The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

My prediction for the primary is Drew Edmonson on the democrat side and a runoff between Todd lamb and Mick Cornett in August.

If Trump stays popular, Todd Lamb wins and again in November.

I think it is going to come down to Edmonson v Cornett. The majority of my Republican friends realize that Lamb is nothing more than Fallin 2.0 and won't vote for him.

They are pretty equally split between Cornett and Stitt with a few liking Gary Jones.

Decide which is the lowest common denominator, least beneficial for the people of the state, and there is your guy!


I'm betting Cornett...or Lamb if we really wanna be stupid.

Cornett vs. Edmonson and Cornett wins.

If Lamb wins in the runoff, then Edmonson will win. Lamb has to own the last eight years. He can only claim to somehow be to the right of Fallin, which uniquely won't play in our state.

I wish Edmonson would win, I hope Cornett will win and I expect Lamb will sadly win.

Right there with you.

There is a pretty good chance of it being Stitt and Lamb in a runoff.  Lamb nibbles away enough support from Cornett in OKC area and runs strong in the rural areas (which have significantly increased in Republican registration the past decade), thereby edging out Cornett.  If that happens, Stitt wins the nomination because Lamb can’t distance himself from Fallin.  Stitt (or Lamb or Cornett) beat Edmondson.  Drew’s been out of the game while the state's political landscape has changed and his name no longer carries the weight it once did.

Stitt's really weak. I'd be surprised if was anything more than a distant third. Cornett is very strong in OKC.

I'm really out of touch so hard for me to predict.  Based on name recognition and signs we saw while in Tulsa last week, Lamb would have the edge.  I have not seen many Cornett signs in Tulsa at all.

Is there another Democrat besides Edmondson running?  I've not seen their signs.

Stitt has spent an insane amount of money for an outsider and I don't see him being able to win.  I too associate Lamb closely with Fallin and perhaps I'm disappointed he never really asserted himself with his security detail to make a name for himself as Lt. Gov. as Fallin did when she was in that position, or one of many.

Guessing it comes down to Cornett and Edmondson in November.  Oklahoma is red enough Cornett wins even though Edmondson may be the pragmatist Oklahoma needs right now to help balance out the batshitcrazy legislature.

Connie Johnson is the only immediately recognizable name.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/photovideo/slideshows/get-to-know-the-oklahoma-governor-candidates-on-the-primary/collection_f4e928c9-46a0-5296-8ec7-3a49cc4debe4.html

Can I hold out for Paul Tay? He'd put the cray-cray back in state government

Oh, wait...

Maybe Murr Fail was Tay in drag?

There's an image I'll never unsee.  Thank you.   ::)

Looking like Mick, did he even campaign in Tulsa County?, and Drew Edmondson.  Right now Stitt is edging ahead of Lamb for 2nd place.  It's not over till its over. 

I was wrong here. Is this state finally waking up?

Don't get your hopes up.

No. 

Stitt is going to win.

I bet Cornett starts campaigning really hard in the eastern part of the state now.  Be interested to see where Lamb's followers go.

And the best news of all...we could be afflicted with Tim Harris one more time!!

So Stitt has been singing the praises of Mary Failin' all this time - she has been doing same for him.  This morning I saw the latest ad dissing her - putting her into the same cart as Edmondson!  Let's hope that truly is just desperation at seeing how he is gonna lose.

He is right - we don't need more of the same, it has screwed this state royally, and it driven us to the bottom in a wide range of areas!  And that is exactly what Stitt is - more of the same!!

There is an (R) next to his name on the ballot...Stitt will win

Yeah.  May well do that.  See my post about Inhofe's wall funding.

Intellectual dishonesty.  Moral bankruptcy.  The Oklahoma Way.

I have noticed that several R candidates, whose principal qualification during the primaries was their religion, have not mentioned anything about religion now that they have to cross party lines to win the general election.

Another example of, "The Oklahoma Way."

Unfortunately, I do think party-line voting will give him a 10% advantage over Edmundson.  I really think Edmundson would be the ideal next Governor of Oklahoma.

Big ole pile left in his backyard by the neighbor's dog would be a better governor than Bull Stitt.

Here is a Republican "businessman" who was so corrupt and unethical in his business operation that he was banned for life from doing business in extreme Republican Georgia.  From GEORGIA!!   Let that soak in - the most Still-like state in the country and even they cannot tolerate his corruption!   Well, until earlier this year when the 'right people' got the 'right incentive' to reverse that ban.  Wonder what that cost.??   Gotta be plenty!

