Reply #5: Dakotas [View All]

Those states have an interesting political history that would get more coverage if they were bigger states, but I have some ideas.

One would be their obvious revulsion at the Democrats' positions on social and cultural issues since the mid-1960's. Unlike the old days, the farmers of the midwest simply don't see themsleves as locked in a permanent battle with eastern corporations and bankers anymore. The Dakotas are pretty homogenous and not very hospitable territory for the Democrats' liberalism on so called "God and country" issues. Still, the farm economy there tends to limit their conservatism somewhat. When prices are down and Republicans are in office a Democrat can be competitive in national elections: Dukakis lost S. Dakota by only 4 points in 1988; Clinton lost S. Dakota by only 4 points in 1992 and only 3 points in 1996. If the economy were to worsen, a centrist Democrat could definently win South Dakota. In a reversal of the historical trend, S. Dakota is now the more liberal state than N. Dakota, but Democrats with good personal skills (always important in small states) can and do win elections: Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad have proven tobe unbeatable. Oh, one more thing. I heard one time that N. Dakota had a much larger share of men than women, meaning that the gender gap in American politics that has existed since the 1980's would be a big benefit to Republicans in that state.