What differentiates Montana and the Dakotas?

[Orser67]

Montana and both Dakotas seem willing to elect Democratic senators, and they have a PVI of R+10 or less. Compare that to many other deeply red interior West states, like Nebraska, Kansas, Idaho, Wyoming, etc. What separates the Dakotas and Montana from the other, more deeply red, interior West states?

[freepcrusher]

Montana and both Dakotas seem willing to elect Democratic senators, and they have a PVI of R+10 or less. Compare that to many other deeply red interior West states, like Nebraska, Kansas, Idaho, Wyoming, etc. What separates the Dakotas and Montana from the other, more deeply red, interior West states?

remember that from 1977-2013, Nebraska had at least one dem senator (two from 79-87 89-97). What separates Montana from an Idaho or Wyoming is unions, especially in mining.

[Orser67]

Ah good point about Nebraska. And thanks for the insight regarding unions.

[Padfoot]

SD, MT, and ND are third, fifth, and sixth respectively in percentage of Native Americans which definitely sets them apart from some of the other states you mentioned.  Montana is also home to several good sized college towns and ski resorts which tend to lean leftward.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Montana had a huge influx of Southerners at one point, that propelled a lot of early Democratic strength in the state. Whereas the Dakotas, or at least North Dakota in particular was settled by a combination of Yankees, Germans and some Scandanavians and thus favored the Republicans (save for daliances with the Populists, TR and the FDR in the Great Depression), until about the 1950's, when the Democrats began to gain strength.

[ilikeverin]

North Dakota is just Minnesota without the Twin Cities, so of course it would vote Democratic occasionally.

[Orser67]

Interesting. Anyone have any thoughts on which way Montana and the Dakotas will trend in the foreseeable future?

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

North Dakota is trending Republican at the moment to to the oil boom at least in the short term. Montana and South Dakota aren't moving too much.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Montana had a huge influx of Southerners at one point, that propelled a lot of early Democratic strength in the state. Whereas the Dakotas, or at least North Dakota in particular was settled by a combination of Yankees, Germans and some Scandanavians and thus favored the Republicans (save for daliances with the Populists, TR and the FDR in the Great Depression), until about the 1950's, when the Democrats began to gain strength.

Yankees, Germans, and some Scandinavians?

North Dakota is the most Scandinavian state in the union.  The state is 47% German background, 30% Norwegian, and 5% Swedish.

Irish make up just under 8% and English 4%.

Yankees made up a very small part of the settlement there.  It was almost exclusively Germans and Scandinavians.

And while they were Republican, just as in Minnesota... there was a strong progressive streak that led to the rise of the non-partisan league which was Republican aligned and then later aligned with the Democrats... which is why the Democratic Party of North Dakota is called the Dem-NPL party to this day.

And to think that North Dakotan Republicans are anything like national Republicans would be a mistake.  They operate much more like a Christian Democratic party of Europe than anything like the modern GOP.

[TDAS04]

North Dakota is just Minnesota without the Twin Cities, so of course it would vote Democratic occasionally.

Eastern South Dakota is the same, while west of the Missouri River is Wyomingish.  East River is far more politically moderate, and West River is very conservative.  However, West River is also more libertarian, and voters there rejected a proposed abortion ban more overwhelmingly than the more moralistic East River voters.

Eastern Montana is actually quite similar to North Dakota.  It's not as linked to Minnesota, but a large part of Montana is kind of Midwestern.  Demographically, Montana is the fourth most Norwegian State, and the seventh most Lutheran state.  There is Midwestern influence in the state and it is arguably as similar to South Dakota as it is to Wyoming.  That may explain why it often votes similar to the Dakotas.

To simplify these four states, North Dakota is mostly Midwestern and Wyoming is a heavily Western, cowboyish state; Wyoming could be Colorado without Denver.  South Dakota is predominately Midwestern with a strong touch of the West.  Montana is also a mix of the two regions, a little more Western.  I've been around the region; the Black Hills are clearly the Wild West.  If you go to the wheat fields of eastern Montana, you would never know that you were in a state famous for mountains.

