Oklahoma in dem primaries

[Chester County Anti-populist]

Why did Oklahoma reject Clinton in 2016 and Sanders in 2020 after voting solidly for them the previous cycle?

[RINO Tom]

Protest votes?  The real question is why downballot Democratic prominence persists.  Oklahoma was not an Arkansas that stuck with the Democrats through the 2000s.

[TDAS04]

Maybe this is proof that Biden isn’t as polarizing as Hillary, or even Obama.  States such as OK and WV voted for Hillary in 2008 to stop Obama.  Then they voted for Bernie in 2016 to stick it to Hillary.  For some reason, OK didn’t use Bernie again to take a swipe at the established candidate in 2020, Biden.

[VPH]

Why did Oklahoma reject Clinton in 2016 and Sanders in 2020 after voting solidly for them the previous cycle?

They represented different things + the electorate changed.
2008: Clinton was the more culturally conservative, WWC-seeming candidate. She ran a more economically populist, culturally moderate campaign than Obama or her 2016 iteration. It's easy to forget that Hillary Clinton won impressive margins in upstate rural NY in her Senate races and put a special focus on the region.

2012 (yes): Barack Obama only got 57% of the vote and lost a number of counties to pro-life activist Randall Terry and local gadfly Jim Rogers. Rejection of the Democratic Party/Obama admin by remaining registered Dems who likely voted Republican in the general.

2016: Clinton by 2016 became the Democratic elite candidate and shifted away from her previous orientation. It's apparent even in her announcement video that she discarded the 2008 message for a more cosmopolitan, social liberal one. There were fewer registered Dems by 2016 than 2008, and those Dixiecrats who remained simply voted Sanders as a rejection of Hillary Clinton, who had been demonized by conservative media and was loathed in red America.

2020: Even fewer Dixiecrats were around, leaving a less protest-y electorate. Plus, Biden simply didn't inspire the vitriol that Clinton did. He was seen as the more conservative candidate and didn't have Hillary's baggage. By 2020, Sanders was more culturally leftist too, which can't have helped.

[Alben Barkley]

Maybe this is proof that Biden isn’t as polarizing as Hillary, or even Obama.  States such as OK and WV voted for Hillary in 2008 to stop Obama.  Then they voted for Bernie in 2016 to stick it to Hillary.  For some reason, OK didn’t use Bernie again to take a swipe at the established candidate in 2020, Biden.

I think it was more that in 2008, Bill Clinton was still quite popular in some of these states. Less so in OK but much moreso in states like WV and of course AR. I actually think Hillary could have won them in the general, as surreal as that seems based on the 2016 results. OK was similar demographically to those states, just redder, but the Democrats there still liked the Clintons. Hillary was the genuine WWC candidate in 2008, in part due to Bill's popularity with them, in part because she was running right of Obama, and in part due to, let's face it, Obama's melanin levels. Believe it or not whites with no degree were evenly split in partisan affiliation until right after Obama won in 2008, when they sharply shifted to the GOP. I wonder why that might have been... And I wonder if it still would have happened had Hillary won that year.

By 2016, Hillary was not only running a more socially liberal campaign than she was in 2008, but also was now tied to her former opponent Obama. Plus Bill's popularity had dropped off, being a more distant memory than he was in 2008. Now Obama, not Bill Clinton, was the (black) face of the party, and Hillary suffered because of that in these areas. Combine that with the aforementioned turn against the Democrats by WWC voters and the fact that right-wing media had spent the previous eight years relentlessly attacking Hillary in preparation for her run, and it's hardly a surprise that the remaining registered Dems in these areas turned on her. They weren't voting for Bernie, who most of them knew almost nothing about, just against her and the party/administration she represented.

In 2020, it was different for Biden. It was never about swiping at the "established" candidate -- that was Hillary in 2008, after all. It was really about swiping at the black candidate and then the corrupt liberal woman who supported him. Yes, Biden was Obama's VP. But he also is a white man. And now it's been a while since Obama was president so some of the hatred of him has faded. Plus Biden wasn't attacked constantly and demonized by right-wing media to the extent Hillary was. And he simply wasn't as "unlikable." So now it just came down to do you support the moderate white man or the socialist Jew? It's not exactly surprising who voters in these areas sided with when that is the choice. Bernie's views were also better known by this point. And by this point many of the remaining registered Democrats, while still more moderate, were actually loyal Democrats who may have even voted for Obama.

