Lincoln, Nebraska - progressive? (Omaha, Kearney: hotel, casino, taxes)

[itsMeFred]

Originally Posted by Tiger Beer

I was just looking at Obama/McCain...Nebraska does look solidly RED with two specks being Lincoln and Omaha.

Drastically different from say Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Dakotas, Michigan, etc. which has quite a bit more blue.

Much like elsewhere in the country, that doesn't indicate 100% support for either candidate.
My county, for example, went to McCain. But Obama still had 20-some% of the vote.
McCain, while he lost both Lancaster and Dodge, still got 47%...

And, for what it's worth, I would also point out that the Dakotas' blue counties can be over-laid with their reservations...

Bigots like DTOLove drive me bananas.



This, is an outspoken Obama supporter in western Nebraska:


Erin
(who also voted for Obama)

[mattpoulsen]

Ok. I'm not going to delve "deep" into this issue.

But the mere fact that a state votes republican does NOT make it backwards and it does NOT mean they are voting against their own interests. Rather, I would think it suggests you might not understand the people's interests as well as you think you do.

I find that the vast majority of republicans in Nebraska vote that way because they are very very staunch libertarians. Its not about religion and its not about economic theory. It simply comes down to the fact that they want the government out of their lives. Now, I agree there are inconsistencies with this stance (e.g., abortion rights, gay rights, and etc), but "true republicans," not the crazy Cheney/Bush variety, are generally republican because of their libertarian bent.

I agree that the state of the Republican party is currently a mess. I also disagree strongly with the small group of religious zealots who seem to control the republican party right now. But republican is not a bad word and I'm tired of this idea that republicans are by definition evil, selfish, and racist.

[roots'nbulbs]

The Civics teacher, at my school, did an experiment with students--(who tend to claim the party of their parents). He polled them with questions about how they would vote on certain issues, the kids having no clue whether the questions represented McCain, Obama, Hilary, or whoever.

Interesting, in this red, red area: the poll showed the bar a bit over to the left side, socially.

Probably proved that we usually grow up and register the way our parents did. And, then, if we get busy enough, we don't even know the issues on voting day.

I really agree, though, that a lot of the people, here, spew out libertarian ideals.

[itsMeFred]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

I find that the vast majority of republicans in Nebraska vote that way because they are very very staunch libertarians. Its not about religion and its not about economic theory. It simply comes down to the fact that they want the government out of their lives. Now, I agree there are inconsistencies with this stance (e.g., abortion rights, gay rights, and etc), but "true republicans," not the crazy Cheney/Bush variety, are generally republican because of their libertarian bent.

I think you're right, actually. i also think that's why there was such a noticeable shift to the left, statewide, this last election cycle. The most recent crop of Republicans (Bush/Cheney as an example) have been very authoritarian and played pretty fast and loose with the Constitution.

I tend to think that's also why so many in our state vote Democrat, actually, is because of a libertarian bent.

there are definitely inbred hill billies in our state. Like elsewhere, I'm going to guess. But we tend to be more of a live and let live crowd than anything.

[mattpoulsen]

I agree with that.

Part of the reason we're so republican is because the democratic party is very weak in Nebraska. Part of that is lack of support, but a large large part is a lack of viable candidates. Its kind of a chicken and the egg problem.

Its not that we won't elect democrats! Ben Nelson, Bob Kerrey, and Jim Exon have been some of the most Nebraska notable politicians in recent history. The others being Hagel and Johanns. (I refuse to count Heineman as notable!)

The last few elections not involving Nelson have had empty suits for the democratic candidate. Like I said, there is obviously a chicken and the egg problem here, but the Nebraska people have proven they are more than willing to vote for a democrat when presented with a quality option from the democratic party.

[DTO Luv]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

Ok. I'm not going to delve "deep" into this issue.

But the mere fact that a state votes republican does NOT make it backwards and it does NOT mean they are voting against their own interests. Rather, I would think it suggests you might not understand the people's interests as well as you think you do.

I find that the vast majority of republicans in Nebraska vote that way because they are very very staunch libertarians. Its not about religion and its not about economic theory. It simply comes down to the fact that they want the government out of their lives. Now, I agree there are inconsistencies with this stance (e.g., abortion rights, gay rights, and etc), but "true republicans," not the crazy Cheney/Bush variety, are generally republican because of their libertarian bent.

I agree that the state of the Republican party is currently a mess. I also disagree strongly with the small group of religious zealots who seem to control the republican party right now. But republican is not a bad word and I'm tired of this idea that republicans are by definition evil, selfish, and racist.

