Trump in the Dakotas

[Lothal1]

Trump's 4th best state was North Dakota. South Dakota also voted overwhelmingly Trump, too. Can anyone explain this?

[The Mikado]

Turns out that when a state becomes the new global capital of the oil industry, it becomes a Republican bastion.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Rural dems didn't turn out for Clinton.

[Classic Conservative]

Rural dems didn't turn out for Clinton.

Rural Dems don't exist anymore, they are Rural Republicans now.

[cinyc]

Turns out that when a state becomes the new global capital of the oil industry, it becomes a Republican bastion.

That might explain North Dakota, or at least the relatively sparsely populated western part of that state - but it doesn't explain South Dakota, which doesn't have much oil.

Both North and South Dakota are full of smallish cities.  Small cities swung Trump nationwide.

[TDAS04]

White, rural, and old.

Same reason Minnesota (outside the cities) and Iowa swung so far to the right.

[Hatman 🍁]

Oil. Saw similar huge swings in the recent Saskatchewan election in oil country.

[Figueira]

Rural dems didn't turn out for Clinton.

Rural Dems don't exist anymore

I exist, as do Vermonters.

Edit: as do minorities living in rural areas.

[ElectionsGuy]

Following along with western Minnesota, 2016 saw a purge of white rural Dems. The Dakotas are incredibly white and quite rural, with mostly small towns and mid-sized cities. If you notice, most of the Democratic support from Kansas and Nebraska comes from bigger cities, whereas in the Dakotas it was more spread out (the eastern parts of the states weren't really that Republican). So what we really saw was a state that voted more like Kansas and Nebraska without big cities like Omaha or big college educated suburban counties like Johnson County.

[/]

Rural dems didn't turn out for Clinton.

Rural Dems don't exist anymore, they are Rural Republicans now.

New England, Black Belt, Iron Range, South Texas, Indian Reservations, etc.

[smoltchanov]

In addition to all mentioned above Dakotas (especially North) were hotbeds of conservatively-tinged populism and isolationism most of their history. An ideal combination for Trump, who is not even so conservative (look Cruz for comparison).

[Sol]

Clinton was not popular among natives, especially not in the Dakotas, thanks to not really fighting the pipeline. You can see this all over; Clinton performed poorly on rezes all over and actually lost Robeson county.

[nclib]

North Dakota had the largest swing to Trump, and was already very Republican. Also, ND's Senate and Governor elections had the largest Repub margins in the nation. Is the oil boom the only issue here?

Clinton was not popular among natives, especially not in the Dakotas, thanks to not really fighting the pipeline. You can see this all over; Clinton performed poorly on rezes all over and actually lost Robeson county [NC].

Cooper and Ross also lost it - quite unexpected.

[RINO Tom]

Rural dems didn't turn out for Clinton.

Rural Dems don't exist anymore, they are Rural Republicans now.

Well, that's just not true.

[Nhoj]

Not sure but maybe the collapse of grain prices this year played a part? many of the same rural midwest counties that swung hard to dukakis had big swings to trump.

[Panda Express]

Trump's 4th best state was North Dakota. South Dakota also voted overwhelmingly Trump, too. Can anyone explain this?

IIRC, the Dakotas have an above-average number of sexual predators.

[White Trash]

Trump's 4th best state was North Dakota. South Dakota also voted overwhelmingly Trump, too. Can anyone explain this?

IIRC, the Dakotas have an above-average number of sexual predators.

South Dakota really does have an issue with sexual assault. But this is likely due to Rez related issues more than anything.

[mianfei]

In addition to all mentioned above Dakotas (especially North) were hotbeds of conservatively-tinged populism and isolationism most of their history. An ideal combination for Trump, who is not even so conservative (look Cruz for comparison).

I’ve always gathered that these states are extremely volatile in their electoral behaviour especially compared to cities, the South or the Pacific Northwest:

• Obama gained nineteen percentage points in ND vis-à-vis Kerry in 2004
• Bush gained 21 percentage points in ND vis-à-vis Dole in 1996
• Dukakis gained eighteen percentage points in ND vis-à-vis Mondale in 1984
• Reagan gained 32 percentage points in ND vis-à-vis Ford in 1976
• Eisenhower gained 34 percentage points in ND vis-à-vis Dewey in 1948
• FDR gained 60 percent in vote in ND in 1932 vis-à-vis Davis in 1924
• Harding gained 60 percentage points in ND vis-à-vis Hughes in 1916

• Bush gained nineteen percentage points in SD vis-à-vis Dole in 1996
• Dukakis gained twenty percentage points in SD vis-à-vis Mondale in 1984
• Reagan gained 27 percentage points in SD vis-à-vis Ford in 1976
• Eisenhower gained 34 percentage points in SD vis-à-vis Dewey in 1948
• FDR gained 50 percent in vote in SD in 1932 vis-à-vis Davis in 1924
• Harding gained 38 percentage points in SD vis-à-vis Hughes in 1916
• Theodore Roosevelt gained 50 percentage points in SD in 1904 vis-à-vis McKinley in 1896

Thus, with Trump’s appeal to a rural, white electorate it’s not surprising that these states – which Obama, Clinton and Carter came fairly close to carrying – turned sharply Republican, especially as part of the core Democratic vote among Native Americans did not remain loyal.

[Canis]

White, rural, and old.

Same reason Minnesota (outside the cities) and Iowa swung so far to the right.

