Why is Obama outpolling Kerry so much in ND and MT?

[Alcon]

THE MAJORITY OF NORTH DAKOTANS ARE NOT FARMERS.

NORTH DAKOTA HAS A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF ITS GDP GENERATED BY CROP AND ANIMAL FARMS THAN ANY OTHER STATE

IT IS SUNDAY, AUGUST 3RD, 2008

TODAY IS THE BIRTHDAY OF ACTOR JOHN C. MCGINLEY

[DownWithTheLeft]

THE MAJORITY OF NORTH DAKOTANS ARE NOT FARMERS.

NORTH DAKOTA HAS A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF ITS GDP GENERATED BY CROP AND ANIMAL FARMS THAN ANY OTHER STATE

IT IS SUNDAY, AUGUST 3RD, 2008

TODAY IS THE BIRTHDAY OF ACTOR JOHN C. MCGINLEY

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO THE HELL THAT IS

[agcatter]

Kerry was an absolute joke.  I don't think a lot of Democrats to this day realize how unappealing Kerry was.

[Keystone Phil]

THE MAJORITY OF NORTH DAKOTANS ARE NOT FARMERS.

NORTH DAKOTA HAS A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF ITS GDP GENERATED BY CROP AND ANIMAL FARMS THAN ANY OTHER STATE

IT IS SUNDAY, AUGUST 3RD, 2008

TODAY IS THE BIRTHDAY OF ACTOR JOHN C. MCGINLEY

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO THE HELL THAT IS

SANTORUM - McGINLEY FOR AMERICAN

[Eraserhead]

they feel bad about slavery

heh.

[memphis]

Kerry was an absolute joke.  I don't think a lot of Democrats to this day realize how unappealing Kerry was.

Losing by a couple of points makes you a joke? He may not have been a good fit for you, but he ran a very competitive race.

[Cubby]

I don't think a lot of Democrats to this day realize how unappealing Kerry was.

There's some truth to that, although I grew to like Kerry more as the year went on. But I didn't like him in the beginning because I knew the South would never vote for a Massachusetts politician. And I was right.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Kerry was an absolute joke.  I don't think a lot of Democrats to this day realize how unappealing Kerry was.

Losing by a couple of points makes you a joke? He may not have been a good fit for you, but he ran a very competitive race.

     There were a lot of people that hated Bush. With that in mind, Kerry did about as poorly as any Democrat could have done in 2004.

[Flying Dog]

Kerry was an absolute joke.  I don't think a lot of Democrats to this day realize how unappealing Kerry was.

Losing by a couple of points makes you a joke? He may not have been a good fit for you, but he ran a very competitive race.

     There were a lot of people that hated Bush. With that in mind, Kerry did about as poorly as any Democrat could have done in 2004.

Ha! Dean!?

[Nym90]

Kerry was an absolute joke.  I don't think a lot of Democrats to this day realize how unappealing Kerry was.

A better candidate could've won, that's true....but Kerry did have experience.....he ended up being acceptable to voters dissatisfied with Bush, and has been mentioned, he almost won.

Bush's percentage of the vote ended up being almost indentical to his approval ratings.
Kerry was just a generic Democratic stand in, but he did well enough in that role. He never gave swing voters much reason to vote for him other than that he wasn't Bush, but at least he didn't scary away very many anti-Bush voters (like someone such as Dean might've).

[Associate Justice PiT]

Kerry was an absolute joke.  I don't think a lot of Democrats to this day realize how unappealing Kerry was.

Losing by a couple of points makes you a joke? He may not have been a good fit for you, but he ran a very competitive race.

     There were a lot of people that hated Bush. With that in mind, Kerry did about as poorly as any Democrat could have done in 2004.

Ha! Dean!?

     Okay, I had forgotten about Dean. Kerry did about as poorly as any sane Democrat could have done.

[FerrisBueller86]

What makes the Dakotas different from the other Great Plains states?  Why is Obama competitive in North Dakota and South Dakota but not Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma?  In Nebraska, Senator Ben Nelson won re-election in a landslide in 2006, winning the entire eastern 2/3 of the state and even a few western counties as well (quite a feat given that western Nebraska is more Republican than Utah).  In Kansas, Governor Kathleen Sebelius (who is pro-choice and not a Blue Dog) easily won re-election in 2006, winning most of the eastern 2/3 of the state.  In Oklahoma, Governor Brad Henry won re-election in 2006 in a landslide, winning every county except for the 3 panhandle counties.

