Biden did better in Minnesota than Trump did in Texas

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Minnesota is now more partisan than Texas. Hahahaha oh yes, love that little factoid about this election.

[Rand]

I think what you meant to say is that Biden is better at stealing votes in MN than he is at stealing votes in TX.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I don’t think even the biggest Democratic/left wing hacks saw this type of margin in Minnesota coming.

[KaiserDave]

I don’t think even the biggest Democratic/left wing hacks saw this type of margin in Minnesota coming.

I pushed back on the “tossup/Lean D” Minnesota narrative but even I had more of a five point win in mind

[Chips]

Both are about equal with each other in terms of how winnable it is for either party. While both could flip in a good year for their party, Neither of them are voting for the other party in a close election anytime soon.

[Tekken_Guy]

By that logic Trump did better in Florida than Biden did in Michigan.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

By that logic Trump did better in Florida than Biden did in Michigan.

Yes. And?

[Nyvin]

By that logic Trump did better in Florida than Biden did in Michigan.

That's correct.

Both are about equal with each other in terms of how winnable it is for either party. While both could flip in a good year for their party, Neither of them are voting for the other party in a close election anytime soon.

Although it would at least appear that both are trending Dem,  so arguably Texas is more winnable for Dems than Minn is for Republicans.

[neostassenite31]

Both the federal and state house totals in MN were slightly more R than the national average, and the presidential margin was just 2 points to the left of the nation. Texas was much more R than the nation in any of these three metrics

Though the claim that "X state will easily vote for Y party" when Y party literally just lost X state by more than they lost the NPV is probably either wishful thinking with cherry-picking of data or hyperbolic satire.        

[Antonio the Sixth]

Minnesota is now more partisan than Texas. Hahahaha oh yes, love that little factoid about this election.

I mean, partisanship has to be measured in relative terms. MN is 3 points to the left of the nation and TX 10 points to the right. But yeah, it says something about the extent of Biden's victory that in raw terms he won MN by more than he lost TX.

[forsythvoter]

I don't know what question we're trying to answer here, but I was expecting Trump to win Texas by 3 and MN by 5, so it wasn't a surprise that MN voted more D than TX voted R. However, I was expecting MN to vote D+5 assuming a D+6/+7 environment. That MN voted D+7 in a D+4.5 national environment is actually pretty surprising to me.

As for what I got wrong on reflection - I actually had thought Dems were pretty maxed in MSP metro around Hillary's numbers (I think many others here did too), but it looks like the Dem ceiling in MSP suburbs especially is quite a bit higher than I would have thought. I definitely didn't see Biden coming within mid single digits in Carver and Scott counties, or cracking 70% in Hennepin.

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

I posted this on my Twitter Account a while ago, But I'll Say it again:

Trump received roughly 60% in Most of Rural Minnesota

Trump received roughly 75% in most of Rural Ohio

If the GOP can get that 60% of the vote to 70%, they could flip MN, and Ds probably don't have enough room in the Twin Cities Metro to make it up.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I posted this on my Twitter Account a while ago, But I'll Say it again:

Trump received roughly 60% in Most of Rural Minnesota

Trump received roughly 75% in most of Rural Ohio

If the GOP can get that 60% of the vote to 70%, they could flip MN, and Ds probably don't have enough room in the Twin Cities Metro to make it up.

I don't buy the idea that all of rural America everywhere is going to inevitably end up voting >70% Republican. Sure there are a lot of places that now vote >70% Republican that I never would have expected to, but there are also plenty that don't, and I don't see why we just assume that the former represent the future for the latter.

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

I posted this on my Twitter Account a while ago, But I'll Say it again:

Trump received roughly 60% in Most of Rural Minnesota

Trump received roughly 75% in most of Rural Ohio

If the GOP can get that 60% of the vote to 70%, they could flip MN, and Ds probably don't have enough room in the Twin Cities Metro to make it up.

I don't buy the idea that all of rural America everywhere is going to inevitably end up voting >70% Republican. Sure there are a lot of places that now vote >70% Republican that I never would have expected to, but there are also plenty that don't, and I don't see why we just assume that the former represent the future for the latter.