I've got a good friend who is staunch GOP (and, "bless his heart", a hard-core OU fan...) who told me recently he was crossing over to the DEM side to vote against Stitt.  He said, "I've had business dealings with Stitt, and regardless of politics, he is not the kind of man I want running Oklahoma."

Back over the summer I met Kevin Stitt and he was very sincere and knowledgeable about what he was talking about. He laid out detailed plans for how he intended to fix the major issues we currently have in Oklahoma. He took the time to answer questions for a crowd of only about 20 people.

Despite the smear campaign against him and his company, he has been very successful. I'll take a gamble on an outsider who knows how to run a business efficiently and see if he can break the status quo in our state government. I took that gamble with Trump and couldn't be happier with the results.

That being said, Drew Edmonson seems to be a respectable moderate who I really wouldn't have any issues with being governor. At the end of the day we need someone who will work with all parties, is serious about getting things fixed, and has a real plan to do so.

All we need to know

Stitt is the equivalent of Will Ferrell in The Campaign. Marry Fallen 2.0.  Cornett was the best choice.  Oh well at least OKC flipped a 45 year old republican strong hold in Congress. 

Tulsa and OKC must becoming a bit more progressive. Looking at the map, Tulsa County only elected Stitt by 3% (when I first checked Stitt was actually losing in Tulsa County), Oklahoma and Cleveland Counties supported Edmondson.  I also note that District 5 which is largely the OKC area elected a Democrat to the USHOR.

I was going to say: "Well I'll just move out of state if we get someone else like Fallin in office" but well...

I grew open in OKC and lived in Tulsa from 2001-2013.  OKC 2013 - 2018 and now back in Tulsa.    OKC is far more progressive than anyone on this board will ever recognize and acknowledge.  Urban OKC has seen a seismic shift in this regard.  Imagine what Cornett could’ve accomplished had he won Tulsa County. He was much more independent and progressive than many realize.   He was forced to lean right due to Lamb and Stitt.

Concentrated urban OKC is progressive.  Every bit of the surrounding area is blind, stupid, extremist right wing.

Says a lot about him 

Maybe its time to do away with the straight-party vote.  Its antiquated and divisive.

Rightttttttt.   Edmondson won Oklahoma and Cleveland County.  Pretty ignorant assumption on your part to characterize everyone outside the core of OKC that way.   OKC has had it share of wack jobs but please see the gerrymandered districts they represent and the vote totals needed to win.  Edmond and NW OKC also liened considerably to Edmondson.  I guess using your logic everyone in Tulsa and the surrounding area is a racist trump deplorable. 

Says he wanted to win.   He couldn’t win without winning both OKC and Tulsa or win in one of the urban areas and win the rural vote.   Given the misinformed ignorance of Tulsans about all things OKC, any candidate from OKC is screwed without trying to shift and appeal to the majority of voters.

I was thinking the same thing while in the voting booth.  It is waaaaayyyy too easy to just fill in the single box and be done with it.  (I didn't)  I think everyone should be required to vote on each specific race.

The folks that continue to win this way won't allow this change

I've lived it for the last dozen years or so.  Finding a progressive is tough in central OK.  Well, anywhere in OK for that matter.  And how many of those people who did see Stitt for what he is also vote for Sally Kern in the past?

All ya gotta do is look at who voted for Trump.  I don't need to even waste energy on anything other than being able to count a little bit - look at the numbers (link below).  Not everyone - just the 25% or so hard core base he has.  And the other 30% or so he got here are either also that way, or at least condone and support that philosophy and lifestyle.  Which do you think it is??

https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/oklahoma/

Bro- Did you even look at the info you posted?  Trump killed it in TULSA county and actually had more votes than in Oklahoma County.  Also, Clinton did far better in Oklahoma County and Cleveland Counry THAN in Tulsa County.  Again,thanks for making my point about Kern... She literally wins with a total of around 2500 votes.  She represented a tiny district encompassing Bethany and Ware Acres, yet you will use that to assume Centeal OK is crazy Republican.   

Look AT THE DATA.   Oklahoma County is far more purple than Tulsa County.   Tulsa County is Red.   Edmondson won OKlahoma & Cleveland County.   Edmondson lost Tulsa.

Trump 16 election:

Oklahoma County:
 51.7% of votes or 141,429 for Trump
 41.2% of votes or 112,662 for Clinton
 7% of votes or 29,529 for the independent candidate

Tulsa County: 
58.4% of votes or 144,000 for Trump
35.6% of votes or 87,663 for Clinton
6% of votes or 14,909 for the independent candidate

Cleveland County:
57% of votes or 62,469 for Trump
35% of votes or 38,790 for Clinton
8% of votes or 8,068 for the independent

I would be more interested in looking at the percentages from the city limits of OKC and Tulsa and not counties which can skew the data.  Tulsa city went mostly for Edmondson but only represents 60% of the county population of ~650,000, the other 40% are suburbs  which would skew more conservative.  What is Oklahoma County's percentage breakdown between OKC city and suburbs?

