Why does Texas support McCain? And why do the other red states support McCain?

You mean why are all these red states southern states?Try these few keys words.


three fiths compromise
Civil war
reconstruction
dixie crat
civil rights act
voting rights act

the confedercy switched from democrats to repubicans in the south dude to JFK and Lbj.


Like somebody in another post said.This country is still divided, because some people wan't things to go back like they use to be before the 60l4

 

There is alot of country here and a strong conservative rich base. Also the hispanics here don't always go gaga over the democrats like florida and california. I will add we do have some rednecks here too.

As for supporting mcCain. I don't agree with all his policies and I think he will keep us in the middle east where the only way I believe we can win is with even more troops, but I do trust him and it goes back to his POW days. He stuck to what he thought was the right thing to do when it cost him dearly. And more importantly he did it when no one was looking. That is courage and honor I trust.

Compare that to Obama who said he wouldn't cut funding for the troops and did exactly that. Said he would take Campaign government funding and reneged on that and said Ayers was just an acqauintance when he was much more. Also I still find it suspicious he had his birth certificate sealed this past week when everyone is begging he show it. I do not trust him.

Also I question his experience and ability . he has accomplished almost nothing. The biggest thing he has done is be the second most important person on the chicago Annenburg Challenge and watch it flop under his direction. I worry when he gets with Pelosi and Reid they will put in place laws and nominate Supreme Court Judges that will take our country in a direction I may never see correctin my lifetime and well into my childrens.

 

That still doesn't explain why the south were democrats before JFK and LbJ got into office.The republicans of lincoln are now no more, they are the confederates.

 

If I had to breakdown the voting groups into stereotypes based on the biggest reasons they vote the way they do, I would have three groups: one that blanket votes based on morality, and two groups that vote with their own benefits in mind, separated by their relative socioeconomic positions in society.

For a significant portion of the country, the moral issues alone are enough to seal the vote. Once one party opposes abortion, opposes gay rights, and supports capital punishment while the other party is on the other side of the fence, that just about ends the debate for them. Unfortunately, the other issues that affect the well-being and quality of life for all like the economy, healthcare, infrastructure, and environment don't even factor into the discussion. For these people I would say the leadership of their religious institution has the biggest hand in telling them which way to lean.

The second group would consist of a.) the poor, and b.) the middle class that is trying to move up. This is probably the biggest group numbers-wise, and has only increased in size since 2000 for reasons you can guess. Although this group can consist of "informed voters" who actually care about issues outside of their own well-being, it is also easy to classify them based on the issue that affects them most and upon which they will cast their vote--that being a.) how much spending power they have (how much money they are making, how much they are taxed, and how much that money is worth with respect to other countries and previous eras), and b.) whether or not they are receiving the social services you can expect from a developed country, that is, roads, electricity, police, hospitals, schools, etc. So they are basically looking out for themselves when they vote just like anyone else, but they are in the position such that what is beneficial for them might also be beneficial for many others.

Finally, the third group consists of the upper class. Economics is all that matters for them, because they are on top and will do anything and everything to maintain or build upon that position. It's hard to blame them in this capitalist-based society, but societies that have larger and larger gaps between the social classes tend towards revolution.


In previous elections Republicans won because they always had the first and last groups while the second group was split evenly between them and the Democrats. This year, the second group is almost entirely against them, and all they have left are the first and last groups. I would even go so far as to say that anyone who still defends the Bush era while purporting to be a member of the second group is in fact not part of that group but a member or labdog of the first or third groups (respectively?).

Texas along with the other "red" states have a much larger proportion of first group members than the coastal states. Members of the third group have gotten fewer in the last decade but for the most part have an even distribution relatively in all parts of the country. That is as simple as I can explain the distribution of voting in this country. Like I said, a lot of it is stereotyping, but a lot of Darwinism is stereotyping too and its interpretations are irrefutable, so there.

 

As a non-Republican, I see the modern party as roughly being made up of three main constituent groups.

1. The wealthy, who argue for lower tax rates for themselves & diminished regulations on their businesses, as well as the elimination of social services for the poor & needy. Also, those (Joe Plumber) who are deluded enough to believe that any minute now they will be wealthy.
2. Christian conservatives, mostly protestants, who focus almost exclusively on the abortion issue or fringe issues like gay marriage.
3. White racists. Ever since the Kennedy/LBJ era of civil rights reforms & Nixon's southern strategy, the South realigned from heavily Democratic to heavily Republican. This happened in a matter of a few election cycles & is by no means a coincidence. This used to be a major influence on the party; now, far less so.

Historically, #1 has been the base (and, more importantly, funding) of the Republican party. True in this cycle, although they have less to give to the RNC due to the fiscal meltdown.

#2 this year aren't as motivated because, unlike Bush, McCain isn't seen as being one of them (Falwell/Robertson as "agents of intolerrance," etc.). Palin is a sop to this faction, but she's not at the top of the ticket.

The marriage of #1 & #2 has never been a pretty one, and doesn't instinctively mesh. That's how you wind up with the pastor Huckabee proposing the ludicrous abolishment of the progressively-indexed IRS in favor of a flat tax, e.g., while simultaneously fronting the need to help the poor.

Thankfully, #3 are dying off by the hour, and inversely there are more minorities in our country than ever. Racism's influence is definitely diminishing over the party, though it is not quite completely finished. Overt racism is now shunned in society, if not always privately.