It seems like Rural MN/IA/WI are voting the same as where Rural PA/OH/WV was 12 years ago

[prag_prog]

Both the federal and state house totals in MN were slightly more R than the national average, and the presidential margin was just 2 points to the left of the nation. Texas was much more R than the nation in any of these three metrics

Though the claim that "X state will easily vote for Y party" when Y party literally just lost X state by more than they lost the NPV is probably either wishful thinking with cherry-picking of data or hyperbolic satire.        

weed parties have something to do with that

[neostassenite31]

If the GOP can get that 60% of the vote to 70%, they could flip MN, and Ds probably don't have enough room in the Twin Cities Metro to make it up.

If rural MN swung 10 point more Republican than how it actually voted this cycle, it would still not be sufficient enough to flip the state: Minnesota minus the seven county metro area is 45% of the state's population, so a 10 point swing in rural MN would translate into a 4.5 point statewide swing, and 7.1 - 4.5 = Biden would still have won by 2.6 points (still larger than the margin he actually got in either WI or PA).

For the GOP to break even with the Democrats, they would need to swing the rural vote by 7.1/.45 = 15.8 points (so roughly win 68% in a two-way). This clearly shows that Republicans can definitively flip Minnesota, but that it's unlikely to become a red-leaning state like Iowa or Ohio anytime soon.

To win MN by the same margin as Ohio (8%), for example, the GOP would need to win Greater MN by about 35 points more than it did this year. Since Greater MN was R+22 this year that would mean winning by a margin of ~55 points or roughly 80% of the rural vote in Minnesota (which would in the range of rural AR or WV).

Of course, this is all assuming that the Twin Cities area does not swing further to the left (which could be a reasonable assumption with the right GOP candidate) or does not increase in portion to the total statewide vote (which is completely nonsensical).

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

If the GOP can get that 60% of the vote to 70%, they could flip MN, and Ds probably don't have enough room in the Twin Cities Metro to make it up.

If rural MN swung 10 point more Republican than how it actually voted this cycle, it would still not be sufficient enough to flip the state: Minnesota minus the seven county metro area is 45% of the state's population, so a 10 point swing in rural MN would translate into a 4.5 point statewide swing, and 7.1 - 4.5 = Biden would still have won by 2.6 points (still larger than the margin he actually got in either WI or PA).

For the GOP to break even with the Democrats, they would need to swing the rural vote by 7.1/.45 = 15.8 points. This is an illustration of the fact that the Republicans definitively can flip Minnesota, but that it's unlikely to become a red-leaning state like Iowa or Ohio anytime soon.

Of course, this is all assuming that the Twin Cities area does not swing further to the left (which could be a reasonable assumption with the right GOP candidate) or decrease in portion to the total statewide vote (which is completely nonsensical).

Increasing your vote share by 10% would be increasing your margin by 20 (assuming no 3rd parties for simplicity). Try Again.

[neostassenite31]

If the GOP can get that 60% of the vote to 70%, they could flip MN, and Ds probably don't have enough room in the Twin Cities Metro to make it up.

If rural MN swung 10 point more Republican than how it actually voted this cycle, it would still not be sufficient enough to flip the state: Minnesota minus the seven county metro area is 45% of the state's population, so a 10 point swing in rural MN would translate into a 4.5 point statewide swing, and 7.1 - 4.5 = Biden would still have won by 2.6 points (still larger than the margin he actually got in either WI or PA).

For the GOP to break even with the Democrats, they would need to swing the rural vote by 7.1/.45 = 15.8 points. This is an illustration of the fact that the Republicans definitively can flip Minnesota, but that it's unlikely to become a red-leaning state like Iowa or Ohio anytime soon.

Of course, this is all assuming that the Twin Cities area does not swing further to the left (which could be a reasonable assumption with the right GOP candidate) or decrease in portion to the total statewide vote (which is completely nonsensical).

Increasing your vote share by 10% would be increasing your margin by 20 (assuming no 3rd parties for simplicity). Try Again.

