Why do people underestimate Minnesota's Democratic political lean

[Scottholes 2.0]

I think MN getting more blue, which has been evident since 2011.

Let's see:

- MN rurals, like elsewhere in the country, are shrinking.
- The TC metro has grown and gotten bluer this past decade (as suburbs shift away from the GOP)

I think MN is probably the new Oregon, with its largest metro (Twin Cities) deciding elections. The Portland metro has kept Oregon blue (even with Kate Brown being a poor governor), and the Chicago metro has kept Illinois blue. The MN electorate looks even more like Washington state with its highly educated populace: College graduates comprised 42 percent of Minnesota's electorate, slightly more than the national average. The 2016 election was a fluke due to low voter turnout, among other factors.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

I think MN is probably the new Oregon, with its largest metro (Twin Cities) deciding elections. The Portland metro has kept Oregon blue (even with Kate Brown being a poor governor), and the Chicago metro has kept Illinois blue.

Off topic, but how exactly has Kate Grown been a poor governor? Genuinely curious.

[Skill and Chance]

Because the MSP suburbs were blood red until very recently, but moved left abruptly enough to counter the rural GOP trend.  It's the same reason Democrats think they are always on the cusp of taking control in Florida.

[user12345]

Minnesota is just about as liberal as ever. The parts of the state that keep it liberal are just shifting.

[Big Abraham]

I think MN is probably the new Oregon, with its largest metro (Twin Cities) deciding elections. The Portland metro has kept Oregon blue (even with Kate Brown being a poor governor), and the Chicago metro has kept Illinois blue.

Off topic, but how exactly has Kate Grown been a poor governor? Genuinely curious.

She appointed an entire committee that is trying to force regressive tolling on roads, she consistently fails to address the problems related to homelessness and housing costs, her gun policy is horrible, she's really sketchy with her lobbying despite presenting herself as having high ethics marks, and worst of all she's just another big business liberal who once went on and on about how great of a company Comcast was and gave them a deal on their settlement of around $50 million free dollars

[RaphaelDLG]

Presidential election results have been close, to answer your question

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Because it had a Republican PVI in 2016.

[Scottholes 2.0]

Because it had a Republican PVI in 2016.

....Which was a fluke.

[ElectionsGuy]

Because it had a Republican PVI in 2016.

....Which was a fluke.

Keep telling yourself that.

I'm going to leave this here as far as the relative performance of Minnesota's recent elections compared to the national vote (in midterm years I'm comparing it to the national house vote)

2018 Governor: D+11.4% --> D+2.8%
2018 Senator: D+24.1% --> D+15.5%
2018 Senator (S): D+10.6% --> D+2.0%
2016 President: D+1.5% --> R+0.7%
2014 Governor: D+5.6% --> D+11.3%
2014 Senator : D+10.2% --> D+15.9%
2012 President: D+7.7% --> D+3.8%
2010 Governor: D+0.4% --> D+7.2%

It should actually be concerning Democrats didn't do better in the Minnesota 2018 elections, besides Amy Klobuchar who for some reason is absurdly popular.

[Politician]

Because it had a Republican PVI in 2016.

....Which was a fluke.

Keep telling yourself that.

I'm going to leave this here as far as the relative performance of Minnesota's recent elections compared to the national vote (in midterm years I'm comparing it to the national house vote)

2018 Governor: D+11.4% --> D+2.8%
2018 Senator: D+24.1% --> D+15.5%
2018 Senator (S): D+10.6% --> D+2.0%
2016 President: D+1.5% --> R+0.7%
2014 Governor: D+5.6% --> D+11.3%
2014 Senator : D+10.2% --> D+15.9%
2012 President: D+7.7% --> D+3.8%
2010 Governor: D+0.4% --> D+7.2%

It should actually be concerning Democrats didn't do better in the Minnesota 2018 elections, besides Amy Klobuchar who for some reason is absurdly popular.

Colorado Governor 2018: D+10.6% --> D+2.0%
Colorado President 2016: D+4.8% --> D+2.4%
Colorado Senate 2016: D+5.7% --> D+3.3%
Colorado Governor 2014: D+3.3% --> D+9.0%
Colorado Senate 2014: R+1.9% --> D+3.8%

So using that logic, Democrats in Colorado are in big trouble?

Using "it was a D+9 national environment" ignores that the number is skewed due to unopposed Democrats and strong Dem candidates in Safe R districts overperforming. Also, Trump is more likely to lose the PV by double digits then to win it, so comparing a state to the NPV is misleading.

