Day 23: Minnesota

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ah, I get to do my own state!

One of the few bright spots of the last election for me, was seeing Kerry still take Minnesota despite many Republicans being sure they had it in the bag. Not to mention a gain of 13 seats in the State House for us.

Have I been proven right in that the trend Republicans kept pointing too was vastly overstated, and has probably peaked as of now like I've been saying?

One thing that is interesting to notice though is that counties in Minnesota flip a lot, just look at the earlier elections' maps and compare that to 2004. Counties in the state do do a lot of shifting, but it's usually a zerosum result, resulting in a Dem-leaning swing state.

And will the Republicans ever be able to break the DFL stronghold of the Northeast, which many delusionally seem to think they can, but never do?

[danwxman]

Why do the counties flip so much?

And what factors lead to the DFL gaining seats in the state house?

The PA Democrats need to do that, badly.

[Erc]

It's inevitable that the Republicans will take Minnesota in the next twenty years, just by sheer luck.

I was surprised by the size of Kerry's win in MN myself...but not by the actual outcome, as I pretty much always thought Kerry would win MN no matter what.

EDIT:  Looking back over my old predictions, I actually had the final results dead-on at two points over the course of 2004:

October 30th (after the Mason-Dixon polls showing Bush being down in WI & NH--I later, incorrectly, chose not to believe these).

February 22nd -- at the very beginning of the election season, I got it right by sheer luck.

[MaC]

It's the longest going Democratic streak for Presidential elections, although Mondale only won by a few thousand,...
Anyways, it seems like a wasted effort for Republicans, for now at least.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Why do the counties flip so much?

And what factors lead to the DFL gaining seats in the state house?

The PA Democrats need to do that, badly.

The county shifts are because of shifting population and issues. But look at the 1960 map. Kennedy won Scott county (with over 60%) and lost Hennepin while still narrowly winning the state! This would be like a Democrat getting over 60% in Orange County while losing Los Angeles county and winning only narrowly statewide.

But Scott is a growing suburban hell, and that's why it's shifted so far to the right. Meanwhile as social issues got more prominent, the Twin Cities started refusing to vote for Republicans (they're already literally a third party in Minneapolis, where the Greens are larger), while outstate shifted Republican. But outstate, and the DFL areas also lost population, while the outer suburbs gained them, yet the middle suburbs shifted DFL. Still interesting to contrast maps.

The DFL did so well last election because they got their act together and the Republicans didn't. They were so focused on the presidential election while the DFL focused on both and combined the GOTV efforts to help in all categories. Quite an accomplishment, while the GOP just wasted efforts. Also the House Republican leadership was largely a bunch of dickheads who pissed off the state. And the GOP incumbents who lost ran horrible campaigns and often just tried to resort to pulling out wedge issues, which doesn't work as well in rural Minnesota as people think.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Also, the GOP has "Bathroom Bachmann".

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

ah yes, that loony. There used to be a State Rep. named Arlon Lindner who was just as much of a loon and embarassment. The GOP denied him the endorsement for his House seat, he lost the primary, and was gone. I wonder if they'll try to sink Bachmann too.

[Colin]

Is the Independence Party still around or have they been completely destroyed after Ventura left office?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

They're still around but are pretty meaningless and I'd be suprised if they top 5% for a statewide office again, they have only one office holder remaining, a State Senator, and she's a former Republican who lost the nomination for her seat, then ran on the Independence ticket and won the 3-way race. She initially caucused with the Republicans, but the idiot Senate Minority Leader kicked her out saying only Republicans are allowed in it. So she now caucuses with the DFL and will probably run under the DFL ticket next election, and will most likely win. So the Republicans just threw away a Senate seat for no reason.

[jacob_101]

I though Bush had a shot in MN this past election, but alas he lost by  almost 4% I think...so I guess I was wrong and would have to say that MN will lean Democratic and I don't see any trends showing otherwise.

[jokerman]

Why do the counties flip so much?

And what factors lead to the DFL gaining seats in the state house?

The PA Democrats need to do that, badly.

It's called populism.  Look at the 1948 National Democratic Platform.  That's what we've lost.