To those who might say I'm wrong to ascribe race and sex-based motives to these voting patterns: No, I'm not. It's all backed up by studies -- the turn on the Democrats after 2008 and the reason for it, the fact that white men are generally perceived as more moderate than racial minorities and women, all of it.

[clever but short]

Maybe this is proof that Biden isn’t as polarizing as Hillary, or even Obama.  States such as OK and WV voted for Hillary in 2008 to stop Obama.  Then they voted for Bernie in 2016 to stick it to Hillary.  For some reason, OK didn’t use Bernie again to take a swipe at the established candidate in 2020, Biden.

I think it was more that in 2008, Bill Clinton was still quite popular in some of these states. Less so in OK but much moreso in states like WV and of course AR. I actually think Hillary could have won them in the general, as surreal as that seems based on the 2016 results. OK was similar demographically to those states, just redder, but the Democrats there still liked the Clintons. Hillary was the genuine WWC candidate in 2008, in part due to Bill's popularity with them, in part because she was running right of Obama, and in part due to, let's face it, Obama's melanin levels. Believe it or not whites with no degree were evenly split in partisan affiliation until right after Obama won in 2008, when they sharply shifted to the GOP. I wonder why that might have been... And I wonder if it still would have happened had Hillary won that year.

By 2016, Hillary was not only running a more socially liberal campaign than she was in 2008, but also was now tied to her former opponent Obama. Plus Bill's popularity had dropped off, being a more distant memory than he was in 2008. Now Obama, not Bill Clinton, was the (black) face of the party, and Hillary suffered because of that in these areas. Combine that with the aforementioned turn against the Democrats by WWC voters and the fact that right-wing media had spent the previous eight years relentlessly attacking Hillary in preparation for her run, and it's hardly a surprise that the remaining registered Dems in these areas turned on her. They weren't voting for Bernie, who most of them knew almost nothing about, just against her and the party/administration she represented.

In 2020, it was different for Biden. It was never about swiping at the "established" candidate -- that was Hillary in 2008, after all. It was really about swiping at the black candidate and then the corrupt liberal woman who supported him. Yes, Biden was Obama's VP. But he also is a white man. And now it's been a while since Obama was president so some of the hatred of him has faded. Plus Biden wasn't attacked constantly and demonized by right-wing media to the extent Hillary was. And he simply wasn't as "unlikable." So now it just came down to do you support the moderate white man or the socialist Jew? It's not exactly surprising who voters in these areas sided with when that is the choice. Bernie's views were also better known by this point. And by this point many of the remaining registered Democrats, while still more moderate, were actually loyal Democrats who may have even voted for Obama.

To those who might say I'm wrong to ascribe race and sex-based motives to these voting patterns: No, I'm not. It's all backed up by studies -- the turn on the Democrats after 2008 and the reason for it, the fact that white men are generally perceived as more moderate than racial minorities and women, all of it.

As someone from here I see little to disagree with in this take. One thing I'll add is that this time around Bernie's campaign was seen as much more "urban" and had more diversity of support, especially from Hispanic voters. Having surrogates like AOC certainly contributed to this, and while this was good for Bernie in places like California and parts of Texas, I think there was inevitably backlash among rural white Dixiecrats. I assumed early on that Biden would do really well in Little Dixie. Placing the voting patterns in primaries there as solely "anti-establishment" is generous.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Maybe this is proof that Biden isn’t as polarizing as Hillary, or even Obama.  States such as OK and WV voted for Hillary in 2008 to stop Obama.  Then they voted for Bernie in 2016 to stick it to Hillary.  For some reason, OK didn’t use Bernie again to take a swipe at the established candidate in 2020, Biden.

I think it was more that in 2008, Bill Clinton was still quite popular in some of these states. Less so in OK but much moreso in states like WV and of course AR. I actually think Hillary could have won them in the general, as surreal as that seems based on the 2016 results. OK was similar demographically to those states, just redder, but the Democrats there still liked the Clintons. Hillary was the genuine WWC candidate in 2008, in part due to Bill's popularity with them, in part because she was running right of Obama, and in part due to, let's face it, Obama's melanin levels. Believe it or not whites with no degree were evenly split in partisan affiliation until right after Obama won in 2008, when they sharply shifted to the GOP. I wonder why that might have been... And I wonder if it still would have happened had Hillary won that year.

By 2016, Hillary was not only running a more socially liberal campaign than she was in 2008, but also was now tied to her former opponent Obama. Plus Bill's popularity had dropped off, being a more distant memory than he was in 2008. Now Obama, not Bill Clinton, was the (black) face of the party, and Hillary suffered because of that in these areas. Combine that with the aforementioned turn against the Democrats by WWC voters and the fact that right-wing media had spent the previous eight years relentlessly attacking Hillary in preparation for her run, and it's hardly a surprise that the remaining registered Dems in these areas turned on her. They weren't voting for Bernie, who most of them knew almost nothing about, just against her and the party/administration she represented.

