South Dakota

[MissCatholic]

South Dakota was one of the few states that Bushs percentage dropped.

2004
Bush = 59.91
2000
Bush = 60.30

1) Why did Bush drop in percentage? is it simply the senate race of Tom Daschle?

[Sam Spade]

South Dakota is historically the most anti-incumbent state in the nation (Montana being second on that list).

For example, even though Reagan's percentage went up from 60.53% in 1980 to 63.00% in 1984, his winning percentage actually declined from 28.84% to 26.47%.  This is at the same time Reagan increased his totals in the popular vote by nearly 10%

Some of that is attributable to Anderson, but not all.  And it occurs not just with Reagan either.  Clinton too and other Presidents as well.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

I'd wager because South Dakota is also a very anti-big government state, and many South Dakota Republicans were angry that Bush had done little, if anything, to reduce the size of government.

[Rob]

I expect the Democrats to get around 45 percent in South Dakota in '08, due to the anti-incumbent atmosphere. And remember, Bush Sr. only got 53 percent after eight years of Reagan, so they may do even better.

[Sibboleth]

That was partly cos of the farm crisis though

[Rob]

That was partly cos of the farm crisis though

That's true.

[phk]

If Bush cuts Farm Subsidies... they'll be another crises.

[opebo]

I think a lot of these dying states will trend slowly but insignificantly Democrat for this reason - all the rural areas are plummeting in population.  In 20 years all that will be left are a few big towns, while the farmlands will be mostly deserted.  Places like Omaha, Fargo, etc., will of course be Republican, but certainly less so than the rural wastes were.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

I think a lot of these dying states will trend slowly but insignificantly Democrat for this reason - all the rural areas are plummeting in population.  In 20 years all that will be left are a few big towns, while the farmlands will be mostly deserted.  Places like Omaha, Fargo, etc., will of course be Republican, but certainly less so than the rural wastes were.

Not entirely true - between April 2000 and July 2003, it was estimated that the population of the state of South Dakota grew 1.1%. Only North Dakota (-1.3%) and the District of Columbia (-1.5%) shrunk during this period.

By the way, in many of these states, the rural areas are sometimes more liberal than the cities.

[So the Heroes Fall]

all of that growth in SD is in Sioux Falls.

[PBrunsel]

all of that growth in SD is in Sioux Falls.

Sioux Falls was voted the "Best City to Live In" in 2003.

[opebo]

[Grad Students are the Worst]

That looks to me like it is the east as a whole, not just Sioux Falls.

[Beet]

opebo, where did you get that kick-ass map?

I followed the link on the bottom it said "the page you requested has either been moved or is no longer available on this server"

By the way, the same thing seems to be occuring in western Pennsylvania and Kansas. There are 1 or 2 suburban communities growing very quickly while the vast majority of the rural part of the region encompassing most counties are either stagnating or shrinking. Thomas Frank points out that about 2/3 of Kansas's counties, for example, have lost population in the past 20 years (some by as much as 25%); while suburban Kansas city has boomed. This overall results in net population gain, but hides the trouble in the rural areas.

[opebo]

opebo, where did you get that kick-ass map?

I followed the link on the bottom it said "the page you requested has either been moved or is no longer available on this server"

By the way, the same thing seems to be occuring in western Pennsylvania and Kansas. There are 1 or 2 suburban communities growing very quickly while the vast majority of the rural part of the region encompassing most counties are either stagnating or shrinking. Thomas Frank points out that about 2/3 of Kansas's counties, for example, have lost population in the past 20 years (some by as much as 25%); while suburban Kansas city has boomed. This overall results in net population gain, but hides the trouble in the rural areas.

Yes, factor this is the situation in Missouri, which is booming in rings around St. Louis, KC, and in a few big towns like Columbia and Springfield, while particularly the northern part of the state empties out.


That cool map of South Dakota is I think from someone's master's thesis or some such thing.  Here's the link:
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~ngcarter/lab_final.html

[Beet]

opebo, where did you get that kick-ass map?

I followed the link on the bottom it said "the page you requested has either been moved or is no longer available on this server"

By the way, the same thing seems to be occuring in western Pennsylvania and Kansas. There are 1 or 2 suburban communities growing very quickly while the vast majority of the rural part of the region encompassing most counties are either stagnating or shrinking. Thomas Frank points out that about 2/3 of Kansas's counties, for example, have lost population in the past 20 years (some by as much as 25%); while suburban Kansas city has boomed. This overall results in net population gain, but hides the trouble in the rural areas.

Yes, factor this is the situation in Missouri, which is booming in rings around St. Louis, KC, and in a few big towns like Columbia and Springfield, while particularly the northern part of the state empties out.


That cool map of South Dakota is I think from someone's master's thesis or some such thing.  Here's the link:
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~ngcarter/lab_final.html

Thanks. I was hoping for the same map for all the other states Apart from politics, this population movement is interesting in itself.

