Do you consider Minnesota a swing state?

[Alben Barkley]

Well we saw that Minnesota voted about as much or more for Biden as Iowa did for Trump. So since people are asking the question now about Iowa, why not Minnesota too?

I honestly think this state has to be one of the biggest flops for the GOP. A LOT of Republicans (and Horus) seemed very confident they could flip this. Instead it just swung 5+ points left. And probably trended at least a couple points left too once the final NPV is in.

Lots of high hopes for the GOP in this state for years actually, but especially now, and they just didn't pan out. This is a state that voted RIGHT of Michigan in 2012, actually, and not much farther left than Iowa that year. Now it's like 15 points left of Iowa, and 6-7 points left of Wisconsin.

WHY did the GOP seem so utterly incapable of gaining any ground in Minnesota? I remember when the George Floyd riots were supposed to endanger Dems here. I remember when Lake County and other Iron Range counties were supposed to flip. I remember when Trafalgar had Trump winning or close to it here. I remember when people called this a sleeper state that could potentially vote right of Michigan or even Wisconsin again. I remember when Tina Smith was supposed to be in danger.
 
NONE of that panned out. Turned out to be at least as disappointing a flop for Republicans as Texas was for Democrats.

The question is... WHY? Demographically, the state is practically identical to Wisconsin and Michigan aside from being slightly more educated. Is that really the WHOLE difference? I suppose the Twin Cities make it a bit more urban as well. But generally speaking, we're not talking about DRASTIC differences here. And historically, it's rarely voted vastly farther to the left than these states (except maybe special circumstances like Ford getting a favorite son boost in MI while Mondale got one in MN in 1976). In 2016, it was just a 2 point difference, giving the GOP hope.

So what's going on?

[kwabbit]

A state has to swing to be a swing state, so no.

[Hope For A New Era]

Well, I've said why a couple times, but here.

- Minnesota's voter turnout is consistently extremely high, among the highest in the nation. Because of this, turnout surges don't have as much effect here as they do elsewhere.
- Minnesota is extremely polarized. There are virtually no persuadable voters outside the small portion of the Driftless in the state.
- Because of the above two points, Minnesota is extremely inelastic, probably the most inelastic state outside the South.
- Because of the state's geography and population characteristics, trends cancel each other out. Suburban MSP easily cancels out the rightward movement of the Plains portion of the state, with room for further growth in Anoka, Carver, and Scott as well as in Clay (suburban Fargo). Trends are so strong here that it likely wouldn't change much about the state's politics even if the seemingly-unbreakable Iron Range realigned.
- Education. Not a huge impact, but it probably keeps the Plains region a few points more D than it would be otherwise.
- Minnesota is culturally perceived as a D state, which gives people a "blue-state identity" and encourages migration of liberals from neighboring states.
- After the Tea Party wave, Wisconsin and Michigan were under unified Republican control, while Minnesota was under split control. Because of this, Republicans were not able to use their various R-ifying strategies (heavy gerrymandering, voter ID, etc) in Minnesota, while they were able to in similar states.

Result: Titanium Likely D Minnesota.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

A state has to swing to be a swing state, so no.

Not really. It must have the potential for a swing so that the favored party will have to invest money in it in order for the state to remain it in their own column.

Under that definition, South Carolina and Nevada are swing states, too.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

The question is... WHY? Demographically, the state is practically identical to Wisconsin and Michigan aside from being slightly more educated. Is that really the WHOLE difference? I suppose the Twin Cities make it a bit more urban as well. But generally speaking, we're not talking about DRASTIC differences here. And historically, it's rarely voted vastly farther to the left than these states (except maybe special circumstances like Ford getting a favorite son boost in MI while Mondale got one in MN in 1976). In 2016, it was just a 2 point difference, giving the GOP hope.

So what's going on?

Twin Cities: 61% of Minnesota population.
Metro Milwaukee: 27% of Wisconsin population.
Metro Madison: 11% of Wisconsin population.

[Alben Barkley]

The question is... WHY? Demographically, the state is practically identical to Wisconsin and Michigan aside from being slightly more educated. Is that really the WHOLE difference? I suppose the Twin Cities make it a bit more urban as well. But generally speaking, we're not talking about DRASTIC differences here. And historically, it's rarely voted vastly farther to the left than these states (except maybe special circumstances like Ford getting a favorite son boost in MI while Mondale got one in MN in 1976). In 2016, it was just a 2 point difference, giving the GOP hope.

So what's going on?

Twin Cities: 61% of Minnesota population.
Metro Milwaukee: 27% of Wisconsin population.
Metro Madison: 11% of Wisconsin population.