So why are North Dakota and South Dakota competitive but not the three states to their south?  All 5 of these states last voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in 1964.  These 5 states seem to always vote the same way, so the electoral map would look odd for the two northern Great Plains states to vote differently from the rest.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What makes the Dakotas different from the other Great Plains states?  Why is Obama competitive in North Dakota and South Dakota but not Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma?  In Nebraska, Senator Ben Nelson won re-election in a landslide in 2006, winning the entire eastern 2/3 of the state and even a few western counties as well (quite a feat given that western Nebraska is more Republican than Utah).  In Kansas, Governor Kathleen Sebelius (who is pro-choice and not a Blue Dog) easily won re-election in 2006, winning most of the eastern 2/3 of the state.  In Oklahoma, Governor Brad Henry won re-election in 2006 in a landslide, winning every county except for the 3 panhandle counties.

So why are North Dakota and South Dakota competitive but not the three states to their south?  All 5 of these states last voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in 1964.  These 5 states seem to always vote the same way, so the electoral map would look odd for the two northern Great Plains states to vote differently from the rest.

Are you in college? If so you should probably try taking a Poli Sci 101 class sometime. Seriously.

[Lunar]

I don't know if Polli Sci 101 covers that topic and I think he asked a valid question.

The fact is that North Dakota is a different plains state with different people who probably care more about bread and butter issues than immigration, war, or social issues.  It's like asking why Vermont and Maine are so Democratic but New Hampshire is competitive. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't know if Polli Sci 101 covers that topic and I think he asked a valid question.

It has more to do with his postings in general than that alone. When someone is talking about McCain/Barbour losing Utah and asking why people say Obama will lose states in the south because he's black but don't blame race for why he'll lose Utah, Idaho and Wyoming...They probably need to do just a little basic studies.

[Jeff from NC]

What makes the Dakotas different from the other Great Plains states?  Why is Obama competitive in North Dakota and South Dakota but not Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma?  In Nebraska, Senator Ben Nelson won re-election in a landslide in 2006, winning the entire eastern 2/3 of the state and even a few western counties as well (quite a feat given that western Nebraska is more Republican than Utah).  In Kansas, Governor Kathleen Sebelius (who is pro-choice and not a Blue Dog) easily won re-election in 2006, winning most of the eastern 2/3 of the state.  In Oklahoma, Governor Brad Henry won re-election in 2006 in a landslide, winning every county except for the 3 panhandle counties.

So why are North Dakota and South Dakota competitive but not the three states to their south?  All 5 of these states last voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in 1964.  These 5 states seem to always vote the same way, so the electoral map would look odd for the two northern Great Plains states to vote differently from the rest.

Are you in college? If so you should probably try taking a Poli Sci 101 class sometime. Seriously.

Actually, "Sometimes All It Takes..." implicitly makes one of the more intelligent points in the thread by asking this question.  If a number of reasons listed previously in this thread ("the fact that Obama actually gives a damn about them", "John Kerry had no appeal to anybody who wasn't already a Democrat," trouble in the farming industry) apply to ND and Montana, they ought to apply equally well to  other states that have demonstrated similar voting behavior in the past.  Yet while Obama vastly outperforms Kerry in ND and Montana, he remains far behind in Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming.  So the best way to start answering the question at hand is indeed how ND and Montana differ from these states in ways that Obama is exploiting (and which Kerry didn't).  So there's really no need for snotty attacks.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What makes the Dakotas different from the other Great Plains states?  Why is Obama competitive in North Dakota and South Dakota but not Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma?  In Nebraska, Senator Ben Nelson won re-election in a landslide in 2006, winning the entire eastern 2/3 of the state and even a few western counties as well (quite a feat given that western Nebraska is more Republican than Utah).  In Kansas, Governor Kathleen Sebelius (who is pro-choice and not a Blue Dog) easily won re-election in 2006, winning most of the eastern 2/3 of the state.  In Oklahoma, Governor Brad Henry won re-election in 2006 in a landslide, winning every county except for the 3 panhandle counties.

So why are North Dakota and South Dakota competitive but not the three states to their south?  All 5 of these states last voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in 1964.  These 5 states seem to always vote the same way, so the electoral map would look odd for the two northern Great Plains states to vote differently from the rest.

Are you in college? If so you should probably try taking a Poli Sci 101 class sometime. Seriously.

Actually, "Sometimes All It Takes..." implicitly makes one of the more intelligent points in the thread by asking this question.  If a number of reasons listed previously in this thread ("the fact that Obama actually gives a damn about them", "John Kerry had no appeal to anybody who wasn't already a Democrat," trouble in the farming industry) apply to ND and Montana, they ought to apply equally well to  other states that have demonstrated similar voting behavior in the past.  Yet while Obama vastly outperforms Kerry in ND and Montana, he remains far behind in Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming.  So the best way to start answering the question at hand is indeed how ND and Montana differ from these states in ways that Obama is exploiting (and which Kerry didn't).  So there's really no need for snotty attacks.

1-It's BRTD. No one ever calls me by my display name because I change them so often.
2-As I stated before, this has more to do with the guy asking rather dumb questions in general rather than the one in particular here.

[Nym90]

Regarding Obama's success in the plains, I see several causes.

