[bpjam]

North Dakota is a RED state, with two BLUE senators. Montana is a RED state, with two BLUE senators. South Dakota is a RED state, with (finally) one BLUE senator. These are travesties and these are the difference between a majority and a minority. Our inability to develop candidates in these states in literally stunning to those of us outside the area. How can people vote 65% for Bush and then vote for a guy who raises taxes and supports terrorist-appeasement and partial birth abortion by voting to put people like Reid, Schumer, Levin and others in Chairmanships in the Senate!??!

[clifcrds]

I have lived in North and South Dakota all my life and the reasons contrasting. Yes they support a few liberal issues (the main one being abortion) but these Dakota candidates also support the 2nd Amendment. But seeing as these states are rural, the Democrats historically have been the party of the farmer, and just what the article stated . . . that they bring home the bacon for the farmers is it in a nutshell.

That being said, it is no different then the Democrats bringing home the substanance for their dependent wards of the Great Nanny State in the big US cities.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." - Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler (18th century Scottish historian)