OK maybe that partially explains Wisconsin, but isn't significantly more of the Michigan population (also very similar demographically in most respects) in a metro area?

Also it seems even the rural areas of Minnesota stay stubbornly to the left of those of Wisconsin; again, see the Iron Range.

[kwabbit]

A state has to swing to be a swing state, so no.

Not really. It must have the potential for a swing so that the favored party will have to invest money in it in order for the state to remain it in their own column.

Under that definition, South Carolina and Nevada are swing states, too.

Both parties have invested enough in Minnesota to know that Republicans can't just win if they tried more. Republicans haven't won a gubernatorial or federal race in MN since 2006 and the state has ambiguous trends. If Republicans couldn't win in 2010 or 2014 it's clear that it would need to be a GOP landslide for it to go red. And if a state can only flip in a landslide, it's not a true swing state.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

The question is... WHY? Demographically, the state is practically identical to Wisconsin and Michigan aside from being slightly more educated. Is that really the WHOLE difference? I suppose the Twin Cities make it a bit more urban as well. But generally speaking, we're not talking about DRASTIC differences here. And historically, it's rarely voted vastly farther to the left than these states (except maybe special circumstances like Ford getting a favorite son boost in MI while Mondale got one in MN in 1976). In 2016, it was just a 2 point difference, giving the GOP hope.

So what's going on?

Twin Cities: 61% of Minnesota population.
Metro Milwaukee: 27% of Wisconsin population.
Metro Madison: 11% of Wisconsin population.

OK maybe that partially explains Wisconsin, but isn't significantly more of the Michigan population (also very similar demographically in most respects) in a metro area?

Also it seems even the rural areas of Minnesota stay stubbornly to the left of those of Wisconsin; again, see the Iron Range.

Metro Detroit is only 43% of Michigan. To be fair, there are a number of mid-sized metros but 43% is much less than 61% and that explains a chunk of the difference in margin (which is only 4.5 points or so.) Also, rural MN is probably more Republican than Wisconsin. Those few Iron Range counties up north are touristy and sparsely populated. The bulk of rural MN is in corn-and-soy country further south and it pretty clearly votes right of rural Wisconsin. When it comes to the Midwest, the Democratic vote share pretty clearly tracks just how much the big metro dominates the state. The Twin Cities having 3 in 5 Minnesotans is really all you need to know.

[Alben Barkley]

Well anyway, if MN is not a swing state and won't be in the near-future, when WILL it flip if ever? We're talking about the state with the single longest Democratic streak of any, soon to be 50 years since 1972. Pretty astounding it's lasted this long through all that. Is there even a faint chance one of those GOP states that's held out since 1964 -- AK, KS, UT, etc. -- flips first even???

[Alcibiades]

Minnesota is fundamentally not a Rust Belt state like Wisconsin and Michigan can be said to be. It is dominated by a metro, which unlike the declining Milwaukee and Detroit, is growing and educated. The demographics look more like CO or VA than its Midwestern neighbours. It also lacks the right-wing suburban base that Wisconsin has in WOW; I suspect this has something to do with the racial history, that the MSP area was not a destination for African-Americans during the Great Migration, and most of the black population are either African immigrants or African-Americans escaping the blight of Chicago and other Midwestern inner cities.

Another point worth mentioning is that the DFL is one of the most competent state parties in the nation, and the MNGOP one of the most incompetent (they were evicted from their headquarters a few years back). The GOP also seem to have a hard ceiling of 45%, so they have to rely on third parties stealing a near-infeasible amount of votes from the Dems, and they consequently haven’t won a statewide election since 2006, one of the longest streaks in the nation.

In conclusion, I think Minnesota is not a genuine swing state.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Depends on what you mean by swing state.

Not likely to be the tipping point any time soon, but the next Republican to be President will probably win it.

[TDAS04]

No.  Neither is Iowa.

[MATTROSE94]

The question is... WHY? Demographically, the state is practically identical to Wisconsin and Michigan aside from being slightly more educated. Is that really the WHOLE difference? I suppose the Twin Cities make it a bit more urban as well. But generally speaking, we're not talking about DRASTIC differences here. And historically, it's rarely voted vastly farther to the left than these states (except maybe special circumstances like Ford getting a favorite son boost in MI while Mondale got one in MN in 1976). In 2016, it was just a 2 point difference, giving the GOP hope.

So what's going on?

Twin Cities: 61% of Minnesota population.
Metro Milwaukee: 27% of Wisconsin population.
Metro Madison: 11% of Wisconsin population.

OK maybe that partially explains Wisconsin, but isn't significantly more of the Michigan population (also very similar demographically in most respects) in a metro area?

Also it seems even the rural areas of Minnesota stay stubbornly to the left of those of Wisconsin; again, see the Iron Range.

