Anti-region states

[Gustaf]

OK, there are certain states that seem to often go against their regions, regardless of pary preferences, like New Hampshire in the Northeast, Tennessee in the South, or Montana in the West.

Why would that be?

[Gustaf]

New Hampshire was the only Northeastern state to vote for Bush in 2000 and Wilson in 1916. Together with Maine and Vermont it has often formed its own enclave, voting differently compared to the rest of the northeast.  

[Gustaf]

OK, there are certain states that seem to often go against their regions, regardless of pary preferences, like New Hampshire in the Northeast, Tennessee in the South, or Montana in the West.

Why would that be?

About this and your other thread - some states are just very similar to one another, like the Dakotas or Wyoming and Idaho.  Or Kansas and Nebraska.  In fact I should've thought all the above mentioned pretty much vote alike.  As far as states that don't fit their region, New Hampshire is the prime example.  It is the last refuge of the freedom-minded New England Republican.  I think this may be partly because Republicans have actually fled there from high-tax Massachusetts.  I don't think Tennessee really falls outside its reagion politically, its just less extreme - more like Arkansas or Louisana than Mississipi and Kentucky.  As for Montana, when did it break outof the usual Republican pattern?

The last time was in 1992. Remember, i am taking a long term view, so the fact that Montana voted Dem from 1932-1948 means something here. It also voted Dem in 1900, 1912 and 1916. Overall, that means it gone Dem in 9 out of the last 26 elections. I hadn't checked carefully, I just had a feeling that Montana is less Republican than neighbouring states, but it wasn't as true as I thought.

[Gustaf]

Bush won Idaho and Wyoming 67-27, but Montana was "only" 58-33, so it seems a little different than other similar states. But it isn't that good an example, I agree, there is probably a better one somewhere.

[Gustaf]

OK, there are certain states that seem to often go against their regions, regardless of pary preferences, like New Hampshire in the Northeast, Tennessee in the South, or Montana in the West.

Why would that be?

Regardless of why, these examples show that the US still is a federal republic, a collection of different states.   In my opnion, this provides a reasonable rationale to continue with the current method of electing a President.  An electoral college that requires the winner to win many different states, rather than go to a popular vote winner in a single national election .

Lol...this is my thread, I don't want it to turn into a debate on the EC...

[Gustaf]

I comprehend Indiana as anti-region state. It is only state in Rustbelt where Republicans are very strong.   They have won every presidential election since 1968 and Bush got there almost 57 percent of vote.

Indiana's democratic senator Evan Bayh is fairly conservative also.

Yeah, in that sense, yes. But it's only b/c they're so strongly Republican. Why is that, btw? Why is Indiana so different?

[Gustaf]

Indiana is fairly unique, but then again it is very similar to western/central Ohio, Kentucky to the south, and IL outside Chicago.  In other words it is typical of broad swathes of the 'rustbelt', it just lacks other more democrat leaning aspects.  Btw I dislike the term rustbelt - I think its outdated as those industries are so outdated they rusted away years ago and have little relevance to the area today.  On the other hand has anyone else heard about the boom in the steel industry worldwide due to the enormous demand in China?

The Swedish steel industry is doing pretty well I think...before the EU-US trade wars at least...