I think it's a similar situation to 1988 in terms of that the bad economy is hitting farmers especially badly this year.

High gas prices also hit these rural states harder proportionately than they do more urban states, since there's more miles to drive to get anywhere and fewer public transportation options.

The fewer blacks there are in a particular area, the less racist and more progressive the whites tend to be as a general rule....so Obama suffers less for his race in the Plains than he would in places like Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Also McCain is a pretty bad candidate for farming areas as Republicans go.....he opposes ethanol subsidies, and he's not a social conservative to the extent Bush was. Contrary to what many might think, farming areas are not libertarian, but rather tend to be populist, albeit not in the same vein as "working class" populism tends to be in the industrial Midwest or Northeast with regards to racial issues. McCain is a worse Republican candidate for populist voters than Bush was, and he doesn't have the counterweight of racism and anti-elitism to help mask that fact like he does in some other places.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What makes the Dakotas different from the other Great Plains states?  Why is Obama competitive in North Dakota and South Dakota but not Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma?  In Nebraska, Senator Ben Nelson won re-election in a landslide in 2006, winning the entire eastern 2/3 of the state and even a few western counties as well (quite a feat given that western Nebraska is more Republican than Utah).  In Kansas, Governor Kathleen Sebelius (who is pro-choice and not a Blue Dog) easily won re-election in 2006, winning most of the eastern 2/3 of the state.  In Oklahoma, Governor Brad Henry won re-election in 2006 in a landslide, winning every county except for the 3 panhandle counties.

So why are North Dakota and South Dakota competitive but not the three states to their south?  All 5 of these states last voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in 1964.  These 5 states seem to always vote the same way, so the electoral map would look odd for the two northern Great Plains states to vote differently from the rest.

Nelson won a landslide because Bush made Gov. Mike Johanns Sec of Ag. Had he not Johanns would have ran and would have beaten Nelson. This is a case were the strength of the opponet made the difference.

Kansas has a deep rift in the GOP btw moderates and conservatives so you will see weird results on the state level

In Oklahoma Brad Henry barely won in 2002 44%-41% I believe and he spent his four years very effectively and thus won relection, similar to Tennessee, both states are conservative but they won't toss out Democrats who do there job and aren't left wing loons. 

[MarkWarner08]

Obama is doing well in rural counties in ND with  German and Scandinavian roots. These ancestrally isolationist voting groups are drawn to Obama's early steadfast opposition to the war in Iraq.

[Beet]

Obama is doing well in rural counties in ND with  German and Scandinavian roots. These ancestrally isolationist voting groups are drawn to Obama's early steadfast opposition to the war in Iraq.

Interesting point. They may also be turned off by McCain's hyper-aggressive foreign policy views.

[Torie]

Obama is doing well in rural counties in ND with  German and Scandinavian roots. These ancestrally isolationist voting groups are drawn to Obama's early steadfast opposition to the war in Iraq.

Interesting point. They may also be turned off by McCain's hyper-aggressive foreign policy views.

So why was Hillary tanking against McCain in these states? That is the problem with the theory. The voters seem mesmerized by the messiah himself.

[elcorazon]

the dem campaign allowed many to forget that there are tons of americans who hate hillary's guts.

[Beet]

Obama is doing well in rural counties in ND with  German and Scandinavian roots. These ancestrally isolationist voting groups are drawn to Obama's early steadfast opposition to the war in Iraq.

Interesting point. They may also be turned off by McCain's hyper-aggressive foreign policy views.

So why was Hillary tanking against McCain in these states? That is the problem with the theory. The voters seem mesmerized by the messiah himself.

Hillary was on the 'pro-war' wing of the Democratic party, and people knew this, thus allowing the natural Republican leanings of the area to come out. There is also that despite being born in Illinois she is identified with New York, and there was a sort of Al Smith/Herb Hoover tension going on, whereas Midwesterner's dislike the Eastern Establishment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The dem campaign reminded us of nothing but.. tons of americans in the media and on the blogs who hate hillary (not so much her guts). It's generally a minority of highly vocal people who dislike her. Similar to what was faced by Lincoln, her husband, Bush in his first term and to some extent FDR.

Actually her personal approval rating is usually in the 50's, so most have a positive opinion of her.

[MarkWarner08]

Obama is doing well in rural counties in ND with  German and Scandinavian roots. These ancestrally isolationist voting groups are drawn to Obama's early steadfast opposition to the war in Iraq.

Interesting point. They may also be turned off by McCain's hyper-aggressive foreign policy views.

So why was Hillary tanking against McCain in these states? That is the problem with the theory. The voters seem mesmerized by the messiah himself.

Hillary initially supported the War in Iraq. It wasn't until the '08 primary fight that she finally acknowledged her mistake. Many voters remain skeptical of her shift on this issue. Obama's prescient opposition to the war has earn him greater credibility on Iraq than either Hilary of McCain.