Is the Mountain West GOP's Solid South?

[Mr. Smith]

Why is the Dems haven't had a real grip on those states since LBJ's landslide. Only New Mexico,Hawaii, and the 3 Pacific States don't vote the GOP in huge margins. Colorado and Nevada are still swing states.

Montana outliered in '92,Arizona outliered in '96,...and Oklahoma almost voted for Carter. But everything else,all the huge margins in favor of the GOP come from there,NOT the South.

But when the Southern Strategy happened,the Dems got Southern candidates to reverse the trend [Al Gore was actually competitive there and had he not acted like the presidency was already his he may have won his home state and Arkansas].

What exactly is the GOP doing to ensure Dems never get in? Is it JUST like the Dems in the South before the 60's?

And if so, could states such as Montana,Utah,Oklahoma,Kansas,Nebraska, the Dakotas, Wyoming,could these states actually go Democratic if someone like Brian Schweitzer gets nominated?

Could '76 have given the Dems more Western states had it been Jerry Brown or Frank Church or "Scoop" Jackson against Ford?

Could '92 have taken more Western states away from Bush if Jerry Brown had beat Bill Clinton then?

I just find it very strange that the only post WWII candidates from the West of the Mississippi are Truman,LBJ, and George Mc Govern, while Mitt Romney and Gerald Ford are the sole East of the Mississippi GOP candidates.

[Panda Express]

could states such as Montana,Utah,Oklahoma,Kansas,Nebraska, the Dakotas, Wyoming,could these states actually go Democratic if someone like Brian Schweitzer gets nominated?

Hell no. (maybe Montana)

[Person Man]

My guess is that many of these states are very rural, are mostly filled with Southern transplants, have very few minorities and above all, rely on  unsustainable natural resource opportunities in building and maintaining their economy their economy.

Specifically, Montana and Wyoming aren't that religious, but they depend on Republicans to protect and promote their mining industry. Montana does have small academic and ecotourist communities and combined without that much nationalistic theology amongst its voters, are willing to see Democrats as a protest vote, but not as a reasonable full-time alternative. This exists in Wyoming, but there are only a few thousand voters like this in Laramie, Jackson and Lander. Arizona, Utah and Idaho have a lot of Mormons, who have a very nationalistic and maximalistic theology. Idaho has a tenancy to attract a lot of refugees of west coast progress and (in their mind an unaffordable and oppressive secular government). Arizona is more suburban than rural now (much like Colorado and MN, WI and IA for that matter) and has a higher minority population but has an aging population which wants to lock in "their share of the spending pie", the same way the police and the military does.

Colorado is a wild card. Its a mixture of Vermont, Wyoming, Washington, Tennessee and New Mexico all rolled into one state! New Mexico is blue because of what has happened with immigration and it has never been too conservative or liberal until 2004...or at least not for the last 30 years.