Skip to main content

View Diary: The Slow Decline of the Oregon Republican Party (100 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Going back further the relationship breaks down (0+ / 0-)

    Dukakis and McGovern both scored higher relative margins than even Obama. On the other hand, in Texas McCain did only slightly worse relative to native son Bush and better in relative terms than any other GOP candidate for President ever.

    And while Oregon's minority population is growing in relative terms, this is the case pretty much everywhere. Oregon is still substantially whiter than the country as a whole, so any scenario where whites trend Republican (tautologically true if minority populations increase and continue to vote heavily Democratic) is likely to see Oregon trend Republican too.

    •  What do you think, then? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      supercereal, koosah, lordpet8, ArkDem14

      I don't think anyone could argue that Republicans, who traditionally dominated the state, are not at a historic low point.

      Consider the state's historic voter registration.  It wasn't really even until the 1950s and 1960s that Democrats became a competitive party in major elections.  Hell, in the 1911 legislative session, there were only 5 Democrats in the state legislature, which has 90 seats.

      Between 1900 and 1988, Oregon was carried by Republicans for president in 1900, 1904, 1908, 1916, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, and 1984.

      It was carried by Democrats in 1912 (when the Republican vote was split), 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1964, and 1988.

      Remove elections when Oregon was swept up in a landslide, and Oregon was only carried by Democrats in 1912 and 1988, and all other times by Republicans.

      You can think what you want, but the Republican Party is definitely near a historic low here.

      I changed by not changing at all, small town predicts my fate, perhaps that's what no one wants to see. -6.38, -4.15

      by James Allen on Mon Mar 19, 2012 at 01:05:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with you on the "historic low" (0+ / 0-)

        It just isn't very indicative of the future. Maybe you don't care about that, but I don't the exercise is very interesting otherwise. Going back yet again to Texas, the case for Texas Democrats being at a historic low is even stronger.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site