question about the northern plains and rocky mountain states

[freepcrusher]

is anyone here kind of curious as to why those areas aren't usually competitive for democrats on a presidential level? The thing is is that the area has a long history of supporting leftist causes. First it was the Greenback movement, then it was the Populists with James Weaver in 1892, William Jennings Bryan won those areas when he ran for president and so did LaFollette in 1924.

The area also spawned the Farmer Labor and Non Partisan movements and was almost socialist in some regards. In some states such as Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin; the progressive tradition is still alive. But in Nebraska, the Dakotas, Montana, (northern Idaho) and rural northern California, the progressiveness seems to have eroded. The area seems to have an affinity for dovishness and supported antiwar senators like Mike Mansfield Frank Church and George McGovern. It also had sort of an independent streak to it back in the days of Nebraska senator George Norris.

Now those areas still elect democrats to the senate such as Tester, Heitkamp, Johnson and Baucus; but on the presidential level those areas seem to have avoided the democrats since the mid twentieth century. The area seems to be part of the "moralistic" political culture, which usually favors democrats. While the area is somewhat religious and socially conservative it is mostly of a mainline and lutheran bent and not of the holy roller style. The area does seem somewhat socially conservative, but more in the moralistic sense. I kind of think of the area as a Silvio Conte style social conservatism. Abortion is seen as more of a humans rights issue as opposed to a "sign of moral decay that stems from taking prayer out of schools and teaching our children to worship the UN instead of god.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Social conservatism is one factor.  The other one I would guess is a sense of isolation.  All those states are rural and I guess people feel that the party of big cities and celebrities is out of touch with their problems.  They're one of the many Americas that simply happen to belong to the same nation. 

[Unimog]

Yeah the Democrats abandoned the area. They don't try on the presidential level. I think they would have the chance of some electoral votes of the Dakota colulumn and Montana, if they really want it.

[DC Al Fine]

There's a similar phenomenon in Canada. Our prairies used to be dominated by the leftist NDP, but are now almost entirely Conservative.

I'd argue it's almost entirely social conservatism. The NDP was led by a Baptist preacher at it's foundation, but since then, the left leaning parties have taken to social conservative bashing. The "clinging to guns and religion" rhetoric has alienated plains voters who could get behind a communitarian message, but not a socially liberal one.

In some areas wealth has something to do with it. Oil and potash have turned some communities from sleepy farm towns to booming cities (See Alberta, Saskatchewan, & North Dakota), those sorts of new money times are more inclined towards a fiscally conservative message as well.

[sg0508]

But they tend to elect democrats to Congress.

[Mehmentum]

Despite not voting for Democrats in presidential elections, Montana and to a lesser extent the Dakotas like the Democrats for Governorships/Senators.  In Montana, the Democrats won all but 1 of the last 4 governor's elections and all of the last 4 Senate races. 

[Person Man]

Though the weird thing is that social conservatism is gaining more than trivial foothold in Wyoming and throughout the Greenhouse Belt.  In past years' surveys by the pollster at the University of Wyoming, people have generally favored keeping abortion legal than to generally criminalizing it by about 10 points. This year, that gap has narrowed to just outside the margin of error. In Montana, they have voted to regulate abortion in medical marijuana this year. All in all, I think the energy boom has attracted a lot of people from Texas and Oklahoma that are high income, low education new money types that have come from very conservative backgrounds and believe that "they built it", "they don't need no learnin' books" and "they are right". I think the key to growing the D brand into states like Arizona and Dakotas, beyond better organization is to find a way to break America's dependence on fossil fuels the same way Reagan broke America's dependence on organized labor.