Yeah. If Dems do better with hispanics in Florida and Arizona but worse with wealthier socially liberal whites, they could lose Minnesota and New Hampshire. New Hampshire would make it a tie with the house of representatives picking the winner whereas just Minnesota would be enough for the republican nominee to win.
That said, I would still expect Florida to vote to the right of the nation for the time being.
The GOP did not lose New Hampshire because they didn't do well enough with wealthy Whites, what on Earth are you smoking?
$30k-$49.9k: 47% DEM, 45% GOP
$50k-$99.9k: 50% DEM, 46% GOP
$100k-$199.9k: 48% GOP, 47% DEM
In Minnesota, Trump's epic collapse among traditionally GOP voters in wealthier areas probably cost him the state (his "gains" with lower income voters and rural voters were so modest that they didn't even kind of make up for it), but you're completely off with New Hampshire.
Dude, trump gained 5 points on Obama in MN. It is preposterous to imply that his rural gains "didn't even kind of make up for" his suburban and urban losses(btw suburban/urban voters is not the same as "wealthy" voters) considering that they objectively more then made up for it.
Also, The differences among income in NH were tiny, it was like 5 points between the most conservative and most liberal bracket.
