Moose Droppings: Election, Part II

The election of 1964 was an anomaly. It was a referendum on the assassination of President Kennedy. Lyndon Johnson won 44 states and the District of Columbia (which was voting in its first-ever presidential election.)

Among those 44 states were Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. These eleven states have never again voted for the Democratic candidate for president.

Here is a more in depth look at the voting record of these states. In all cases the 1 represents the election of 1964.

Republican - Democrat

Alaska
1960-2004
12 elections, 11 - 1

Idaho
1952-2004
14 elections, 13 –1

Indiana
1940-2004
17 elections, 16 - 1

Kansas
1940-2004
17 elections, 16 – 1

Nebraska
1940-2004
17 elections, 16 – 1

North Dakota
1940-2004
17 elections, 16 – 1

Oklahoma
1952-2004
14 elections, 13 - 1

South Dakota
1940-2004
17 elections, 16 – 1

Utah
1952-2004
14 elections, 13 – 1

Virginia
1952-2004
14 elections, 13 – 1

Wyoming
1952-2004
14 elections, 13 – 1

If this current election does not have an "outside factor", as so many of the anomaly elections do (1992, 1964, 1948, 1932, 1912), will any of those eleven states break their streak?

It is an odd thing about these six elections I have just listed. Something outside the norm influenced the outcome, and in all cases, a Democrat won.

So the question I would ask the two parties leaders is this: "If all conditions are normal, why would you waste your money campaigning in these states?"

If history is our guide, McCain should win them all without spending a dollar--and Obama will lose them all no matter what he spends.

In the interest of full disclosure, Minnesota and the District of Columbia are lined up on the Democratic side.

Democrat - Republican

Minnesota
1960-2004 12
elections, 11 – 1

District of Columbia
1964-2004
11 elections, 11 -0

Does any of this sound possible in a land of free choice? Is it true that we are so set in our way of thinking that the ground has to shake for a change to occur?

Is either candidate really a man of difference and can people so entrenched in history respond to change?

I know this entry presents many questions, but the time to ask them is before we cast our votes.