I went off a little tangent, but I thought I'd share this perspective as someone who lives in the region.  The area has traditionally been independent minded, but the four states will probably trend more Republican.  Now that Tim Johnson is retiring, Republicans will likely control all of the major offices soon.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Montana had a huge influx of Southerners at one point, that propelled a lot of early Democratic strength in the state. Whereas the Dakotas, or at least North Dakota in particular was settled by a combination of Yankees, Germans and some Scandanavians and thus favored the Republicans (save for daliances with the Populists, TR and the FDR in the Great Depression), until about the 1950's, when the Democrats began to gain strength.

Yankees, Germans, and some Scandinavians?

North Dakota is the most Scandinavian state in the union.  The state is 47% German background, 30% Norwegian, and 5% Swedish.

Irish make up just under 8% and English 4%.

Yankees made up a very small part of the settlement there.  It was almost exclusively Germans and Scandinavians.

And while they were Republican, just as in Minnesota... there was a strong progressive streak that led to the rise of the non-partisan league which was Republican aligned and then later aligned with the Democrats... which is why the Democratic Party of North Dakota is called the Dem-NPL party to this day.

And to think that North Dakotan Republicans are anything like national Republicans would be a mistake.  They operate much more like a Christian Democratic party of Europe than anything like the modern GOP.

To begin with I started out the post just saying the Dakotas and then added the short line to emphasis North Dakota since I realized as I typed the last part that it was more descriptive of its political history, although it does apply to both. Certainly those are the demographics now and one has to account for the limitations of the modern numbers accounting for the fact of intermixing and the tendency of people to claim German as their primary ancestry. But my primary point was to illustrate that Montana had a more Southern influence whereas the Dakotas had more people of English descent coming from northern as opposed to Southern origins.

Yes, they are there own little operation up there, but my intent was not to bring third area of complexity to what was supposed to be a one sentence post when I started typing it.

[Ban my account ffs!]

My point was that "yankees, Germans, and some Scandinavians" was just wrong.  The state was settled by huge waves of immigrants coming from Germany and Norway with some Swedes, Irish, and minor amounts of other.

But it was not like Minnesota.  Minnesota began to be settled by yankees as early as 1820 when Fort Snelling was established and much of the earliest settlement was from French fur traders and yankees who then were quickly overwhelmed by waves of Germans and Scandinavians later on.

North Dakota was almost completely unpopulated by whites as late as 1870.  By that point, the main immigrant waves were coming in from northern Europe and they quickly settled the region, especially the eastern part of North Dakota.

There was very little "yankee" culture in the state.  It was a culture of immigrant Norwegians, Swedes, and Germans from the beginning.  And the Norwegians kinda took over everything the same way they did in Minnesota, despite not being the majority.

Here's a catchy little song from a Swede in North Dakota at the time that encapsulates the culture:

I’m a Svede from Nort’ Dakota,
Vork on farm for half a year,
I vent down to Minneap’lis
All to see da big State Fair.
I vent down to Seven Corners
Vere Salvation Army play,
Dere a voman come up to me,
Dis is vat the voman say.

She say, “Vill you vork for Yesus?”
I say, “How much Yesus pay?”
She say, “Yesus don’t pay notting.”
I not vork for him today.

I voke up da very next morning,
In da town dey call Saint Paul;
I voke up vit’ an awful headache;
Tink I got some alcohol.

[Orser67]

Thanks for all the answers. As a Pennsylvanian, I don't hear much about that area of the country, but  the three states I named seem a bit more interesting than states that vote straight-ticket D or R.

[ElectionsGuy]

The eastern parts of the Dakotas are much more lean republican and moderate than their western sides, they wouldn't be safe republican states without their western ends (Rapid City and Bismark). Eastern Montana is mostly like the western Dakotas, very republican and very oily (very much like Eastern and Northern Wyoming too). Billings is like Rapid City and Bismark too. while Montana west of the continental divide is very laborish and I hear there are mining unions there too in places like Missoula and Butte. At least that what I hear. I tend to differentiate all three states by the Eastern and Western ends.