In 2020, it was different for Biden. It was never about swiping at the "established" candidate -- that was Hillary in 2008, after all. It was really about swiping at the black candidate and then the corrupt liberal woman who supported him. Yes, Biden was Obama's VP. But he also is a white man. And now it's been a while since Obama was president so some of the hatred of him has faded. Plus Biden wasn't attacked constantly and demonized by right-wing media to the extent Hillary was. And he simply wasn't as "unlikable." So now it just came down to do you support the moderate white man or the socialist Jew? It's not exactly surprising who voters in these areas sided with when that is the choice. Bernie's views were also better known by this point. And by this point many of the remaining registered Democrats, while still more moderate, were actually loyal Democrats who may have even voted for Obama.

To those who might say I'm wrong to ascribe race and sex-based motives to these voting patterns: No, I'm not. It's all backed up by studies -- the turn on the Democrats after 2008 and the reason for it, the fact that white men are generally perceived as more moderate than racial minorities and women, all of it.

As someone from here I see little to disagree with in this take. One thing I'll add is that this time around Bernie's campaign was seen as much more "urban" and had more diversity of support, especially from Hispanic voters. Having surrogates like AOC certainly contributed to this, and while this was good for Bernie in places like California and parts of Texas, I think there was inevitably backlash among rural white Dixiecrats. I assumed early on that Biden would do really well in Little Dixie. Placing the voting patterns in primaries there as solely "anti-establishment" is generous.

I wouldn't really say though that Biden did really well in Little Dixie. Unless you want to count any vote for Bloomberg as a vote for Biden

[clever but short]

Maybe this is proof that Biden isn’t as polarizing as Hillary, or even Obama.  States such as OK and WV voted for Hillary in 2008 to stop Obama.  Then they voted for Bernie in 2016 to stick it to Hillary.  For some reason, OK didn’t use Bernie again to take a swipe at the established candidate in 2020, Biden.

I think it was more that in 2008, Bill Clinton was still quite popular in some of these states. Less so in OK but much moreso in states like WV and of course AR. I actually think Hillary could have won them in the general, as surreal as that seems based on the 2016 results. OK was similar demographically to those states, just redder, but the Democrats there still liked the Clintons. Hillary was the genuine WWC candidate in 2008, in part due to Bill's popularity with them, in part because she was running right of Obama, and in part due to, let's face it, Obama's melanin levels. Believe it or not whites with no degree were evenly split in partisan affiliation until right after Obama won in 2008, when they sharply shifted to the GOP. I wonder why that might have been... And I wonder if it still would have happened had Hillary won that year.

By 2016, Hillary was not only running a more socially liberal campaign than she was in 2008, but also was now tied to her former opponent Obama. Plus Bill's popularity had dropped off, being a more distant memory than he was in 2008. Now Obama, not Bill Clinton, was the (black) face of the party, and Hillary suffered because of that in these areas. Combine that with the aforementioned turn against the Democrats by WWC voters and the fact that right-wing media had spent the previous eight years relentlessly attacking Hillary in preparation for her run, and it's hardly a surprise that the remaining registered Dems in these areas turned on her. They weren't voting for Bernie, who most of them knew almost nothing about, just against her and the party/administration she represented.

In 2020, it was different for Biden. It was never about swiping at the "established" candidate -- that was Hillary in 2008, after all. It was really about swiping at the black candidate and then the corrupt liberal woman who supported him. Yes, Biden was Obama's VP. But he also is a white man. And now it's been a while since Obama was president so some of the hatred of him has faded. Plus Biden wasn't attacked constantly and demonized by right-wing media to the extent Hillary was. And he simply wasn't as "unlikable." So now it just came down to do you support the moderate white man or the socialist Jew? It's not exactly surprising who voters in these areas sided with when that is the choice. Bernie's views were also better known by this point. And by this point many of the remaining registered Democrats, while still more moderate, were actually loyal Democrats who may have even voted for Obama.

To those who might say I'm wrong to ascribe race and sex-based motives to these voting patterns: No, I'm not. It's all backed up by studies -- the turn on the Democrats after 2008 and the reason for it, the fact that white men are generally perceived as more moderate than racial minorities and women, all of it.

