It's a very probing question, UK...far from absurd!
The answer on the surface may seem as simple as this: the cultures of the respective states identify strongly 'liberal'/'conservative.' But trying to cross-examine a state's culture from long-distance is no small feat. I'll give it a shot anyway.
In the case of Alaska, the Last Frontier...it's plainly enough the last refuge of the American pioneering spirit that prefers to fend for itself than to conform to the urbanized 'sophistication' that trends 'left.' So the electorate of Alaska is going to be hugely anti-tax, anti-spenders when it comes to federal policy. (Let's not talk about those govt. checks that pay Alaskan citizens and their progeny to show up in the first place, though.) What can you say..."All politics is local."
Alaska attracts its fair share of left-idealists, too (--Mountains always attract the zealots, it seems--) and you can get the same cultural sparks in Alaska as you get in Colorado at times. But AK is far more spread out and "live and let live"--and so its political winds are a lot less prone to turbulence.
Hawaii is a bit of a tougher explanation...but my best angle on it is the fact that its multicultural Asiatic legacy--and that means "family" economy has a whole magnitude of meaning we white Westerners don't really get. The social net for people is something they don't see as terribly controversial--it's just the thing to do. Like California, this philosophy has put Hawaii in some financial straights that make it extremely prone to hurt during economic down cycles, and it's learning how to balance.
That seems like a pretty good analysis to me. I don't know about Hawaii, but many Alaskans consider themselves part of the US in name only--holding much of the lower 48 in contempt. It's the ultimate live free or die state.
