America's "Center Stack"

[pbrower2a]

Greater Omaha (NE-02) of course went for Obama in 2008.

Texas.  Texas is by far the most urban of these states, and the one with the largest minority populations. (Native Americans seem very assimilated in Oklahoma, thank you). Basically, Texas is Kansas grafted onto Florida politically, and the first time that Florida goes for the Democrat by more than 6%, then so does Texas. 

Texas became conservative because the big landowners dominated the state's political life for about 115 years after the Civil War and ran things efficiently, with little corruption, and with much foresight. That kept government cheap.

But that is over, and Texas has some giant metro areas in which effective government is no longer cheap.  Dallas, Jefferson, Harris, Bexar, Travis, San Patricio, and El Paso Counties all went for Obama in 2008; Tarrant made a move in that direction as did some suburban counties surrounding Dallas and Houston. As the Mexican-American electorate grows more rapidly than the Texas population, the state will get close; as the state gets more urban, its population will become more cognizant of the fact that good urban and suburban government isn't cheap, and the usual GOP appeal of "low taxes" won't be so effective.

Sure, North Dakota and South Dakota were closer in 2008, but their political identities seem more stable. NE-01 (eastern Nebraska except for greater Omaha) could conceivably go to Obama in 2012, but that leaves NE-03, one of the most conservative districts in America, which ensures that the GOP will win the state at-large.  Kansas is... Kansas.  Oklahoma is the only state with two Senators whose political color is better described as black (fascist) than any other color. All counties in Oklahoma voted for John McCain (who was not a fascist, by the way).

 

[pbrower2a]

Are there any differences between North and South Dakota that might account for why some here thought that Obama had a pretty good chance at winning North Dakota? 

ND has a lot of moderate Lutherans me thinks.


Btw, Clinton was damn close in SD in 1996. He should have put more effort in.

No candidate would for 3 electoral votes unless the election was going to be unbelievably close.

To give some idea:

Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota seem politically similar. Between them they comprise nine electoral votes. They are logistical nightmares for national campaigning  due to their small populations, long distances, and few population centers -- too few yellow-orange spaces on a road atlas, and not very impressive ones. Any candidate who wants to reach a large number of people in these states will have to make large numbers of stops in small cities of 20,000 or so -- which isn't very efficient.

Colorado has those 9 electoral votes in a much smaller area and with well-defined urban areas that allow efficient campaigning: Denver, Pueblo, and Colorado Springs.  Washington has 11 electoral votes and most of its population in greater Seattle-Tacoma with a lesser center in Spokane. Minnesota has 10 electoral votes, and one can do most of his campaigning in the Twin Cities with short excursions to places like Duluth, Rochester, and Mankato.
Efficiency is always tempting, and it is usually a virtue. Nobody would put much effort into winning South Dakota instead of Colorado, North Dakota instead of Minnesota. or Montana instead of Washington. That's a discussion of the chances of states close to one or another part of one of those three states in the Northern Plains. These states are possible targets if nearly everything else is a foregone conclusion -- but even as polarized as America was in its voting (by states) as it has been since 1900 and with so many states as foregone conclusions in what could easily have been a close election, there were still easier targets for campaigns -- states richer in electoral votes (VA, OH, IN, MO, FL, NC, GA, CO) as other states went into the pool of foregone conclusions.

Should there ever be an election in which both sides have sewn up 265 electoral votes by 6%+ or larger margins late, then Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota are in play if their electoral votes aren't sewn up. Some scenarios might have allowed that in 2008 -- but each of the battleground states of the above paragraph were bigger prizes and easier places in which to campaign because they have more and bigger areas of yellow-orange spaces on a typical road map.