Why do Democrats prefer Kansas to Nebraska?

[GreatTailedGrackle]

Back in 2018, I was thinking, and telling people I know, that Dan Sullivan, Lindsay Graham, and Ben Sasse seemed like potential target for Democrats if 2020 was a wave year, and indeed any of those states were better targets than Mitch McConnell, who despite his unpopularity represents one of the reddest and most inelastic states in the country.  The Democratic establishment ignored all three states, yet Alaska and South Carolina have drawn strong challengers, while Nebraska Democrats looked at their limited choices in candidates and picked ... a misogynistic gay man with a fondness for racial slurs.

And yet, the Democratic Party went out of their way to recruit a strong candidate in neighboring Kansas.  Now, admittedly, it's an open seat, but the Democrats have obsessed with Kansas pretty much as long as I've followed politics.  From Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas?" in 2004, to talk of Obama possibly winning it 2008 and Clinton in 2016, to the attempts to help Greg Orman beat Pat Roberts in a GOP wave year, though the special election in 2017, all the way through Democrats trying to win the seat this year, Democrats keep chasing after Kansas.  And like, I get it: it's a deceptively urbanized state with a fairly elastic electorate and a history of relative moderation out of line with today's GOP.

The thing is: the exact same description applies to Nebraska.  Kansas in 2010 was 1% more urban than Nebraska and had a 4% larger minority population, but it's also 6% more evangelical.  Nebraska's nonpartisan legislature seems like it should be easier for Democrats to build a bench running candidates on local issues.  On the fundamentals, Nebraska is more urban, more diverse, and less evangelical than Iowa.  Nebraska had a Democratic Senator as recently as 2012.

And yet, I get the impression that Democrats don't even try in Nebraska.  It certainly doesn't seem to excite them to the degree Kansas does, and I don't get the impression they have much of a bench.  Am I missing something here?

[RINO Tom]

I don’t know, but it’s gonna be hilarious if KS becomes a blue state; in the blink of an eye, it’ll go from the shlthole full of people voting against their own interests to an educated utopia that serves as a shining example of enlightenment and example for its underdeveloped neighbors.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

I don’t know, but it’s gonna be hilarious if KS becomes a blue state; in the blink of an eye, it’ll go from the shlthole full of people voting against their own interests to an educated utopia that serves as a shining example of enlightenment and example for its underdeveloped neighbors.

Yes

[ottermax]

The college-educated pop of Kansas is at 33% compared to 30% in Nebraska. Growth in the KC suburbs has largely been driven by an educated middle class that seems to be the new core of the Democratic Party. Nebraska may have a stronger history of Democratic Party involvement, but Omaha seems to resemble more of the Iowa / Illinois type mid-size city drifting away from the Democrats while KC resembles more of the sunbelt cities drifting more Democratic. However Wichita is definitely more of a working class, industrial city that probably works against this hypothesis.

I guess the biggest thing motivating Democrats are close races or wins recently with the recent gubernatorial victory (largely driven by local politics), Sharice David's win, and close senate contests. The local Kansas GOP has pushed too far right which has damaged their reputation in the moderate suburbs leading to several Republican state legislators leaving the party last year. On the ground the Democrats are just more put together probably because of the partisanship of Kansas while the nonpartisan nature of local politics in Nebraska combined with Ben Sasse's motions to seem anti-Trump probably curry favor among those voters who might be disgusted by Trumpism in Nebraska.

Obviously I don't live in these states nor have I ever visited, but this is what I've gathered from the past year or two.

[WD]

Nebraska is a Safe R state that can never elect a Democrat, otoh Kansas is trending D and could elect a Democratic Senator this year.

[GreatTailedGrackle]

Nebraska is a Safe R state that can never elect a Democrat, otoh Kansas is trending D and could elect a Democratic Senator this year.

Yes, I'm aware Democrats appear to think that.  That's the point of this post.

Given that the two states are demographically and politically extremely similar, with some of the differences favoring Nebraska, I'm asking why y'all seem to think that?

[WD]

Nebraska is a Safe R state that can never elect a Democrat, otoh Kansas is trending D and could elect a Democratic Senator this year.

Yes, I'm aware Democrats appear to think that.  That's the point of this post.

Given that the two states are demographically and politically extremely similar, with some of the differences favoring Nebraska, I'm asking why y'all seem to think that?

Nebraska just isn’t as favorable, it’s urban area aren’t that large and don’t really have a trend in either direction.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

All of the above and the NE Democratic bench is now weaker than the KS one.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Nebraska is a Safe R state that can never elect a Democrat, otoh Kansas is trending D and could elect a Democratic Senator this year.

Yes, I'm aware Democrats appear to think that.  That's the point of this post.

Given that the two states are demographically and politically extremely similar, with some of the differences favoring Nebraska, I'm asking why y'all seem to think that?

Nebraska just isn’t as favorable, it’s urban area aren’t that large and don’t really have a trend in either direction.

Kansas does not have that much of a trend either. Certainly not like VA, NC, GA. Stop treating the 2016 election like the Holy Graal.
And Kansas is a Safe R state too.

