Why do Democrats prefer Kansas to Nebraska?

[GreatTailedGrackle]

Back in 2018, I was thinking, and telling people I know, that Dan Sullivan, Lindsay Graham, and Ben Sasse seemed like potential target for Democrats if 2020 was a wave year, and indeed any of those states were better targets than Mitch McConnell, who despite his unpopularity represents one of the reddest and most inelastic states in the country.  The Democratic establishment ignored all three states, yet Alaska and South Carolina have drawn strong challengers, while Nebraska Democrats looked at their limited choices in candidates and picked ... a misogynistic gay man with a fondness for racial slurs.

And yet, the Democratic Party went out of their way to recruit a strong candidate in neighboring Kansas.  Now, admittedly, it's an open seat, but the Democrats have obsessed with Kansas pretty much as long as I've followed politics.  From Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas?" in 2004, to talk of Obama possibly winning it 2008 and Clinton in 2016, to the attempts to help Greg Orman beat Pat Roberts in a GOP wave year, though the special election in 2017, all the way through Democrats trying to win the seat this year, Democrats keep chasing after Kansas.  And like, I get it: it's a deceptively urbanized state with a fairly elastic electorate and a history of relative moderation out of line with today's GOP.

The thing is: the exact same description applies to Nebraska.  Kansas in 2010 was 1% more urban than Nebraska and had a 4% larger minority population, but it's also 6% more evangelical.  Nebraska's nonpartisan legislature seems like it should be easier for Democrats to build a bench running candidates on local issues.  On the fundamentals, Nebraska is more urban, more diverse, and less evangelical than Iowa.  Nebraska had a Democratic Senator as recently as 2012.

And yet, I get the impression that Democrats don't even try in Nebraska.  It certainly doesn't seem to excite them to the degree Kansas does, and I don't get the impression they have much of a bench.  Am I missing something here?

[GreatTailedGrackle]

Nebraska is a Safe R state that can never elect a Democrat, otoh Kansas is trending D and could elect a Democratic Senator this year.

Yes, I'm aware Democrats appear to think that.  That's the point of this post.

Given that the two states are demographically and politically extremely similar, with some of the differences favoring Nebraska, I'm asking why y'all seem to think that?

[GreatTailedGrackle]

Nebraska just isn’t as favorable, it’s urban area aren’t that large and don’t really have a trend in either direction.

Population of metro Omaha in Nebraska: 819,468
Population of metro Lincoln: 334,590

Population of metro Kansas City in Kansas: 899,311
Population of metro Wichita: 644,888
Population of metro Topeka: 232,594
Population of metro Manhattan: 130,285

The populations of individual metro areas in both states seem pretty comparable.  Kansas has more metro areas (four metro areas over 100k compared to two for Nebraska), but also a larger population overall.  As I noted in my OP, the urbanization of the two states is almost identical.

As for trends: Democrats have been talking about Kansas since at least 2004, and investing in it well before it became competitive.  It wouldn't surprise me that they've seen dividends, but it strikes me as a self-fulfilling prophecy WRT them not investing Nebraska.

All of the above and the NE Democratic bench is now weaker than the KS one.

Yep, I'm aware of that, but how did it get that way?  My impression has been that Democrats just giving up on the state is part of it.  I've known plenty of Democrats to fantasize about flipping Kansas, and I've seen the Democratic Party try to win it in several election cycles, finally succeeding with Kelly.  I haven't heard anything about Dems making an effort in Nebraska since Ben Nelson's re-election.