As someone from here I see little to disagree with in this take. One thing I'll add is that this time around Bernie's campaign was seen as much more "urban" and had more diversity of support, especially from Hispanic voters. Having surrogates like AOC certainly contributed to this, and while this was good for Bernie in places like California and parts of Texas, I think there was inevitably backlash among rural white Dixiecrats. I assumed early on that Biden would do really well in Little Dixie. Placing the voting patterns in primaries there as solely "anti-establishment" is generous.

I wouldn't really say though that Biden did really well in Little Dixie. Unless you want to count any vote for Bloomberg as a vote for Biden

That's fair, although I think I was meaning really well in comparison to Clinton.

[Del Tachi]

Even between 2016 and 2020, the number of total votes cast in the Democratic primary feel by more than 15 percent (~320k to ~270k).  In 2008, the number of votes in OK's Democratic primary was >500k.  You see similar drop-offs in states like TN, WV, KY, AR, etc.

Simply put, conservative Democrats have continued party-switching and dying-off leaving behind a younger, Blacker "national Democrat" electorate. 

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Maybe this is proof that Biden isn’t as polarizing as Hillary, or even Obama.  States such as OK and WV voted for Hillary in 2008 to stop Obama.  Then they voted for Bernie in 2016 to stick it to Hillary.  For some reason, OK didn’t use Bernie again to take a swipe at the established candidate in 2020, Biden.

I think it was more that in 2008, Bill Clinton was still quite popular in some of these states. Less so in OK but much moreso in states like WV and of course AR. I actually think Hillary could have won them in the general, as surreal as that seems based on the 2016 results. OK was similar demographically to those states, just redder, but the Democrats there still liked the Clintons. Hillary was the genuine WWC candidate in 2008, in part due to Bill's popularity with them, in part because she was running right of Obama, and in part due to, let's face it, Obama's melanin levels. Believe it or not whites with no degree were evenly split in partisan affiliation until right after Obama won in 2008, when they sharply shifted to the GOP. I wonder why that might have been... And I wonder if it still would have happened had Hillary won that year.

By 2016, Hillary was not only running a more socially liberal campaign than she was in 2008, but also was now tied to her former opponent Obama. Plus Bill's popularity had dropped off, being a more distant memory than he was in 2008. Now Obama, not Bill Clinton, was the (black) face of the party, and Hillary suffered because of that in these areas. Combine that with the aforementioned turn against the Democrats by WWC voters and the fact that right-wing media had spent the previous eight years relentlessly attacking Hillary in preparation for her run, and it's hardly a surprise that the remaining registered Dems in these areas turned on her. They weren't voting for Bernie, who most of them knew almost nothing about, just against her and the party/administration she represented.

In 2020, it was different for Biden. It was never about swiping at the "established" candidate -- that was Hillary in 2008, after all. It was really about swiping at the black candidate and then the corrupt liberal woman who supported him. Yes, Biden was Obama's VP. But he also is a white man. And now it's been a while since Obama was president so some of the hatred of him has faded. Plus Biden wasn't attacked constantly and demonized by right-wing media to the extent Hillary was. And he simply wasn't as "unlikable." So now it just came down to do you support the moderate white man or the socialist Jew? It's not exactly surprising who voters in these areas sided with when that is the choice. Bernie's views were also better known by this point. And by this point many of the remaining registered Democrats, while still more moderate, were actually loyal Democrats who may have even voted for Obama.

To those who might say I'm wrong to ascribe race and sex-based motives to these voting patterns: No, I'm not. It's all backed up by studies -- the turn on the Democrats after 2008 and the reason for it, the fact that white men are generally perceived as more moderate than racial minorities and women, all of it.

As someone from here I see little to disagree with in this take. One thing I'll add is that this time around Bernie's campaign was seen as much more "urban" and had more diversity of support, especially from Hispanic voters. Having surrogates like AOC certainly contributed to this, and while this was good for Bernie in places like California and parts of Texas, I think there was inevitably backlash among rural white Dixiecrats. I assumed early on that Biden would do really well in Little Dixie. Placing the voting patterns in primaries there as solely "anti-establishment" is generous.

I wouldn't really say though that Biden did really well in Little Dixie. Unless you want to count any vote for Bloomberg as a vote for Biden

That's fair, although I think I was meaning really well in comparison to Clinton.

Well, in part it's a question of "absolute vote percentage" vs "margin of victory (or loss) to Sanders"

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

In 2016, supporting Bernie meant supporting an independent populist.  By 2020, supporting Bernie meant supporting the left-wing of the Democratic party.