What would it take for the Rockies/Great Plains to vote Democratic?

[FerrisBueller86]

Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma are all states that voted for LBJ in 1964 but haven't voted Democratic ever since.  Montana voted for LBJ in 1964 but hasn't voted Democratic since except for 1992 (attributed to the Perot factor).

Everyone keeps talking about why the Democrats can't win in the South and theories on how to change this.

I haven't heard people talk about why the Democrats can't win in the  Mountain states and Great Plains states.  These places are considered conservative.  But they're different from the South.  Except for segregationists like Strom Thurmond and George Wallace, insurgent candidates like Ross Perot have had their weakest showings in the South but often have their strongest showings in states like Alaska and Montana.  Also, while the South and the Northeast tend to vote against each other (except in the biggest landslide elections), the crazy Western states have always voted Republican.  While this means that they vote with Mississippi and Alabama today, they voted with Massachusetts and Rhode Island in the previous partisan alignment.  While the South is known for slavery and segregation, the crazy Western states were the birthplace of Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive movement and were the first to give women the right to vote.

The Democrats need to compete in all 50 states and stop writing off so many of them because that sends a message of wimpiness and insincerity.  I think that the crazy Western states will vote Democratic again before Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina will.  I predict that the next time there is a Democratic landslide, the electoral map will look similar to that of 1964.

So what will it take to get the crazy Western states to vote with Massachusetts and Rhode Island, as was the case before 1960?

[Rob]

The "crazy Western states"- Utah, Idaho, Wyoming- will probably never vote Democratic again. The GOP is entrenched there to an insane degree, partly by tradition but mostly because of the states' far-right orientation. I would be stunned if any Democrat could poll 45 percent in the next half-century.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The "crazy Western states"- Utah, Idaho, Wyoming- will probably never vote Democratic again. The GOP is entrenched there to an insane degree, partly by tradition but mostly because of the states' far-right orientation. I would be stunned if any Democrat could poll 45 percent in the next half-century.

Some huge swings:

Kansas 1928 GOP wins 58.2-40.8
Kansas 1932 Dem wins 53.5-44.1

Georgia 1972 GOP wins 75.0-24.6
Georgia 1976 Dem wins 66.7-33.0

New Hampshire 1984 GOP wins 68.7-31.0
New Hampshire 1988 GOP wins 62.5-36.3
New Hampshire 1992 Dem wins 38.9-37.7-22.6
New Hampshire 1996 Dem wins 49.3-39.3

[Rob]

The "crazy Western states"- Utah, Idaho, Wyoming- will probably never vote Democratic again. The GOP is entrenched there to an insane degree, partly by tradition but mostly because of the states' far-right orientation. I would be stunned if any Democrat could poll 45 percent in the next half-century.

Some huge swings:

Kansas 1928 GOP wins 58.2-40.8
Kansas 1932 Dem wins 53.5-44.1

Georgia 1972 GOP wins 75.0-24.6
Georgia 1976 Dem wins 66.7-33.0

New Hampshire 1984 GOP wins 68.7-31.0
New Hampshire 1988 GOP wins 62.5-36.3
New Hampshire 1992 Dem wins 38.9-37.7-22.6
New Hampshire 1996 Dem wins 49.3-39.3

Kansas 1928 was actually 72-27 Republican. But anyways- it was the Depression that caused the shift.

Georgia was Jimmy Carter.

New Hampshire was Perot and the white collar recession.

These kind of swings are not likely to happen in the Mountain West. It could actually be argued that Utah is trending Republican further- Carbon County used to be reliably liberal, but it's been increasingly Republicanized.

[Alcon]

The only hope we have in Utah is around Park City in the ski resorts. And that just doesn't carry the state.

Montana is in reach in a huge landslide with a libertarian candidate vs. a populist, disliked Republican. So is South Dakota.

Wyoming, Idaho, and North Dakota are pretty useless, although North Dakota would go in an ultra-extreme landslide, as would Kansas.

The best we can hope is 2 of Nebraska's 4 electoral votes, and even that would be near-impossible.

[FerrisBueller86]

What exactly makes these crazy western states so heavily Republican?  I realize that the gun control issue is one of them, but these crazy western states were heavily Republican before the issue became divided along partisan lines.  The fact that these states were heavily Republican back when the Northeast was Republican and the South Democratic leads me to believe that the crazy western states aren't hardcore conservative like the South.

