Why do people underestimate Minnesota's Democratic political lean

[538Electoral]

As some others have said, The Dem margin for MN is getting lower. Some pundits have already called the state a battleground.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

As some others have said, The Dem margin for MN is getting lower. Some pundits have already called the state a battleground.

A Republican will eventually win MN, but it will be in an electoral blowout.  The sort of Republican who can win a plurality statewide is the sort of Republican who is palatable to moderates in general.

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

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.

Its dubious to assume that most people who supported third parties would of gone for Clinton, especially in a state where McMullin got nearly 2% of the vote. Johnson/Stein/McMullin voters may have broke for Hillary, they may have broke for Trump, they may have mostly stayed home. My money is on the 3rd option.

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.

I found it surprising but CNN's exit polls did exclude percentages deemed too small to be accurate and neighbouring Wisconsin had similar results. I'm not a fan of equating gubernatorial and congressional results with presidential results because of the different political environment, emphasis on issues, candidates, etc. but that swing is interesting. Perhaps CNN's 2016 exit polling was extremely off for WI and MN, perhaps there are some dynamics to Gen-Z we are unfamiliar with or perhaps this is a case of downballot voting differentiation, or a combination of these factors. I can't seem to find other news outlets which did a state breakdown of 2016 results so I guess I'm waiting until 2020 to verify this.

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.

The question seemed like a rhetorical vent and I found the comparison to Oregon particularly silly, but if you're able to understand why people view Minnesota as presidentially competitive, then perhaps I misjudged...

I'm not partisan and I'm not even American. Unfortunately I've found no other state breakdowns of the 2016 election to compare it with and I would of just dismissed it if only MN's polling showed this anomaly but WI's polling shows it as well, and its not just an against the trend swing in both states either, you see a Democratic peak in the 30-39 bracket then some increase in Republican support in 25-29 then 18-24 in the red for both states, so it didn't seem completely absurd. Regarding Walz's results I talk about that in my response to The3rdParty^^^

[Flyersfan232]

Because it had a Republican PVI in 2016.

....Which was a fluke.

i would wait for the next r wave year before calling it a fluke

[Scottholes 2.0]

Because it had a Republican PVI in 2016.

....Which was a fluke.

i would wait for the next r wave year before calling it a fluke

Yeah, we'll see.

[Don Vito Corleone]

I think it's because Minnesota's Democratic lean isn't huge, especially when compared to say, New York, or Vermont, or California or Massachusetts. However, it is a very stubborn lean (I'd compare it to New Jersey in this respect, where Republicans are always so close yet so far), so even if it has been close (and not just recently, it was close in 2000 and 2004, and not hugely more Democratic then the nation in 2008) I don't expect it to flip anytime soon.

[Scottholes 2.0]

I think it's because Minnesota's Democratic lean isn't huge, especially when compared to say, New York, or Vermont, or California or Massachusetts. However, it is a very stubborn lean (I'd compare it to New Jersey in this respect, where Republicans are always so close yet so far), so even if it has been close (and not just recently, it was close in 2000 and 2004, and not hugely more Democratic then the nation in 2008) I don't expect it to flip anytime soon.

Makes sense, I guess.

[Thunder98 🇮🇱 🤝 🇵🇸]

This thread didn't aged well. lol

In 2020 Prez MN voted for Biden by 7.12% which is up from Clinton's 1.52% in 2016. MN trend and swung Dem. The Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro area and Rochester trends are not great for the GOP. Though the rural areas are much better for the GOP compared to 10-20 years ago.

[sg0508]

I don't know, but the GOP seems to have faded here in the last decade.  They may get swept again up and down the ballot in a few weeks.  The only times that the Republicans seem competitive in MN is if there's a third party candidate that takes 5% from the Democratic ticket. Otherwise, it's not to be. 

[Schiff for Senate]

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.

So cool to see Politician and ElectionsGuy arguing with each other, and Politician being more D-friendly than R-friendly.

[Schiff for Senate]

This thread didn't aged well. lol

In 2020 Prez MN voted for Biden by 7.12% which is up from Clinton's 1.52% in 2016. MN trend and swung Dem. The Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro area and Rochester trends are not great for the GOP. Though the rural areas are much better for the GOP compared to 10-20 years ago.

But they're shrinking as well (they're the reason MN nearly lost a CD in 2020).

I mean, it's just striking - MN has actually barely shifted to the right since 2012. In comparison with WI, MI, PA, all of which have moved a good deal to the right - MN's swing to the right has been very marginal. And we all think of MN now as a state a good amount bluer than WI/MI/PA - but in 2008, MN voted to the right of all 3 states! This is because of what you said plus, again, the rural are shrinking and the Twin Cities suburbs are growing.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

2012

2020


Looks like the rural shift counteracted the suburban shift, keeping the state at a stalemate since 2012.