Here is an example from the governor's race.  All of the city except the south and southwest sides went for Edmondson.  Stitt did win his "home" district in southwest Tulsa.
(https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/ng/services/mediarender/THISLIFE/022046773943/media/124204070935/small/1541625808/enhance)

OK county gave the right wing 170,000+ votes in 2016.  The independent was Gary Johnson, more red than Trump.  If you look at the red percentage versus blue, in OK county, it is 65% red.  Tulsa on the other hand is 55% red.  10% more purple than OKC.  Details, bro...details...

Cleveland County is skewed by the college types running around there.  It is 55% red, more like Tulsa than OKC.  Haven't looked, but Stillwater may also have that kind of purpling.

Math is tough..,

OKCounty :  51.7% + 7%. = 58.7% republican in 2016 election

Tulsa County.:  58.4% + 6% =64.4% republican in 2016 election

OKC represents ballpark 65-70% of OK County population

Do you not know what Libertarianism is? In short, socially liberal and typically fiscally conservative. Gary Johnson was governor of New Mexico on a fiscally-conservative socially-liberal platform and worked to legalize cannabis, a very "liberal" social policy. He is fiscally to the right of nearly every politician especially Mr. "Spend-Trillions-we-don't-have" Trump. Johnson actually cut spending as promised as NM governor. But socially he is more aligned with liberals (pro-choice, anti-drug war).

And if "red" = Republican (which means uninhibited government spending, endless wars and religious-based laws limiting personal freedoms), Johnson is in no way "more red than Trump".

Broad brushes are tough to "touch up" aren't they - Libertarians are much more right wing that "liberal".  Legal cannabis is not a liberal social policy, it is a good fiscal policy for pretty much everyone except big pharma.  Crime costs go way down (prisons), drug prices go way down, cops aren't tied up with petty BS - reducing those costs, it actually helps people with fewer adverse outcomes than opioids, and leads to smaller government - not a great thing in so many areas!   These are all very fiscally and socially conservative points - that I agree and endorse wholeheartedly, except for the too small government philosophy of both Repubes and Libertarians.  


And yes, I do know what Libertarianism is;  Libertarianism is a system of beliefs for people who think adolescence is the epitome of human achievement.

 ::)

You must be dizzy from all that spinning.

Lol...you are funny!


Actually, do you really believe Libertarians are not more 'con' than 'lib' ??

And reply #44 is still true and valid.

(You do remember that I have mentioned in the past that I don't have to 'write' very much of anything - I just copy/paste from Fake Fox News, et al, change the orientation, and voila' - the truth comes through.)

Libertarians are mostly pro-states rights as opposed to big centralized government. Legalizing weed is the fiscally conservative option, but is very "liberal" in the truest sense of the word and not conservative/traditional. Republicans aren't about saving money when it comes to "morality". They're about enforcing their personal beliefs on others through the force of law.



That doesn't even make sense and it is not true. When you do blind political tests, most people align with Libertarian principles more than with either party. Libertarian is basically what the US system was for the first 50-100 or so years. Not perfect by any means and sort of madness at times, but more personal freedom and very few taxes. The new reality of the world requires far more laws and government control over certain industries. Libertarianism nowadays is more about opposing and limiting the escalation of government power as much as possible because when it's not "your guy" in the white house, they sure have a lot of power to do a lot of bad. It's also about opposing ridiculous "sin" laws like the war against drugs and outdated liquor laws.

Libertarianism is very idealistic and not realistic in it's "truest" form, but so is liberalism (which is a far cry from John Locke's Classical Liberalism). Libertarianism in the US is based on the core values that the US was founded on. It will never be achieved just like the ambitions stated in the Declaration of Independence. No one thinks the US will ever become anything remotely close to true Libertarian, but spending trillions we don't have while being in debt $22 trillion, not to mention the trillions more in unfunded liabilities, is not sustainable. Neither party is working to fix that and hardly even acknowledge it. There is plenty of waste in the federal government that could be cut out. Either we do it soon by choice or are forced to default and crash in the future.

The real problems are we need to actually tax the elite in the US (who use loopholes, lawyers/accountant and corporate welfare to pay almost zero tax). We need that extra revenue to fund critical shortfalls like Social Security, infrastructure and health care while also cutting costs to non essentials like the wars, subsidies and excessive defense spending. Both parties work against enough of those items so that the problems don't get solved. No one will tax the elite and no one cuts the ridiculously high defense spending or stops the endless wars.

