Is Minnesota trending Republican?

[bgwah]

Minnesota's rank among most Democratic states in Presidential elections by margin, 1984-2008:

1984: 1
1988: 5
1992: 10
1996: 11
2000: 16
2004: 15
2008: 20

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No, not in my opinion.

[Landslide Lyndon]

No.

But the Republicans seem to have a curious obsession with that state. Perhaps it's a ''feud'' that started in 1984, when it was the only one that dared not to vote for Saint Ronald Reagan.

[Alcon]

Obama's 2008 showing there was disappointing.  I don't care how "polarized" Minnesota is; there are more polarized states where he got bigger swings.  My answer is yes.  Not sharply, perhaps not permanently, but as micro-trends go this is a pretty developed one.

Democrats also just aren't performing up to snuff in the Twin Cities metros.  It has one of the smaller Democratic "rings" of comparable northern metros.

[minionofmidas]

Seems like it. Of course, the 1984 result is an outlyer.
For a while, it also used to do so at the state leg level... not anymore though.

1980: 4
1976: 9
1972: 2
1968: 3
1964: 16 (tied with Oregon)
1960: 18 (17 if you discount Alabama)
1956: 9
1952: 21

Well, it's not been more Republican than right now for more than 50 years.

[Ban my account ffs!]

And then you also have instances like Amy Klobuchar winning the election with the biggest margin in any senate race since WWII.

Or the fact that the Republicans lost like 38 seats in the state house in the past 3 elections despite "trending Republican"

I do believe the state was trending towards the Republicans because the exurbs were strongly Republican and they were the fastest growing areas while the DFL strongholds in the urban centers and northern Minnesota were not growing.

The strong shift towards the DFL in the inner ring suburbs over the past few elections has been pretty strong, though, and has made up the bulk of the major gains for the DFL in the state house and senate.  While places like Carver county and the exurbs like Lakeville or Farmington are still pretty Republican, places like Bloomington, Edina, and especially the eastern suburbs are much friendlier to the DFL than they were in the past... (Edina was a Republican stronghold, though decidedly of the moderate type).

Southern Minnesota is also trending towards the DFL while the northern part of the state, which had briefly entertained some Republicans, has fully switched back to their DFL roots.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Also, you have to look at how other states have really trended Democrat over the past 20 years.  The Northeast and California, which were traditionally Republican, have made a full swing to teh Democrats... while Minnesota had already made this swing back in the 30s and 40s.

I have no doubt Minnesota will continue to be a reliable state for the Democrats for a long time.  It's just that other regions of the country have "caught up".

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No, not in my opinion.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=61179.0

[Alcon]

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=61179.0

I assume we're talking federally.  State legislature is a different beast, and measuring one state against another can oftentimes be pretty meaningless.

[Mint]

Yes, but marginally so (thus far). It seems to be more of a case of polarization than anything else.

[Torie]

Obama's 2008 showing there was disappointing.  I don't care how "polarized" Minnesota is; there are more polarized states where he got bigger swings.  My answer is yes.  Not sharply, perhaps not permanently, but as micro-trends go this is a pretty developed one.

Democrats also just aren't performing up to snuff in the Twin Cities metros.  It has one of the smaller Democratic "rings" of comparable northern metros.

Ya, there just hasn't been the erosion in GOP voting strength in the Twin City suburbs that you see in most northern metro areas.  It is a bit odd. With the suburbs slowly gaining a greater share of the state population, and the iron range belt slowly losing share, that equates to an overall slow GOP secular  trend in my perception.  A modest counter trend is the Dem trend in Rochester.

[Brittain33]

Obama's 2008 showing there was disappointing.  I don't care how "polarized" Minnesota is; there are more polarized states where he got bigger swings.  My answer is yes.  Not sharply, perhaps not permanently, but as micro-trends go this is a pretty developed one.

We have to acknowledge that McCain advertised heavily in Minnesota at the end of summer for a significant amount of time without a corresponding response from Obama. That kind of disparity in his favor was very rare in '08 and showed results in Minnesota polling. If it moved 2 points to McCain, would that explain a lot? 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And please note the part of the state in the Fargo media market swung heavily to Obama.

