Safe Republican States

[barfbag]

I'll be posting threads on different groups of states over the next few days. Let's discuss first, safe Republican or as some would call them dark red states. What makes them always vote Republican in presidential elections? Answers are obvious but let's have a debate or discussion.

These states only please.

Utah
Wyoming
Idaho
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Alaska
North Dakota

Also please do not include any polling data on this. Let's go by real votes.

[Sol]

The Last two don't really belong here, as Obama was vaguely competitive in both in 2008. I'd add KS and some of the deep south states instead.

[sg0508]

It's amazing how times have changed.  Look back at the map from the 70s and late 80s.  It seems like the GOP had a lock on the map.  Now, the number of EVs in their backpocket at the start of any race is likely less than 100. 

At this point, MS, AL and TN should probably be on the list too.

[roadkill]

Basically, the safe vote for Republicans is the rural vote.  Find a state that has a larger rural population than urban and more than likely it'll be a safe Republican state.  Republicans have been cultivating the rural vote for decades now, and up until recently it paid off for them.  Even on a state level, in Presidential elections, rural counties most often always go to the Republican candidate, regardless of what state they're in.

[PolitiJunkie]

Why don't we just keep this in the "Where do the states fall?" thread. We were having a nice discussion and this seems superfluous. But the safest Republican states are Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Nebraska Statewide, NE-03, Alabama, and Kansas. And by the time Hillary frenzy is done and there is no longer a Republican bench of Senators/Governors who could be President/VP from the Dakotas, I predict West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Dakota, and South Dakota will move from Solid R to Safe R.

[opebo]

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

I decided against including states like Texas and South Carolina that could trend D in the future. I also did not include the Dakotas as Obama came within 10% in 2008, and do elect a lot of Democrats down-ticket.

50% saturation means it is safe now, 30% means that it is not safe but will likely be safe within the next decade or so.

[barfbag]

Thanks for the discussion and keep it coming. I felt the "Where do the states fall?" thread got off topic by talking about the future so much.

[roadkill]

These are the states that I think are fairly safe for Republicans for at least the next decade or so in a generic election.  The darker blues are the ones that they should have to put almost no effort to win and the light blues are the ones they'll probably need to pay just a little attention to just to be on the safe side.  This is probably the base that Republican strategists start off with at the beginning of every election cycle.

[IceSpear]

I decided against including states like Texas and South Carolina that could trend D in the future. I also did not include the Dakotas as Obama came within 10% in 2008, and do elect a lot of Democrats down-ticket.

50% saturation means it is safe now, 30% means that it is not safe but will likely be safe within the next decade or so.

Light blue = "safe, unless Hillary runs"

[barfbag]

I'm going to make new threads for solid and likely GOP states too. First though, I'll be making a thread for safe Democratic states. I'd like to break these down pretty far compared to what we're doing. Let's stick to UT, WY, ID, OK, NE, AK, and ND.

[barfbag]

I decided against including states like Texas and South Carolina that could trend D in the future. I also did not include the Dakotas as Obama came within 10% in 2008, and do elect a lot of Democrats down-ticket.

50% saturation means it is safe now, 30% means that it is not safe but will likely be safe within the next decade or so.

Light blue = "safe, unless Hillary runs"

The Appalachian states you have highlighted certainly are heading that way within the next generation.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

These are the states that I think are fairly safe for Republicans for at least the next decade or so in a generic election.  The darker blues are the ones that they should have to put almost no effort to win and the light blues are the ones they'll probably need to pay just a little attention to just to be on the safe side.  This is probably the base that Republican strategists start off with at the beginning of every election cycle.

Agreed except I would make Mississippi darker (it is safer than it looks) and switch Georgia with Indiana.

[barfbag]

You guys this isn't a debate over which states should be in a category, but a discussion on what makes the above states as red as they are. Everyone is missing the point of this thread.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

Ah I see. I know the oil industry in North Dakota is a big factor in its Republican Lean. I'm fairly sure energy is a factor with Alaska as well.

