How did the GOP win MN-08 and MN-01? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 18, 2024, 07:58:35 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  How did the GOP win MN-08 and MN-01? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: How did the GOP win MN-08 and MN-01?  (Read 2412 times)
ON Progressive
OntarioProgressive
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,106
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -8.70

« on: November 21, 2018, 03:59:42 PM »

Though GOP trending, these two districts could have easily been won, but a series of unfortunate events occurred that screwed these two seats.

MN-01 was never really focused by the Dems, even though it was the most GOP out of all the seats possible to flip. Most funding was given to MN-02 and MN-03, and it was left to a veterans PAC to fund the race. Even then, the Dem was almost able to win, almost. Its very possible that he could have won if a few more $$ were sent, or the PV was just a bit higher.

MN-08 is a sad story. It fell victim to two catastrophes. 1 was the NYT polls. The poll was widly inaccurate, and gave the impression of a seat beyond competition, with money being pulled out completely due to it. The district was set as lean R from then on, and became a part of the trio of seats that were lost due to a lack of funding after some garbage polls(TX-23 and NE-02 make up the other members of this sad trio). The second problem was an indie, not just an indie, but a Left Wing one. Even though Radinovich was on the Left of the party, the indie still ran, and took 5% of the vote. Its terrible to extrapolate like this, but if we were to assume the indie wasnt running, and all votes went to the Dem, then the race would have been down to the wire.

There were a lot of seats that were barely lost, ones that we could have won by came up short in the end, but these two especially sting.


I mean the nyt poll was obvious bullsh**t and the fact cohn didn't even COMMENt on it was just dumb but remember in early october Joe released an internal BEFORE the nyt poll. It showed him up by 1. I moved it to lean R then. There was literally no reason to release that internal except to counteract the rightward shift of the district. Id expect atleast a +5 internal there.

The reason I brought up the NYT poll is because it was the sole reason the Democrats pulled out. It is also the reason the Ds pulled out of TX-23 and NE-02. A lack of funding was a large problem in these two seats, and this poll is largely the reason funding dried up here.

MN-01 was just a lack of attention, and could have easily be won, I mean, we lost it by about 1/2 a point.

Campaigns that base their decisions off public polling instead of trusting their own internals deserve to lose tbh. That's one of the dumbest mistake to make.

It was the idiots at the DCCC who made those decisions in fairness, not the campaign.



To answer the OP's question, it's not surprising those two were won by the GOP. They were open seats that Trump won by 15 (!) points and trending R fast.

MN-08, in particular, was hurt by Skip Sandman, a left-leaning indie, taking 4% of the vote from anti-mining lefties (Radinovich is pro-mining). Also, Stauber was able to cut into the St. Louis County margins by a healthy margin because he is a county commissioner there. Klobuchar won it by 36, Smith won it by 26, but Radinovich only won it by 19.
Logged
ON Progressive
OntarioProgressive
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,106
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -8.70

« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2018, 07:12:15 PM »

Rural areas have abandoned the Democratic party in the midwest. If they couldn't keep those seats in the 2018 election, they won't have much of a chance getting them back in the next decade or so.

Agreed. Minnesota is a perfect representation of the realignment that is taking place. I suspect that within the next ten years, the last remaining cells of Democratic support in rural areas will be completely extinguished, and they will become a solely urban-suburban party. By 2040, 60% of the nation's counties will be going 70, 80, or 90% Republican in each election.

That is a massive assumption. We still saw Dem strength in some rural areas (Evers won SW Wisconsin, Dems won two upstate NY seats and almost got a third, Democrats won one of the most rural CDs in the country in ME-02).

You also can't ignore minority-majority rural areas (like the Black Belt, Southern Texas, and Native reservations).

It would be delusional to suggest rural areas (white ones in particular) aren't trending away from Democrats, but we've been through periods of equal or worse polarization that eventually went away. I have no reason to believe this one is any more permanent.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 12 queries.