This is a semi-rant that I posted onto a dead thread on another blog (either atrios or myDD).
The abortion ban passed in South Dakota by a quite large margin, and it had relatively high bipartisan support. However, the state has been dominated by the GOP lately, and it wasn't always this way. There is no reason for Republicans to have a monopoly over poor, rural voters (in fact, didn't it used to be the other way around?)
Can we take South Dakota in the next state election cycle? And if so, can this basic strategy be used in similar states?
It's a "What's Wrong with Kansas?" state. It's a net importer of federal aid - some people have suggested that the populations of states such as South Dakota would be half what they were if they weren't so heavily subsidized. South Dakota is a cheap state to run in - Rapid City and Sioux Falls, not including suburbs/nearby cities, account for over half the population.
I don't know the ideological breakdowns of the cities themselves, but cities can be made to be liberal quite easily due to our propensity to, you know, pay for fire departments and stuff. Sioux Falls may be a Democratic city - the county went 57/42 Bush, but that's for the county, not the city, and it was against (in my opinion) a horrendous Democratic candidate. Winning in South Dakota is easy as hell - crank up the turnout in the cities and remind voters statewide that Democrats, not Republicans, are the ones to trust for rural/poor support and education programs.
The two population centers (Rapid City and Sioux Falls) are on the opposite sides of the state, and the state is significantly large. I don't know how often repeaters are used for radio and TV signals - I'd imagine that, except for maybe Pierre, repeaters are the main source of media in most of the state. This makes SD even cheaper.
South Dakota has a significant Native American population. They tend to vote heavily Democratic, but have horrendous turnout. The state Democratic party needs to throw a major carrot in front of Native American voters and get them energized - something that, for obvious historical reasons, may be easier said than done. Nevertheless, it's important to try.
As for the pro-life backlash (and there would be one), counter with basic pro-privacy talking points (and hammer the raped-by-her-dad 12-year old theme). Voters in these states (i.e. the Plains and the West) love privacy and will support a maverick liberal. Want proof? McGovern lasted in South Dakota forever, and a sycophant like Daschle was pathetically easy to defeat once challenged by a real candidate.