No.  No it is not.  Almost nothing in your reply #44 is true.

Here is the quote as refresher;

"OK county gave the right wing 170,000+ votes in 2016.  The independent was Gary Johnson, more red than Trump.  If you look at the red percentage versus blue, in OK county, it is 65% red.  Tulsa on the other hand is 55% red.  10% more purple than OKC.  Details, bro...details...

Cleveland County is skewed by the college types running around there.  It is 55% red, more like Tulsa than OKC.  Haven't looked, but Stillwater may also have that kind of purpling."


Specifics - exactly which part do you think is wrong?   You can do better than that - you are giving a breadburner reply, with nothing to show any different.   And yeah, the post is true.   Trump and Johnson got about 170,000 votes.  +/_ a tiny bit.

Well, to start, lumping Trump and Gary Johnson together as the "right wing" is disingenuous, at best.  Especially in the 2016 election; a good bunch of those Gary Johnson votes are the equivalent of "none-of-the-above."

The one thing you got right was your addition of the Trump and Johnson votes, but as mentioned above, it doesn't show what you want it to (and without context, it tells us nothing). Your math went seriously downhill after that.

In Oklahoma County, Trump got 51.7%  and Johnson got 7.1%. That adds up to 58.8%, not the 65% you claimed.

In Tulsa County, Trump get 58.4% and Johnson got 6.1%.  That adds up to 64.5%, not the 55% you claimed.  That would make Tulsa County 5.7% less purple than Oklahoma County, not the 10% more purple you claimed.

By the way, you got Cleveland County wrong too.  It went 57.1% Trump, 7.4% Johnson = 64.5%. Indeed, more like Tulsa County than Oklahoma County, but not quite in the way you represented.

Trump as representing the Hijacked Republican Party and Johnson are much more alike than different.


Other than that, you are right - I got fumble-fingery all over the place and messed it up big time, starting with using TulsaSooner's numbers (reply 42) without checking at my link - you are right...58.8%.   My bad.  Sorry about that!  It was downhill from there.  You are right.  (I was having a tough time believing Tulsa was more purple than OKC area, but the wrong calculations blinded me to the reality!  We are still worse than OKC on that...!  Sadly.)

I find very few similarities between their politics or personal life.  Johnson has actually balanced a budget and brought fiscal sense to a government leadership role.  He's also a raving social liberal.  Ostensibly, Trump was a NY lib at one point.  I'm sure he still is but it's not talked about to keep the fundies happy.  What do they care anyhow?  They think his boorish nature and treatment of women is perfectly okay as long as he's got an (R) after his name.  Along those lines, there don't appear to be any lecherous rumors about Johnson.

However this video makes me laugh every time...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pzoJVnPblI

That aside, my concern was that he had problems knowing where certain countries were, who leaders were.  But then again, the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave probably knows 10 times less than Gov Johnson.  I would have voted for him, and thinking back on it, I probably should have.

My numbers were correct from the beginning.   The issue is you are the typical  Tulsan who believes that if you repeat something false enough it becomes the truth.... I.e., Tulsa is the Paris of the Midwest, the liberal center of the state, the cultural heart of Oklahoma and etc.

Lol...  your numbers on OK county were the ones that were wrong... and got me started down the primrose path.


Projection alert - you haven't ever seen me call Tulsa the Paris of the midwest or liberal center of anything ever!  It is extremist right wing to the core.  In the same vein as most of the rest of the state, including big swaths of OKC.   Just because they didn't go as strongly right as Tulsa this time does not make them progressive.  Still the area that gave us Sally Kern.

As for cultural, well it isn't a cultural heart comparatively speaking (to the rest of the world), but compared to OKC and everywhere else in OK, it holds it's own and has nothing to be ashamed of relative to any other place in the state.   And "quality of life" is still better here than OKC....it's a much nicer area to live in.

p 16 election:

Oklahoma County:
 51.7% of votes or 141,429 for Trump
 41.2% of votes or 112,662 for Clinton
 7% of votes or 29,529 for the independent candidate

Tulsa County: 
58.4% of votes or 144,000 for Trump
35.6% of votes or 87,663 for Clinton
6% of votes or 14,909 for the independent candidate

Cleveland County:
57% of votes or 62,469 for Trump
35% of votes or 38,790 for Clinton
8% of votes or 8,068 for the independent

These were the numbers I posted from politico.   They are 100% correct.   I never posted incorrect info.  Own it.

Guess my link is a different politico than the one you are looking at...

