Minnesota vs. Michigan

[/]

There doesn't seem to be a firm consensus on this.

[CountyTy90]

Minnesota.

Minnesota's legislature is often controlled by the DFL, while Michigan's has been under Republican rule for some time.

Obviously the large cities of each state are dominated by the Democrats and the burbs are swingy, but the real difference is the rural areas: look at rural Minnesota; the DFL controls a lot of the rural, northern seats, even in the farming areas. You just don't see that in Michigan, save some parts of the UP where you have ancestral mining Democrats.

[TDAS04]

Minnesota. 

[Mr. Illini]

It used to be Minnesota, but the trend of the last 10 years, being rural whites leaving the Democratic Party, suggests to me that going forward it is Michigan, as that Democratic vote relies less on rural whites and more on minority populations in the Detroit area and whites in Ann Arbor.

[Ban my account ffs!]

It used to be Minnesota, but the trend of the last 10 years, being rural whites leaving the Democratic Party, suggests to me that going forward it is Michigan, as that Democratic vote relies less on rural whites and more on minority populations in the Detroit area and whites in Ann Arbor.

I'm not sure how the trend would mean something different in Minnesota?  I'm not sure how much the rural areas are trending Republican (outside of the Iron Range they were never more than slightly loyal to the DFL).  It's just that unlike most of the white, rural U.S... Democrats still win elections frequently in rural Minnesota.

Even if the MNGOP controls the state house... they hold no statewide office, nor either senator seat.. and 3/8 house seats.  The period 2006-2015 has been the most DFL period for Minnesota in decades.  Michigan meanwhile is dominated by Republicans... and the trends have gone the opposite way of what you have indicated..

So I'm just gonna have to say it:  Your analysis is so wrong that if you just turn it on its head... you might actually be spot on.

[ElectionsGuy]

The objective answer in presidential elections is Michigan. Minnesota for sure if you're talking state level.

[Adam Griffin]

Minnesota's floor and ceiling are very close to one another; virtually certain to guarantee them a majority or plurality in presidential and other statewide elections.

Michigan is a lot more fluid - it can be more Democratic than MN in both presidential and statewide elections, but significantly less Democratic - to the point of being quite Republican (obviously) - at the same time.

I'd have to say MN is more Democratic, if only because DFL has to really try to lose a race. In Michigan, Republicans have to try hard to win a race. Yes, there's a difference.

[Kingpoleon]

The objective answer in presidential elections is Michigan. Minnesota for sure if you're talking state level.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Minnesota.  When you consider that Michigan was close in 2000 and 2004, plus the fact that no Republican since Nixon in '72 has carried Minnesota, I see no other choice.  Michigan is still a competitive state; Minnesota leans somewhat D.  Plus, Minnesota has long been a bastion of progressive/quasi-socialist Scandinavians (although the same could be said about the UP).

[Cubby]

The objective answer in presidential elections is Michigan. Minnesota for sure if you're talking state level.

Agree

I just checked the presidential results and was surprised that Michigan gave a higher percentage of the vote to the Democratic nominee in every single election since 1992. I did not see that coming.

Oakland and Macomb have swung to the Democrats since then. Unfortunately, that bathtub ring of counties around the Twin Cities (the ones that went 60% for Bush in '04) , are trending in the opposite direction.

[Miles]

Minnesota's floor and ceiling are very close to one another; virtually certain to guarantee them a majority or plurality in presidential and other statewide elections.

Michigan is a lot more fluid - it can be more Democratic than MN in both presidential and statewide elections, but significantly less Democratic - to the point of being quite Republican (obviously) - at the same time.

I'd have to say MN is more Democratic, if only because DFL has to really try to lose a race. In Michigan, Republicans have to try hard to win a race. Yes, there's a difference.

This.

Also a fun frustrating fact about Michigan is that Democrats won the legislative popular vote in 2012 and 2014, but are locked out of control because of the gerrymandering. Could be the case for the rest of the decade.

[Nyvin]

In Michigan it's a matter of the Democrats having a larger overall statewide vote, but there's a "us vs them" mentality between the Detroit-Flint area and most of the rest of the state.   

It kinda puts a hamper on having much of a progressive agenda of the sorts that you see Minnesota have.   

Minnesota's support is much more statewide (geographically),  so even if they don't have as large of vote totals, it's hard to paint the Democrats into a "us vs them" scheme.     

The larger presence of minorities in Michigan aids the Republicans in the "us vs them" issue too.   

[EliteLX]

As Michigander, I'd probably say Minnesota. We're famous for our strong D turnout for presidential elections (primarily from a turnout surge out of the Wayne county general area/districts) but there is a lot of "live free, government off my back" ideology around the state. A lot of local government and governors get a lot of red support in this state. Michigan's blue collar/auto-industry/manufacturing red tilt also is influential.

[Bojack Horseman]

Honestly, I'd say they're equal. The only reason Republicans control the legislature here is because of 30 years of gerrymandering.

[hopper]

Honestly, I'd say they're equal. The only reason Republicans control the legislature here is because of 30 years of gerrymandering.

No the Dems had control of the Michigan House from 1969-1992, 1997-1998, and 2007-2010.

Yes the Republicans have had control of the State Senate since 1984.

[hopper]

Minnesota's floor and ceiling are very close to one another; virtually certain to guarantee them a majority or plurality in presidential and other statewide elections.

Michigan is a lot more fluid - it can be more Democratic than MN in both presidential and statewide elections, but significantly less Democratic - to the point of being quite Republican (obviously) - at the same time.

I'd have to say MN is more Democratic, if only because DFL has to really try to lose a race. In Michigan, Republicans have to try hard to win a race. Yes, there's a difference.

This.

Also a fun frustrating fact about Michigan is that Democrats won the legislative popular vote in 2012 and 2014, but are locked out of control because of the gerrymandering. Could be the case for the rest of the decade.

Well the Dems did gain 4 House Seats in the Michigan House in 2012 but lost 3 seats in 2014.

[Stan]

In My opinion, Minnesota.