Will the Twin Cities make Minnesota a reliably D state at the federal level?

[SInNYC]

I don't know that much about Minnesota, but the obvious answer is that it depends on the suburbs.  The actual "Twin Cities" themselves have been reliably Democratic for a long time, but the suburban areas were shockingly Republican for Minnesota's "liberal reputation" that you alluded to until relatively recently.  Even in 2020, Trump won a lot of suburban areas (thought by a lot less than Romney, of course).  Despite what this forum says, I have never found people from Minnesota to be more inherently liberal than people from similar areas in Wisconsin or any other Midwest state.  So, if the suburbs continue to drift left faster than the rural areas, obviously the GOP can never catch up.  However, if the 2024 GOP nominee had a rebound in the suburbs nationally, Minneapolis would come along, IMO ... it's not as "special" as people suggest it as when doing this type of analysis.  Now, I am not sure that such a GOP rebound would be enough to carry the state, but I certainly wouldn't call it "reliably D" in an environment that favors the GOP heavily (which is very possible if Biden remains this unpopular and tries to run again).

This.
There are plenty of people in the Twin Cities suburbs  who are scared to enter the city even before the protests last summer. Enough of them currently vote DFL, but I can see them voting R if they arent seen as the stupid party.

I do think MN is one of the most liberal states (many other blue states are blue because of demographics, not liberalism), but this is partly because MN also has the Iron Range and Rochester, but the Iron Range is declining and Rochester is kind of like the suburbs voting-wise. The DFL also needs to come to agreement about how to unify environmentalists and union workers, instead of ignoring rural areas like the national party does.

[SInNYC]

I don't know that much about Minnesota, but the obvious answer is that it depends on the suburbs.  The actual "Twin Cities" themselves have been reliably Democratic for a long time, but the suburban areas were shockingly Republican for Minnesota's "liberal reputation" that you alluded to until relatively recently.  Even in 2020, Trump won a lot of suburban areas (thought by a lot less than Romney, of course).  Despite what this forum says, I have never found people from Minnesota to be more inherently liberal than people from similar areas in Wisconsin or any other Midwest state.  So, if the suburbs continue to drift left faster than the rural areas, obviously the GOP can never catch up.  However, if the 2024 GOP nominee had a rebound in the suburbs nationally, Minneapolis would come along, IMO ... it's not as "special" as people suggest it as when doing this type of analysis.  Now, I am not sure that such a GOP rebound would be enough to carry the state, but I certainly wouldn't call it "reliably D" in an environment that favors the GOP heavily (which is very possible if Biden remains this unpopular and tries to run again).

This.
There are plenty of people in the Twin Cities suburbs  who are scared to enter the city even before the protests last summer. Enough of them currently vote DFL, but I can see them voting R if they arent seen as the stupid party.

I do think MN is one of the most liberal states (many other blue states are blue because of demographics, not liberalism), but this is partly because MN also has the Iron Range and Rochester, but the Iron Range is declining and Rochester is kind of like the suburbs voting-wise. The DFL also needs to come to agreement about how to unify environmentalists and union workers, instead of ignoring rural areas like the national party does.

I know this is commonly thrown out there, so not coming at you, but how is “because of demographics” not “because of liberalism”?  A religious and socially moderate Black person who is a loyal Democrat and who supports redistributionist economic policies is AT LEAST as “liberal” as a White NOVA voter who thinks the GOP is too religious or “racist” but doesn’t want taxes to be raised on the top bracket.

I can understand why you say this, since it has shades of McConnell's recent statements. However, I and I think most who say this dont see southern blacks ideologically on the left (I also dont count NOVA whites as being on the left). While I would consider Warnock on the left (though a relatively unrepresented 'religious left'), there are plenty of southern blacks who aren't particularly left on many issues and would join Rs in yelling communist at the sight of anything redistributionist - Stacey Abrams is probably in the center-right of the party. A rural upper midwest liberal would love Bernie, but a southern black would not. They may be even more loyal Democrats, but that doesnt make them liberals, and I think more would vote R if Rs werent the way they are.

I do agree 101% with one implied aspect of your post - the national media (including NYT) often deems a socially liberal economically non-redistributive person to be the left while the converse is a centrist. I violently disagree with that.