Montana is said to be safe-and-solid for Obama this evening, but indications are that South Dakota could topple for Hillary. If this turns out to be true, it would suggest, of course, that there are more white, undereducated, working- class “low-information voters” (i.e., dug-in rubes) in South Dakota than Montana.
But why, I wonder? What is it about Montana that has lessened the prevalence of “low information” voting patterns? Why are voters less racist there than in South Dakota? (Blacks represent .09% of the state’s populations; Hispancs comprise 2.1%.) It’s like there are two countries out there.
The core factor, I suspect, is that Hillary will benefit in South Dakota from the the usual under-educated older female gender-loyalty factor, which is now in an Alamo-like mindset with even her staunchest supporters realizing she’s done.