.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.