The Mormon populations are clearly a massive factor in Utah and Idaho, probably because of the socons in the Republican Party. The two states aren't really as conservative as they look-a Democrat held a House seat in Idaho for a term from 2009-2011, and of course we all know about Jim Matheson, holding on narrowly in an R+16 district.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Interesting enough, all of these states with the exceptions of Nebraska and Oklahoma are majority male states. There are only ten of them in the nation, and half of them fall on your list of the reddest states. South Dakota and Montana are two other majority-male red states that did not make your list. There are only three majority-male blue states: Colorado, Hawaii, and Nevada. So perhaps gender could be an issue.

I suspect the majority Mormon population influences Utah and Idaho’s political leanings. Wyoming, Alaska, and North Dakota could be due to the importance of oil to those states’ economies. I suspect the stereotypical “God, guns, and gays” reason is what has Oklahoma becoming so red as of lately. In 2000, North Dakota had the highest percentage of church attendance/adherence rates in the nation.

[barfbag]

One big thing when looking at the internal geographics of these states is that hardly anyone lives there. With a lesser population, things don't become as political and therefore there isn't a high demand for structure and policy. People have their elbow space and prefer this way of life. Guns and religion are what they have as essentials.

[roadkill]

One big thing when looking at the internal geographics of these states is that hardly anyone lives there. With a lesser population, things don't become as political and therefore there isn't a high demand for structure and policy. People have their elbow space and prefer this way of life. Guns and religion are what they have as essentials.

Really, that's the biggest factor.  Rural communities have a greater sense of individualism and put more importance on personal freedoms.  Also, for such spread out communities it's hard for their local government to offer very many practical services.  Because of this, they tend to like very limited government involvement in their lives.  That's Republicans.

*and you could probably also argue that they are a lot less demographically diverse, which might lead them to put little importance on government intervention to promote and support minority groups.

[opebo]

One big thing when looking at the internal geographics of these states is that hardly anyone lives there. With a lesser population, things don't become as political and therefore there isn't a high demand for structure and policy. People have their elbow space and prefer this way of life. Guns and religion are what they have as essentials.

Really, that's the biggest factor.  Rural communities have a greater sense of individualism and put more importance on personal freedoms.  Also, for such spread out communities it's hard for their local government to offer very many practical services.  Because of this, they tend to like very limited government involvement in their lives.  That's Republicans.

*and you could probably also argue that they are a lot less demographically diverse, which might lead them to put little importance on government intervention to promote and support minority groups.

That's right racist, its racism.

[opebo]

That's 131 safe, but really under normal circumstances Arkansas is safe too - 137.

Not great compared to the D-safe states at 184-217.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I'm going to post this in both of Barfy's threads so he understands the true nature of our hopelessly divided Presidential politics; as well as the dire nature of the electoral situation his beloved GOP faces. 

In a race that is within 2-3 pts nationally (aka competitive), these are the only states that can be considered up for grabs. 

263-191. 

Sure, you might find SPECIFIC candidates like a Christie (making NJ somewhat competitive) or a Clinton (all the sudden Arkansas doesn't think the Dems are the devil anymore)... but for the most part, this is how it will shake out in the end. 

It's basically a situation where the GOP either has to go up a few points nationally (tough for either party in recent history; minus 2008, when the GOP had basically just ruined everything) or run the table in the swing states. 

This certainly has historical precedent.  See the early 1900s and the 1980s, when the GOP had an absolute stranglehold on the Electoral College. 

[barfbag]

I'm going to post this in both of Barfy's threads so he understands the true nature of our hopelessly divided Presidential politics; as well as the dire nature of the electoral situation his beloved GOP faces. 

In a race that is within 2-3 pts nationally (aka competitive), these are the only states that can be considered up for grabs. 

263-191. 

Sure, you might find SPECIFIC candidates like a Christie (making NJ somewhat competitive) or a Clinton (all the sudden Arkansas doesn't think the Dems are the devil anymore)... but for the most part, this is how it will shake out in the end. 

It's basically a situation where the GOP either has to go up a few points nationally (tough for either party in recent history; minus 2008, when the GOP had basically just ruined everything) or run the table in the swing states. 

This certainly has historical precedent.  See the early 1900s and the 1980s, when the GOP had an absolute stranglehold on the Electoral College. 

Please explain to us in depth detail what your post has to do with the voting patterns and political dynamics of AK, NE, OK, UT, ID, WY, and ND. You might as well have described why you're pro-choice on a thread about arctic drilling. All we're doing is discussing how and why the above mentioned states vote the way they do. There is no need for anyone to think more into this than necessary. Thank you.