I thought Donald Trump swept the Iron Range this year due to his endorsement by six mayors from that region.

[Alcibiades]

The question is... WHY? Demographically, the state is practically identical to Wisconsin and Michigan aside from being slightly more educated. Is that really the WHOLE difference? I suppose the Twin Cities make it a bit more urban as well. But generally speaking, we're not talking about DRASTIC differences here. And historically, it's rarely voted vastly farther to the left than these states (except maybe special circumstances like Ford getting a favorite son boost in MI while Mondale got one in MN in 1976). In 2016, it was just a 2 point difference, giving the GOP hope.

So what's going on?

Twin Cities: 61% of Minnesota population.
Metro Milwaukee: 27% of Wisconsin population.
Metro Madison: 11% of Wisconsin population.

OK maybe that partially explains Wisconsin, but isn't significantly more of the Michigan population (also very similar demographically in most respects) in a metro area?

Also it seems even the rural areas of Minnesota stay stubbornly to the left of those of Wisconsin; again, see the Iron Range.

I thought Donald Trump swept the Iron Range this year due to his endorsement by six mayors from that region.

No; Biden won the same four counties in the region that Hillary won.

[Kuumo]

I don't consider it a swing state, but I do consider it a competitive state. It's about as flippable for Republicans right now as Texas is for Democrats. In both states, the current minority party can come close to winning in a good year for their party, but hasn't actually won statewide in a long time. That said, it's clear that the trends are starting to get to both states since Republicans have been making gains in rural Minnesota and Democrats have been making gains in the DFW and Houston suburbs. However, both states have a counter trend that keeps them from flipping easily: Minnesota has the D-trending Twin Cites metro and Texas has the R-trending Rio Grande Valley.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I did some quick maths (not quick at all actually) on Minnesota and Wisconsin since it has been brought up.

I started from the 2016 presidential election.

I used the easiest and clearest definition of "rural" I could think of i.e. any county that is not part of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (although I considered Cook, MN and Ashland, WI and Bayfield, WI as though they were part of the Duluth MSA, because... I mean, look at any electoral map).

Results:

Minneapolis-Saint Paul MSA voted for Hillary Clinton 52.5 - 38.8 (D+14), and it accounted for 62.5% or 5/8 of the Minnesota vote.
The rest of Minnesota went to Donald Trump 55.1 - 36.3 (R+19).
After excluding the other MSA's, 'rural Minnesota' appears to have voted for Donald Trump 59.6 - 32.2 (R+27).

Milwaukee MSA and Madison MSA summed together voted for Hillary Clinton 55.6 - 38.1 (D+17), which is a larger margin than the Twin Cities metro, but they only accounted for slightly less than 40% or 4/10 of the Wisconsin vote. For detail, it was D+7 for Milwaukee but D+40 for Madison.
The rest of Wisconsin went to Donald Trump 53.2 - 40.5 (R+13).
After excluding the other MSA's, 'rural Wisconsin' appears to have voted for Donald Trump 56.8 - 37.3 (R+19).

So:
Rural Minnesota was actually to the right of rural Wisconsin.
Considering that rural Wisconsin is only slightly larger than rural Minnesota, and that the two states had almost identical total raw votes, it seems that what made the difference is Minnesota having a much bigger liberal core metropolitan area, and in turn not having such a plethora of reliably conservative small metros as Wisconsin has (Green Bay, Appleton, Wausau, Sheboygan, Fond du Lac vs. only St. Cloud).

Giving a quick glance to the 2020 map, it seems that the gap between the two states grew larger this year mostly because MSP swung harder than either MKE or MDS - and the swing accounts for more since the metro is already bigger - and in addition I'd say that the gap between rural MN and rural WI appears to have narrowed.

[Chips]

No. Lean D for 2024. If the Republicans have a very good year they could win it. Absolutely no chance states like ID flip before MN.

[lfromnj]

The question is... WHY? Demographically, the state is practically identical to Wisconsin and Michigan aside from being slightly more educated. Is that really the WHOLE difference? I suppose the Twin Cities make it a bit more urban as well. But generally speaking, we're not talking about DRASTIC differences here. And historically, it's rarely voted vastly farther to the left than these states (except maybe special circumstances like Ford getting a favorite son boost in MI while Mondale got one in MN in 1976). In 2016, it was just a 2 point difference, giving the GOP hope.

So what's going on?

Twin Cities: 61% of Minnesota population.
Metro Milwaukee: 27% of Wisconsin population.
Metro Madison: 11% of Wisconsin population.

OK maybe that partially explains Wisconsin, but isn't significantly more of the Michigan population (also very similar demographically in most respects) in a metro area?