[Vasall des Midas]

Funny. Minnehaha County's growth throughout the century was extremely stable percentage-wise.

[MissCatholic]

Considerring that i live in the state. what i will say is that the democrats could of got far more number of votes had they chosen a better candidate than Bush.

Many South Dakotans think that Bush is a neo-con.
- he has increased government.
- he has increased spending
- he invades countries
- he changes the rules halfway through games.

The democrats just had a bad candidate. i think in 08, we will get around 43-45% of the vote. Alot of people in south dakota went to Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa to do the campaigning. many local dems criticized us for not defending Daschle but we thought it was more important to get rid of the neo-conservative in the White House.

[phk]

If turnout was 100%, MissCatholic, how would South Dakota vote?

[MissCatholic]

Tough to say if every single person voted.

With bush versus Kerry

Kerry would improve
- Brown county
- Charles Mix County
- Grant COunty
- Minnehaha County (about 45%)
- Pennington County (about 40%)
- Lake County (about 38%)

Bush would improve
- Meade County
- Lincoln County
- Lawrence County.

I think the overall result would have bush at around 53-55, kerry would definitely break 40.
The problem is that South DAKOTA HAS BECOME MORE CONSERVATIVE in the last two elections.

But if Kerry wasnt as liberal and they had a god candidate against Bush, then i reckon they could break about 44, as i thnk alot of people that dont vote would either libertarian or democrat. just depends on how much government the democrat is against.

[MissCatholic]

The problem for the democrats in South Dakota is that we dont campaign in the state. we all get together and move into Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

If the democrats could find a candidate that could release the pressure from these three crucial states then i think it would be interesting to see what type of effect a couple months intense  - with groundwork in place - campaiging could have on the state.

I think that hillary would struggle to break 40 in 08, but warner and Bayh could easily get 43.

[phk]

Tough to say if every single person voted.

With bush versus Kerry

Kerry would improve
- Brown county
- Charles Mix County
- Grant COunty
- Minnehaha County (about 45%)
- Pennington County (about 40%)
- Lake County (about 38%)

Bush would improve
- Meade County
- Lincoln County
- Lawrence County.

I think the overall result would have bush at around 53-55, kerry would definitely break 40.
The problem is that South DAKOTA HAS BECOME MORE CONSERVATIVE in the last two elections.

But if Kerry wasnt as liberal and they had a god candidate against Bush, then i reckon they could break about 44, as i thnk alot of people that dont vote would either libertarian or democrat. just depends on how much government the democrat is against.

The best you can hope for is Bush cutting farm subsidies to cause the state to trend although a temperate trend. Which Dukakis should have tapped in 1988 even though he lost.

[Storebought]

opebo, where did you get that kick-ass map?

I followed the link on the bottom it said "the page you requested has either been moved or is no longer available on this server"

By the way, the same thing seems to be occuring in western Pennsylvania and Kansas. There are 1 or 2 suburban communities growing very quickly while the vast majority of the rural part of the region encompassing most counties are either stagnating or shrinking. Thomas Frank points out that about 2/3 of Kansas's counties, for example, have lost population in the past 20 years (some by as much as 25%); while suburban Kansas city has boomed. This overall results in net population gain, but hides the trouble in the rural areas.

Yes, factor this is the situation in Missouri, which is booming in rings around St. Louis, KC, and in a few big towns like Columbia and Springfield, while particularly the northern part of the state empties out.


That cool map of South Dakota is I think from someone's master's thesis or some such thing.  Here's the link:
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~ngcarter/lab_final.html

Of course you neglect the fact that, in the map of MO, people are abandoning totally urbanized St Louis and Kansas City as well. Even St Louis County, which became urban sometime around 1990, has showed meagre growth.

Places that are thriving: St Charles Co--home of the exurb--and the Ozarks, particularly near Branson.

I bet that if northern MO exurbanizes to the extent that the Ozarks have, then its population should increase again.

[Vasall des Midas]

Look at those three counties just outside Kansas City...actually one of them is partially in Kansas City, given that city's insane boundaries. They grew by over 15% too...and unlike most of those Ozark Counties, they had large populations to start with. Numerical growth is probably higher in the suburbs, or exurbs if you wish, than in the SW of the state...although yes, that part of the state is thriving.

[Cubby]

Without any first hand knowledge, I thought that the Native American vote trending even more strongly Democrat last year was what caused Bush's drop in South Dakota. Corson, Ziebach and Roberts Counties all have Indian Reservations. They certainly were the deciding factor in the 2002 Tim Johnson race.

It was strange in 2004 that Kerry improved (slightly) in extremely Republican states like Idaho, and the Dakotas, but did noticably worse in former Clinton States like Missouri, Arkansas and West Virginia.