With that said, despite the two states being broadly very similar, Nebraska has many small things in which it's less favorable to Democrats than Kansas, but what that means is that if Kansas is poised to shift by 10, Nebraska is poised to shift by 5; NOT that Kansas is poised to shift by 10 while Nebraska will not shift at all.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

All of the above and the NE Democratic bench is now weaker than the KS one.

This is a good argument. Although to be fair if Pete Ricketts had the baggage of Kris Kobach, then there is a good chance that the current governor of Nebraska would be Bob Krist. (who, by the way, is a former Republican State Senator from the suburbs, exactly like Barbara Bollier is)

[GreatTailedGrackle]

Nebraska just isn’t as favorable, it’s urban area aren’t that large and don’t really have a trend in either direction.

Population of metro Omaha in Nebraska: 819,468
Population of metro Lincoln: 334,590

Population of metro Kansas City in Kansas: 899,311
Population of metro Wichita: 644,888
Population of metro Topeka: 232,594
Population of metro Manhattan: 130,285

The populations of individual metro areas in both states seem pretty comparable.  Kansas has more metro areas (four metro areas over 100k compared to two for Nebraska), but also a larger population overall.  As I noted in my OP, the urbanization of the two states is almost identical.

As for trends: Democrats have been talking about Kansas since at least 2004, and investing in it well before it became competitive.  It wouldn't surprise me that they've seen dividends, but it strikes me as a self-fulfilling prophecy WRT them not investing Nebraska.

All of the above and the NE Democratic bench is now weaker than the KS one.

Yep, I'm aware of that, but how did it get that way?  My impression has been that Democrats just giving up on the state is part of it.  I've known plenty of Democrats to fantasize about flipping Kansas, and I've seen the Democratic Party try to win it in several election cycles, finally succeeding with Kelly.  I haven't heard anything about Dems making an effort in Nebraska since Ben Nelson's re-election.

[kcguy]

I won't respond to the entire topic, but I will break down some of the examples in the original post:

"What's the Matter With Kansas?"  - Thomas Frank picked Kansas because he grew up here.

Obama 2008 - The focus on Kansas over Nebraska was because Obama's mother was born in Kansas.  According to the genealogy website wargs.com, Obama had at least 18 ancestors who were either born or died in Kansas.

Greg Orman - In 2014, Democrats abandoned their candidate and supported the independent because polls said that Pat Roberts was vulnerable.  (In the end, the polls were somewhat right.  Roberts got 53% of the vote, the worst showing of any Kansas Republican Senate candidate since 1974.  If 2014 had been like 1998, when the impending Republican wave suddenly dissipated, Roberts would have gone down.)

Sharice Davids - Republican House incumbents tend not to lose reelection bids in Kansas.  The previous two, I think, were Jim Ryun in 2006 and Vince Snowbarger in 1998, and both were regarded as being on the far right of the party.  Kevin Yoder, by contrast, was a fairly generic Republican who lost to a fairly generic Democrat, and his loss was regarded somewhat as a repudiation of the party as a whole.


That being said, I don't see any signs that Kansas is moving towards the Democrats on the presidential level.  Republicans may be weaker in Johnson County, but they seem to be gaining in most of the rest of the state.

[walleye26]

There are a couple main reasons.
In college I had a professor from Kansas. He said there are 3 parties: Democrats, Moderate Republicans, and Conservative Republicans. The moderate faction will break with them Dems if the conservatives go nuts (see Kelly, Laura). Right now, the moderates are pissed at the conservative faction (see Brownback, Sam, and Kobach, Kris).
The other main reason is that Kansas (at the state level) has a history of Democrats winning governors races and a few in Congress. Besides Ben Nelson and Brad Ashford, Nebraska doesn’t really have that.

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

As I’ve said time and time again. There is very little that separates Kansas from Nebraska with regards to major demographic indicators, wether it’s educational attainment, racial makeup, urbanisation, age, religion, political ID, ideological ID, etc. Additionally, both states have strong agricultural sectors. So the idea of Kansas becoming a Democratic state whilst Nebraska remains the way it is is unrealistic.

This idea of Kansas (and Utah) becoming a democratic state stems from this spergy method of extrapolating swings forward to future elections whilst ignoring or being unable to conceive “on the ground” realities of these areas.

[Smash255]

Overall, I would agree the differences aren't that stark.  However, the Kansas City suburbs have trended heavily to the Democrats, you do not have quite that same trend in Omaha.  Also as has been discussed you do not have quite the same infighting and divisive figures in the Nebraska GOP as you do in the Kansas GOP

[xavier110]

There are a couple main reasons.
In college I had a professor from Kansas. He said there are 3 parties: Democrats, Moderate Republicans, and Conservative Republicans. The moderate faction will break with them Dems if the conservatives go nuts (see Kelly, Laura). Right now, the moderates are pissed at the conservative faction (see Brownback, Sam, and Kobach, Kris).
The other main reason is that Kansas (at the state level) has a history of Democrats winning governors races and a few in Congress. Besides Ben Nelson and Brad Ashford, Nebraska doesn’t really have that.

Exactly this. The Dems rightly focus on Kansas vs. Nebraska because of political history. While similar demographically, the political dynamics of both states could not be more different.