I don't know where you grew up in Texas, but where I did there was a heck of a lot of *2s, evidence of #1s through the oil industries, and sadly, a robust #3 population.

 

I see, brantonli. Yeah, we have a very tortured history with race in our country, with noticeable improvement over my and many others' very short lifetimes. Our historical attitudes & interactions with African Americans must be interpreted through the lingering stain of slavery. Our modern view of Arabs and/or those of the Islamic faith must be viewed through the prism of our reaction to 9/11.

That's one of the reasons Obama's election would be seen as such a transformational national symbol. At the time his white mother & black father were married, their interracial marriage was illegal in the majority of the states in our union. Slavery ended in 1865, yet slaves & their descendants were officially treated as second-class citizens in the southern part of our country until forty or so years ago; unofficially, we are the sons & daughters of our parents, and their parents before them; these attitudes are stubborn things. Obama also lived briefly, as a child, in Indonesia, a predominantly Muslim country, and was born to an agnostic father whose African family is primarily Muslim.

That's why you see a lot of the opposition campaigning focus on this issue of "trust." McCain's Republican party is an incumbent party at a time when only 9% of the population believes America is headed on the right track. Thus, because of slime campaigning, a lot of it fed by sub rosa fraudulent emails, a sizable portion of this country wrongly believes Obama is a Muslim (He's Christian.), which attempts to link him back to the 9/11 attacks. Palin says he "pals around with terrorists," a pathetic reference to the time Obama served on educational charity boards with one reformed Vietnam war protestor/radical. Again, this is to tie him in the public mind to the 9/11 attacks. McCain's taglines have been "The American President Americans Have Been Waiting For" & "Country First"; Palin talks of "Pro-America" parts of this country and frequently references wearing an American flag lapel pin, implicitly claiming that Obama is therefore anti-American or not "of" America, a reference to both 9/11 and his race.

It's bogus, and doesn't appear to be working nationally. However, because of the socioeconomic makeup of Texas and the generational allegiances to party, it's a better sell in Texas. If it's any solace, the younger generations in our country vote for Democrats/progressives far more than their elders. It's a work in progress.

 

I wnder what does everybody think would have happened to the Obama campagin, if he would have been at a rally, in lets say "new orleans," saying real americans and calling other parts of america fake america?

 

We have no idea.

Signed,

 

If latinos had their citizenship and not their residency, we could keep the right wing from spreading their agenda in our nation of texas. But there still has to be an interest for them to vote.

 

I think fear. He is unkown and different than the other presidents we've had. So despite the fact that Obama has been far more truthful on the campaign, and not just told people whatever they want to hear, some people have a tough time trusting him.

 

I find it weird that Texas is the only traditionally red state that isn't a sh!thole.

 

Texas is a state that could potentially flip in 4 years if Obama is very popular. Dole only beat Clinton in 1996 by 300,000 votes or so. It's red because it's had Bushes on the ticket almost every year since 1980 and it's trended GOP because of that. Without the Bush connection, it's bit more moderate.

 

Maybe I'm misguided, but I think its the conservative values in Texas and in the government in general that has kept Texas mostly out of the economic downturn, has allowed Texas to have a balanced budget, and has allowed Texas to basically continue to grow when a majority of states are in recession.

There are some problems, as with any government, but Texas has lower taxes on individuals and businesses overall and limited union involvement, which has brough companies here by the thousands and created hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs while other states continue to lose jobs.

If you look at the red/blue maps for voting, it almost mirrors the recession/non-recession state by state maps. Maybe its a coincidence, maybe not, and maybe the Presidential election doesn't actually effect you as in individual near as much as your local elections, but its almost like: if its not broke, don't fix it attitude for voting in Texas.

Even when Texas votes for democrats, they tend to be very right of most of other democrats. Houston's mayor is a good example. He might be about as conservative democrat as you can get, and I think that explains the past history of success of Southern Democrats on a national level. They tend to be much more moderate and pro business than Northeast or Western Democrats in general.

 

Because it is filled with a lot of rednecks who don't research for themselves......

DD

 

You have one major problem here. Younger generations in the US always tend to vote Democrat or progressive, in any generation. Its as people get older, have jobs and families, worry about taxes and retirement, do they start to shift to a more conservative viewpoint.

You also miss the point that the power shifts are cyclical. The government is basically the worst organization to do anything, no matter who is in power, so they almost always mess it up. Given power, any group in the US government will almost always ultimately fail due to the simple fact that power corrupts and no single party should have total control, there is no check and balance, so they get out of control. Democrats will take power this year, and given time, not matter their initial intentions, they'll go too far, and we'll see a shift back to conservatives winning elections as the public of the US tries to balance closer back to the middle. I almost feel like the government and the US in general is almost always at its best when the power is split, one party as President, and another party in control of congress, and ideally, in independent Supreme Court, that if you remember, is supposed to judge the rule of law above party politics.

 

actually due to the fact alot of latinos are catholic, their vote swings to the right due simply to the abortion issue.

I really find it mind boggling that a persons vote could hinge simply based upon a single issue, esp. considering that imigrant latinos would stand to gain more financially as a whole from the proposed policies of this tickets democratic party.

 

Many of the latinos that I know have families that are very conservative apart from their Catholic upbringing. One of my friends explained that his parents escaped from Mexico, which has a corrupt and terrible government, that basically has no "Mexican dream" like America. They vote Republican because they don't trust governments in general, and mostly, in theory, want the government to leave them alone so they can go to work and pay their mortgage.