[Jake]

Good point Preston. The Democrats in PA can look to that as the reason they lost the Southwest and almost the Northeast this past year.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Good point Preston. The Democrats in PA can look to that as the reason they lost the Southwest and almost the Northeast this past year.

Pretty much. The sheer amount of vote splitting that goes on in the old industrial parts of PA these days is pretty impressive actually.

[minionofmidas]

Why do the counties flip so much?

And what factors lead to the DFL gaining seats in the state house?

The PA Democrats need to do that, badly.

The county shifts are because of shifting population and issues. But look at the 1960 map. Kennedy won Scott county (with over 60%) and lost Hennepin while still narrowly winning the state! This would be like a Democrat getting over 60% in Orange County while losing Los Angeles county and winning only narrowly statewide.

But Scott is a growing suburban hell, and that's why it's shifted so far to the right.

I suppose it was probably still quite rural back then.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On what measure?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I suppose it was probably still quite rural back then.

A large part still is. In fact that's where my mom grew up, on a farm there just next to the border of LeSeuer county. A couple months ago I was up there at a family reunion held at my grandfather's who still lives on that farm, and I thought it was pretty funny how the road signs said these were Scott county roads, meaning the farm is technically part of the metro, despite the area being as rural as you can get.

Also whenever I drive up to Minneapolis on US-169, I can smell cow manure shortly after seeing the sign that says Scott County from a nearby farm. So a good portion of the country is still rural, probably a majority in land area. But that's not where most of the population lives.

On what measure?

The Greens have more elected office holders. There are two Greens on the city council. There isn't a single elected Republican office holder in the entire city.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I suppose it was probably still quite rural back then.

And overwhelmingly Catholic

[MissCatholic]

Counties that the democrats lost barely that they could easily win in 2008.
numbers show the margin that the republicans won by that both parties polled over 45%

Traverse= 50
Grant = 37
Clay = 1376
Aitkin = 229
Red Lake = 201
Pennington = 650
Pope = 2
Stevens = 209
Anoka = 11627
Dakota = 4324
Renville = 643
Yellow Medicine = 79
Murray = 501
Watorwan = 456
Olmsted = 4086
Washington = 4386
Wabasha = 572
Goodhue = 1031
Le Sueur = 1280
Lincoln = 178
Houston = 355
Jackson = 372

Grand Total = 32,614

This is something that the democrats have to address. the dems why 22 counties in 2004  but they lose 22 counties very narrowly. they need to get organised in these counties and overturn these defeats. if we can do this then we can spend more money in red america.

[Alcon]

MissCatholic,

I don't get this "county" thing.  Why do votes in close counties matter more than votes in other counties?

[minionofmidas]

Yeah, I've sorta wondered the same...maybe because the maps won't look as unicoloured?

[MissCatholic]

MissCatholic,

I don't get this "county" thing.  Why do votes in close counties matter more than votes in other counties?

republicans believe that winning blue america can only be achieved by doing one thing and thats taking each county alone and winning each one individually. we should adopt this mentality and not rely wholly on the populated cities.

If the democrats could overturn defeats in Dakota, Anoka and Washington then the republicans would have no large counties to rely on. they would simple have the rural vote. but take a look at nebraska. no investent has made it impossibel to win as rural america is so far away from the democrats.

To be successful in South Dakota we have to try and win 15-20 counties in 2008. North Dakota, the aim should be 10 counties. Wyoming 2, utah 2, idaho 3. we arent going to win the state but we should give the party organisers a target. if they fail to achieve that then they are removed.

Minnesota and Wisconsin will vote republican if we dont change the strategy. we need to go into these rural counties and try and win as many as possible.

The color thing is important as it shows how strong the party is with rural america. if we cant win rural counties in Wisconsin and Minnesota then how are we to win in Georgia, North Carolina etc.

[Inverted Things]

MissCatholic,

I don't get this "county" thing.  Why do votes in close counties matter more than votes in other counties?

republicans believe that winning blue america can only be achieved by doing one thing and thats taking each county alone and winning each one individually. we should adopt this mentality and not rely wholly on the populated cities.

