Could South Dakota or Texas go Democrat in 2008/2012?

[nomorelies]

The democrats have progressed around the great lakes. South Dakota is no-longer sacred of getting killed if they vote for a democrat.
Texas i dont have a clue because Bush is in office. But i was talking to someone who knew alot about geographical politics and he thought it could be possible.

[Horus]

I think it will take another generation or two in Texas, but I think the Dakotas COULD be possible in maybe 2016.

[jacob_101]

The dakotas are moving more Republican in Presidential elections and Texas is hard to say, depends on the Hispanic vote.

[Reds4]

Texas is hard to judge because there has been someone form that state in the elections so much, but my bet is Texas turns Democratic before SD. Neither would be before 2020 in my opinion.

[John Dibble]

This is a big maybe, and my optimism is speaking here, but it could happen that Texas goes Libertarian. The party is building a power base there. We'll see, lots can happen in four or eight years.

[Lunar]

2016 maybe.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

South Dakota has actually become much more REPUBLICAN in the past decade.  Look at how it voted in 1988...Dukakis only lost by 3 points, while losing nationally by 8.  But in 2000, Bush won by 23 in an otherwise tied election.

So the state has become 28% more Republican in the span of just 12 year.  The upper Midwest and Plains region overall has become more Republican as well.  The Dems have no chance here in the foreseeable future.

[Rococo4]

No - for both.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Practically every election since 1980 has seen a Texas Republican, so it's hard to judge.  I guess maybe in 2016 as the hispanic vote becomes larger.  Right now, they don't even have an elected state-wide official who is a Democrat.  It's basically Republican HQ right now.  

[MODU]

Anything is possible in 8 years.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

The democrats have progressed around the great lakes. South Dakota is no-longer sacred of getting killed if they vote for a democrat.
Texas i dont have a clue because Bush is in office. But i was talking to someone who knew alot about geographical politics and he thought it could be possible.

I would stereotype these states the following way:

South Dakota: Socially Moderate, Economically Hard-Right
Texas (Anglo): Socially Hard-Right, Economically Middle-Right
Texas (Latino): Socially Right, Economically Left

Would that be a good characterization?

Going from there, what developments are possible in the near future?

1. Democrats seem to be moving from the Economic Left to the Middle (with the Greens moving in to fill the vacuum).  Far less movement socially, which is where the Democrats like to set themselves up opposite the Republicans.

2. Republicans have been moving steadily to the Right socially, and drifting from the Hard-Right to the Middle-Right economically (actually, I would characterize W as almost being on the Left economically).

3. The Latino population in Texas is growing in proportion to the rest of the state.

So, in a few election cycles, what we could see is a more economically moderate, but still socially conservative Texas.  That's very close to the current direction of the Republicans.  The newly ecomically moderate Republicans will become far more palatable to Latino voters than they are today.  Texas remains strongly Republican.  (To test this theory, let's compare the Texas Latino vote of 2000 to that in 2004.  I predict Republican gains.)

In South Dakota, there will be dissolution with both parties - they will resent the rising power of the Federal government and the perceived encroachment into their own affairs (good ol' "frontier mentality").  This is what currently makes the Republicans so strong.  It will still be Republican, but Democrats will make far more inroads among social liberals.

Interestingly enough, you have the opposite thing happening in Minnesota - where people tend to be economically Left and socially Right.  The Democrats' move to the Center economically has caused people to lose faith in the party, whereas the Republicans' move to the social right has appealed to social conservatives.  Result: MN is now a battleground.  SD may become one as well.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

South Dakota: Socially Moderate, Economically Hard-Right

you have them mixed around.

South Dakota isn't really hard right moderate though. It is in all the rural parts, but the cities where most of the people live range from center to center-right socially (except Rapid City, but that's the only city of any notable size on the west side of the state)

unfortunately, Rapid City may very well be enough. Right now the growth of Sioux Falls which is becoming more Democratic could help SD swing in the fairly distant future. But Rapid City cancels out most of the Sioux Falls vote. I thought Bismarck was bad enough, but it was nothing compared to that place. One of the most bigoted, narrowminded and segregated cities outside the south. I wouldn't be too shocked if a David Duke type third party could win 5% there.

[shankbear]

I think monkeys will fly first before Texas goes Demo.  Conservatives are the sway in Houston and Dallas and the hispanic voters are conservative, catholic.  Texas could go Demo if a real conservative Demo from the south came on the scene.  Hispanics have not voted in the numbers that they could.

[No more McShame]

Not if Clinton or Edwards are the candidates.

[MN-Troy]

The problem for Democrats in Texas is the Hispanics in that state are only 10% of the electorate, although I believe they constitute (with blacks) ½ of the state?s population. Whites (Anglos) comprise of 73% of the electorate and that explains why Republicans do well in Texas. The other problem for Texas Democrats is the Hispanic vote is not monolithic towards the party.

When it comes to prairie politics, South Dakota is no different then the rest of the plains states---it votes Republican for President. I don?t see any indication in the future to state otherwise, along as Democrats keep nomination East Coast liberals.

[feeblepizza]

1. South Dakota - I predict that if Schweitzer runs in 2016 or if he is Obama's VP in 2012, then the Dakotas (and not to mention Montana) would all go Dem. Obama came within 6% of winning the Dakotas in 08, and came within 3% of winning Montana.

2. Texas will certainly be competitive in the future if the Hispanic population continues to increase, but it won't be a fully Democratic state until long in the future.

[Bo]

SD-Yes

TX-Probably not, but there is a slight chance.

[Thomas D]

If the GOP nominee is too far right I think both states could be in play for 2012.

And you didn't have to bump this thread. You could have started a new one.

Smiley added just so you know I don't mean that in an angry way.

[Derek]

Not a chance in hell.

[feeblepizza]

If the GOP nominee is too far right I think both states could be in play for 2012.

And you didn't have to bump this thread. You could have started a new one.

Smiley added just so you know I don't mean that in an angry way.

No, I just like to go back and reinvigorate old discussions. It keeps the forum's blood flowing.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Texas will go Democratic when the Democratic Party nominates people who are more in touch with the working people.

Populism>Elitism

[phk]

They had a higher chance of going Dem in 1988 than they do in 2008/2012.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Yes, if  the GOP candidate just bombs during the debates.  SD is his best chance to Texas, I think Texas could possibly go to Obama if Palin is the nominee, but not in a match up with anyone else.

[minionofmidas]

Lol was that 2004 thread bad.