I am sure that the crazy western states would only vote for a Democrat who looks credible as a reformer.  I think Howard Dean would have put these states in play had he been the nominee.  In 2008, Russell Feingold might be able to.  However, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman wouldn't stand a chance.  (They don't fire up anyone and don't fight back hard enough.)

[Rob]

I think Howard Dean would have put these states in play had he been the nominee.

No. Bush would have gotten 70 percent or more in Idaho and Wyoming if Dean had been the nominee.

[WMS]

I would like to say that you should probably separate the Rockies from the Great Plains, since despite their similar Republican margins, they are two very different regions. I would guess that the Rockies would favor a more libertarian candidate while the Plains would favor a more populist candidate...so I don't think the Dems can win both regions at once.

[FerrisBueller86]

I would like to say that you should probably separate the Rockies from the Great Plains, since despite their similar Republican margins, they are two very different regions. I would guess that the Rockies would favor a more libertarian candidate while the Plains would favor a more populist candidate...so I don't think the Dems can win both regions at once.

So why can the Republicans win both regions at once?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I would like to say that you should probably separate the Rockies from the Great Plains, since despite their similar Republican margins, they are two very different regions. I would guess that the Rockies would favor a more libertarian candidate while the Plains would favor a more populist candidate...so I don't think the Dems can win both regions at once.

So why can the Republicans win both regions at once?

Maybe the Democrats should run a Schweitzer/ Reid ticket to get the Rockies to go Democratic.

[WMS]

I would like to say that you should probably separate the Rockies from the Great Plains, since despite their similar Republican margins, they are two very different regions. I would guess that the Rockies would favor a more libertarian candidate while the Plains would favor a more populist candidate...so I don't think the Dems can win both regions at once.

So why can the Republicans win both regions at once?

My guess would be because the Dems have run as liberals and managed to alienate both sides at once.

[KEmperor]

I think the first thing you need to do is stop calling them the "Crazy Western States."

[FerrisBueller86]

I think the first thing you need to do is stop calling them the "Crazy Western States."

But "Crazy Western States" is shorter and catchier than the "Rocky Mountain/Great Plains States".  These are the states where the third party candidates and insurgent candidates usually do best.

By this definition, Dixie is the "sanest" part of the country.  Most people in Dixie have the good sense to vote for "real" candidates rather than waste their vote on a third-party candidate.

[Rob]

I would like to say that you should probably separate the Rockies from the Great Plains, since despite their similar Republican margins, they are two very different regions. I would guess that the Rockies would favor a more libertarian candidate while the Plains would favor a more populist candidate...so I don't think the Dems can win both regions at once.

So why can the Republicans win both regions at once?

Maybe the Democrats should run a Schweitzer/ Reid ticket to get the Rockies to go Democratic.

That would be a killer combination, but the GOP would still carry most of the region, albeit by much reduced margins.

[MaC]

Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma are all states that voted for LBJ in 1964 but haven't voted Democratic ever since.  Montana voted for LBJ in 1964 but hasn't voted Democratic since except for 1992 (attributed to the Perot factor).

Everyone keeps talking about why the Democrats can't win in the South and theories on how to change this.

I haven't heard people talk about why the Democrats can't win in the  Mountain states and Great Plains states.  These places are considered conservative.  But they're different from the South.  Except for segregationists like Strom Thurmond and George Wallace, insurgent candidates like Ross Perot have had their weakest showings in the South but often have their strongest showings in states like Alaska and Montana.  Also, while the South and the Northeast tend to vote against each other (except in the biggest landslide elections), the crazy Western states have always voted Republican.  While this means that they vote with Mississippi and Alabama today, they voted with Massachusetts and Rhode Island in the previous partisan alignment.  While the South is known for slavery and segregation, the crazy Western states were the birthplace of Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive movement and were the first to give women the right to vote.

The Democrats need to compete in all 50 states and stop writing off so many of them because that sends a message of wimpiness and insincerity.  I think that the crazy Western states will vote Democratic again before Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina will.  I predict that the next time there is a Democratic landslide, the electoral map will look similar to that of 1964.

So what will it take to get the crazy Western states to vote with Massachusetts and Rhode Island, as was the case before 1960?

The reason simple why Democrats don't care that much about the west is because there isn't as many votes as in the south.  I mean.  Clinton did rather well there, capturing (in at least one election) Montana, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado.  That's damn good for any Democrat.  However, what I'm trying say, if your a democrat who has a good chance in Florida or Gerogia, it's far more benficial to win there than Montana or Idaho