Not according to your earlier statement.
Then I’m confused. I’ve driven across them twice, both through Lincoln and Bismarck, and the Rockies don’t arrive until Wyoming or Colorado
(oh I see: “Great Plains/Mountain states.” By that I mean the combination terrain of Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana, with plains in their east)
OK, you said that the Midwest is ‘geographically those states who lie entirely between the Appalachians and the Rockies. This excludes Pennsylvania, Kentucky and the Great Plains/Mountain states.’
Thus, the MIdwest excludes the Great Plains states.
To which I replied that the Great Plains states lie between those two mountain ranges and should not be excluded.
To which you said that Nebraska is a Midwest state, which contradicted your first statement.
ETA: OK, you clarified what you meant.
Culture (language, economic production, settlement history, etc. etc.) is geography, too. When you folks say “geography,” you mean physical geography.
(Sorry, I teach human geography…couldn’t help myself!).
“Midwest” is the classic example of a cognitive/vernacular region — it exists only in our minds, so there is disagreement about its extent (obviously). The absolutely largest possible definition would include everything between the Appalachians and the Rockies, from the Ohio River (and its approximate latitude extended westward) to the Canadian border. But many (most?) people would NOT include the Great Plains, and some would also exclude the heavily forested northern reaches of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
As others have noted, the boundary between the Midwest and the Great Plains is pretty distinct — start with the Gulf of Mexico shoreline of Mexico, and extend this straight north. (The Gulf is the main source of moisture for air masses traveling eastward).
In other words….the Northwest Territory, extended a little eastward into the Buffalo, New York and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania vicinities, and a little westward into eastern Kansas and Nebraska. (Lawrence, Kansas looks and feels Midwestern, but Topeka, just a few miles west, does not).
Maybe we should just switch to Joel Garreaus definition of the “Breadbasket” in Nine Nations of North America, then.
Here’s a map of a 300-mile radius from Chicago. I’m pretty confident that this coincides with the smallest area almost anyone would say is “Midwest”. (Note it includes about half of Ohio. I still insist all of Ohio is very Midwest, but not everyone shares my opinion, clearly).
One thing is for sure: Chicago is the “capital” of the Midwest.
Please quantify ‘looks and feels Midwestern’.
Lawrence is a college town, by far the most liberal enclave in Ruby-red Kansas. Topeka is the capital city of the state. Of course they are going to look and feel different, but it’s not because of the 30-mile distance between them.
ISWYDT
I’m more concerned about the quarter of Idahoans that think they’re Midwest.
It’s partly because Lawrence is on the eastern side (barely) of that rainfall divide, while Topeka is (barely) on the western side. I’m exaggerating the sharpness of the divide, but not by much — you feel the wooded valleys and medium-sized farms giving way to “big sky country” — more dominated by grasslands (mostly agricultural nowadays) — as you drive west on I-70 from Lawrence toward Topeka.
This is reflected somewhat in the cultures, too — Lawrence was largely settled by Massachusetts anti-slavers; it has maple street trees and old houses that resemble ones you’d see in Illinois or Indiana. Topeka is more about railroad tracks fading into the horizon, beckoning towards the west.
Maybe they live in the second 25% of the state going from left to right and misunderstood the question
In any case, it’s clear that the arbitrary unit of “state” is inadequate to capture a cognitive/vernacular conceptual region. A county-level map of survey results would be much less contentious.
As for Idaho….thanks to Geoguessr, I now recognize that a “Wisconsin-esque farm landscape with dramatic, snow-capped peaks in the background” is invariably in Idaho. So, parts of it really do look like a Midwest/Rockies mash-up.
True.
Lawrence was founded in 1854 by the New England Emigrant Aid Society in an effort to keep the territory free from slavery. It is said that Lawrence is one of the few cities in the U.S. founded strictly for political reasons. Cite
But guess what?
Topeka was one of the most successful of the Kansas towns founded by the New England Emigrant Aid Company (NEEAC) to promote the Free-State cause. While other NEEAC towns, like Lawrence, were similarly important in the Bleeding Kansas era, Topeka became the site of the Free-State legislature and the proposed Topeka Constitution. Cite
Topeka was also founded in 1854.
Got it. Well, take a “drive” on Google Maps Street View along I-70, and maybe you’ll see what I mean. I admit it becomes more obvious as you approach Manhattan (60 miles west of Topeka), but the beginnings of that Great Plains “big sky” landscape are noticeable outside of Topeka, as well.
I’ve driven that road many, many times. I am fully aware of the geographical changes of Kansas. And, yes, eastern Kansas is significantly more hilly and rolling than central and western Kansas.
I would submit that Topeka looks a whole lot more like Lawrence than Manhattan.
I still want to know what ‘looks and feels Midwestern.’ I would venture a guess that residents of Chicago don’t think that their home city looks and feels Midwestern, but that’s just a conjecture on my part.
Good question. And, I’ve lived in Lawrence, and Chicago. 
As others have said, things like more corn than wheat (typically). Both in urban settings and rural ones, landscapes (streets, etc.) that are bigger and more widely spaced than in the Eastern Seaboard, but less than jn the Great Plains. Fewer trees than in the former, but more than in the latter.
Strict grids in the streets — usually oriented exactly on cardinal directions — in the older parts of any town or city. (This is true in much of the West, too, but not as common in the East.)
Downtowns — and old residential neighborhoods near them —generally built between 1830 and 1890 — thus, more recent than most places further west, but younger than most places further east.
Chicagoans know they’re in the very heart of the Midwest (in my experience), but yes, they know they’re special — like residents of any “capital” (in this case, economic/population capital, not literally a political one). The Board of Trade “breadbasket” designs are one reminder (in the heart of the Loop) — as is the wind coming off the fields beyond the horizon. And the flatness.
The flatness is…midwestern?
If so, then I would think that the Plains states (Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota) would certainly qualify as Midwest.
Well, I just meant that as one way even Chicagoans are reminded of what region they’re in.
As others have noted, a big clue is “distance between towns” — basically, population density. Midwest towns tend to be further apart than Eastern ones, but closer to each other than Great Plains (or Southwest, or Mountain) towns.
(The southern border approximates that of the old Confederacy.)
Wasn’t always that empy. Used to be little Meredith Wilson and Willa Cather market towns, surrounded by family farms with barns and L-shaped houses.