How did the GOP win MN-08 and MN-01?

[lfromnj]

inb4 IceSpear or one of his acolytes says muh racist hicks

That too. Trump whipped the Racist MN Hicks into a frenzy. A lot of them even turned against the super popular Klobuchar and voted for her no name opponent because of the (R)!

Did Klobuchar win the dustricts? I thought she would carry Dems over the top here, but even she underperformed compared to 2012 and lost support in rural areas.

She won every district. The 8th and 6th were by a couple hundred votes. The 8th and 1st were like by 11 points. Anyway I think walz survives 2018 but Nolan loses. He had some harassment scandal.

Also forgot. Far lefties didn't want to vote for radinovich and voted 3rd party green despite the fact that Joe would have been one of the farthest left candidates relative to their district. Radinovich wasn't a socon either he was basically a person who lost their seat for gay marriage.
Basically everyday in MN 8th some old 80 year old white man dies. This is good for most areas for democrats but in the iron range the people are loyal and die hard democrats and still wouldn't vote for a Republican due to the unions.

[lfromnj]

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.

[lfromnj]

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 wasn't a campaign though, it was the morons at the DCCC who also lit millions of dollars on fire in VA-10 to ensure that Wexton won by 12 (god forbid if she "only" won by 10 instead!)

I think the money for Rad went to Finkenauer?
Honestly that one wasn't a bad move considering blum might have squeaked it out and by then he would have entrenched. Also Mn 8th would have been a pain in the ass to hold unless they could gerrymander it to washington county.

[lfromnj]

But the DCCC has their internal polls too, right?

Yep- I very much doubt that the DCCC would pull out based purely on a NYT poll in what october? With the amount of polling resources, modelling, credit history and just general institutional knowledge they'd base it on a lot more than that.

Going from my experiences with Labour, targeting decisions are made after a rather comprehensive combination of lots of various data, and general political knowledge.

Besides it was still the right decision by the DCCC- I don't believe that any spending investment of less than 300-500K would have made a big enough difference to cut a 5% margin, especially when the Democrats had a weak candidate

You're giving them far too much credit. They pulled out solely due to the NYT polls, lol. If not, why would they also have pulled out of NE-02 and TX-23, two races which ended up being razor thin Republican wins but where the Republicans had big leads in the NYT polls? I highly doubt the NYT polling errors all just happened to be perfectly correlated with the DCCC internal polling errors.

Plus the NRCC also pulled out of TX-23 because they thought it was safe due to muh NYT poll. So their internals just happened to be in sync with the NYT too? What a coincidence.

don't forget the texas 31st.
MUH John carter was up by 15 points. Its SO OBVIOUS That her INTERNALS which show her down by 6 are impossible and John Carter is a #strong candidate who can't lose to some 40 year old women.

[lfromnj]

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.

actually they have a decent shot of getting one them back due to good old fashioned gerrymandering.

[lfromnj]

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.

FYI both the rural black belt counties and Southern Texas trended R in the election.

[lfromnj]

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.

actually they have a decent shot of getting one them back due to good old fashioned gerrymandering.

Well, one district will be eliminated, and that will inevitably be skewed towards rural areas since they're stagnant in population compared to the M-SP area. Whenever Peterese retires or loses re-election, his district probably gets disproportionatley eliminated and we get two rural districts that are south and north (so the current MN-08 will get MORE Republican with more of western/central Minnesota added). I think the likeliest scenario is two rural districts (Hagedorn and Stauber, both R), one exurban district (Emmer's, R), one exurban/suburban district (Rep-elect Craig's, D), one suburban district (Rep-elect Phillip's, D) and two urban districts (both D). Phillip's district certainly is solidifying itself as D territory while Craig's district will likely be contested for a long time.

You seem to be assuming MN Dems won't gerrymander the map.

Maybe they will, but they can only gerrymander so much. The best they're going to get is a 4-3 map in their favor. Maybe they can shore up Craig's district and make Emmer's a little more competitive. If they win 5 or more the GOP utterly screwed up in one of the races.

LUL 4-3 in their favor is the fair map, admittedly on of those 3 is competitive though. The Gerry is 5-2, though once again one of those 5 is competitive.

yeah a fair map is a 3  safe D 1 Lean to Likely D and 3 R.
Gerrymander would be 2Likely D  2 Safe D and 1 Lean D and 2 Titanium R.
Basic idea is one district that runs along the West and north and south halfish which is mostly rural. Hagedorn or whoever beats Peterson run here
Exurban district for Emmer basicailly borders the the new 1st district but is closer to Minneapolis.
the core St paul Minneapolis districts have the same core but about 1/3 is baconstripped out to take rural hicks and give them Ilhan Omar as a representative just to trigger em.
Phillips mostly stays the same and takes a bit of inner Minneapolis.
Craig takes a bit more of St Paul itself due to the baconstrip for the rurals for the 5th
The new 7th(aka iron range) is a district that runs from cook to St louis to outer minneapolis
I don't know about Olmstead though.

Its obviously a baconstrip but it works.