Also it seems even the rural areas of Minnesota stay stubbornly to the left of those of Wisconsin; again, see the Iron Range.

Metro Detroit is only 43% of Michigan. To be fair, there are a number of mid-sized metros but 43% is much less than 61% and that explains a chunk of the difference in margin (which is only 4.5 points or so.) Also, rural MN is probably more Republican than Wisconsin. Those few Iron Range counties up north are touristy and sparsely populated. The bulk of rural MN is in corn-and-soy country further south and it pretty clearly votes right of rural Wisconsin. When it comes to the Midwest, the Democratic vote share pretty clearly tracks just how much the big metro dominates the state. The Twin Cities having 3 in 5 Minnesotans is really all you need to know.

Metro detroit also includes Macomb and Monroe right and Downriver Wayne.

[King of Kensington]

AP Votecast Survey:

Minnesota

Urban  75-23 (Biden)
Suburban  56-42 (Biden)
Small town  56-42 (Trump)
Rural  65-34 (Trump)

Wisconsin

Urban  66-34 (Biden)
Suburban  51-47 (Biden)
Small town  50-48 (Trump)
Rural  63-36 (Trump)

[Heisenberg]

Sadly no, As a Republican I badly want to break the streak, but I can't see it for at least two decades. Minnesota is more educated than Wisconsin, is seeing growth in its major metro area, and doesn't have enough non-MSP population to make up for the Twin Cities metro.

Honestly, in hindsight, 2016 would have been THE year to flip it. Think about it. Trump surprising by the world by not just winning the election, but by running up the score in rural America, and flipping (or nearly flipping) historically D working areas (Didn't win the Iron Range but did better than any other Republican in recent memory). Despite losing ground in wealthy White suburbs, the bottom was yet to collapse (see 2018/2020 for how much further they fell).
I think history will remember 2016 as a "turning the page" election, transitioning from the Sixth Party System to the Seventh Party System. The Trump 2016 coalition was a hybrid of the old Reagan/Bush(es) map combined with the coming "post-Trump GOP" map.

[pbrower2a]

Not really. Minnesota is now the sort of state that will go for an R nominee only in an R blowout. It was on the fringe of competitiveness in 2020. In 2016 Trump promised big infrastructure projects to the delight of iron miners in northern Minnesota who thought they heard a promise of more jobs and overtime mining iron ore for big infrastructure projects, especially the construction of new highways or reconstruction of old ones (much iron goes into reinforcing bars in concrete highways). It turns out that Trump's idea was simply to add tolls to free highways whose only added iron would be in toll gantries on toll roads operated by monopolistic profiteers.

Trump made a promise that Minnesota voters interpreted one way but meant something else, really a raw deal. That's one way to win one election and lose the next in a state.

Minnesota swings only in going much more R+ in Republican losses (it seems rather inelastic, and it was not a particularly strong Obama win in 2008 or 2012 compared to other states) and much more D+ in Republican wins.   

[neostassenite31]

Minnesota is neither a swing state or a blue/red state. It is truly a political oddball in so many ways. On the surface, if you can look past the voting streak/history, we're a narrowly-divided state with a slight statewide Dem advantage.

The single most defining feature of MN politics over the past four decades is how competing demographics changes, decade after decade, keep cancelling each other out almost perfectly. National political trends transform Minnesota's politics every cycle, but the cancellations always result in Democrats holding a slight statewide advantage and thereby giving the state an extremely "inelastic" feel.

The voter coalition that propelled Michael Dukakis to victory in MN in 1988 is very much alien to the coalition that delivered the state to John Kerry in 2004, which is in turn almost indistinguishable to the coalition that delivered Hillary Clinton her narrow win in 2016. Dukakis was strong with rural Scandinavian populists and iron rangers but was a wash in the metro except in the central cities; Kerry did better in the central cities and held his ground with iron rangers, but he deteriorated significantly with rural voters overall and lost the suburbs badly; Clinton got wholesale destroyed in rural MN but performed very strongly in the Twin Cities and its suburbs. Despite these differences, the Democrat won all three elections, each from a separate decade, by low to mid single digits.

The narrow single digit margins in MN cycle after cycle have attracted national Republicans eyeing the state as a potential flip opportunity ever since 2000. Yet just as GOP presidential candidates/strategists believe victory is finally in sight (after 2000, 2004, and 2016), the state would forcefully snap towards the Democrats the next cycle but only to become more competitive again the cycle after that, much to the confusion and frustration of the GOP.

This sort of pattern has gotten to the point where it's almost as if Minnesota voters are actively playing a nasty joke on Republicans.

[MATTROSE94]

It will vote Republican in 2024 and 2028, so yes.