Your numbers;

7% of votes or 29,529 for the independent candidate


How does that resolve with the results shown at the link I referenced;

Oklahoma County

100% Reporting

R D. Trump   51.7%   141,429
D H. Clinton   41.2%   112,661
L G. Johnson   7.1%   19,519



Own away...

The only thing Tulsasooner got wrong was that he overstated the number of votes for Gary Johnson.  The percentages he presented were correct. Funny that you are now attempting to blame your wild overstatements on Tulsasooner's rather minor keystroke error on reproducing the vote count.

Go read your absolute replies regarding OKC.   You are the typical ignorant Tulsa dude.   Own it.

dude not dude

Didn't read reply 55, huh?

Awww.   Poor little OKC dude feeling... something... ??

You are trash.   An absolute deplorable POS. 

Yes, I most certainly did.  Didn't get the point that his percentages were correct, did you?

And how was his mistyping to blame for your wild misstatements?  Even if you use his misstated vote total for Johnson, your [imaginary] "red" vote in Oklahoma County would only have been 60%, not the  65% you invented.

You are a complete hypocrite.   You go on and on about the deplorable ignorant republicans yet you spew vile inaccuracies that support your ignorant opinions. 

Wow!   Catchy comeback!!  Think up all those big syllables by yourself, or did someone help you??  Trump inspiration going on there.  That's ok.  Just what one would expect from a Sooner....lol.

I "owned" that I made math mistakes - using his first set of numbers...I should have gone to politico first without accepting anything he has to say, but I messed up.  

As for percentages - well the 7% quoted for Johnson is wrong for at least one of the numbers...one is actually about 10.41%.  Which added to 51.7% gives us 62.11% 'right' leaning votes.  Compared to the approx 42% more left leaning.  I made a math mistake and rounded up to 65%.  You rounded down to 60%.  From the real 62.111466%.   "Wild overstatements".  Ok,...(shoulders shrugged)




  

Huge inaccuracies!!   65% versus 62.111466%!!  Massive!!!  And vile!!!   

You do struggle with math, don't you?  Apparently you didn't notice you've come up with 104.11% of the vote.  I confess to having rounded down, when doing the calculation using Tulsasooners mistyped numbers. I rounded down from 60.27713% to 60%.

65% vs 58.8%, but who's counting?

Thank god I only received my bachelors degree from OU.   I guess the MBA from Souhern Methodist University straightened me out.   

I did in fact mis type he 29k votes for the independent in OK County.  However, he %’s were correct.   My entire argument with you was based on my assumption that OKC is more progressive than many in Tulsa choose to believe.   In fact you stated “only the concentrated urban areas were progressive and every bit of the surrounding area is blind, stupid and extremist right wing”.   

I then argued that is a pretty ignorant assumption on your part.  You then link the politico information that I then posted.   Which was accurate except for my typo that Johnson received 10 k more votes than he did.   

My whole point was OKC is more progressive than Tulsans think.  You then shift from % of votes in each area to total number  of votes which is why you lumped the independent and republican together as the % clearly supported my claim.


Maybe this NY Times piece will enlighten you.   

https://nyti.ms/2DQcx4H


You then claim again Johnson % was incorrect and should be 10% not 7%.   You then again use Sally kern to legitimize your point.   Kern never received more than 12k in votes in a county and city with more than 700k.

It is useless trying to have a discusssion with a Tulsan that involves facts and not assumptions.

You have heard my joke about how to get the OU graduate off your front porch, haven't you??   Pay him for the pizza...

Sorry...I just couldn't help it.   I don't really dislike OU as much as I like to jab at them...it is a great school for engineering (my only direct experience).   But SMU??   Ok, I won't start - I wanted to go there...even applied and was accepted, but ended up staying around here.  (Probably a relief to you!).


Back to the fray...

In fact you stated “only the concentrated urban areas were progressive and every bit of the surrounding area is blind, stupid and extremist right wing”.

Probably the words that should have been left out were 'every bit of'.   There are not really "pockets" of progressive thought in the area, there are more balanced, thinking people spread all around, even in Moore!  The problem is kind of like gerrymandering at the voting district level - the thoughtful, well meaning people are so badly outnumbered that we end up with 60% of votes going to blind, stupid, extremist right candidates.   Sally Kern may have only gotten 17,000 votes, but she had enough to get 65%, no contest, 58%, and 66% - in her 4 elections - even with her ignorance on full display for everyone to see.  Look at district by district - that 60%-ish is more the norm than not.

And now we get Stitt....more of Failin'.


You said;
You then claim again Johnson % was incorrect and should be 10% not 7%.

If Johnson had gotten 29,000 votes (the incorrect number I started with), that would have been 10% of the total votes...