MN didn't really swing that hard a lot of dems just didn't turnout for Clinton Trump only beat Romney by 3,000 votes

[Hydera]

In addition to all mentioned above Dakotas (especially North) were hotbeds of conservatively-tinged populism and isolationism most of their history. An ideal combination for Trump, who is not even so conservative (look Cruz for comparison).

I’ve always gathered that these states are extremely volatile in their electoral behaviour especially compared to cities, the South or the Pacific Northwest:

• Obama gained nineteen percentage points in ND vis-à-vis Kerry in 2004
• Bush gained 21 percentage points in ND vis-à-vis Dole in 1996
• Dukakis gained eighteen percentage points in ND vis-à-vis Mondale in 1984
• Reagan gained 32 percentage points in ND vis-à-vis Ford in 1976
• Eisenhower gained 34 percentage points in ND vis-à-vis Dewey in 1948
• FDR gained 60 percent in vote in ND in 1932 vis-à-vis Davis in 1924
• Harding gained 60 percentage points in ND vis-à-vis Hughes in 1916

• Bush gained nineteen percentage points in SD vis-à-vis Dole in 1996
• Dukakis gained twenty percentage points in SD vis-à-vis Mondale in 1984
• Reagan gained 27 percentage points in SD vis-à-vis Ford in 1976
• Eisenhower gained 34 percentage points in SD vis-à-vis Dewey in 1948
• FDR gained 50 percent in vote in SD in 1932 vis-à-vis Davis in 1924
• Harding gained 38 percentage points in SD vis-à-vis Hughes in 1916
• Theodore Roosevelt gained 50 percentage points in SD in 1904 vis-à-vis McKinley in 1896

Thus, with Trump’s appeal to a rural, white electorate it’s not surprising that these states – which Obama, Clinton and Carter came fairly close to carrying – turned sharply Republican, especially as part of the core Democratic vote among Native Americans did not remain loyal.

A lot of the volatility in the Eastern SD region is probably because of the high number of (combined) Scandinavian ancestry. This group swung heavily to Obama in 2012 with the exception of Oil producing Western ND(obviously due to dislike of environmentalism there). and then swung back to the GOP. the ECLA isnt liberal but definitely one of the more moderate branches of Christianity as well. And considering Social Democracy being a thing in scandinavia you could sort of assume that these voters are conflicted about their economic left-wing-ish views but also being populist. Which made Hillary unable to turnout those voters especially if they had preferred Bernie Sanders.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Has it been discussed already, but why did Hillary did so poorly among the Natives? Even in 2008, the Native counties were mostly won by Obama. Do the Natives, kind of like the Mormons, not think that women should hold positions of authority?

[Hydera]

Has it been discussed already, but why did Hillary did so poorly among the Natives? Even in 2008, the Native counties were mostly won by Obama. Do the Natives, kind of like the Mormons, not think that women should hold positions of authority?

While the vast majority of native americans are socially liberal your going to have a lot of socially conservative 'hardhats' aka: social conservative but economically left-leaning.

Plus Native americans are a group that mostly scales in lower incomes because many live on reservations where there is lack of job opportunity. A lot of them supported Bernie Sanders and a portion of them either refused to vote for Hillary or stayed home.

I kinda realized it during the election campaign but i was in denial at the time but what happened is that there is a huge populace in which Hillary was unpopular and its usually those on lower incomes who feel either Hillary wasnt going to do much to change their life or that she's corrupt and so there was no point in voting for her in the first place. And working class people's opinion on her was a lot into those either two camps which explains a big reason for three things that happened. Minorities who stayed home, minorities who switched to voting for trump, WWC that voted for Obama either in 2008 or 2012 swinging heavily to Trump.

Had Bernie Sanders been the nominee then given his progressive economic platform they would had turned out the way they did for Obama. Especially without the negativity that was placed on Hillary.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

White, rural, and old.

Same reason Minnesota (outside the cities) and Iowa swung so far to the right.

Exit polls didn't bother with the Dakotas, but it was actually younger whites who swung the hardest towards Trump in Iowa and Minnesota. CNN's exit poll had Trump winning the 18-24 year old vote in MN by 5% while losing the 65 and over vote by 2%. In Iowa, it shows Trump doing poorly with the 18-24 group, but winning the 25-29 year olds by 24% (vs only a 4% margin of victory among those 65 and older).

[TDAS04]

White, rural, and old.

Same reason Minnesota (outside the cities) and Iowa swung so far to the right.

Exit polls didn't bother with the Dakotas, but it was actually younger whites who swung the hardest towards Trump in Iowa and Minnesota. CNN's exit poll had Trump winning the 18-24 year old vote in MN by 5% while losing the 65 and over vote by 2%. In Iowa, it shows Trump doing poorly with the 18-24 group, but winning the 25-29 year olds by 24% (vs only a 4% margin of victory among those 65 and older).

You’re correct.  I should have just said “white and rural”.  I’m pretty sure Hillary performed worse among under-30s in my state than among over-60s, which does not bode well for Democrats long-term in Upper Midwest.

White, rural, and old.

Same reason Minnesota (outside the cities) and Iowa swung so far to the right.

MN didn't really swing that hard a lot of dems just didn't turnout for Clinton Trump only beat Romney by 3,000 votes

But rural Minnesota did swing hard (even if a good amount of that was due to turnout).  The Twin Cities kept the state from swinging more than it did.

Anyway, I hope that rural progressivism isn’t completely dead in my region.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Turns out that when a state becomes the new global capital of the oil industry, it becomes a Republican bastion.

They were already Republican bastions in presidential contests, but I agree the Keystone Pipeline probably had something to do with it.