[PolitiJunkie]

I'm going to post this in both of Barfy's threads so he understands the true nature of our hopelessly divided Presidential politics; as well as the dire nature of the electoral situation his beloved GOP faces. 

In a race that is within 2-3 pts nationally (aka competitive), these are the only states that can be considered up for grabs. 

263-191. 

Sure, you might find SPECIFIC candidates like a Christie (making NJ somewhat competitive) or a Clinton (all the sudden Arkansas doesn't think the Dems are the devil anymore)... but for the most part, this is how it will shake out in the end. 

It's basically a situation where the GOP either has to go up a few points nationally (tough for either party in recent history; minus 2008, when the GOP had basically just ruined everything) or run the table in the swing states. 

This certainly has historical precedent.  See the early 1900s and the 1980s, when the GOP had an absolute stranglehold on the Electoral College. 

Please explain to us in depth detail what your post has to do with the voting patterns and political dynamics of AK, NE, OK, UT, ID, WY, and ND. You might as well have described why you're pro-choice on a thread about arctic drilling. All we're doing is discussing how and why the above mentioned states vote the way they do. There is no need for anyone to think more into this than necessary. Thank you.

You can't call people disagreeing with you off topic. In what world is listing one's opinion of the Safe Republican states in a thread called Safe Republican states the equivalent of discussing abortion in a thread about arctic drilling? You're on crack.

[barfbag]

I'm going to post this in both of Barfy's threads so he understands the true nature of our hopelessly divided Presidential politics; as well as the dire nature of the electoral situation his beloved GOP faces. 

In a race that is within 2-3 pts nationally (aka competitive), these are the only states that can be considered up for grabs. 

263-191. 

Sure, you might find SPECIFIC candidates like a Christie (making NJ somewhat competitive) or a Clinton (all the sudden Arkansas doesn't think the Dems are the devil anymore)... but for the most part, this is how it will shake out in the end. 

It's basically a situation where the GOP either has to go up a few points nationally (tough for either party in recent history; minus 2008, when the GOP had basically just ruined everything) or run the table in the swing states. 

This certainly has historical precedent.  See the early 1900s and the 1980s, when the GOP had an absolute stranglehold on the Electoral College. 

Please explain to us in depth detail what your post has to do with the voting patterns and political dynamics of AK, NE, OK, UT, ID, WY, and ND. You might as well have described why you're pro-choice on a thread about arctic drilling. All we're doing is discussing how and why the above mentioned states vote the way they do. There is no need for anyone to think more into this than necessary. Thank you.

You can't call people disagreeing with you off topic. In what world is listing one's opinion of the Safe Republican states in a thread called Safe Republican states the equivalent of discussing abortion in a thread about arctic drilling? You're on crack.

Look all I'm asking you is what you think about how the above states vote and your thoughts on their internal political structure.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

AK, NE, OK, UT, ID, WY, and ND

Alaska - I'm all the way out here in Alaska, government!  Go the hell away!  (in a nutshell)

Nebraska - Rural farmland with a healthy dose of reverence for "traditional" social values.  Rather than try to think about why the GOP would play so well here, think about how people out here would think of Democrats! 

Oklahoma - Must I explain?  Okay, I will.  Religious, racist, and pride themselves on how stupid they are.  The GOP openly courts this type of person.  Sorry to be nasty, but Oklahoma strikes a certain nerve with me. 

Utah - The Mormon faith and conservatism just seem to match up so well.  Leave charity to the religious institutions, protect religious freedom and autonomy, and uphold traditional family values.  Plus the GOP has, over time, become the "patriotic" party (remember, perception is reality) and Mormonism, for what it's worth, is a very, very American faith. 

Wyoming - much like Alaska.  Open, rural, and those who are there probably very individualistic.  Economically want the government of their back, and considering many might, as I again say; have those "traditional" values, the GOP's take on social issues and social justice just isn't all that threatening to them.

Idaho - just slam together Utah and Wyoming...  there ya go.

North Dakota - Probably for similar reasons to the aforementioned Western states.  Certainly a little more open to local and state level Democrats, but probably a bit like Nebraska to the South; what appeal would national Democrats have to a North Dakotan?