[jokerman]

To some degree, progressivism has exhausted itself in Minnesota.  The state has top-notch education and healthcare systems, its civic life is vibrant, and overall governance is active and efficient.  People (especially the suburban middle class) tend to take these things for granted, however, and after the economic troubles pass you could see a swing to the right.  If, furthermore, rural areas were to experience some upsurge of social conservatism then the state as a whole could be favorable to the GOP in the future.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Other than the areas that are already voting very heavily Republican, rural Minnesota isn't big on "social conservatism" in the sense of the modern day Republican party, that is hardcore Religious Right. Michele Bachmann does NOT appeal to the social views of the Iron Range. Part of the reason the GOP is failing so bad in rural Minnesota in the state legislature and whatnot is they insist on running those type of nuts everywhere figuring any rural socially conservative district is going to elect such a person, then act shocked when it doesn't happen.

BTW the "trend" map on this site basically looks like a media market map. The counties with out of state media markets (where Obama was advertising a lot more than McCain) trended heavily to Obama. The lukewarm swings were mostly in areas that was one of the few parts of the country where McCain was spending more. I actually saw more Obama ads pre-caucus than for the general election. Obama only advertised for about two weeks after the caucus actually. So what can you conclude from that?

[Ogre Mage]

Perhaps at the Presidential level.  At the state level, no.

[minionofmidas]

The lukewarm swings were mostly in areas that was one of the few parts of the country where McCain was spending more.

It probably influenced things a little, yes.

And then you also have instances like Amy Klobuchar winning the election with the biggest margin in any senate race since WWII.

Irrelevant (for the question at hand, that is. Though telling of the state).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Irrelevant (for the question at hand, that is. Though telling of the state).

Also, you have to look at how other states have really trended Democrat over the past 20 years.  The Northeast and California, which were traditionally Republican, have made a full swing to teh Democrats... while Minnesota had already made this swing back in the 30s and 40s.

I have no doubt Minnesota will continue to be a reliable state for the Democrats for a long time.  It's just that other regions of the country have "caught up".

That's all trends and state-by-state comparisons are about, though.

[Nym90]

To some degree, progressivism has exhausted itself in Minnesota.  The state has top-notch education and healthcare systems, its civic life is vibrant, and overall governance is active and efficient.  People (especially the suburban middle class) tend to take these things for granted, however, and after the economic troubles pass you could see a swing to the right.  If, furthermore, rural areas were to experience some upsurge of social conservatism then the state as a whole could be favorable to the GOP in the future.

Good point.

Someone (Hubert Humphrey I think? Sleep deprivation....) once said something along the lines of that Democrats are a victim of their own success; Democratic policies improve the economy and reduce income equality and the resulting increase in average income causes people to vote more Republican.

The 2000 Presidential election would be another example of this. The economy was so good after 8 years of Clinton that it was a non-issue, allowing the focus to shift to social issues which favored Bush.

[Zarn]

We were in a recession, when Clinton left office.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The lukewarm swings were mostly in areas that was one of the few parts of the country where McCain was spending more.

It probably influenced things a little, yes.

And then you also have instances like Amy Klobuchar winning the election with the biggest margin in any senate race since WWII.

Irrelevant (for the question at hand, that is. Though telling of the state).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Irrelevant (for the question at hand, that is. Though telling of the state).

Also, you have to look at how other states have really trended Democrat over the past 20 years.  The Northeast and California, which were traditionally Republican, have made a full swing to teh Democrats... while Minnesota had already made this swing back in the 30s and 40s.

I have no doubt Minnesota will continue to be a reliable state for the Democrats for a long time.  It's just that other regions of the country have "caught up".

That's all trends and state-by-state comparisons are about, though.

The whole basis of this thread is on a state-by-state comparison.  It isn't about actual numbers of votes.

If we're just going to decide that Minnesota is trending Republican based on the rank of margin by state, it's safe to use the argument that other states simply made a more dramatic and faster swing from the Republicans to the Democrats, pushing Minnesota further back as more states make the swing.

Minnesota really can't be compared to other states, except maybe Wisconsin, because we have 1) much higher voter turnout (the highest in the nation), 2) A more polarized voting population than average, and 3)  A unique coalition of rural/urban/inner suburban DFLers vs. Suburban/Exurban central Minnesota Republicans.

Perhaps the weak swing to Obama was a combination of relatively fewer new voters compared to other states (because we already had very high turnout) and the fact that John McCain far outspent Obama in the state while also holding his convention here.

Also, Republicans had a good reason to go out and vote in this state:  to vote against Al Franken.  That also played a role:  A very close, competitive senate race.

I also agree that some of the trend was relative success.  We spend 35 years way ahead of the rest of the country, near or at number 1.  People tend to vote Republican when they are doing well.  That would explain why northern Minnesota was trending towards the Republicans... because they were doing well financially and the focus was on social issues.  But since 2004 that trend has reversed completely.. and northern Minnesota is safer for the DFL than it has been in quite a long time.