Oh yes, a 20 point swing would definitively exceed the 16 points needed to flip the state, but the margin of victory would be less than 2 points.

[SevenEleven]

Minnesota is now more partisan than Texas. Hahahaha oh yes, love that little factoid about this election.

I mean, partisanship has to be measured in relative terms. MN is 3 points to the left of the nation and TX 10 points to the right. But yeah, it says something about the extent of Biden's victory that in raw terms he won MN by more than he lost TX.

Why?

[Antonio the Sixth]

It seems like Rural MN/IA/WI are voting the same as where Rural PA/OH/WV was 12 years ago

Yes, but to assume that they will follow the same trajectory is mere conjecture.

Minnesota is now more partisan than Texas. Hahahaha oh yes, love that little factoid about this election.

I mean, partisanship has to be measured in relative terms. MN is 3 points to the left of the nation and TX 10 points to the right. But yeah, it says something about the extent of Biden's victory that in raw terms he won MN by more than he lost TX.

Why?

Because obviously there are back and forths in the respective level of popular support of the two parties that aren't meaningful in terms of understanding the degree of partisanship of a given state, and there has to be some way to control for those, and the convention has traditionally been to do so by taking a hypothetical tied race as the baseline.

[SevenEleven]

Minnesota is now more partisan than Texas. Hahahaha oh yes, love that little factoid about this election.

I mean, partisanship has to be measured in relative terms. MN is 3 points to the left of the nation and TX 10 points to the right. But yeah, it says something about the extent of Biden's victory that in raw terms he won MN by more than he lost TX.

Why?

Because obviously there are back and forths in the respective level of popular support of the two parties and there has to be some way to control for them, and the convention is to do so by taking a hypothetical tied race as the baseline.

This hypothetical tied race isn't real, though, which makes using it for analysis nothing short of useless. The actual numbers inform us that Minnesota is more Democratic than Texas is Republican. In fact, the idea that there are any back and forths at all is stretch to begin with. The last four elections are D+7, D+4, D+2, and D+5. Pretending Republicans have an equal seat at the table simply skews the numbers and obfuscates reality for no good reason.

[neostassenite31]

If the GOP can get that 60% of the vote to 70%, they could flip MN, and Ds probably don't have enough room in the Twin Cities Metro to make it up.

If rural MN swung 10 point more Republican than how it actually voted this cycle, it would still not be sufficient enough to flip the state: Minnesota minus the seven county metro area is 45% of the state's population, so a 10 point swing in rural MN would translate into a 4.5 point statewide swing, and 7.1 - 4.5 = Biden would still have won by 2.6 points (still larger than the margin he actually got in either WI or PA).

For the GOP to break even with the Democrats, they would need to swing the rural vote by 7.1/.45 = 15.8 points. This is an illustration of the fact that the Republicans definitively can flip Minnesota, but that it's unlikely to become a red-leaning state like Iowa or Ohio anytime soon.

Of course, this is all assuming that the Twin Cities area does not swing further to the left (which could be a reasonable assumption with the right GOP candidate) or decrease in portion to the total statewide vote (which is completely nonsensical).

Increasing your vote share by 10% would be increasing your margin by 20 (assuming no 3rd parties for simplicity). Try Again.

Also Republicans can probably break even with just 64%-65% of the rural vote if they can increase their combined exurban and suburban total by a similar margin. It is worth noting though that many non-TC regional centers (Mankato, Rochester, etc.) are unlikely to swing by this margin because their bachelor+ rates are above 40%.

The easiest path to a statewide win for the MNGOP is to reduce their suburban deficit without Trump on the ballot and simply hold on to their presidential performance this year in Greater MN.     

[forsythvoter]

If the GOP can get that 60% of the vote to 70%, they could flip MN, and Ds probably don't have enough room in the Twin Cities Metro to make it up.

If rural MN swung 10 point more Republican than how it actually voted this cycle, it would still not be sufficient enough to flip the state: Minnesota minus the seven county metro area is 45% of the state's population, so a 10 point swing in rural MN would translate into a 4.5 point statewide swing, and 7.1 - 4.5 = Biden would still have won by 2.6 points (still larger than the margin he actually got in either WI or PA).