If Nebraskans are so socially accepting then why do we have the laws we do? The only things people really care about the government getting involved with are taxes and probably guns. If it was really "live and let live" we wouldn't have amended the constitution to ban same sex marriage. We wouldn't vote down casinos EVERY time. We wouldn't vote for state legislators who want to close down strip clubs or have wackos harrassing abortion clinic workers in their homes.

I agree that many Nebraskans don't want the government in their own lives with respect to their few key issues, but they are very quick to let the government tell others how they should have their hand in their lives (gay rights, casinos, vices). To me that is very backwards. You want the government to treat your group a certain way but not anothers.

[mattpoulsen]

As I stated, there is an inconsistency with much of the libertarian stance, as there is still this control by the religious right that pushes for anti-gay legislation.

But, a lot of the resistance to that comes from a libertarian place. Many of the Nebraskans are against those things because they view it as something coming in from the outside and trying to dictate how they run their state. That is absolutely true with the gambling issue. Not to mention that in the case of the gambling issue the bills that have been set forth were pretty poor. And many of those in western Nebraska basically saw all of the advantage going to Omaha. I don't think Nebraskans are against gambling per se, I think they were just against those particular incarnations of gambling.

On the gay issue, I don't disagree that there is much room for progress. But I truly think its not because Nebraskans aren't compassionate, but rather because they're just not personally invested. They tend to think of it as an outside issue. And Nebraskans get rigid when progress is not coming from within.

I guess I should amend my libertarian claim to include very libertarian and very independent. Those, in my mind, are generally good qualities. However, in the case of gay rights, those qualities have probably hampered progress.

[DTO Luv]

How are casinos an outside issue? If Target wants to come in and build a store do we pass legislation blocking them because we don't want the money to go to Minneapolis? Absolutely not. Nebraska LOSES MILLIONS of dollars. So if some outside party wanted to set up a casino in Omaha, where NE would no doubt recoup money from Iowa, Kansas, and South Dakota, how is that a bad outside influence? It's not.

And you just perfectly illustrated how Nebraskans always vote against their best interest. Of course it made sense to put the casinos in Omaha. Council Bluffs has the 14th highest grossing casino market in the US! That's only with 3 casinos and nowhere near the 14th largest population base in the US. Iowa makes a killing off of Nebraska (mainly Omahans) leaving their money at the casino. Now if people in western NE were smart they would have voted for the option favoring Omaha instead of trying to vie for an illogical effort for casinos out there with no people. Just because the casino would have been in Omaha doesn't mean that money would have been solely spent on Omaha. It would have gone to the whole state, so yes Nebraskans often do vote against their best interests.

[mattpoulsen]

Its because a casino is NOT the same thing as a department store. There are a number of documented negative aspects to consider. Plus, when Target comes in we don't need to pass a new state statute. THAT is why it feels like an outsider ran agenda. Vegas groups were coming in and lobbying for legalizing gambling. Opponents did a very good job of publicizing that fact and most Nebraskan bristled at that idea.

Further, Nebraskans are not stupid. A person in Scottsbluff knows he will see very little of the benefit. The manner in which the bills were written essentially made gambling legal in Omaha. The point is they weren't fair, so those in western Nebraska wouldn't support it.

Yes, they would benefit via some state taxes, but those taxes would disproportionately benefit Omaha. Further, the revenue produced by gambling is not simply just the gambling...look at the hotels, food, merchandising and etc. Well, Omaha reaps the larger benefit there because of local taxes.

The bottom line is if you would live 6 hours from Omaha I find it very hard to believe that you would be nearly as pro-Omaha casino as you are now. My point is the interests of those in the west are not the same as those in Omaha. Most viewed it as Omaha reaping a benefit with out providing that same ability (to build casinos) to other cities throughout the state. For example, why not Scottsbluff? or Kearney?

There were just all sorts of problems with the bills that were proposed that I believe were ultimately the reason it failed. But they weren't voting against their interests...they were pointing out Omaha's interests were not their own.

[thatguy1]

DTO,
A big reason this state votes so conservatively, imo, is that younger more progressive generations move out of state. (Or to Omaha and Lincoln which are blue) So, you have lawmakers (Baby boomers on up) pushing conservative agendas and a lack of liberal voters challenging those agendas.

I do think if Industry in Nebraska can grow significantly, the out migration of young voters with help overturn some of the conservative practices of this state. It will just take some time.