If the democrats could overturn defeats in Dakota, Anoka and Washington then the republicans would have no large counties to rely on. they would simple have the rural vote. but take a look at nebraska. no investent has made it impossibel to win as rural america is so far away from the democrats.

To be successful in South Dakota we have to try and win 15-20 counties in 2008. North Dakota, the aim should be 10 counties. Wyoming 2, utah 2, idaho 3. we arent going to win the state but we should give the party organisers a target. if they fail to achieve that then they are removed.

Minnesota and Wisconsin will vote republican if we dont change the strategy. we need to go into these rural counties and try and win as many as possible.

The color thing is important as it shows how strong the party is with rural america. if we cant win rural counties in Wisconsin and Minnesota then how are we to win in Georgia, North Carolina etc.

Speaking as someone who grew up in Washington County, here are the politics of the region:

There are people who live in Minneapolis or Saint Paul, then there are people who live in the suburbs.

People who live in the suburbs have made the choice to live there rather than the cities. As such, they are generally richer and prefer to be somewhat secluded from the people of the city. These are the sorts of people who prefer republicans.

People who live in the city either do not have the means to live in the suburbs (in which case they are likely to be democrats), or prefer the city (in which case they are likely to be democrats).

Point being: don't pick on counties. They are arbitrary boundaries which are meaningless in the context of the larger region.

A winning strategy for the democrats would be to look for the most largely populated regions of state they barely won or barely lost, and pumping the GOTV efforts there. Getting single mothers in populated regions to vote would be the best thing the democrats could do.

[MissCatholic]

I definitely agree that single mothers and female single small business owners are the people we need to get out to vote. i know alot of women that have never voted as they feel they aren't represented by neither party. the republicans did a good job in Ohio with single women small business owners.

[12th Doctor]

Ah, I get to do my own state!

One of the few bright spots of the last election for me, was seeing Kerry still take Minnesota despite many Republicans being sure they had it in the bag. Not to mention a gain of 13 seats in the State House for us.

Have I been proven right in that the trend Republicans kept pointing too was vastly overstated, and has probably peaked as of now like I've been saying?

One thing that is interesting to notice though is that counties in Minnesota flip a lot, just look at the earlier elections' maps and compare that to 2004. Counties in the state do do a lot of shifting, but it's usually a zerosum result, resulting in a Dem-leaning swing state.

And will the Republicans ever be able to break the DFL stronghold of the Northeast, which many delusionally seem to think they can, but never do?

Why does the north-eastern part of your state always go democratic?

Economics... its one of the very few places in America that still holds true to the old union labor ideal.  I'm not quite sure why.  Perhaps BRTD would be able to answer that better.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

the GOP has never since the Great Depression had any type of political machine in the northeast of Minnesota, or the whole region (like the part of Wisconsin nearby). The union-controlled political machines still dominate the area's politics thorougly. Also since the evangelicals have never had a real presence there, it's still anti-religious right, and the main city Duluth is somewhat socially liberal (well they did have a deal where they fought to keep the Ten Commandments posted on their city hall, but for the most part), so that's made it more difficult to make inroads there on social issues. The area also tends to be anti-war (the Berrigan brothers are from Lake county) and pro-environmentalist.

[Ban my account ffs!]

People up here in northern Minnesota are very anti-big business and very skeptical of corporations and Republicans in general.

It's always about the "little guy" and the "underdog".  The Democrats continue to do well in rural Minnesota because Democrats talk about what rural Minnesotans want to hear:  Alternative fuels, farm aid, preserving the family farm, preserving jobs, supporting unions, supporting gun rights, strong schools (which are often the center of small communities), improving health care, fair taxes, property tax relief.

Meanwhile, you have the Republicans screaming about Indians' rights and abortion... and nobody cares about that.  That's why, for example, Republicans struggled to poll 30% in Bemidji, where I'm from.

You will continue to see Minnesota slide towards the Democrats as the Republicans collapse from within.  They are already reduced to a very small presence in Minnesota on historical standards (Norm Coleman and Tim Pawlenty are basically the only two left).... and there is still a lot of anger at Republicans here, and that won't change any time soon.