For the GOP to break even with the Democrats, they would need to swing the rural vote by 7.1/.45 = 15.8 points. This is an illustration of the fact that the Republicans definitively can flip Minnesota, but that it's unlikely to become a red-leaning state like Iowa or Ohio anytime soon.

Of course, this is all assuming that the Twin Cities area does not swing further to the left (which could be a reasonable assumption with the right GOP candidate) or decrease in portion to the total statewide vote (which is completely nonsensical).

Increasing your vote share by 10% would be increasing your margin by 20 (assuming no 3rd parties for simplicity). Try Again.

Oh yes, a 20 point swing would definitively exceed the 16 points needed to flip the state, but the margin of victory would be less than 2 points.

I think the other issue here is that MSP metro is growing over time. So, if MSP metro starts making up 50% of more of the statewide vote, then the equation essentially is can Rs get a non-MSP margin that's larger than the MSP metro. What makes this challenging is that you do still have the college towns, Duluth and Rochester mixed in with the rurals and they still lean D.

[neostassenite31]

If the GOP can get that 60% of the vote to 70%, they could flip MN, and Ds probably don't have enough room in the Twin Cities Metro to make it up.

If rural MN swung 10 point more Republican than how it actually voted this cycle, it would still not be sufficient enough to flip the state: Minnesota minus the seven county metro area is 45% of the state's population, so a 10 point swing in rural MN would translate into a 4.5 point statewide swing, and 7.1 - 4.5 = Biden would still have won by 2.6 points (still larger than the margin he actually got in either WI or PA).

For the GOP to break even with the Democrats, they would need to swing the rural vote by 7.1/.45 = 15.8 points. This is an illustration of the fact that the Republicans definitively can flip Minnesota, but that it's unlikely to become a red-leaning state like Iowa or Ohio anytime soon.

Of course, this is all assuming that the Twin Cities area does not swing further to the left (which could be a reasonable assumption with the right GOP candidate) or decrease in portion to the total statewide vote (which is completely nonsensical).

Increasing your vote share by 10% would be increasing your margin by 20 (assuming no 3rd parties for simplicity). Try Again.

Oh yes, a 20 point swing would definitively exceed the 16 points needed to flip the state, but the margin of victory would be less than 2 points.

I think the other issue here is that MSP metro is growing over time. So, if MSP metro starts making up 50% of more of the statewide vote, then the equation essentially is can Rs get a non-MSP margin that's larger than the MSP metro. What makes this challenging is that you do still have the college towns, Duluth and Rochester mixed in with the rurals and they still lean D.

Well the 7-county metro area is already 56% of the state's population (Hennepin and Ramsey is 33% combined but the remaining counties add onto the Dem margin as well). Technically only 22% of the MN electorate voted at 60% GOP this year ("small city or rural"), so if rural MN does swing 20 points to the right (and end up at 70%), then 20 x 0.22 = 4.4 point statewide swing, which is still not enough to flip the state outright.

The key for the MNGOP is to increase their share in exurban and suburban areas of the Twin Cities (which besides education isn't that demographically unfavorable to Republicans). Trump came close to winning MN in 2016 because he got large raw vote leads in counties like Anoka, Wright, and Sherburne, NOT primarily because he won Greater MN counties by outlandishly lopsided margins as many people seem to erroneously think. Look at the size-of-lead map on NYT if you prefer a graphical visualization of this point.

Rural MN is extremely depopulated compared to the other Midwestern swing states (just compare a MN density map with other upper Midwestern states). Most of Trump's votes in 2016 came from the exurban and suburban Twin Cities, not the western prairies, southern cornfields, or the "Iron Range". This is a very crucial point. He lost by 7 this year because most of exurban and suburban counties swung hard against him (despite being >90% white and full of religious people).  

[TDAS04]

I don’t think even the biggest Democratic/left wing hacks saw this type of margin in Minnesota coming.

Actually, I believe I predicted that Biden would carry Minnesota by 7 points, when I predicted he’d win nationally by 6.