Democrats and the Great Plains

[illegaloperation]

There's a lot of talk about Democratic struggle in the South.

Shouldn't the Democrats their attention somewhere else? Hint: the Great Plains.

For example, Obama did better in North Dakota and South Dakota then he did in Arkansas and Kentucky. North Dakota and South Dakota are also more elastic than Arkansas and Kentucky and isn't as racially polarized. In both of these states, Democrats can still win with retail politics.

[Donerail]

Presidentially, maybe, but this is the statewide elections board, and both Arkansas and Kentucky have strong, pre-existing party structures and a deep bench that's simply lacking in the Dakotas.

[illegaloperation]

Presidentially, maybe, but this is the statewide elections board, and both Arkansas and Kentucky have strong, pre-existing party structures and a deep bench that's simply lacking in the Dakotas.

Yes, that's true, but it might be worth while to build party infrastructure.

North Dakota and South Dakota clearly have bigger Democratic base (percentage wise) than do Arkansas and Kentucky.

In addition, the states are smaller and not very racially polarized. Democrats there can win by retail politics.

[HAnnA MArin County]

It makes more sense for Democrats to focus on winning Arkansas and Kentucky (especially if Hillary is the nominee) since they are more amenable to going blue in presidential elections as well as being more Democratic at the state level. Why waste time and resources into winning the Dakotas, neither of which has gone blue since 1964, when we can focus on winning Arkansas, a much more Democratic friendly state with the same number of electoral votes.

Demographics aren't as friendly to Democrats in the Dakotas as they are in Arkansas, Kentucky and elsewhere in Clinton Country. Democratic strength in the Dakotas resides only in the Native American counties, and they only make up 6~8 percent of the total population in each state. The right kind of candidate CAN win the Dakotas (Heidi Heitkamp, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin) just as the right kind of candidate can win Clinton Country.

Since this is the statewide elections board, let's examine the two regions:
Arkansas Executive: Democratic Governor (Mike Beebe), Attorney General (Dustin McDaniel), State Auditor (Charlie Daniels), State Treasurer (Charles Robinson) 
Arkansas Legislature: 51.00% Republican (House); 60.00% Republican (Senate)

Kentucky Executive: Democratic Governor (Steve Brashear), Lt. Governor (Jerry Abramson), Secretary of State (Alison Lundergan Grimes), Attorney General (Jack Conway), State Treasurer (Todd Hollenbach), State Auditor (Adam Edelen)
Kentucky Legislature: 55.00% Democratic (House); 57.89% Republican (Senate)

North Dakota Executive: No Democrats
North Dakota Legislature: 75.53% Republican (House); 70.21% Republican (Senate)

South Dakota Executive: No Democrats
South Dakota Legislature: 75.71% Republican (House); 80.00% Republican (Senate)

Heitkamp and Johnson are the only two Democrats elected statewide in the Dakotas.

[Sol]

Also, ND has been pushed to the right quite a bit by the oil boom there.

[pbrower2a]

Since the LBJ blowout over Goldwater in 1964, the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas have given only one electoral vote (NE-02, basically Greater Omaha) to any Democrat running for President. Such is so in 48 years. Even in the two strongest wins for Democratic nominees for President, Bill Clinton got not one electoral vote from the area. Those were the 'worst' states for JFK, and Truman lost all four. FDR lost all four in a 432-99 blowout in the Electoral College in 1944 and a 449-82 blowout in the Electoral College in 1940.

It is easy to look at Iowa and Minnesota as states that reliably vote Democratic and ask why the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas go so consistently Republican. Maybe it is the difference between dairying (which has factory-like conditions for agricultural workers) and ranching (not so). Maybe the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas generally get good economic results without needing to vote for liberals.  

They are thinly populated, and they have few large cities -- Omaha and less than half of the Kansas City MO/KS metro area. Sioux Falls votes as if it were in neighboring Iowa or Minnesota, but after that it drops off fast.

Their infrastructure is inexpensive. A two-lane blacktop road is typically adequate, and the expressways in those states (except for those around Omaha, Topeka, Lincoln, and Wichita) would not be built except to connect to Minneapolis, Winnipeg, Chicago, St. Louis, Denver, Dallas, and Seattle.  These states have had little growth in population, so they have not had to build huge numbers of schools. Economic opportunities are limited, so youth who have aspirations other than staying on the family farm must prepare to go to Minneapolis, Winnipeg, Chicago, St. Louis, Denver, Dallas, and Seattle. Educational achievements are high with low cost in part because teachers find little competition in the private sector for their skill sets.  

[illegaloperation]

First of, we are talking about statewide races. The reason I brought up Obama is that he did not compete in those states in 2012 and I consider those voters part of the Democratic's support. For example, I assume that Heidi Heitkamp automatically gets votes from those who vote for Obama.

Also, I want to emphasize that these states great plains states (specifically North Dakota and South Dakota) are elastic (I excluded Montana because Democratic there are already doing well at the state level).

These means that a lot of voters are willing to split-ticket for Democrats. I am not saying that Democrats will win their electoral votes any time soon.

Because these states are small and elastic, Democrats there can win by retail politics. This is how Heidi Heitkamp won: she is very personable.

[pbrower2a]

First of, we are talking about statewide races. The reason I brought up Obama is that he did not compete in those states in 2012 and I consider those voters part of the Democratic's support. For example, I assume that Heidi Heitkamp automatically gets votes from those who vote for Obama.

Also, I want to emphasize that these states great plains states (specifically North Dakota and South Dakota) are elastic (I excluded Montana because Democratic there are already doing well at the state level).

These means that a lot of voters are willing to split-ticket for Democrats. I am not saying that Democrats will win their electoral votes any time soon.

Because these states are small and elastic, Democrats there can win by retail politics. This is how Heidi Heitkamp won: she is very personable.

Without question these states are good for retail politics, as shown by the ability of Democrats to win votes for offices other than the Presidency. No Democratic nominee for President is ever going to win these states until the Republicans come out with some scary right-winger. 

The Obama method of getting large crowds to see him campaign just does not work in these states. Obama was unusually good for a Democrat at winning the suburban vote, at least in the Northeast and Far West. The Plains states have little suburban sprawl, let alone aging suburbs becoming legitimately urban. (Worth noting: Barack Obama fared badly in the relatively-new suburbs of Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Atlanta, where infrastructure is still fairly new -- unlike suburbs of Philadelphia or Boston).

[Indy Texas]

How much effort do you want them to put into winning four states that only have a combined 17 electoral votes? Or, if focusing solely on the Dakotas, only 6 electoral votes?

[illegaloperation]

How much effort do you want them to put into winning four states that only have a combined 17 electoral votes? Or, if focusing solely on the Dakotas, only 6 electoral votes?

I am talking about statewide races here: electoral votes doesn't matter much.