I'm not sure why the assumption seems to be that the Nationals are strong in the most conservative states. My impression of the Nationals is not as more conservative than the Liberals, just more rural. They'd probably win some of the Plains and Mountains (The Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho) and be nonexistent elsewhere, except Alaska and Montana (though I agree with Gully on those being ALP). I suppose Hugh takes a similar view of this but expands where he thinks is rural enough for the Nationals to be competitive.
Still, The south really doesn't fit into the Australian System. (Does it fit into any system?)
Well I've always thought they had some similarities to Quebecois, culturally different from the rest of the country, feelings of being "repressed" by those federal government types, failed rebellion, etc. Politically they were quite close until the the Quiet Revolution, just exchange the Catholic Church for the Southern Baptists.