[Orser67]

I see it as sort of a reverse FL, where it has close presidential results but one party dominates statewide elections and has a very high floor in presidential elections.

Bush's 2.4-point nationwide popular vote victory in 2004 is the largest Republican victory in the last 30 years. If a Republican ever beats that, I expect MN would finally go Republican.

[Scottholes 2.0]

Because it had a Republican PVI in 2016.

....Which was a fluke.

Keep telling yourself that.

I'm going to leave this here as far as the relative performance of Minnesota's recent elections compared to the national vote (in midterm years I'm comparing it to the national house vote)

2018 Governor: D+11.4% --> D+2.8%
2018 Senator: D+24.1% --> D+15.5%
2018 Senator (S): D+10.6% --> D+2.0%
2016 President: D+1.5% --> R+0.7%
2014 Governor: D+5.6% --> D+11.3%
2014 Senator : D+10.2% --> D+15.9%
2012 President: D+7.7% --> D+3.8%
2010 Governor: D+0.4% --> D+7.2%

It should actually be concerning Democrats didn't do better in the Minnesota 2018 elections, besides Amy Klobuchar who for some reason is absurdly popular.

Colorado Governor 2018: D+10.6% --> D+2.0%
Colorado President 2016: D+4.8% --> D+2.4%
Colorado Senate 2016: D+5.7% --> D+3.3%
Colorado Governor 2014: D+3.3% --> D+9.0%
Colorado Senate 2014: R+1.9% --> D+3.8%

So using that logic, Democrats in Colorado are in big trouble?

Using "it was a D+9 national environment" ignores that the number is skewed due to unopposed Democrats and strong Dem candidates in Safe R districts overperforming. Also, Trump is more likely to lose the PV by double digits then to win it, so comparing a state to the NPV is misleading.

[UWS]

Presidential election results have been close, to answer your question

Yep it has been close in 2000 (D + 2.41), in 2004 (D + 3.48) and in 2016 (D + 1.52).

[pbrower2a]

Even in 2008 Minnesota voted only 1.20% more for Obama than America as a whole voted for him.  The state is no longer so strong D as it was in 1972, when it was the second-best state for McGovern  and in 1984 when it was the only state to vote for Mondale. Other states have moved politically, but Minnesota seems very rigid. It looks like the sort of state that will be about 50-50 when the Republican nominee for President gets 60% of the vote nationwide, 52-48 when the Republican goes 55-45, 53-47 in an even split, 55-45 if the Republican loses 55-45, and maybe 57-43 when the Democrat wins 60-40.

Trump was successful in winning over iron miners with promises of infrastructure (infrastructure spending devours iron) -- and lost them once they found that his infrastructure program was to make people pay for what they have been accustomed to getting without paying. Just put toll gantries on freeways.

I have yet to see any post-midterm poll of Minnesota, but those of 2018 looked putrid for Trump. 

[The3rdParty]

Because it had a Republican PVI in 2016.

....Which was a fluke.

Keep telling yourself that.

I'm going to leave this here as far as the relative performance of Minnesota's recent elections compared to the national vote (in midterm years I'm comparing it to the national house vote)

2018 Governor: D+11.4% --> D+2.8%
2018 Senator: D+24.1% --> D+15.5%
2018 Senator (S): D+10.6% --> D+2.0%
2016 President: D+1.5% --> R+0.7%
2014 Governor: D+5.6% --> D+11.3%
2014 Senator : D+10.2% --> D+15.9%
2012 President: D+7.7% --> D+3.8%
2010 Governor: D+0.4% --> D+7.2%

It should actually be concerning Democrats didn't do better in the Minnesota 2018 elections, besides Amy Klobuchar who for some reason is absurdly popular.

Colorado Governor 2018: D+10.6% --> D+2.0%
Colorado President 2016: D+4.8% --> D+2.4%
Colorado Senate 2016: D+5.7% --> D+3.3%
Colorado Governor 2014: D+3.3% --> D+9.0%
Colorado Senate 2014: R+1.9% --> D+3.8%

So using that logic, Democrats in Colorado are in big trouble?

Using "it was a D+9 national environment" ignores that the number is skewed due to unopposed Democrats and strong Dem candidates in Safe R districts overperforming. Also, Trump is more likely to lose the PV by double digits then to win it, so comparing a state to the NPV is misleading.

Exactly. Saying it was a D+9 year is fake news. Dems ran a lot of candidates in red districts while in deep blue districts the dem went unopposed. This was the opposite from 2016 where the R's ran more candidates and got a R+1 house margin even though Hillary won pop vote by 2

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

I know this is a little off topic, but...

