Most impressive loss?

[Arbitrage1980]

****

[Arbitrage1980]

Why is Minnesota so impressive? It's a 88% white state, has a decent amount of rural areas, and is the most welloff state when you address for cost of living. It's bound to go republican any day now imo.

I went with California in 2004 because Bush got a ton of hispanic voters that no other republican has gotten.

It's impressive because it hasn't gone Republican since 1972 and it being this close when it hasn't been since the Bush era caught many by surprise. Though I must stress

1. Democrats base in Minnesota is still a higher then average white vote and gave them a majority as recently as 2008. 2012 was divided and I don't know who won in the end. White voters have a long history in the state supporting progressive and populist candidates and as long as the democrat support those things then they will probably have a higher then average white vote.

2. It may be a rural state but the rural areas are more democratic then average. 2016 may not be a good example due to the Trump effect but Obama 2008/12 won dozens of rural county's in the northern Iron range and southern Drift area. Thus it leads such a rural state to consistently vote Democrat since 1972 in combination with its Minneapolis base. 2016 may of shown a dramatic decrease in the democratic margins in these rural county's but 1 election is not a trend. We will have too see where this takes us

3. Well a reason for surprise is that it has been a well off state for a while now and still hasn't voted republican. I do agree that as more business oriented interests enter the state increase its wealth combined with the continued collapse of democrat supporting labor unions and margins in the rural areas that then it will start voting republican but many didn't expect it to be so sudden.

Also I do agree with California. I'm shocked Bush got up to and more then 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 and also shocked at how close relatively speaking he made California.  

Bush won Orange County by 20.7% in 2004, which is shocking looking back in retrospect. Hillary won it by 8.6%, the first Democrat to win it since FDR 1936. Trump did worse in CA than even McGovern and Mondale; the extent of his collapse in the nation's largest state cannot be understated.

[Arbitrage1980]

Most Impressive to Least:

1. Trump losing MN by 1.5%, 2016

2. Trump losing ME by 3%, 2016

3. Bush losing CA by 10%, 2004

4. Obama losing MT by 2.3%, 2008

5. Clinton losing TX by 3.5%, 1992

Reasons:

1. Maine hasn't voted Republican since 1988 and the Democrats have won it pretty decisively from 1992-2012. Honestly, I was more shocked that Trump won Maine's 2nd Congressional District than I was about him winning Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

2. Minnesota hasn't voted for a Republican since the Nixon landslide of '72 and it wasn't close in 2008 or 2012, and IRC, it wasn't close from 1988-1996 either.  The only reason this isn't number one is because Dubya made it close in 2000 and 2004.

3. This is surprising because from 1992-2000, California was trending to the Democrats big time and then all of the sudden, Bush somewhat reverses that trend and only loses it by 10 points and does so in part by winning a 40% of the Latino vote nationally, which in and of it self was shocking because it seemed like he didn't try as hard to win that vote in 2004 as he did in 2000, and in 2000 he only won around 35%.

4. Montana had a elected a Democrats in state wide races numerous times over the course of the last decade (2 two term Democratic Governors since 2004, a Senator, etc...) so it's not all that surprising that  Montana was that close in 2008 of all years.

5. This is the least surprising. Texas still leaned Democratic at the state and local level at that time and up to that point, Republicans only won Texas in Landslide years (Humphrey won in in 68, Carter won it in 76), and Perot also took a large chunk of the vote. Had Perot not been in the race, Clinton could've conceivably won Texas and very well could've in 96 as well.

I agree with a lot of this but with few caveats.

1. Bush lost CA in 2000 by 11.6%, so his 10% loss in 2004 was pretty much in line, and less of an improvement than his overall national popular vote improvement of 3%.

2. Bush won MT by 20.5% in 2004, so the Obama loss in 2008 was a pretty big swing. Granted, MT has a strong anti-war libertarian streak, and Ron Paul was on the ballot that year as a write-in candidate but impressive nonetheless.

3. Trump was consistently leading in ME02, but his 10.3% margin was surprising. Bush kept Maine overall within single digits in 2000 and 2004, but Obama crushed it there. I thought Trump would lose the state overall by 6-8 points.