I wish I saw this earlier.
I'm thinking it's a libertarian or paleo-conservative oriented state, much like Nebraska or Indiana.
LOL. No. I don't see that applying to Nebraska or Indiana either. (Indiana Libertarian? WTF?)
Born and raised in North Dakota guy speaking here. I think the fact that campaigning in North Dakota can be inexpensive is your winner. North Dakota is not an isolationist state, at least not anymore, nor is it Libertarian. They vote routinely for Democrats for congress because the Democrats are more proactive on agricultural policy, but they vote for Republicans even more routinely for the presidency (NoDak has only cast its electoral votes for Democrats five times since its founding, twice for Wilson, for FDR in '32 and '36 and for Johnson in '64) because Republicans reflect their social values. Buchanan's counties in North Dakota are all small (even by NoDak standards!), and 2.5% is not a great performance. I'm willing to bet that Paul did well in North Dakota because about 30% of the voters in the state now identify themselves as Indpendents. Anyway, if I were Buchanan, I would take North Dakota to actually reflect how poorly his campaign was; winning Kildeer definitely ain't nothin' to brag about, even to your mom. By the way, it will be interesting to see what happens to North Dakota over the next ten years or so. The population is getting younger, and Obama only lost the state by 8 points compared to Bush wins of 28 and 27 points there. I know what formula could win the state for Democrats, and it wouldn't be that hard. But, in a national campaign, Democrats don't normally want to work that hard for traditionally red states with only 3 electoral votes. Makes me jealous of Indiana!
Largely correct. He ran a ton of radio ads in Bismarck, I remember that fairly clearly.