I think MN getting more blue red, which has been evident since 2011.

Let's see:

- MN rurals, like elsewhere in the country, are shrinking.
- The TC metro has grown and gotten bluer redder this past decade (as suburbs shift away from the GOP)

I think MN is probably the new Oregon, with its largest metro (Twin Cities) deciding elections. The Portland metro has kept Oregon blue red (even with Kate Brown being a poor governor), and the Chicago metro has kept Illinois blue red. The MN electorate looks even more like Washington state with its highly educated populace: College graduates comprised 42 percent of Minnesota's electorate, slightly more than the national average. The 2016 election was a fluke due to low voter turnout, among other factors.

C'mon, this is Atlas. I know it's dumb, but Democrats are red, and Republicans are blue. I honestly prefer it that way, and that's how pretty much all of Atlas works, especially in the parts that Dave has full control over.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Denver, and Seattle are culturally all very similar. It's hard for Republicans to counter a large, liberal metro. They need suburbs, but suburbs are slipping away.

The days of progressive farmer-labor are past, but the Cities have solidified at least a narrow Democratic majority.

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

Actual Margin (left) relative to nation (right)
MN 1960: 1.43+D --> 1.27+D
MN 1964: 27.76+D --> 5.18+D
MN 1968: 12.53+D --> 13.23+D
MN 1972: 5.51+R --> 17.64+D
MN 1976: 12.87+D --> 10.81+D
MN 1980: 3.94+D --> 13.68+D
MN 1984: 0.18+D --> 18.40+D
MN 1988: 7.02+D --> 14.75+D
MN 1992: 11.63+D --> 6.07+D
MN 1996: 16.14+D --> 7.62+D
MN 2000: 2.40+D --> 1.88+D (Strong showing for Nader most likely explains this anomalous result)
MN 2004: 3.48+D --> 5.94+D
MN 2008: 10.24+D --> 2.97+D
MN 2012: 7.69+D --> 3.83+D
MN 2016: 1.52+D --> 0.58+R

Minnesota has been becoming increasingly marginal since the 80s, Trump's unprecedented strong performance there fits in with this trend and his ability to make inroads into northern rural areas. SOME rural areas are declining in population, but this decline isn't happening fast enough to counteract the swing towards the Republicans. Turnout wasn't significantly different from 2012 and to say the 1.7 point decrease were 100% Democrat voters is dubious.
Another thing to make note of is that Minnesota's 18-24 bracket (like neighbouring Wisconsin) voted 48-43 Trump in 2016 according to CNN exit polls, whilst the 65+ bracket still favours Dems, so the age trends aren't looking like they'll hurt Republicans short term: https://edition.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/minnesota/president

OP reeks of partisanship.

[JG]

Actual Margin (left) relative to nation (right)
MN 1960: 1.43+D --> 1.27+D
MN 1964: 27.76+D --> 5.18+D
MN 1968: 12.53+D --> 13.23+D
MN 1972: 5.51+R --> 17.64+D
MN 1976: 12.87+D --> 10.81+D
MN 1980: 3.94+D --> 13.68+D
MN 1984: 0.18+D --> 18.40+D
MN 1988: 7.02+D --> 14.75+D
MN 1992: 11.63+D --> 6.07+D
MN 1996: 16.14+D --> 7.62+D
MN 2000: 2.40+D --> 1.88+D (Strong showing for Nader most likely explains this anomalous result)
MN 2004: 3.48+D --> 5.94+D
MN 2008: 10.24+D --> 2.97+D
MN 2012: 7.69+D --> 3.83+D
MN 2016: 1.52+D --> 0.58+R

Minnesota has been becoming increasingly marginal since the 80s, Trump's unprecedented strong performance there fits in with this trend and his ability to make inroads into northern rural areas. SOME rural areas are declining in population, but this decline isn't happening fast enough to counteract the swing towards the Republicans. Turnout wasn't significantly different from 2012 and to say the 1.7 point decrease were 100% Democrat voters is dubious.
Another thing to make note of is that Minnesota's 18-24 bracket (like neighbouring Wisconsin) voted 48-43 Trump in 2016 according to CNN exit polls, whilst the 65+ bracket still favours Dems, so the age trends aren't looking like they'll hurt Republicans short term: https://edition.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/minnesota/president

OP reeks of partisanship.

Trump didn't have a strong showing in Minnesota. Clinton had a weak one. Trump barely got 2,000 votes more than Romney and actually won a lower share of the votes than Romney in 2012. It's really Clinton who completly crattered, while Johnson more than doubled his showing.

