Montana Going to the Right: Some Evidence

[Franknburger]

Let me first thank you, Waukesha Country, for pointing out an interesting trend plus a possible explanation (oil-induced population growth in the state's East).

Unfortunately, the US' two-party system is making it difficult to distinguish underlying trends, as it lumps together

(1a) Socially conservative, religion-based voters (->European "Christian Democrats")
1b) Economically conservative but socially liberal Libertarians (->European "Liberal parties")
(2a) Economically liberal, socially conservative to moderate, typically blue-collar Democrats (->European "Social Democrats"),
(2b) Socially liberal, economically moderate, typically higher-educated and/or ethnic minority Democrats (-> European "Greens").

In fact, I would suppose Montana to at the same time becoming more Libertarian and "greener" (with oil extraction being the divisive issue between the two). The "social democrat" base, traditionally strong for some regions' mining / labour union history, is gradually dying away. Whether there has ever been a stronger "Christian Democratic" base is beyond my knowledge, however, Montana's rather high elasticity suggests otherwise. It rather points at a sizeable share of centrist ("independent") swing voters.

If the above characterisation is correct, the long-term trend should depend strongly on both parties' candidates. A hypothetical "Social Democrat" (Clinton) vs. "Christian Democrat" (Huckabee) match-up might, e.g., lead to increased abstention and/or third-party vote with otherwise quite erratic major party trends. A "greenish", but otherwise economically moderate Democrat (you Americans are better in entering an adequate name here) might take the state, as would a Libertarian-centrist Republican. And part of the observed Republican trend may in fact relate to Obama having morphed from a "Green" (especially during the 2008 primaries, when he targeted the Midwest & Rockies) to a "Social Democrat" (2012 focus on the rust belt).

[Franknburger]

Let me first thank you, Waukesha Country, for pointing out an interesting trend plus a possible explanation (oil-induced population growth in the state's East).

Unfortunately, the US' two-party system is making it difficult to distinguish underlying trends, as it lumps together

(1a) Socially conservative, religion-based voters (->European "Christian Democrats")
1b) Economically conservative but socially liberal Libertarians (->European "Liberal parties")
(2a) Economically liberal, socially conservative to moderate, typically blue-collar Democrats (->European "Social Democrats"),
(2b) Socially liberal, economically moderate, typically higher-educated and/or ethnic minority Democrats (-> European "Greens").

In fact, I would suppose Montana to at the same time becoming more Libertarian and "greener" (with oil extraction being the divisive issue between the two). The "social democrat" base, traditionally strong for some regions' mining / labour union history, is gradually dying away. Whether there has ever been a stronger "Christian Democratic" base is beyond my knowledge, however, Montana's rather high elasticity suggests otherwise. It rather points at a sizeable share of centrist ("independent") swing voters.

If the above characterisation is correct, the long-term trend should depend strongly on both parties' candidates. A hypothetical "Social Democrat" (Clinton) vs. "Christian Democrat" (Huckabee) match-up might, e.g., lead to increased abstention and/or third-party vote with otherwise quite erratic major party trends. A "greenish", but otherwise economically moderate Democrat (you Americans are better in entering an adequate name here) might take the state, as would a Libertarian-centrist Republican. And part of the observed Republican trend may in fact relate to Obama having morphed from a "Green" (especially during the 2008 primaries, when he targeted the Midwest & Rockies) to a "Social Democrat" (2012 focus on the rust belt).

Thanks for the input, Frank. I see Obama as a Social Democrat (European), what I've observed is that he's pretty economically liberal (on most issues) and socially moderate (gay marriage for example). I've only been around politics for maybe 2 years so I didn't see any transformation from '08 to '12 so thanks for letting me know that. I never thought Obama could've been economically moderate based on what I've seen of him.

In 2008, especially during the primaries, Obama came across (to me as an European observer) as
(1) dovish/ pacifist (opposed the Irak war from the beginning),
(2) very civil-rights minded,
(3) environmentally, especially climate-change concerned,
(4) worrying about the budget deficit (using that as argument for withdrawing from Irak),
(5) rather focusing on the "new economy" and education issues, than blue collar workers and the rust-belt.
(6) promoting domestic reconciliation, ethnically as well as over the partisan divide ("reaching across the aisles").

As to now, I think we both agree he is pretty mainstream "red" with a few "green spots" left over.