Describe a 1964 LBJ voter who voted Republican in every other Presidential election they voted in

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Go.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Old.

[Calthrina950]

Go.

A white Protestant or Mormon voter living in the small towns and rural areas of Upstate New York, Upper New England (i.e. Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire), the Plains States (i.e. Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, the Dakotas), or the Interior West (i.e. Idaho, Utah, Wyoming). This could also describe some voters in sections of Appalachia, such as in Newton County, Arkansas and Whitley County, Kentucky, two ancestrally Republican counties that went for Johnson in 1964, and in Alaska, which has never voted Democratic since 1964.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Old.

Almost all are dead yes. But a lot did exist at a point.

[Indy Texas]

I think my grandmother actually may be one of these people.

(She voted for LBJ but I don't know if she voted for any other Democrats at any point.)

[Stranger in a strange land]

Probably not all that uncommon actually: a suburban or rural Republican who was terrified at Goldwater's idea of giving combat commanders the authority to use nuclear weapons. Probably also a considerable number of northern Republicans who were put off by Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act (though he opposed it for non-racist reasons).

[Indy Texas]

Probably not all that uncommon actually: a suburban or rural Republican who was terrified at Goldwater's idea of giving combat commanders the authority to use nuclear weapons. Probably also a considerable number of northern Republicans who were put off by Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act (though he opposed it for non-racist reasons).

People often try to rehabilitate him with that, but even if his own personal reasons weren't racist, why did he campaign so aggressively in the South then? Did he think they opposed the Civil Rights Act for non-racist reasons?

[S019]

Mitch McConnell, maybe (yes, he did actually vote for LBJ)

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/04/20/how-mitch-mcconnell-became-trumps-enabler-in-chief

https://www.businessinsider.com/mitch-mcconnell-republican-nominee-goldwater-2016-6

But I can't think of many others maybe a partisan Republican who feared Goldwater would nuke Vietnam and start a nuclear war

[SevenEleven]

Probably not all that uncommon actually: a suburban or rural Republican who was terrified at Goldwater's idea of giving combat commanders the authority to use nuclear weapons. Probably also a considerable number of northern Republicans who were put off by Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act (though he opposed it for non-racist reasons).

You've gotta be kidding me.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Probably not all that uncommon actually: a suburban or rural Republican who was terrified at Goldwater's idea of giving combat commanders the authority to use nuclear weapons. Probably also a considerable number of northern Republicans who were put off by Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act (though he opposed it for non-racist reasons).

You've gotta be kidding me.

There are respectable libertarian reasons for being against the CRA, since it does regulate private behavior, so it is possible to be against it without being a racist, and there's no reason to doubt that was Goldwater's rationale. It's also clear he knew where most opposition to the CRA came from, and that he wasn't particularly bothered by the fact it wasn't from a libertarian basis. Unlike most libertarians today, Goldwater was a politician and not a utopian theorist.

[Sir Mohamed]

I think there are more of these kind than expected. Someone who was relatively young and idealistic in 1964, but moved to the right over time. Voted for Nixon in 1968 over frustration of the Vietnam war and because he promised to end the war. By 1972, said voter felt McGovern was too much to the left on cultural issues and thought it would be better to keep Nixon in office rather than make a change in the final stages of the war. By 1976 and later on, this voter felt cultural liberalism and the parts of the New Deal and the Great Society essentially failed as opposed to free market capitalism.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I'm not sure you had to be that idealistic - a first-time voter in somewhere like Oklahoma likely went for LBJ in 1964, but at every subsequent election would be demographically likely to vote Republican.

[RINO Tom]

Probably not all that uncommon actually: a suburban or rural Republican who was terrified at Goldwater's idea of giving combat commanders the authority to use nuclear weapons. Probably also a considerable number of northern Republicans who were put off by Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act (though he opposed it for non-racist reasons).

People often try to rehabilitate him with that, but even if his own personal reasons weren't racist, why did he campaign so aggressively in the South then? Did he think they opposed the Civil Rights Act for non-racist reasons?

This is certainly a fair criticism of him, as I think many GOP strategists saw the election as lost and the only real benefit to take away from 1964 was gaining traction in the South.  This obviously doesn't mean that Goldwater got most of his non-Southern votes due to reasons regarding race or that there weren't many racist voters who supported LBJ, but Goldwater certainly played on Southerners' frustration with the CRA; that seems undeniable.

Anyway, the OP's question seems kind of obvious.  Someone who was 21 in the 1940 election would have been 45 in the 1964 election.  The following states voted Republican in 1940, 1944, 1948, 1952, 1956 and 1960:

North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Iowa
Indiana
Vermont
Maine

After 1964, Iowa was the first to again vote Democratic, in 1988, making this hypothetical voter now 69.  Even then, none of the other states joined in, and Iowa still gave Bush 44.50% of the vote - a share easily large enough to contain the vast majority of LBJ-voting Republicans.  VT and ME broke away four years later, but this voter would have been 73 by now, and both of those states still gave Bush above 30% in a three-way race, making it likely that he was still winning a large majority of actual Republicans.  Iowa remained Democratic for a few elections in a row, but it always gave Republican candidates a pretty large percent of the state.  The aforementioned Plains states have not voted Democratic since, so they're obvious contenders, but even when Indiana voted Democratic in 2008, this voter would have been 89 and very likely did (and even still, McCain got 48.91% in IN in 2008).

Short answer?  There were likely quite a few of these voters in the Great Plains states, Iowa and Indiana.  There were also several in Maine and Vermont, likely older than the ones in the other states (as those states shifted Democratic earlier).  However, when we consider the twin factors of just how badly Goldwater did outside of the South in states that were extremely Republican before AND after 1964 and the fact that the vast majority of partisans in close elections are voting for their party's candidates, I would say there were quite a few of these voters in all states, but especially ones that voted Republican before and after 1964 but voted solidly for Johnson ... as surface level as that last bit of "analysis" is, lol.

[The Mikado]

I'm not sure you had to be that idealistic - a first-time voter in somewhere like Oklahoma likely went for LBJ in 1964, but at every subsequent election would be demographically likely to vote Republican.

If you wanted an older person, you could quite reasonably have someone born in 1930 in West Texas whose voting record is Ike/Ike/Nixon/LBJ/Nixon/Nixon/Ford/Reagan/Reagan/Bush/Bush/Dole/Bush/Bush/McCain/Romney/Trump who will be 90 years old this year if he's still alive. That voting pattern would not look at all weird in West Texas.

[Indy Texas]

Mitch McConnell, maybe (yes, he did actually vote for LBJ)

Thad Cochran also voted for LBJ.

[mianfei]

Probably not all that uncommon actually: a suburban or rural Republican who was terrified at Goldwater's idea of giving combat commanders the authority to use nuclear weapons.

People here are definitely understating just how many such people there must have been. Many rural Republicans were terrified or worse at nuclear weapons – no doubt they feared retaliation and the possibility it would even affect their long-term livelihood if they survived.

Opinion polls imply that the great majority of rural whites were opposed to the Civil Rights Act of that year, yet many who were could not accept the slightest possibility of nuclear war. Goldwater’s poor performance in states like West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan and Iowa, in all of which he did substantially worse than Alf Landon and in all but Kentucky worse in percentage terms than George McGovern, is almost certainly largely a product of his hawkishness on Vietnam:

his [Goldwater’s] foreign policy and Vietnamese hawkishness trespassed on Midwestern isolationism

Once the Democrats were associated with support for the black man after the Voting Rights Act and race riots in LBJ’s full term, and the Republicans nominated a candidate perceived as less dangerous re the Vietnam War, these voters simply turned in huge numbers back to the GOP.

[darklordoftech]

A Never Goldwater Republican or someone who became a Republican in the second half of the 1960s.

[Hope For A New Era]

A whole lot of Utahns, I imagine.

[mianfei]

Mitch McConnell, maybe (yes, he did actually vote for LBJ)

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/04/20/how-mitch-mcconnell-became-trumps-enabler-in-chief

https://www.businessinsider.com/mitch-mcconnell-republican-nominee-goldwater-2016-6

But I can't think of many others maybe a partisan Republican who feared Goldwater would nuke Vietnam and start a nuclear war

Interesting that McConnell voted for LBJ! I must have failed to read that a few years ago!

The way in which so many conservative Republicans voted for Johnson because of the issue of nuclear weapons show just what dynamite weapons of mass destruction are as a political issue. That weapons of mass destruction are this kind of political issue would be acknowledged in all branches of government. As one illustration, there exist people — called “gun nuts” by their opponents — who believe the Second Amendment protects the right to own nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, yet the most extreme pro-gun judges never publicly defend (or so much as discuss the question of) the right to own such weapons under the Second Amendment.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Probably not all that uncommon actually: a suburban or rural Republican who was terrified at Goldwater's idea of giving combat commanders the authority to use nuclear weapons. Probably also a considerable number of northern Republicans who were put off by Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act (though he opposed it for non-racist reasons).

You've gotta be kidding me.

There are respectable libertarian reasons for being against the CRA, since it does regulate private behavior, so it is possible to be against it without being a racist, and there's no reason to doubt that was Goldwater's rationale. It's also clear he knew where most opposition to the CRA came from, and that he wasn't particularly bothered by the fact it wasn't from a libertarian basis. Unlike most libertarians today, Goldwater was a politician and not a utopian theorist.

I wouldn’t call using philosophical musings as a fig lead to strip away the rights of people on the basis of their skin color “respectable”.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Probably not all that uncommon actually: a suburban or rural Republican who was terrified at Goldwater's idea of giving combat commanders the authority to use nuclear weapons. Probably also a considerable number of northern Republicans who were put off by Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act (though he opposed it for non-racist reasons).

You've gotta be kidding me.

There are respectable libertarian reasons for being against the CRA, since it does regulate private behavior, so it is possible to be against it without being a racist, and there's no reason to doubt that was Goldwater's rationale. It's also clear he knew where most opposition to the CRA came from, and that he wasn't particularly bothered by the fact it wasn't from a libertarian basis. Unlike most libertarians today, Goldwater was a politician and not a utopian theorist.

I wouldn’t call using philosophical musings as a fig lead to strip away the rights of people on the basis of their skin color “respectable”.

Believing that individuals should have the right to choose who they do business with is not a fig leaf, and there is no right to do business with someone who does not want to do business with you.

[darklordoftech]

An average swing voter who died sometime before election day 1992.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Aren't there counties that voted this way? Lancaster County, PA is one I know off the top of my head.

[Vice President Christian Man]

Aren't there counties that voted this way? Lancaster County, PA is one I know off the top of my head.

There’s a handful across the Midwest & Upstate NY and perhaps a few in the Upper South as well.
But to answer OP’s question, I’d say an Old School New England Republican but it’s possible that LBJ could’ve won the GOP vote outside the South or gotten close to it.

[Pres Mike]

Lots of people. Up to a million people

LBJ won 61% of popular vote, something no Democrat has done since. LBJ won 43 million votes, something no Democrat got until 1992.

Short answer: Someone young who voted for LBJ in 1964 because everyone else did. Starting in 1968, realized they were a republican.