[Jags]

Actual Margin (left) relative to nation (right)
MN 1960: 1.43+D --> 1.27+D
MN 1964: 27.76+D --> 5.18+D
MN 1968: 12.53+D --> 13.23+D
MN 1972: 5.51+R --> 17.64+D
MN 1976: 12.87+D --> 10.81+D
MN 1980: 3.94+D --> 13.68+D
MN 1984: 0.18+D --> 18.40+D
MN 1988: 7.02+D --> 14.75+D
MN 1992: 11.63+D --> 6.07+D
MN 1996: 16.14+D --> 7.62+D
MN 2000: 2.40+D --> 1.88+D (Strong showing for Nader most likely explains this anomalous result)
MN 2004: 3.48+D --> 5.94+D
MN 2008: 10.24+D --> 2.97+D
MN 2012: 7.69+D --> 3.83+D
MN 2016: 1.52+D --> 0.58+R

Minnesota has been becoming increasingly marginal since the 80s, Trump's unprecedented strong performance there fits in with this trend and his ability to make inroads into northern rural areas. SOME rural areas are declining in population, but this decline isn't happening fast enough to counteract the swing towards the Republicans. Turnout wasn't significantly different from 2012 and to say the 1.7 point decrease were 100% Democrat voters is dubious.
Another thing to make note of is that Minnesota's 18-24 bracket (like neighbouring Wisconsin) voted 48-43 Trump in 2016 according to CNN exit polls, whilst the 65+ bracket still favours Dems, so the age trends aren't looking like they'll hurt Republicans short term: https://edition.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/minnesota/president

OP reeks of partisanship.

Trump didn't have a strong showing in Minnesota. Clinton had a weak one. Trump barely got 2,000 votes more than Romney and actually won a lower share of the votes than Romney in 2012. It's really Clinton who completly crattered, while Johnson more than doubled his showing.

[RINO Tom]

States that tend to be always close don't tend to get lumped in with those that are rarely close, regardless of who "always wins."

[The3rdParty]

Actual Margin (left) relative to nation (right)
MN 1960: 1.43+D --> 1.27+D
MN 1964: 27.76+D --> 5.18+D
MN 1968: 12.53+D --> 13.23+D
MN 1972: 5.51+R --> 17.64+D
MN 1976: 12.87+D --> 10.81+D
MN 1980: 3.94+D --> 13.68+D
MN 1984: 0.18+D --> 18.40+D
MN 1988: 7.02+D --> 14.75+D
MN 1992: 11.63+D --> 6.07+D
MN 1996: 16.14+D --> 7.62+D
MN 2000: 2.40+D --> 1.88+D (Strong showing for Nader most likely explains this anomalous result)
MN 2004: 3.48+D --> 5.94+D
MN 2008: 10.24+D --> 2.97+D
MN 2012: 7.69+D --> 3.83+D
MN 2016: 1.52+D --> 0.58+R

Minnesota has been becoming increasingly marginal since the 80s, Trump's unprecedented strong performance there fits in with this trend and his ability to make inroads into northern rural areas. SOME rural areas are declining in population, but this decline isn't happening fast enough to counteract the swing towards the Republicans. Turnout wasn't significantly different from 2012 and to say the 1.7 point decrease were 100% Democrat voters is dubious.
Another thing to make note of is that Minnesota's 18-24 bracket (like neighbouring Wisconsin) voted 48-43 Trump in 2016 according to CNN exit polls, whilst the 65+ bracket still favours Dems, so the age trends aren't looking like they'll hurt Republicans short term: https://edition.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/minnesota/president

OP reeks of partisanship.

Seems like an unrealible exit poll considering exit polls showed Walz winning 18-24 with 70 percent of the vote and the middle age and older folks to be more republican which seems accurate. The rural areas skew older as well and most young folks in the metro are certainally not republicans from what I can see. There is No way Young people shifted from 43 percent Clinton to 70 percent walz. Clinton probabaly got like 60-65 percent of 18-24 vote.