The Republican party in Kansas is one of the most fractured state parties in the nation and has been that way for decades. The moderate sliver, when fully in line with the Dems, can deliver a Dem a narrow victory. The moderate faction also increasingly looks like the suburban Dem voter profile that's hardening across the nation after 2016. Romney-Clinton voters.

Just look at the state party's wiki page. It's an ongoing decades-long feud between the business friendly moderates and the Bible-thumpers, to be reductive.

[I’m not Stu]

Kansas is more Democratic than Nebraska.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

As I’ve said time and time again. There is very little that separates Kansas from Nebraska with regards to major demographic indicators, wether it’s educational attainment, racial makeup, urbanisation, age, religion, political ID, ideological ID, etc. Additionally, both states have strong agricultural sectors. So the idea of Kansas becoming a Democratic state whilst Nebraska remains the way it is is unrealistic.

This idea of Kansas (and Utah) becoming a democratic state stems from this spergy method of extrapolating swings forward to future elections whilst ignoring or being unable to conceive “on the ground” realities of these areas.

Yeah, but even if Kansas swung by the same amount as 2016 in every future election, it would take 69 (haha funny number) years and 17 elections before it flipped blue lol.

[RINO Tom]

Kansas is more Democratic than Nebraska.

Great analysis and contribution!

[Agonized-Statism]

Kansas is more Democratic than Nebraska.

Great analysis and contribution!

That's pretty much it tho

[pppolitics]

This might help

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-end-of-a-kansas-tradition-moderation/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nebraska-g-o-p-draws-a-tougher-map-for-obama/

[Roronoa D. Law]

As I’ve said time and time again. There is very little that separates Kansas from Nebraska with regards to major demographic indicators, wether it’s educational attainment, racial makeup, urbanisation, age, religion, political ID, ideological ID, etc. Additionally, both states have strong agricultural sectors. So the idea of Kansas becoming a Democratic state whilst Nebraska remains the way it is is unrealistic.

This idea of Kansas (and Utah) becoming a democratic state stems from this spergy method of extrapolating swings forward to future elections whilst ignoring or being unable to conceive “on the ground” realities of these areas.

Yeah, but even if Kansas swung by the same amount as 2016 in every future election, it would take 69 (haha funny number) years and 17 elections before it flipped blue lol.

That number is misleading since it does not account for a growing Hispanic population, growth in KC and Wichita, and younger whites in Kansas being more Democratic than previous generations.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

As I’ve said time and time again. There is very little that separates Kansas from Nebraska with regards to major demographic indicators, wether it’s educational attainment, racial makeup, urbanisation, age, religion, political ID, ideological ID, etc. Additionally, both states have strong agricultural sectors. So the idea of Kansas becoming a Democratic state whilst Nebraska remains the way it is is unrealistic.

This idea of Kansas (and Utah) becoming a democratic state stems from this spergy method of extrapolating swings forward to future elections whilst ignoring or being unable to conceive “on the ground” realities of these areas.

Yeah, but even if Kansas swung by the same amount as 2016 in every future election, it would take 69 (haha funny number) years and 17 elections before it flipped blue lol.

That number is misleading since it does not account for a growing Hispanic population, growth in KC and Wichita, and younger whites in Kansas being more Democratic than previous generations.

You could literally say the same thing about NE with only three words interchanged (KC, Wichita, and Kansas for Omaha, Lincoln, and Nebraska). And okay, let's assume that the swing margin increases 0.10% each election (a pretty generous long term amount). It still takes...decades for it to flip. Now, could some big giant wave swing happen? Sure! But Kansas's contrasting demographics (Johnson County, but also lots of rural voters) makes that unlikely.

[Roronoa D. Law]

As I’ve said time and time again. There is very little that separates Kansas from Nebraska with regards to major demographic indicators, wether it’s educational attainment, racial makeup, urbanisation, age, religion, political ID, ideological ID, etc. Additionally, both states have strong agricultural sectors. So the idea of Kansas becoming a Democratic state whilst Nebraska remains the way it is is unrealistic.

This idea of Kansas (and Utah) becoming a democratic state stems from this spergy method of extrapolating swings forward to future elections whilst ignoring or being unable to conceive “on the ground” realities of these areas.

Yeah, but even if Kansas swung by the same amount as 2016 in every future election, it would take 69 (haha funny number) years and 17 elections before it flipped blue lol.

That number is misleading since it does not account for a growing Hispanic population, growth in KC and Wichita, and younger whites in Kansas being more Democratic than previous generations.

You could literally say the same thing about NE with only three words interchanged (KC, Wichita, and Kansas for Omaha, Lincoln, and Nebraska). And okay, let's assume that the swing margin increases 0.10% each election (a pretty generous long term amount). It still takes...decades for it to flip. Now, could some big giant wave swing happen? Sure! But Kansas's contrasting demographics (Johnson County, but also lots of rural voters) makes that unlikely.

Contrasting demographics? The rural Kansas population is not growing it decreasing rapidly and if Wichita and KC metro continue moving the way as other metropolitan areas it doesn't look good for Republicans.