Some are trying to understand Obama and the Hillary states in terms of the red-blue dichotomy. I think that Elazar's State Political Culture typology works much better.
Elazar wrote that each state has its own political culture shaped by the original settlers in the state. The Puritan and later the Scandinavians settled in the North and migrated across the country. They were motivated by the belief that they could establish "a city on the hill", that politics was a place for improving the community. States with a moralistic political culture (blue on the map) have high levels of political turnout, more progressive politics, and less control from party elites.
The individualistic states (yellow on the map) were settled by the Irish and the Jews who came to US to improve conditions for themselves and their family. Politics was seen as one route to improve one's position. States with this culture tend to have higher levels of corruption, have more control by party elites and lower levels of turnout.
The traditional states (orange on the map) were shaped more by the plantation lifestyle, rather a particular immigrant group. Their culture is based on preserving hierarchy and status quo. They also have high levels of party control, which explains Hillary's good show down there.
So, if you look at Utah, not as a red state, but a moralistic state, then Tuesday's primary makes a lot more sense.
Elazar's Map
Tuesday's Primary