[Scottholes 2.0]

Actual Margin (left) relative to nation (right)
MN 1960: 1.43+D --> 1.27+D
MN 1964: 27.76+D --> 5.18+D
MN 1968: 12.53+D --> 13.23+D
MN 1972: 5.51+R --> 17.64+D
MN 1976: 12.87+D --> 10.81+D
MN 1980: 3.94+D --> 13.68+D
MN 1984: 0.18+D --> 18.40+D
MN 1988: 7.02+D --> 14.75+D
MN 1992: 11.63+D --> 6.07+D
MN 1996: 16.14+D --> 7.62+D
MN 2000: 2.40+D --> 1.88+D (Strong showing for Nader most likely explains this anomalous result)
MN 2004: 3.48+D --> 5.94+D
MN 2008: 10.24+D --> 2.97+D
MN 2012: 7.69+D --> 3.83+D
MN 2016: 1.52+D --> 0.58+R

Minnesota has been becoming increasingly marginal since the 80s, Trump's unprecedented strong performance there fits in with this trend and his ability to make inroads into northern rural areas. SOME rural areas are declining in population, but this decline isn't happening fast enough to counteract the swing towards the Republicans. Turnout wasn't significantly different from 2012 and to say the 1.7 point decrease were 100% Democrat voters is dubious.
Another thing to make note of is that Minnesota's 18-24 bracket (like neighbouring Wisconsin) voted 48-43 Trump in 2016 according to CNN exit polls, whilst the 65+ bracket still favours Dems, so the age trends aren't looking like they'll hurt Republicans short term: https://edition.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/minnesota/president

OP reeks of partisanship.

Yawn. I was not trying to be a partisan hack.

Having read some of the justifications about MN trending R, I now see why people consider MN an R-trending purple state. It is really politically similar to neighboring WI, with a slightly more D tilt, so don't accuse me of partisanship for asking a question.

Also, aren't you being a partisan hack by reading too much into exit polls? As someone else pointed out, Walz won the 18-24 age group by 70%, which is roughly in line with many other exit polls and thus is more reliable.

Actual Margin (left) relative to nation (right)
MN 1960: 1.43+D --> 1.27+D
MN 1964: 27.76+D --> 5.18+D
MN 1968: 12.53+D --> 13.23+D
MN 1972: 5.51+R --> 17.64+D
MN 1976: 12.87+D --> 10.81+D
MN 1980: 3.94+D --> 13.68+D
MN 1984: 0.18+D --> 18.40+D
MN 1988: 7.02+D --> 14.75+D
MN 1992: 11.63+D --> 6.07+D
MN 1996: 16.14+D --> 7.62+D
MN 2000: 2.40+D --> 1.88+D (Strong showing for Nader most likely explains this anomalous result)
MN 2004: 3.48+D --> 5.94+D
MN 2008: 10.24+D --> 2.97+D
MN 2012: 7.69+D --> 3.83+D
MN 2016: 1.52+D --> 0.58+R

Minnesota has been becoming increasingly marginal since the 80s, Trump's unprecedented strong performance there fits in with this trend and his ability to make inroads into northern rural areas. SOME rural areas are declining in population, but this decline isn't happening fast enough to counteract the swing towards the Republicans. Turnout wasn't significantly different from 2012 and to say the 1.7 point decrease were 100% Democrat voters is dubious.
Another thing to make note of is that Minnesota's 18-24 bracket (like neighbouring Wisconsin) voted 48-43 Trump in 2016 according to CNN exit polls, whilst the 65+ bracket still favours Dems, so the age trends aren't looking like they'll hurt Republicans short term: https://edition.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/minnesota/president

OP reeks of partisanship.

Seems like an unrealible exit poll considering exit polls showed Walz winning 18-24 with 70 percent of the vote and the middle age and older folks to be more republican which seems accurate. The rural areas skew older as well and most young folks in the metro are certainally not republicans from what I can see. There is No way Young people shifted from 43 percent Clinton to 70 percent walz. Clinton probabaly got like 60-65 percent of 18-24 vote.

[Virginiá]

Minnesota was one of the states where Clinton suffered a pretty serious drop in support among young people compared to Obama. Trump actually won MN 18-24 year olds 48 - 43. It's not that much but it was significant because Republicans had been tanking among young people there for a while. But, for what's it worth, there was always speculation that it was a result that would not hold, and 2018 I think went a ways in proving that. Given that a lot of 2016 trends actually did stick, the fact that 18-24 year olds went so massively for Walz is probably a sign that Trump is not giving birth to a new generation of Republican youth in the Midwest/rust belt. I mean, look at this:



If Trump/Republicans were making the kind of inroads with Minnesota young people that 2016 suggested, that kind of shellacking with them would not have happened.

However, to be fair, you can argue that Minnesota is trending Republican right now, but it's long-term future is much less favorable for Republicans. Eventually those young people are going to grow up and shift the state back (unless they all move out of state en masse).

[DabbingSanta]

It would be ignorant after 2016 to ignore the GOP's potential future in states like Minnesota. Rural areas swung hard to the right. Even with Minneapolis/St Paul metro going to Clinton, the state was won by a very narrow margin.

2012-16 swing: