Rank the prospect of these states for Democrats long term

[ProgressiveModerate]

I think everyone agrees that in order to remain viable in the Senate long terms, Democrats are going to figure out how to do better in lower population (though not neccessarily rural) states.

The states are: Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming

My list would be:

1. Alaska: Has had very constistent and large swings left since the turn of the century, and basically the entire state outside of Wasilla and some parts of Fairbanks is swingy or blue, it's just that Wasilla is like *super red* thanks to oil. Peltola already showed Dems "can" win at the federal level too, so that's why I'm ranking it #1.

2. Kansas: The main reason why Kansas is my #2 is because of not only how urban it is, but population shifts are pretty rapidly in favor of those urban areas (while rural KS is universally shrinking). Kelly showed that a Dem can win statewide, even without a blue wave, but certain parts of her coalition, namely her strong performance in rural areas, just won't be replicable by a federal Dem so I think Ds need a bit of patience here.

3. Utah; I think people underestimate how rapidly LDS is losing it's influence over the state. Demographically, Utah should be a blue state given it's almost entirely urban with pretty high levels of college attainment, but Mormons have traditionally kept much of the Valley super-red. I also think people tend to think UT just particuarly disliked Trump, but even in 2018 Senate, so much of Romney's support from 2012 had eroded and in 2022, the Senate race was only a 10% win for Lee. Like Kansas, Utah will prolly take a bit of time, but demographically things are getting better.

4. Nebraska: It's almost the exact same story as Kansas, it's just several points redder to begin with (though technically, it's slightly more urban). Anyone who believes in Blusas but Nebraska remaining ruby red should not be taken seriously because demographically, it'd just be so hard for shifts in these states to diverge much.

5. Montana: Again, more urban than it looks, except the population shifts aren't quite as favorable to Ds due to some growing R communities in the mountains and shrinking native populations. While yes, Tester 2018 showed a federal Dem can win statewide in MT in the right circumstances, his coalition is not sustaianble.

All the other states on the list I don't think should be seen as serious D targets until there's info to suggests otherwise.

[Suburbia]

Are you really sure about Utah?

Utah is Whitelandia, that's your lowkey Republican dream paradise....few minorities there, Salt Lake City is pretty moderate-leaning regardless of party, UT seems like it's going to stay red for a while, but a Democrat can do well there under a good environment.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Are you really sure about Utah?

Utah is Whitelandia, that's your lowkey Republican dream paradise....few minorities there, Salt Lake City is pretty moderate-leaning regardless of party, UT seems like it's going to stay red for a while, but a Democrat can do well there under a good environment.

On the western half of the US, there are honestly very few examples of extreme racial polarization outside of native tribes and surrounding white rurals. In states like Colorado, most of Ds strongest areas are majority if not almost entirely white.

Also UT is still very white, but has been growing more diverse, especially in terms of Hispanics. Ironically though, the “whiter” side of SLC is more liberal than the areas with Hispanic influence, largely for cultural reasons.

[GALeftist]

I personally would bump Utah down to number 5; I think it's going to take a lot longer than people think to get there. Yes, McMuffin ran a good campaign, but he was also a conservative and I don't think his appeal is something that the Democratic Party can capitalize on in its current form. Also, Salt Lake County is not exactly doing great growth wise relative to the rest of the state. Utah is a tad redder than Nebraska right now, and it doesn't share Nebraska's beneficial growth patterns (or for that matter the magnitude of the trends in Omaha), so I feel confident saying that Utah is a worse prospect than Nebraska.

I'm torn on the placement of Montana and Nebraska in 3 and 4. Montana is a fair bit bluer, and while it's true that many heavily R communities in western Montana are growing, many of those communities also have trends that aren't half bad for Democrats, particularly Flathead County. I think on balance I'd say:

1. AK
2. KS
3. MT
4. NE
5. UT

[ProgressiveModerate]

I personally would bump Utah down to number 5; I think it's going to take a lot longer than people think to get there. Yes, McMuffin ran a good campaign, but he was also a conservative and I don't think his appeal is something that the Democratic Party can capitalize on in its current form. Also, Salt Lake County is not exactly doing great growth wise relative to the rest of the state. Utah is a tad redder than Nebraska right now, and it doesn't share Nebraska's beneficial growth patterns (or for that matter the magnitude of the trends in Omaha), so I feel confident saying that Utah is a worse prospect than Nebraska.

I'm torn on the placement of Montana and Nebraska in 3 and 4. Montana is a fair bit bluer, and while it's true that many heavily R communities in western Montana are growing, many of those communities also have trends that aren't half bad for Democrats, particularly Flathead County. I think on balance I'd say:

1. AK
2. KS
3. MT
4. NE
5. UT

Interesting. Utah I was debating for this reason; the fastest growing communities are mostly pretty R, however, it seems like that migration is favorable to Dems as these communities tend to be the most left-shifting in the state. Ig the question in Utah would be does net migration and generational turnover still pad votes for Rs in places like Utah and Weber Counties? Utah almost certainly yes still, but def by less than current partisanship, whereas Weber is a closer call.

Deep red St. George being very solid in growth would prolly be the worst sign for Ds in Utah. Even though growth is def pulling the % margin closer, it still nets a lot of votes for Rs. I can def get behind switching NE and UT.

[Torie]

Sensible list, but Utah is a very long term project in particular. And for Utah to really become competitive (rather than a internecine feud between the Mittens' and Lee/Trump wings of the Pub party), it will be less about the LDS losing influence, and more about the LDS moderating as it becomes not only white, but more of middle to upper middle class  well educated white bastion. This assumes the trajectory of the two parties continues without course corrections, which may not be unreasonable given the on going salience and power of globalization issues, which is likely to become more influential over time, rather than less.

[Hope For A New Era]

Also UT is still very white, but has been growing more diverse, especially in terms of Hispanics. Ironically though, the “whiter” side of SLC is more liberal than the areas with Hispanic influence, largely for cultural reasons.

Religious reasons, primarily. The Hispanic areas are less blue because the Whites there are LDS, while those on the east side are not.

There is a cultural divide, though. The most notable thing about it politically is that Herriman (far southwest of the valley) is one of few places in the state where non-LDS Repblicans exist in large numbers, and is as a result of that by far the most Trumpist place in urban Utah.